…I was born into the Mormon religion, and still practice it somewhat. The Second Coming happening in this current generation is not the doctrine, but rather that the Second Coming is soon, hence the formal name of the religion, ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’. Latter day referring to these days being the latter days, and when you consider the history of man kind, the term latter days is a little ambiguous. I have known many members who speculate that the Second Coming is going to happen sooner rather then later, and some have even said that they believe it will happen within in the next 10-50 years, but it is no where in the doctrine, that I am aware of.
In addition to Mr. Antronic’s clarification of his views…I would also suggest that you actually study up on the different eschatological schools of thought in Christiandom.
You know? The Post Mils, Preterists, Historicists, and A-Mils?
There is more to Christian thought than what you pick up from watching “Touched by an Angel…”
Their are many justifications for the lack of 2nd Coming from the various churches. I am not too familiar with Mormonism but I frequently listen to Christian radio when I forget my music player.
I listened to a sermon the other day specifcally about this topic.
I believe the Bible said that the 2nd Coming would come in Christ’s generation. Where he would once again walk the earth.
Others now interpret this in ways they see fit.Some also count Nero as the anti-christ others believe he has yet to arrive. Much of the dates etc are up to debate and personal interpretation. Since the 1940’s Christian Extremists have told us to watch the newspapers because we will see it coming. Others say it will be in our hearts that Christ will take ground. Which makes more sense to me then the other choice.
If it didn’t come in WWII, I don’t believe it is coming. That was man’s darkest hour and the dark remained prevalent. I could be wrong all the while.
People have been harping about End of Day’s in every religion. They keep pushing it back until eventually someone will stumble upon it and declare themselves the winners; of abyss.
Shotgun, I feel your interjection prolly could have gone without the last comment. Up until that point it was a good post 
Hahaha! No.
Indulge me for a moment in speculation:
Man A believes that all humans are essentially animals.
Man A believes that animals survive by utilizing deception when necessary. (At the very least, many animals have successfully maintained their family lines by utilizing deception.)
Man B, upon realizing the two truths about man A…decides to question every statement of personal experience that man A alludes to in an attempt to make a point. At the very least, man B decides to approach man A with a measure of skepticism.
With that covered…perhaps Mr. Churro could give us the website to the church he attended that taught such simplistic and inconsistent eschatological views so that we could critique their doctrinal statement (if they’ve posted one.)
I think that…if nothing else…such an exercise would prove interesting to the current thread.
I think a quick discussion on authority is a good idea here. There are degrees of quality in authority and, in any given philosophical tradition/system there are also people who are better at expressing those ideas. Heck, there are even people who are better at understanding those ideas! A noncontroversial example (for most people) would be the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many Worlds Theory. Physicists agree on the experimental data, but what precisely it means is still up for debate. There are plenty of people on both sides and some demagogues thrown in. If you want to get a good handle on that debate, you look to the best authorities in each and see what they have to say as well as who they are. If one is a really respected scientist with a Nobel Prize, and the other guy got his Ph.D. from a non-accredited university and wears a tinfoil hat, well, you really don’t need to go into too much more depth on that one. But if the authorities are fairly equivalent, then you have to look at their arguments and see which one best fits the data.
What sort of authority was the preacher at your Church? Because some Christians believe things that are wrong (either inside or outside the Christian canon), it does not follow that all, or even most Christians do. Furthermore, it does not follow that Christians who actually know their stuff do.
Now, we can talk about popular religion and its effect on society (both positive and negative) and how the beliefs entailed in popular religion affect the system. But that is veering on Social Sciences, don’t you think?
As far as I am concerned - the world is not going to suddenly end, and Jesus is not going to walk the Earth again.
The end of the age predicted in the bible is simply astrological - its the end of the Age of the Picses
have a lookie! : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Ari … e_of_Aries
as for all the hurricanes and stuff - its the whole global warming thing, surely? The world is due its natural next flood ((i am currently hunting down evidence for this - can’t remember what it’s called…))!
I have a school of thought that says Jesus isn’t going to return, the world isn’t going to end, and that the whole “revelation” is a metaphor for the individual experience, or even worse, a drug enduced hallucination that amounts the ranting of a crazy old man.
