The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Discuss the last days, Zion, second coming, emergency preparedness, alternative health, etc.
User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by Alaris »

brianj wrote: May 19th, 2017, 9:35 pm Feel free to disagree with me on semantics,
Thank you for your permission. I will.
brianj wrote: May 19th, 2017, 9:35 pm but I will stand by my words, and right now I don't have a lot of interest in changing my personality and way of communicating to satisfy other people.
Hrm .. that doesn't sound very gospel of Jesus Christ-like. You should probably have a look at the two great commandments. And this:
Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
brianj wrote: May 19th, 2017, 9:35 pm Where was the contradiction in my post? I interpret the words of Christ to John as indicating that John won't taste of death until he sees the sign of the coming of the Son of Man, and that's how I interpreted the initial post on this subject. To "see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" is something interpret as seeing the Son of Man coming as opposed to seeing the fulfillment of prophecies that precede the coming of the Son of Man.
You quote all these events of the second coming and then say the second coming only takes place during the final event.
brianj wrote: May 19th, 2017, 9:35 pm You asked who the "some standing here" referred to in Matt 16:28. The definitive answer is that an answer to this question has not been shared with the world so we don't yet know. We understand that John was one of the people standing there, but apparently others were present.
So let me get this straight. You, brianj, are authoritatively saying that the above has not been shared with the world so "We" don't know yet. Yet you somehow know that "till they see the man coming in his kingdom" must be referring to events far after the second com... er the events that precede the second coming that include Christ's second coming ... er second appearance to the Jews. I'm glad we got that cleared up.

As for your "not changing your personality" let me help you understand how language matters - how you treat people .. matters. Imagine you and I and everyone participating in this thread were sitting in a nice room with a fire seated in a circle. We start with a prayer. We sing a hymn. We are gathered in the name of the Lord. There He is also. Now I know this forum isn't quite as nice an environment, but are we not gathered together here in the name of the Lord? Are we not here to learn and rejoice together? If not, then why are you here?

Imagine that room again. Would you treat others there the exact same way you treat them here? I guarantee you that you would not. And if you would, then you have a serious problem my brother. Have you ever heard anyone in Sunday School declare "You are wrong." I certainly haven't. Why? We've all heard people in Sunday School share some awesomely false doctrine. Why don't we just tell them, "You are wrong?"
Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
We will account for every word. Sweeping them under the rug in the name of being consistent with our personalities will not make us wince any less during our judgements. Give a near death experience book or two a read. If we don't repent, we will experience how we have hurt others - from the other person's perspective. We will account for every word. I will account for this which is why I'm carefully editing to nicen up my words without softening the ... sharpness ... of the point too much.

Please pardon my "lol" at your "You are wrong." It just cracks me up how "bravely" people are rude behind the safety of anonymity and I imagined you saying that to someone in Sunday School. I invite you to consider, "Thank you for sharing. I appreciate your passion, but I disagree on this point because of yada yada." Or even "I disagree, and here's why" would be better. Good luck sir.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by brianj »

alaris wrote: May 19th, 2017, 11:42 pm
brianj wrote: May 19th, 2017, 9:35 pm Feel free to disagree with me on semantics,
Thank you for your permission. I will.
Good! I like a good disagreement. What do we learn from agreeing with one another?
brianj wrote: May 19th, 2017, 9:35 pm but I will stand by my words, and right now I don't have a lot of interest in changing my personality and way of communicating to satisfy other people.
Hrm .. that doesn't sound very gospel of Jesus Christ-like. You should probably have a look at the two great commandments. And this:
Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
I think this comes back to semantics. Should I change my personality and way of communicating because supporters of sexual depravity don't like what I say or how I say it?
Perhaps you wouldn't be so upset with me if nonverbal cues were available. On many occasions in church meetings I have told people they are wrong, discussed the belief they were communicating, and what scripture or church leaders have said on the subject. I don't recall a single bad experience.
brianj wrote: May 19th, 2017, 9:35 pm Where was the contradiction in my post? I interpret the words of Christ to John as indicating that John won't taste of death until he sees the sign of the coming of the Son of Man, and that's how I interpreted the initial post on this subject. To "see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" is something interpret as seeing the Son of Man coming as opposed to seeing the fulfillment of prophecies that precede the coming of the Son of Man.
You quote all these events of the second coming and then say the second coming only takes place during the final event.
In that case, please clearly answer the following question in detail so I can understand you: To you, what is the Second Coming?
I will use a parable of coming home from work to (hopefully) more clearly explain my understanding, which is based on reading of scripture and the words of modern prophets. Have I come home when I leave my desk at 5 pm? No. Have I come home when I exit the office, exit the building, or exit the parking lot? Again, no. Every single one of those events must happen for me to go home, but not one of those events is me coming home. If someone was looking out the right window and they saw me driving up the road, they would see the sign of Brian coming home but Brian wouldn't actually be home yet.

