Quote:
Originally Posted by Solon
I don't think I've really decided which way I read it.
I think it's an interesting "soft prophecy" - if I can call it that - one that is seized upon by anti-Mormons as a sign of false prophecy, and one that LDS often explain by claiming that when Joseph died, all bets were off.
Of course, this is no problem in LDS theology, since God's timetable is obviously flexible (e.g. D&C 102.1-13), depending on the actions of humans.
I think it's extremely interesting that Joseph Smith was part of this 19th century millenialist tendency to pin down the second coming of Christ, even if his was mainly a reactionary position indicating when he would not come. His little hints about 56 years, and that some alive would see it betray, in my opinion, a personal belief, perhaps, of when he thought the event would come.
In many ways LDS seem to have deviated from their millenarian roots. I think this grayish, neither-black-nor-white semi-prophecy is an interesting glimpse into the time and place of the early LDS, and it also betrays a sense of urgency that has, in my opinion, somewhat dissipated.
I wasn't trying to troll by posting this; I'm well aware of the standard LDS explanation of D&C 130, but I think the issue is more nuanced than "if Joseph lives, it happens; if not, then who knows?" But that's just me.
|
I agree that Joseph was clearly influenced by a millennial spirit, though I'm not sure if that's so much a result of the milieu of the day than of the fact that he'd had about a thousand visions/visitations. Certainly the early Saints seemed to feel it was at hand.
I find the loss of emphasis on the Second Coming disappointing, but I suppose I'm not surprised given modern society's secular view of such expectations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solon
|
Wow, I had no idea. It may be the most favorite book in my collection. Looking at the source material for so much of the later D&C sections and Joseph's Nauvoo teachings is fascinating.