I was invited to join a panel of fellow authors who enjoy writing about the catastrophes of the last days. Randy Lindsay is the author of a recent work of LDS fiction entitled The Gathering. I must be candid and tell you up front I have not yet read it. I have a copy and have perused it. I intend to read it within the next month or two. The book was published by Cedar Fort in January and is available from Amazon or your favorite bookseller. Reviews on Goodreads are favorable.
Promoting Discussion of the Last Days
The idea behind the panel is obviously to promote discussion of the last days, the apocalypse, the end-times or whatever you want to call them. The bottom line of course is Randy and Cedar Fort want to sell copies of the book, as does any author and publishing house. Inasmuch as I also have been working on a novel on the subject, I agreed to participate on the panel. I’m honored but feel a little unqualified because my own book has not even been completed yet, let alone published.
Fiction Based on Prophecy
In any event, I took a few minutes to ponder and answer the first question presented to the panel. Randy proposes to present a new question each week. It’s a good idea. If you’re interested in this subject, you might want to pop over to Randy’s blog and add your two cents. Just remember, it’s a work of fiction, even though he’s asking us to comment on the premise or doctrine behind it. In my response to Randy when invited to join, I wrote the following rather pessimistic stuff:
“I’ve got to tell you from years of gauging interest of the Saints in end-of-the-world type stuff, it’s woefully disheartening. To be frank, most LDS folks don’t want to think about it, don’t believe it will happen in their lifetime and are terribly uneducated on the signs of the times or especially what will happen when the Savior returns.
“To most, it is all very generic: ‘Oh, there’s going to be some destruction and the wicked will be killed, but then the Savior will come and all will be well.’ They either do not understand or believe what they read in our own scriptures, especially the books of Revelation, Joel, Daniel and other key sources.”
Recent Publications on The Last Days
I admit my assessment may have been a little harsh. There are those, like my High Priest Group Leader, who is extremely interested in the Last Days. He recently taught us on the subject using the book, 65 Signs of Times Leading Up to the Second Coming by David J. Ridges. The book is more than a checklist. I highly recommend it. Another LDS author I like who writes about this subject is Hoyt W. Brewster. His book is Behold, I Come Quickly: The Last Days and Beyond.
Earlier Publications on The Last Days
Of course we can’t forget some favorites from times past: Prophecy: Key to the Future by Duane S. Crowther and The Coming of the Lord by Gerald Lund. I would be remiss if I did not include the Prophecy Trilogy from my friend Anthony Larson: 1) And the Moon Shall Turn to Blood, 2) And the Earth Shall Reel To and Fro, 3) And There Shall Be a New Heaven and a New Earth. My novel, Red Sky is based on the opening scenario presented in Anthony’s first book.
The First Question to the Panel
Randy asked, “Which situation or event that is currently happening do you think most easily could result in the apocalypse?” And the response I posted over there:
My Definition of the Apocalypse
First, let’s agree on the definition of apocalypse. I’ll offer mine by expressing what it is not. The apocalypse is NOT the end of the world. Yes, it is a period of great destruction and catastrophe with billions of people killed by the natural events prophesied, but the world survives. And so do a lot of people. It is these natural events, including the close approach of another celestial body which Anthony has already described in his comments above that brings on the apocalypse.
We Cannot Bring On the Apocalypse
Second, the apocalypse is not something we can control or avoid. The Lord has warned us and warned us over and over again in so many different scriptures it is already on its way. The arm of the Lord is a phrase that has great significance. It refers to something happening in the heavens that the world will see. The Lord has told us he is returning with the armies of heaven, and with the City of Enoch, a piece of this earth that was physically removed and taken up into heaven.
We Can Observe Signs of the Times
We read terrible things in the news that are significant to LDS theology and say to ourselves, “Ah, hah. Another sign of the times,” and indeed we are usually correct. Wars and rumors of wars, economic turmoil, man’s loss of natural affection for his brethren demonstrated by deeds of atrocity, nations coming to an end, rampant wickedness, corruption, immorality and the list goes on and on. I have one thing to say about all these: “Man, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.”
You Ain’t Seen Nuthin’ Yet
Obviously, Anthony and I are in agreement as this reflects what he has already stated. Even when we talk about hundreds of thousands killed by earthquakes and tsunamis, the size of these catastrophes are nothing compared to what will happen when a “great mountain burning with fire [is] cast into the sea,” or “there [falls] a great star from heaven,” or the sun moon and stars are smitten so that the sun is darkened and the moon glows red as blood with heat. Catastrophic!
