Age and Wisdom

There is a general perception within society that we become wiser with experience and age. My observation has been that when people (generally speaking) reach about 18 to 20 they start to see themselves as grown-up and having passed the main learning stage (as far as living is concerned - just seeing refinement as required). Yet upon reaching around 30 they see themselves as THEN being much wiser, and so it goes though 40, 60 etc.

There are many things for us to learn in life. In looking at life and growth the real issue seems to come down to far more than what we have experienced. There is the aspect of what have we learnt from what we have experienced? And secondly how astute are we at discerning what is right without such experiences?

For example of the latter, how well do we understand not to murder? Most would argue that they would never murder. Yet many, so saying, have murdered when certain situations have arisen. King David is a classic case in murdering Uriah, the husband of Bath-sheba. Here also, David had committed adultery; which he would have also claimed he would not have done. Would he have been any wiser had he been ten or twenty years older? I don't think so. Having had the experience he learnt not to repeat it. But should we have to commit adultery and murder someone to learn not to do so?

What also stands out as obvious to me is that most bad experiences people have aren't learnt from. These things prove to me that it really comes down to spiritual wisdom: Not age - definately; nor experience - necessarily.

When I hear someone in their 40s (for example) tell me that someone of 14 is too ignorant to understand this or that, my mind immediately turns to Adam. I imagine him rolling on the floor with laughter (having lived 930 years) hearing such a claim. I think, "what arrogance:" Someone supposing themselves to be superior to another person purely by virtue of age.

1st Samuel chapter 3 tells the story of the "child Samuel" who received revelation because the prophet (Eli - who was old at this point) of the time was not listening in regard his sons. Then we have the situation of Mormon.

"And I, being fifteen years of age and being somewhat of a sober mind, therefore I was visited of the Lord, and tasted and knew of the goodness of Jesus. And I did endeavor to preach unto this people.." Mormon 1:15-16

How would you feel about a 15-year-old preaching to you? Would you feel the "he is too young to know," type idea? "I'm more wise than he is?"

What is more, Mormon was appointed to be the leader of the entire Nephite armies at the age of fifteen (Morm 2:1-2). How would you feel knowing the defense of your nation was in the hands of a 15-year-old? Not enough experience? What would he know? He should be at school.

Some may use the old "ah, but that was back then," as if to suggest that people in the past had 3 arms and 3 legs, or were in some mysterious way different to us.

God gave knowledge of the gold plates to a 17-year-old. Wouldn't a 30+-year-old with more experinece have been a wiser choice? God didn't seem to think so. Joseph Smith hadn't got to the 18-20 year old syndrome of settling in to believe he had worked life out. God molded him with an open mind.

This would seem to demonstrate that we must remain as little children in our learning. Heavenly Father is the wise adult. We ALL are the ignorant children that need to learn. If we start to consider ourselves wiser by age then we close our minds that much more. The beginning of learning is to truly realise how little we actually know. And then to realise that we NEED to learn what we don't know, as soon as possible.

A Day of Creation = 1,000 years

Much debate goes on as to just how we should view the Hebrew word "yom" translated as "day" in the Genesis version of the creation. Some pose it as 7 undefined periods, each being different in length. Others take the more obvious translation of assuming the same time period for each day but question arises as to how long each was.

The first problem is that the sun wasn't created until the 4th day according to Genesis. Therefore what was the light and darkness system that was set up relative to this earth's time?

Logic would suggest to take that written within Scripture (that answers these questions) as the truth. However there is one thing that has arisen that has caused many to doubt that written in Scripture. And that is the dogmas of a new religion - theory science.

Now you may be wondering why I refer to it as a "religion:" After all doesn't it work on proof rather than faith?

A person may state that Elijah saw God, and present Scripture showing it as evidence. But who believes that JUST because he and his instrument of belief (the Bible) said so? Only those with blind faith.

A theory scientist makes a claim that some item is 50 million years old and that his instrument says so. Who believes that JUST because he and his instrument said so? Almost Everyone.

Why?

A person may go to great length to discover whether what Scripture proposes is true. Do they just read what those in favour say? Logically you would look at what opposes the idea.