I don’t think “Christiandom” would accept my views.
But that’s the thing, if there’s no accepted central philosophy, there is no “christendom.”
Unless, of course, you want to allow for generalizations, in which case, you should allow Churro his generalization.
I recognize that you said that. I think we’re all tapdancing around the issue so I’ll come out and say it: the belief that the end of the world will come within this generation to every generation is pretty darned silly. And it isn’t just non-Christians that think that, but a lot of Christians as well. So all you are showing is that some people believe silly things. I don’t think anybody would argue with that statement.
Does it mean anything beyond that? I wish to board had a Mormon to defend this view. My personal biases would be that it is something about keeping everyone prepared so that when the end of the world does come, nobody gets caught with their pants down. I think a lot of Christians would find such a view acceptable, even laudable. But since I know next to nothing about the Mormons, it could be anything. Something like ‘each individual is a world unto themselves and when they die that world does end as they are reunited with God’ is certainly a possible way to understand that statement, but I doubt that is what they mean.
Another thing worth considering (though, again, based off my extremely limited knowledge of Mormonism) is that Mormonism is a very hierarchical religion with access to certain aspects denied to some people. I know, for example, unbelievers can’t attend Mormon Weddings or enter the Temple in Salt Lake City (possibly both?). I’ve also heard someone (maybe it was you?) talk about some of the rituals that they went through to climb some of the ranks in Mormonism. If such a hierarchy exists, it is possible that the higher-ups think one thing but tell the lower people another. For example, the higher-ups recognize that they don’t know when the world will end but tell the lower members that they do to keep them motivated and on guard (and fearful).
There are a majority of reasons that “Christendom” would not accept your views Mr. Knox…chief of which…you don’t posit a consistent philosophy from which to draw exegetical conclusions from the text.
Should you wish to contest that assertion, then, you’ll be at the mercy of the postmodern deconstructionists (like Derrida) until you produce such a consistent system.
Orthodox Christianity (Christendom) has a consistent theology of exegesis, and while the execution of the method is not perfect (due to our fallen nature) it nevertheless provides us with a rational starting point.
Something your “off the hip” eschatological view lacks…
…You would be hard pressed to conclude from one statement overheard spoken by a non elected, most likely older Sunday School teacher, speaking to his/her class, possibly candidly, about the coming of Jesus Christ, that that is the Doctrine of the entire Mormon religion. By “kids”, what age group was it? What was the exact statement? Did the statement include the word “might”? On any field of study, you would need far greater then one experience to make a final judgement.
…Wouldn’t that be asking too much? Surely one undocumented sample is enough to make a final decision on.
…Your first assumption would be correct, but still with the emphasis on the ‘Latter Day’ part of Mormonism’s formal name. The Mormon doctrine has no specific date, just that there is going to be a second coming of Christ, sooner rather then later.
Now on to your second assumption, Mormonism can be considered a hierarchical religion in the sense that there is a Bishop of each ward, and a president of the church (which Mormons, through doctrine, believe to be the Living Prophet). It is true that some members are denied access to some aspect, such as visiting the Temple, but that is not determined by a hierarchy, but rather if the member is living according to the Mormon doctrine. Mormon weddings held in the Temple follow those same rules, but Mormon weddings outside of the Temple are open for anyone who got an invitation by the couple being married. I would like to know what rituals you have heard of, but other then living to by the Mormon doctrine (which consists of attending church, paying tithes, reading scriptures, restraining from drinking alcholic drinks, etc.), there is no method, or for that matter, no ranks to climb.
Continuing on the hierarchy topic, there is no hippocracy within the Church whatsoever, as far as my knowledge (I might just be out of the hierarchical loop! haha). In fact, no one in the Mormon church claims to know when the world will end.
…Hilarious. You should attend one of these…break.com/index/rap-battle-g … lated.html
…Xunzian stated that he wished there was a Mormon who frequented these boards. I might not be the best of the best, but I’ll be happy to lend what I know to the discussion when it applies. Sadly, this thread’s topic is more hearsay then philosophical points of view, but it’s a start at least. 
Excellent!