Watch For Signs in the Sun
In my mind, the event that is currently happening is the sun is not following the normal pattern scientists are used to seeing for many centuries of observation. The eleven-year cycle seems to be a little out of whack. Watch the signs in the sun. Coronal mass ejections from sunspots are the thing we really need to be watching. One massive CME can produce an EMP that could wipe out power grids and communication systems all across the globe. Stay tuned to SpaceWeather.com.
You can read more about my work of fiction based on the close approach of a large celestial body under the Red Sky tab here on my blog.
This is an excellent post! It’s refreshing to read someone discuss the topic who actually is well studied on it and who knows what they’re talking about.
My thought at the end of your post was from the Jungle Book movie: “Don’t stop now Baggy, you’re doing great. There’s more, lots more!”
What do you think of Roger K. Young’s books?
Hi Tim
A very informative post, thank you. When ever I read the words apocalypse or end of the world, or any words like these, my mind immediately tends to shut down, my heat palpitates and these are reactions from my childhood and now adulthood. I sought to find the “flip side” of what may or may not be inevitable. I thought the world was going to end at the beginning of 2000, seriously, I didn’t do anything special of drastic, but I figured at the time if there was a loving God, then he would throw out a life line. And he did a few years later when after resisting the “men in black” ( missionary’s) I joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I know that every time I comment on your blog, I seem to bear this testimony. Maybe because I am new, and my heart is not bitter or jaded and I am not a “Mormon” per say. But I have been reading about the return of the Savior, and have overcome my fear and started to search the scripture more. I am comforted. I recently reviewed a book written by Robert Millet. I don’t know much about him, or have any preconceived notions about him. But his book: “Living in the Eleventh Hour” preparing for the glorious return of the Savior”, is a really good book. I would recommend it. Here is an excerpt:
Chapter 20: Men and Women of Destiny pages 110-114
“As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we have, as it were, one eye riveted on the present and another focused on the future. While knowledge of what lies ahead can assist us immeasurably to see things today in perspective, we cannot live in the future; all we have is now.
Let us now turn our attention to the personal responsibilities you and I share as we do our part to prepare the world for the second coming of the Son of God. President Thomas S. Monson has reminded us that “the world is in need of your help. There are feet to steady, hands to grasp, minds to encourage, hearts to inspire and souls to save. The blessings of eternity await you. Yours is the privilege to be not spectators but participants. “
I have to ask myself, if all I can do is what Jesus has said, to have my lamp trimmed and filled with oil, to love my neighbor, to love Him; to serve, even when I feel like more selfish endeavors. Is the end of the world for the righteous? We will and do now endure trials, tribulations, wars, famine, pestilence, all of this is at our back doors,in our neighborhoods, in our families now. Will it be amped up for the apocalypse? What is the difference?
Tim,
Great post but I have to disagree with you on your definition of the apocalypse. I’m afraid it is the end of the world.
D&C 2 1-3
BEHOLD, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.
The scripture hasn’t been fulfilled. Thus the earth will be utterly wasted.
Sorry.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Latter-day Commentary – Last Days – Signs of the Times wrote:
> Tim Malone, MCSE posted: “I was invited to join a panel of fellow > authors who enjoy writing about the catastrophes of the last days. Randy > Lindsay is the author of a recent work of LDS fiction entitled The > Gathering. I must be candid and tell you up front I have not yet read it. > I”
Don’t the latter-day saints believe that D&C 2 was fulfilled by D&C 110 (Elijah’s visit to the temple)?
I do not believe “the” Latter-day Saints believe that. I believe “most” Latter-day Saints believe that. It may even be the “official” position of the Church. That position, however, cannot be supported directly from the scripture, but has rather been read into the scripture. D&C 110 does not record that Elijah revealed anything when he visited the Kirtland temple. That, in and of itself, is noteworthy. Such an important event – the revelation of the priesthood by the hand of Elijah – if it occurred, ought to have direct testimonial evidence by the mouths of two or three witnesses. Instead, we have none.
Joseph Smith, without known exception, always referred to Elijah’s mission, spoken of in D&C 2, as yet future. This may be verified by perusing The Words of Joseph Smith.
Thanks for the link, log. I did a search on that page for “Elijah” and read everything that talked about. The first instance had the date of “Before 8 August 1839” and contained this text:
Bold emphasis mine.
That speaks of his coming in the past tense. The rest of the instances speak of his coming as still future. One of the instances, though, which speak of a future appearance of Elijah, says the following:
Bold emphasis mine.