Yet how many look at that which opposes the claims of the theory scientist? But the dating methods are proven accurate, aren't they? Who told you that the dating methods are accurate? The priests of theory science! They claim that carbon breakdown is consistent, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. They tell you that their other dating methods are accurate as it suits them. But by what method have they proven their accuracy? They are confirmed by more priests of theory science - kind of like going to ask your bishop if you want to know if the church is true.

If I were to search for a world religion at this time, theory science would be it. Blind faith - definitely.

How did they PROVE that something supposedly 50 million years old is any more than 5 thousand years old? They obviously know that we can't go back 50 million years to see if their logic is as correct as they try to make it sound. Almost all scientific "facts," demonstrated without proof, are proven false in the first test (where such tests are possible). And the vast majority require many tests and failures before working correctly (where such has been finally achieved).

As they can't prove their "logic" to be accurate I can't regard it as scientific. My (atheistic) science teacher told me that the difference between religion and science was that science could demonstrate the truth of its claims. Therefore talking of knowing what happened millions of years ago is not science. Call it something else if you wish.

There are countless "PROVEN facts" of science which other scientists have come along and proven wrong. Good work people. But why should we believe what you now claim is true? Particularly at the expense of Scripture. Without this religion no one claiming belief in God would doubt what the Scriptures say. But I am open to sensible consideration of truth based on KNOWN FACTS. Yet when it comes to what happened beyond our recorded history we only have conjecture.

I would like to quote the following sentiment from Joseph Fielding Smith for your consideration:

"I am opposed to the present teachings in relation to the age of the earth which declare that the earth is millions of years old. Some modern scientists even claim that it is billions of years old. Naturally, since I believe in modern revelation, I cannot accept these so-called scientific teachings, for I believe them to be in conflict with the simple and direct word of the Lord that has come to us by divine revelation." Answers to Gospel Questions Volume V Chapter 30

So putting aside the philosophies of the theory science religion let's look at what the Scriptures actually say about when the earth was created. What does the "word of the Lord" actually say in regard what a day (yom) in creation actually was?

"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time [yom] that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord's time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning." Abr 5:13

So the yom in creation was according to Kolob's time. Then we should look to see whether this yom in Kolob time equals undefined periods or millions/billions of years.

"And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord's time, according to the reckoning of Kolob." Abr 3:4

So this states that a day [yom] in creation equals a thousand years on this planet. This also dispels the theory that the periods of time may have been different from each other.

This point is also confirmed in the second facsimile (the round one) in the book of Abraham. If you look at the explanation of figure 1 (in the opposite page) you will note its mention of the day to God being a thousand years of this planet.

I would recommend to all those caught in this trap (obviously and deviously laid by Satan), that they come out of Babylon and the philosophies of men and actually BELIEVE in Christ. We do NOT have to amalgamate these two religions.

The Rapture - Part II

The whole concept of a rapture comes from an interpretation of a prophecy of Daniel's. Its in Daniel chapter 9 verses 24-27.

Note that a "septet" means "seven" (i.e. seven days - a week). The angel used the sevens concept deliberately for symbolic reasons rather than just giving numbers (e.g. seven "sevens" rather than just saying 49).

"Seventy septets are decreed on your people and on your holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the anointed one, the Prince, shall be seven septets, and sixty-two septets. It shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troubled times. And after the sixty-two septets shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and the war shall last until the end of the desolations that are determined. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one septet: and in the midst of the septet he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. From an extreme edge shall come an abomination, one that makes desolate, even to the full end of that determined, shall wrath be poured out on the desolate."

Seemingly endless interpretations of this prophecy exist. A serious problem is that historians can't definitely prove dates of when kings reigned. The same problem exists with Jewish history. Along with this there is question of just how we classify this command going forth to restore Jerusalem (as several commands went forth). This shouldn't have presented a problem to the people at the time, who would know the history first hand, rather than by interpretations of sometimes partially damaged tablets or conflicting written histories. Thus the interpretation of events referred to in this prophecy are subject to wide opinion now. It would be an enormous post all of its own to go through all the major opinions available.

Reading through the various opinions makes me think strongly on the advice in 2 Peter 1:20-21 about not making private interpretations of prophesies, but to use the Holy Ghost in such things instead. But I will share two of these interpretations. One that shows how the rapture concept has been connected with this prophecy, and one that opposes it. I'll begin with the latter as it is by far the more logical interpretation, because it doesn't make an unspecified interval, proposed by the former.