In scripture, in modern prophecy, and in every article I have read or speech I have heard the Second Coming is described as a singular event. It seems that you are claiming the Second Coming has already happened, is a process we are in the middle of, or happens many times before the event described as the Second Coming when Jesus purifies the earth and arrives to reign personally for the millennium. Instead of taking issue with my saying that you are wrong because what you say doesn't match what general authorities have said about the subject, how about defending your position? Tell me why you are right!
brianj wrote: May 19th, 2017, 9:35 pm You asked who the "some standing here" referred to in Matt 16:28. The definitive answer is that an answer to this question has not been shared with the world so we don't yet know. We understand that John was one of the people standing there, but apparently others were present.
So let me get this straight. You, brianj, are authoritatively saying that the above has not been shared with the world so "We" don't know yet. Yet you somehow know that "till they see the man coming in his kingdom" must be referring to events far after the second com... er the events that precede the second coming that include Christ's second coming ... er second appearance to the Jews. I'm glad we got that cleared up.

As for your "not changing your personality" let me help you understand how language matters - how you treat people .. matters. Imagine you and I and everyone participating in this thread were sitting in a nice room with a fire seated in a circle. We start with a prayer. We sing a hymn. We are gathered in the name of the Lord. There He is also. Now I know this forum isn't quite as nice an environment, but are we not gathered together here in the name of the Lord? Are we not here to learn and rejoice together? If not, then why are you here?

Imagine that room again. Would you treat others there the exact same way you treat them here? I guarantee you that you would not. And if you would, then you have a serious problem my brother. Have you ever heard anyone in Sunday School declare "You are wrong." I certainly haven't. Why? We've all heard people in Sunday School share some awesomely false doctrine. Why don't we just tell them, "You are wrong?"
Would you be happy if I had said, "After decades of study and a detailed review of scripture, writings of modern prophets, and transcribed speeches of general authorities I have concluded that the information you are asking about is not contained in the scriptures and has never been disclosed publicly by authoritative church leaders, therefore we don't know yet?" I value brevity so that isn't going to happen.

Regarding being in a room together, see what I wrote above regarding nonverbal cues and experiences at church. When I do hear someone teach false doctrine I tell them it is a false doctrine as soon as I can cite an authoritative rebuttal. Because the teaching of false doctrine at church can be harmful to listeners I feel an obligation to not be silent.
We will account for every word. Sweeping them under the rug in the name of being consistent with our personalities will not make us wince any less during our judgements. Give a near death experience book or two a read. If we don't repent, we will experience how we have hurt others - from the other person's perspective. We will account for every word. I will account for this which is why I'm carefully editing to nicen up my words without softening the ... sharpness ... of the point too much.

Please pardon my "lol" at your "You are wrong." It just cracks me up how "bravely" people are rude behind the safety of anonymity and I imagined you saying that to someone in Sunday School. I invite you to consider, "Thank you for sharing. I appreciate your passion, but I disagree on this point because of yada yada." Or even "I disagree, and here's why" would be better. Good luck sir.
I once sat in a Bishop's office as he said something that I interpreted as, "I don't want you in my ward." I sure hope that he doesn't have to answer for his words because I know he didn't mean what his words communicated to me and I don't hold a grudge. If I did hold a grudge and continued to argue the point until I received an apology or one of us left the ward, would he be in the wrong or would we both be in the wrong? Because of my answer to that question I will no longer spend time debating your emotional response to my words, but I will be happy to continue debating the meaning of the phrase "Second Coming."

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by Alaris »

Edit: If you are less interested in my debate with brianj, please scroll down to the image of the brass serpent and read from there because there is some super interesting stuff to support the OP's suggestion that John is indeed one of the two witnesses.
----
brianj wrote: May 20th, 2017, 5:50 pm Good! I like a good disagreement. What do we learn from agreeing with one another?
Actually you can learn quite a bit with some humility and an open heart. Disagreements are purely optional and both can be achieved with cordiality.
brianj wrote: May 20th, 2017, 5:50 pm I think this comes back to semantics. Should I change my personality and way of communicating because supporters of sexual depravity don't like what I say or how I say it?
Perhaps you wouldn't be so upset with me if nonverbal cues were available. On many occasions in church meetings I have told people they are wrong, discussed the belief they were communicating, and what scripture or church leaders have said on the subject. I don't recall a single bad experience.

Your sexual depravity analogy reminds me of a story from my mission: A Baptist seminary student compared the Book of Mormon to pornography saying there's no need to read it just as you have compared my reactions in an analogy to sexual depravity as though there's no need to change your personality. First let me point out, you are right. You don't need to change your personality as long as you are satisfied with telestial or terrestrial glory. Otherwise ... well yeah you kind of HAVE to change your personality if you want to have the passions of a God someday.

Secondly, let's be clear. Your analogy is given in the same spirit as the Baptist preacher's. An insult and a lure. I will not bite. Let's see if we can ignore that and reason together. /forgiven

brianj wrote: May 20th, 2017, 5:50 pm In that case, please clearly answer the following question in detail so I can understand you: To you, what is the Second Coming?
I will use a parable of coming home from work to (hopefully) more clearly explain my understanding, which is based on reading of scripture and the words of modern prophets. Have I come home when I leave my desk at 5 pm? No. Have I come home when I exit the office, exit the building, or exit the parking lot? Again, no. Every single one of those events must happen for me to go home, but not one of those events is me coming home. You are correct. ALL of them are your coming home. And if there was a prophecy that someone would not taste of death until you come home, then the moment you start coming home that condition is fulfilled and that person can die at any point. Otherwise the dependency would be your arrival. Come is a verb that means " to move toward something." So when Brian comes home it refers to the whole shebang. If someone was looking out the right window and they saw me driving up the road, they would see the sign of Brian coming home but Brian wouldn't actually be home yet.