So, although Elijah would make a still future appearance, the seals at the time of this statement were already on the earth, because Elijah had already come to Oliver and Joseph in the temple, per D&C 110. This statement is recorded to have been made on “21 January 1844 (Sunday). Front of Robert D. Fosters Hotel, Near Temple.”
What is the meaning of all this? It means that the prophesied appearance of Elijah would have a dual fulfillment, once during the dispensation of the last days and last time, which was the dispensation of Joseph (and also us), and again during the final dispensation, which is called the dispensation of the fulness of times, which is still future to us.
You say that D&C 110 does not fulfill the law of witnesses, but it does do that, since two people received the vision and ministrations. You say that D&C 110 “does not record that Elijah revealed anything when he visited the Kirtland temple”, but it actually does reveal three things (shown in bold type):
So, the time has fully come, meaning the time has been fulfilled already, but there will come another time, in the future, in which it will fully come again, or be fulfilled yet again. Here are the words of the prophet Elijah again, without the clarifying (but inspired) commentary which was inserted:
At best, one may claim that single reference is ambiguous – because it could be interpreted as past conditional or future conditional. And, given the rest of the references which are not ambiguous in speaking of Elijah’s mission as yet future, you have no justification for asserting otherwise as you have here. Indeed, an assumption that Joseph was not given to contradicting himself mandates reading it as future conditional rather than past conditional, and that’s assuming Joseph was, in this one instance, by this single witness, quoted correctly.
1. Joseph did not say “the seals” were from Elijah. As Joseph had been “sealing” people well before Kirtland, it is manifestly unclear what kind of “seals” he had in mind.
2. D&C 110 does not say Elijah delivered anything, which is why this conversation can occur.
What I actually said was: “Such an important event – the revelation of the priesthood by the hand of Elijah – if it occurred, ought to have direct testimonial evidence by the mouths of two or three witnesses. Instead, we have none.”
Therefore, you seem to be mischaracterizing what I said, and your response on this point is therefore a non-sequitur.
I am speaking of the absence of D&C 110 “record[ing] Elijah revealing [something],” and you are speaking of what “[D&C 110] reveals.” Therefore, you are not speaking of what I am speaking of – and your response on this point is, again, a non-sequitur.
“The time has fully come” does not necessarily mean “the time has been fulfilled already.” You are free to interpret it as you will, however – but atextual conclusions are only as sound as the assumptions they are founded upon.
That is an inference which depends on other atextual assumptions.
Scriptural examples of future conditionals in the past tense.
Other, non scriptural examples of future conditionals in the past tense.
#1
#2
And so on.
Tim, my apologies for the length of this comment…
log, you stated:
“Joseph Smith, without known exception, always referred to Elijah’s mission, spoken of in D&C 2, as yet future. This may be verified by perusing The Words of Joseph Smith.”
I then found an exception, which I interpreted as referring to the past. You then admitted:
“At best, one may claim that single reference is ambiguous – because it could be interpreted as past conditional or future conditional.”
And that was my whole point. Because it can be interpreted either way, it is incorrect to assert that “Joseph Smith, without known exception, always referred to Elijah’s mission, spoken of in D&C 2, as yet future.”
If there were only one way to interpret that text, then I’d concede the point. But as it is ambiguous, you can’t make the claim he always spoke of Elijah as yet future. The most you can do is say that you believe that he always spoke of Elijah as yet future.
Now, you also stated: “And, given the rest of the references which are not ambiguous in speaking of Elijah’s mission as yet future, you have no justification for asserting otherwise as you have here. Indeed, an assumption that Joseph was not given to contradicting himself mandates reading it as future conditional rather than past conditional, and that’s assuming Joseph was, in this one instance, by this single witness, quoted correctly.”
First of all, I asserted what I did to show the ambiguity of the text. And I was justified to do it to show that your unqualified original statement was erroneous.
Secondly, the scenario I gave you (of a dual fulfillment) shows that there is no contradiction when reading the text this way, therefore, even if I assume that Joseph was not given to contradicting himself, reading it as future conditional is not mandated, as you assert.
Thirdly, concerning the quote being correct, brother David (Bednar) recently issued forth a corrective to some of the text of that page, in his Ensign article, Faithful Parents and Wayward Children: Sustaining Hope While Overcoming Misunderstanding, in which he said that the statement,
“When a seal is put upon the father and mother, it secures their posterity, so that they cannot be lost, but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father and mother.”
was not as accurately quoted as this text (also found on that page):
“When a father and mother of a family have [been sealed], their children who have not transgressed are secured by the seal wherewith the Parents have been sealed. And this is the Oath of God unto our Father Abraham and this doctrine shall stand forever.”