Much better to have a person who actually knows something talking as opposed to myself and others working with speculation and hearsay. What you say makes a lot of sense. With respect to the eschatology, would you say that Churro’s church growing up was overzealous on this issue then? Possibly even veering on heresy? I don’t know where the line is, so I would be curious.
As for the ritual, it was something about twelve boys in white frocks performing some sort of a ritual (I wanna say dancing was involved?) to become priests. Unfortunately, I can’t find where I read it, and I didn’t think too much of it at the time. So for all I know, I could be misremembering and essentially be making the whole deal up.
With respect to the hierarchy, is it similar to other episcopal churches, with a head figure (the President), then bishops (possibly archbishops?), followed by priests, and then lay members? Is there a regular clergy in addition to the secular clergy? And what was that you mentioned to Churro about ‘elect’, I’m only familiar with that term in Christianity as it appears in Calvinism, but that doesn’t seem to be the same thing here. Just curious.
Glad to have you aboard.
…Glad to shed some light on the topic! I’ll add that you presented yourself in an unbiased, truth seeking manor, being fair to all sides. Much nicer then the witch hunts a lot of religions get. From Churro’s first message, it seemed to me that he had not grown up in the Mormon church, but rather frequented it every now and then. It would be nice for some clarifacation on the matter from Churro. If that is the case, I would say that the individual speaking of the last days was expressing his/her own feeling or belief, but not teaching or preaching it.
Here’s a bit of trivia for you: What is taught to each age group at any specific Mormon church, on any specific Sunday, is the same lesson(s) being taught at all Mormon churches on that same specific Sunday. Each teacher of each class the world over has the same lesson book, and, so to speak, a callender as to which lessen is to be taught each Sunday.
…The only ‘ritual’ I can think of is the boys were preforming what is called “baptism for the dead”, where the boy (as an individual, it doesn’t matter how many there are, and it is not a mass thing) goes through the physical aspect of being baptised (full emersion into the water) for/in the name of someone who is dead and who did not get baptised. When that takes place, as well as when any living individual gets baptised, the member wears all white.
…I’m not familiar with the term clergy, but there is a President of the whole Mormon religion, who the members believe to be called by God and who is the living prophet. At each specific church there is Bishop who presides over the church. There really isn’t a hierarchy within the church, but rather posistions, or specific jobs that need to be filled, and as long as you are following the Mormon doctrine, you might be asked to fill the job. Hope I answered the questions in a way that can be understood! haha.
good riddance. =D>
These are just a few inserts taken from the hyperlink below on the subject of Christ’s Second Coming.
“This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).
The disciples ask Jesus, “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?” Jesus replies, “It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority” (Acts 1:7).
“When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come… This is but the beginning of the birth pangs” (Mark 13:7-8).
…saying of Jesus: “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32).
In the parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1-13) we learn that “the bridegroom was delayed.” The wise virgins had brought extra oil whereas the foolish ones ran out of oil as they waited for the bridegroom. While they went to buy more oil the bridegroom came and the door was shut. Matthew is admonishing his Christian group to count on some delay in the return of Christ and remain vigilant in their Christian life.
In subsequent centuries the church realized that the Second Coming was not going to be as imminent as first-century Christians thought and developed its theology and practice in ways that made provision for future generations of people. …
A succinct statement about the Second Coming is also in the Agreed Statement of Belief crivoice.org/secondcoming.htmlas follows: “We believe… that our Lord will return, the dead will be raised and the final judgment will take place.” It is clear that the Church of the Nazarene does not adopt an official position on the various theories of the end that have preoccupied so-called prophecy experts.
crivoice.org/secondcoming.html
Probably from the time of Christ’s crucifixion and death, people have been arguing and surmising the time of His return, and the end of the world. IF Christ is to be affirmed to be the Messiah and the Son of God, then possibly the only real authority can be Christ Himself, and His sayings and his parables while he walked the Earth would point to the fact that no one truly knows the time He will return.
I personally feel, and this is only my perception, that we would NOT be given the time. There have been many warnings and many teachings down the ages – and if we haven’t “gotten it” by now, we never will. Those who have, have nothing to worry about. And why worry about something which is ultimately within – or out of our control.
I was kinda curious about that, too.