• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

JS becoming 85 years old

Marco19

Researcher
Dear LDS friends, i hope that you all are doing well.

if you don't mind, i have a question and need a clarification from you...
actually before posting here, i've tried to find answer within your text book (study guide), then chatting with missionary (mormon.org)... and because i've got no answer so decided to ask you.

How do you explain D&C 130:15 ?

15Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.

Thanks in advance.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Dear LDS friends, i hope that you all are doing well.

if you don't mind, i have a question and need a clarification from you...
actually before posting here, i've tried to find answer within your text book (study guide), then chatting with missionary (mormon.org)... and because i've got no answer so decided to ask you.

How do you explain D&C 130:15 ?



Thanks in advance.
Hi there, Marco. Long time, no see.

Let's look at the verse you mentioned in context: D&C 130:14-17 states, "I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter. I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time."

Clearly, even after having received this revelation himself, Joseph was uncertain as to what to make of it. He assumed that the promise that he would "see the face of the Son of Man" might have been upon his own death, since in D&C 130:15, God doesn't specifically state that Joseph would next see Christ's face at His Second Coming, just that he would see His face. Since he declared on several other occasions that no man (including himself) could know the date of the Second Coming of Christ, D&C 130:15 is probably not as much a prophesy as non-Mormons believe it to be.
 

Marco19

Researcher
Hello Katzpur. yes, it's been long time, and i'm glad to read your comments.

To be honest, it's confusing (for me)... because i started to think, well, why 85? G-d knows when JS will die, therefore i started to ask myself why He said 85 not 75 or 95?
then i checked the year 1890, where nothing important happened! which make me more confused.

Clearly, even after having received this revelation himself, Joseph was uncertain as to what to make of it.
very good, this is an important point.
if He receives something unclear, then why to receive it at all? what should be the reason where G-d do something like this?
actually this same question i discussed with the missionary, where he answered that the same you may find in the previous books (OT & NT)
but IMO JS is something else, He came as the latter-day saint and to restore which means He should have the keys to all riddles.

D&C 130:15 is probably not as much a prophesy as non-Mormons believe it to be.
well, for me, it's not important if it was a prophesy or just an annoucement. what i care is to understand each word why it's mention.
If i consider X as a Holy book, then each word included should have a meaning and a purpose.

Hope i made it clear, why i'm asking this.

Thank You.
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
well, for me, it's not important if it was a prophesy or just an annoucement. what i care is to understand each word why it's mention.
If i consider X as a Holy book, then each word included should have a meaning and a purpose.
In all honesty, I really don't understand myself why it would have even been included in the D&C, and I really don't have any better of an explanation than I already gave you. Maybe someone else will have something to add.
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
In all honesty, I really don't understand myself why it would have even been included in the D&C, and I really don't have any better of an explanation than I already gave you. Maybe someone else will have something to add.

This is just my opinion, but I see God as "the great chessplayer" he knows all the moves, he knows which moves we are likely to make, but his knowledge does not determine the outcome. Because he knows all possible moves, he is never "surprised" and because his plan for us is perfect it cannot be thwarted by anyone.

This makes more sense to me than the typical Omniscient view of God because it seems that if anyone knows exactly what we are going to do before we do it (Even god) that mean free will does not exist and I do not accept that.

In light of that. I see God's comment as a "If A happens then B will be the outcome." however, A did not happen. therefore since B was based on the condition of A It is safe to assume that B will no longer be an outcome.

As for why I think it was included, I feel it was to give us more insight into the nature of our Heavenly Father.
 

tomato1236

Ninja Master
I don't understand why someone knowing what I'm going to have for breakfast prevents me from making the decision of what to eat. I mean, if my wife could see the future, and knew what I was going to do or say, that has no relationship to or affect on my ability or need to choose unless she tells me what she knows I'm going to do. I still face the consequences, I still learn from the decision, and the future she saw was based on the choice I made.

Seems to me people who claim that one person knowing what you'll choose means you cannot choose are just finding an excuse to dismiss either religion or personal responsibility.
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
I don't understand why someone knowing what I'm going to have for breakfast prevents me from making the decision of what to eat. I mean, if my wife could see the future, and knew what I was going to do or say, that has no relationship to or affect on my ability or need to choose unless she tells me what she knows I'm going to do. I still face the consequences, I still learn from the decision, and the future she saw was based on the choice I made.