Here is the full quote:
My point being in all of this is that given the reliability, or unreliability, of the source, using it bolster a claim one way or another is not recommended.
Now, concerning your two points, you stated: Joseph did not say “the seals” were from Elijah. As Joseph had been “sealing” people well before Kirtland, it is manifestly unclear what kind of “seals” he had in mind.”
Joseph implied that the seals were from Elijah, since that was the context of the conversation. In other words, it is manifestly clear what kind of seals he had in mind, given the context. I will present the quote once more, with bold type showing just how manifestly clear it really was.
Is not it manifestly clear by this text what kind of seals Joseph had in mind? He most obviously had in mind the sealing power of Elijah.
But enough of this use of The Words of Joseph Smith. Let’s turn to something canonized and a little more reliable. From D&C 128 (and also 127) it is manifestly clear that Joseph was appealing to Elijah’s prophesied appearance and authority and power, (which authority and power was contingent upon him appearing), for his doctrine of baptism for the dead. Also, his “angelic list” assumes that Elijah was another one of the angels that came to declare “their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthood”. Notice, in particular verses 17-21, which I will not quote, due to length, but you can click this link to read them.
Finally, I won’t answer your second point, as it seems to just be nitpicking on your part. Actually, maybe I will answer it a little bit with a question. You stated:
Ought not such an important event – the revelation of the Melchizedek priesthood by the hand of Peter, James and John – if it occurred, have direct testimonial evidence by the mouths of two or three witnesses? Instead, we have only one witness (Joseph’s word, as recorded in D&C 128:20). Yet Joseph “does not [write in D&C 128 that these three apostles] delivered anything.” In fact, (to again use your words), there is an “absence of D&C [128] recording [Peter, James and John] revealing something.”
I really wish there was a way to fix bad tags after the Post Comment button was pressed…
Consider me corrected about the apocalypse being the end of the world. Although, one could argue that it is the end of the world as we know it – to steal lyrics from a popular song. I have a series in mind that I plan to write that will involve the literal end of the world. What would be the correct term for that sort of story?
Great post by the way. I look forward to many more from you.
Hi Randy,
To me, the apocalypse is the destruction that occurs before and as the Savior comes to usher in the millennium. I’m not sure what specific name the scriptures use to identify the end of the world (end of time) when the earth is burned by fire and then celestialized.
The earth is currently in a telestial state. After the Savior comes and during the millennium, it will be in a terrestrial state. There are two great battles on both ends of the millennium – the battle of Armageddon first, then the battle of Gog and Magog. Michael fights the battle at the end of the world after the thousand years are up and Satan is loosed.
Joseph Fielding Smith clarifies the difference between the battle of Armageddon and the battle of Gog and Magog: “Before the coming of Christ, the great war, sometimes called Armageddon, will take place as spoken of by Ezekiel, chapters 38 and 39. Another war of Gog and Magog will be after the millennium.” ( Doctrines of Salvation, 3:45.)
I agree with you: We ain’t seen nothing yet. 🙂 Good article to get us thinking!
Tim, ‘apocalypse’ literally means ‘unveiling’ and is the title of many ascent documents such as the The Apocalypse of Abraham, a description of his astral journey. The term was used anciently differently than we use it today. The term has come to mean end-times destructions because the Apocalypse of John (Revelation of John in English) unveils the end-times events including the destructions. A view or vision of the world from the foundation to the end times is part of that vision. We certainly use the term today in everyday speech as you do on your blog but next time you speak to an ancient Greek remember to him it’ll mean ‘unveiling’.
Mckay
Thank you McKay. I appreciate the individualized instruction. It’s funny how the meanings of words have changed and lost their original intent, especially when translated into modern English. These scriptures now take on even more meaning for me:
This is a reply to LDSA’s contentions above. The nested reply feature is unwieldy after 2 levels.
Lest the main point of dispute be lost, LDSA’s main contention is that D&C 2 was fulfilled by the events recorded in D&C 110. I simply observed that D&C 110 does not record the fulfillment of D&C 2. We look in vain for a revelation of the priesthood by the hand of Elijah therein, or sealing keys delivered by Elijah – they’re simply not there. Whatever the majority of the Church believes, whatever the “official” position of the Church, it is without foundation in scripture. D&C 110 does not support the weight placed upon it.
My statement, “Joseph Smith, without known exception, always referred to Elijah’s mission, spoken of in D&C 2, as yet future” is correct as it stands.