We have 69 (7 + 62) "sevens" prophesied before Christ(?) turns up. 69 X 7 = 483 days. It is presented that the Bible states that we should take a year for a day in prophecy (Ezek 4:6). Therefore we have 483 years. But it must be remembered that the Roman calendar didn't have a year 0. Thus we go from the year 1 BC to the year 1 AD.

It proposes that the beginning of the seventy septets occurred in 455 BC (the decree of Artaxerxes in his 20th year for Nehemiah). The 70th septet, therefore, begins in 29 AD when Christ began his ministry (according to the supporters of this interpretation). In 33 AD, 3.5 years (midway) into the 70th septet of years, the Messiah atoned for sins, thus causing the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, as prophesied.

However exponents of the rapture concept propose a different starting year and that the last septet of the 70 septets hasn't occurred yet. They refer to the statement, "And after the sixty-two septets shall the anointed one be cut off," proposing that this means EXACTLY at the end of the sixty-two septets (which come after the first 7 septets, thus equalling 69 septets) Christ would die, not during the 70th septet. This leaves us with a seven year period spare. They then propose that this 70th septet hasn't occurred yet.

They interpret events as such:
(the "sevens" are referred to as "weeks" in this translation)

A. Daniel 9:25 Jerusalem construction declared:
"Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem"
B. Daniel 9:25 Prophecy of the Messiah:
unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks:
C. Daniel 9:25 Jerusalem Construction happening:
it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times.
D. Daniel 9:26 Messiah dies:
And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing:
E. Daniel 9:26 Jerusalem Destroyed by Romans 70 AD:
and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined.
F. Daniel 9:27 Messiah has pre-rapture of righteous as 7 years of devastation begins:
"And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" - they relate this to the prophesied evil beasts referred to in the Book of Revelation that will come before Christ's coming, saying that they will destroy the temple that will soon be rebuilt in Jerusalem.
G. Daniel 9:27 Jerusalem Destroyed again before Christ's second (third, according to the theory) coming:
"and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that makes desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate."

However there are flaws in this latter interpretation. First, its whole basis for proposing a difference between the two mentions of Jerusalem being destroyed is that there are two mentions: Proposing they can't be the same destruction therefore: That we must read it as a continual story without repetition. Yet they are proposing a repetition of the things relative to the Messiah (Christ) and the sixty-two "sevens." Second, this text has Jerusalem destroyed completely the second time. Yet Zechariah tells us that an entire one-third of the population of Jerusalem will still be alive when Christ arrives for his coming (Zech 13:8). Third, it proposes an unstated interval of nearly 2,000 years - an amazing lot of supposition.

But what scripture texts stand as opposition to the idea?

"I don't pray that you should take them [his followers] out of the world, but that you would keep them for the evil one." John 17:15

This states that Christ isn't into removing his followers from the earth as an answer to coming problems.

"According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep." 1 Thess 4:15

So those who are alive won't be raptured before the dead. Note that he states "we". Therefore he wasn't anticipating any early rapture where they would be taken before the resurrection of those already "fallen asleep" (dead).

"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." 1 Thess 4:16-17

This not only states that the living won't precede the dead in being raptured, but that the dead will actually go first. Again note that he says "we". So this confirms that he didn't anticipated some early rapture.

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." Matt 16:27

Here Christ is saying that it is at his coming that every man shall be rewarded, nothing about some being rewarded years before.

When giving the parable of the sower Christ says in regard the wicked and the righteous_

"Let both grow together until the harvest; and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, gather together the tares first, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn." Matt 13:30

This presents that Christ will destroy the wicked BEFORE gathering the righteous. It also presents that both should grow TOGETHER (i.e. not be separated until the final harvest).

Matthew chapter 24 contains signs of Christ's second coming. It talks of all the wars, pestilences and earthquakes we should anticipate. It talks of the "abomination that makes desolate" (or "abomination of desolation"). It talks of great tribulation.

Yet before it gets to the tribulation and abomination of desolation to come, it states,

"But he that shall endure to the end, the same shall be saved." (verse 13)

This suggests that the person is already a believer and needs to endure through the whole thing until the end - not to some pre-rapture.

While the idea of avoiding the worst of it sounds wonderful, the Scriptures don't support this concept. Not only isn't it supported, but they oppose it. It just comes out as another wishful thinking doctrine: A "wouldn't it be nice if."