Seems to me people who claim that one person knowing what you'll choose means you cannot choose are just finding an excuse to dismiss either religion or personal responsibility.

Interesting, I see it almost the opposite. It is easier to accept and to claim personal responsibility. If you have no choice you can't have personal responsibility. However if you can choose, then yes you have personal responsibility.
 

Arkholt

Non-vessel
If God knows what you're going to choose, then it means he must know that you're going to choose/make a choice. If you didn't have the ability to make your own choices, he wouldn't know that. The very fact that he knows what you're going to choose means that you have agency.

Make sense?
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
If God knows what you're going to choose, then it means he must know that you're going to choose/make a choice. If you didn't have the ability to make your own choices, he wouldn't know that. The very fact that he knows what you're going to choose means that you have agency.

Make sense?

It really doesn't to me. To me, any kind of pre-determined outcome negates the very possibility of free-will or agency. I believe God makes highly educated and accurate guesses and knows all possible outcomes and plans accordingly.

Now, I know that I could very well be wrong, but this allows me to accept that agency is a real thing.
 

silvermoon383

Well-Known Member
I understood it to be that Heavenly Father understood us well enough to know what we would decide (basically a probabilistic outcome incredibly close to 1).
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
I also think the scripture to Joseph Smith is circumstantial evidence to my position.

I think that God was saying "If A happens, then B will happen."

Even though the likelihood of Joseph living to be 85 was nearly non existent, it was still a possibility. Otherwise God would have been lying by even presenting the possible outcome that Joseph would live to be 85 if it were not possible at all.

Does that make sense?
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I think the most important part of the scripture is, "let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter." This is a religion of action and pondering when the Second Coming will happen has zero productivity. Further, God doesn't need us to come to him for everything. If we are to become like Him then we need to work things out on our own sometimes.
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
I think the most important part of the scripture is, "let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter." This is a religion of action and pondering when the Second Coming will happen has zero productivity. Further, God doesn't need us to come to him for everything. If we are to become like Him then we need to work things out on our own sometimes.
Agreed.
 

Arkholt

Non-vessel
It really doesn't to me. To me, any kind of pre-determined outcome negates the very possibility of free-will or agency. I believe God makes highly educated and accurate guesses and knows all possible outcomes and plans accordingly.

Now, I know that I could very well be wrong, but this allows me to accept that agency is a real thing.

Fine, let me put it this way:

You have a time machine and you go 100 years into the future with it. You read the history books about the last hundred years to find out what happened. Now you have knowledge of all the choices that people have made over the last hundred years. You go back in time and live out your life as normal, but with that extra knowledge. Does the fact that you have the knowledge of other people's choices mean that they have no will to make them?

No. It means that you just happen to know what the choices they're going to make are. It does not mean that they don't have agency to make the choices. In fact, if they hadn't made those choices, the future history books wouldn't even have been written. The fact that you were able to read those history books means that choices were made.
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
Fine, let me put it this way:

You have a time machine and you go 100 years into the future with it. You read the history books about the last hundred years to find out what happened. Now you have knowledge of all the choices that people have made over the last hundred years. You go back in time and live out your life as normal, but with that extra knowledge. Does the fact that you have the knowledge of other people's choices mean that they have no will to make them?

No. It means that you just happen to know what the choices they're going to make are. It does not mean that they don't have agency to make the choices. In fact, if they hadn't made those choices, the future history books wouldn't even have been written. The fact that you were able to read those history books means that choices were made.


No. It means they already made the choice as in it is past tense. The only way that God could know what choices we are going to make is if we had already made them. which opens up a whole other philosophical bag of worms.
 

tomato1236

Ninja Master
No. It means they already made the choice as in it is past tense. The only way that God could know what choices we are going to make is if we had already made them. which opens up a whole other philosophical bag of worms.

Haha why is that the only way God could know what our choices will be? Have you been God before? Did he tell you what the mechanics of Godhood are?
 
Top