The proposed counterexample LDSA supplies is ambiguous, being possibly read as referring to the past, but most plausibly as a future conditional, therefore his proposed counterexample is not known to be a referral to Elijah having fulfilled his mission in the past. LDSA ought to concede that Joseph, without known exception, always referred to Elijah’s mission, spoken of in D&C 2, as yet future.
LDSA states “Joseph implied that the seals were from Elijah…. I will present the quote once more, with bold type showing just how manifestly clear it really was.”
I’m actually more interested in part of the quote LDSA doesn’t bold: “The keys are to be deliverd the spirit of Elijah is to Come….”
Here’s the problem. We have no record of “seals” being delivered to Joseph, despite D&C 110 being asserted to be such a record; D&C 110 seems to deliberately omit mentioning any revelation of the priesthood by Elijah, and don’t mention “sealing keys,” or “seals.” It appears they would have been delivered at the Nauvoo temple, which was never completed.
Joseph doesn’t say he was in possession of the seals he was referring to. He may well not have been. It appears that if the Navoo temple had been completed, then the Saints would be able to have used the seals, perhaps since they would have been delivered at that place and time. After all, as D&C 124 states, speaking of the Nauvoo temple, “For there is not a place found on earth that [the Most High] may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.”
This becomes rather interesting in the context of the following records of a sermon from Joseph Smith.
There were multiple witnesses, and records, of this sermon. Something was supposed to happen at Nauvoo – and didn’t.
I’ve tried to clear up this particular record; insertions in brackets are mine.
That’s four records of the same sermon, and they seem to corroborate each other on important things – such as the Mountain of the Lord’s House being in Central America, and the necessity and importance of the completion of the Nauvoo temple, which was not finished.
Again, history records the people were most definitely moved out of their place with cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments, and the Lord ceased speaking to the Church in his own voice after what amounts to a farewell statement to Brigham Young (D&C 136).
Repeating Joseph –
It seems Joseph’s troubled statement was prophetic, since, on the strength of the history books, it sure looks like we were divided and broken up and scattered before we got our salvation secure, since it could not be obtained in a completed Nauvoo temple where the Most High God was to come and restore the fulness of the priesthood – perhaps by the hand of Elijah.
I think reality is more complicated than what we teach by our traditions, which, despite the silence of the scriptures on the subject, assert that Elijah revealed the priesthood, and sealing keys, to Joseph and Oliver at Kirtland. I think the significance of Nauvoo in this context is not fully understood. And, lest anyone think otherwise, I don’t pretend to have the answers – only questions which, since the records we have are incomplete on these topics, can only be answered by the Lord.
This, however, deserves comment.
I agree, such an important event ought to have direct testimonial evidence by the mouth of two or three witnesses – and I agree that D&C 128:20 does not record such an event.
Here’s what it says.
It doesn’t say that Peter, James, and John revealed the Melchizedek priesthood, by their hand or otherwise. It simply says they declared themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times. There is indeed an absence of evidence in D&C 128:20 that Peter, James, and John delivered anything. Therefore D&C 128:20 is not evidence in support of the proposition that they did.
And I’m not altogether sure that one can date the bestowal of the Melchizedek priesthood as simply as dating Joseph and Oliver’s calling as apostles.
The Melchizedek priesthood is quite a complicated subject, as one may gather from Quinn’s The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power. I’m not sure D&C 128:20 is, or even can be, relevant to the discussion.
Since “all priesthood is Melchizedek,” one might plausibly wonder if the Melchizedek priesthood is not “the fulness of the priesthood” which the Most High had taken away and was to restore at the Nauvoo temple.
After all, “the power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church [as opposed to mere outward ordinances] — to have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.”
The mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are, of course, not outward ordinances, but inward manifestations of the Spirit of God (D&C 63:23). When was the last known time in this Church someone had the heavens open unto them, and was able to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and enjoyed the communion and presence of God and Jesus?
Have I? Have you? Does anything else matter?
So where does the tradition come from that PJ&J restored the Melchizedek priesthood?
I do not know.
Compare Larry Porter’s essay on the topic with The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, chapter 1.
Hi Tim,
I miss hearing your voice. Let’s get with it!
What are your thoughts these days? I hope you and your family are well. I pray for you.
Jared
Hi Jared. Funny you should leave an encouraging comment to add a new post. I’ve been enjoying Denver’s blog and the dialog on LDSFF over the past few weeks. I met with my bishop yesterday to discuss a few topics. The subject of my blog came up. I have a few thoughts to share and hope to have a new entry posted by this evening after work.
Pingback: Thoughts on the End of the World – Latter-day Commentary – Last Days – Signs of the Times