In scripture, in modern prophecy, and in every article I have read or speech I have heard the Second Coming is described as a singular event. It seems that you are claiming the Second Coming has already happened, is a process we are in the middle of, or happens many times before the event described as the Second Coming when Jesus purifies the earth and arrives to reign personally for the millennium. Instead of taking issue with my saying that you are wrong because what you say doesn't match what general authorities have said about the subject, how about defending your position? Tell me why you are right!

I have and will patiently do so again. Here is an analogy for you. If I tell my family and my coworkers I'll be back in a year am I back when I come home or when I return to work? To say the definitions, sequence of events, and interpretation of prophecies in the second coming is clear is simply inaccurate. I'll return to "tell me why you are right" at the end of this as I have found further proof, which your ...what can I call it ... your disagreements have led me to further research since you so politely asked for me to tell you why my witness is right.

brianj wrote: May 20th, 2017, 5:50 pm Would you be happy if I had said, "After decades of study and a detailed review of scripture, writings of modern prophets, and transcribed speeches of general authorities I have concluded that the information you are asking about is not contained in the scriptures and has never been disclosed publicly by authoritative church leaders, therefore we don't know yet?" I value brevity so that isn't going to happen.

Yes! Try leading with similar disagreements, but I still must ask. In what spirit do you approach? Are you looking to shut down the conversation? Are you looking to learn something? If it's the latter, try this more respectful approach in the future. See what happens. (Valuing brevity over how you treat others .. not a good priority structure dear brother.)
brianj wrote: May 20th, 2017, 5:50 pm Regarding being in a room together, see what I wrote above regarding nonverbal cues and experiences at church. When I do hear someone teach false doctrine I tell them it is a false doctrine as soon as I can cite an authoritative rebuttal. Because the teaching of false doctrine at church can be harmful to listeners I feel an obligation to not be silent.

It's almost like you look forward to this. You and several others here ... or are you one person using several accounts to make it look like there are more of you who are just looking ... waiting for the next opportunity to scratch the "you are wrong" itch and shut someone down? Just like looking for that opportunity appears to be in your nature, it is in mine to stand up against such and reopen the conversation where learning is attained - where we can reason together.
brianj wrote: May 20th, 2017, 5:50 pm I once sat in a Bishop's office as he said something that I interpreted as, "I don't want you in my ward." I sure hope that he doesn't have to answer for his words because I know he didn't mean what his words communicated to me and I don't hold a grudge. If I did hold a grudge and continued to argue the point until I received an apology or one of us left the ward, would he be in the wrong or would we both be in the wrong? Because of my answer to that question I will no longer spend time debating your emotional response to my words, but I will be happy to continue debating the meaning of the phrase "Second Coming."

I must ask. Is this Bishop's office story related to the one where you often tell people they are wrong at church? Also, I'm sorry to disappoint you but your Bishop is indeed accountable for every idle word. So are you. So am I. Your apparent thick skin doesn't somehow make you the standard by which everyone else is judged. Your requirement to forgive does not somehow make the offender less accountable. Which prophet said we are accountable for every word? Oh yeah that was the Lord Jesus Christ. I've got sad news for you but it's not just our words but our thoughts too! (Yikes.)
Alma 12:14 For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence.

I have prayed about the Book of Mormon. I have prayed about this. Have you? You may be right that this hasn't been revealed by the prophets and you may be right that this isn't essential knowledge, but that doesn't nullify my witness either. So before you tell me I am wrong (lol) perhaps you should study the many evidences I and the OP have given you ... perhaps you should take TWO witnesses of this truth (irony)... kneel down and ask God in humility and sincerity. What have you got to loose? Or do you already know better just like the Israelites knew that looking at that silly brass serpent was a complete waste of time?


Image


Oh I almost forgot. I learned something new because of your persistent challenges, so thank you. Here are scriptures from each of the four gospels! Holy cow, this must be important. It's in all four!

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

I'd call the splitting of the mount of olives a qualifier. I'm pretty sure those last seven words don't mean till they have seen "brianj's definition of the singular final event of the second coming."
Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Well which is it? Seeing the coming of the son of man? Seeing the kingdom come in power? Seeing the kingdom of God?

Two of them have verbs to describe what John will see before he tastes of death. What about John? Let's hear it straight from the horse's mouth!
John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Did you catch that???? Holy cow!!!! @-)

The brethren at the time were saying that John "should not die" and yet John sees fit to correct them and then repeat the Lord's words verbatim, "Yet Jesus Said not unto him, He shall not die; but, if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"

!!!!!!!

That's basically what I've been doing in this thread without realizing I was mirroring what John was doing - repeating the importance of the words, word choice, placement tense etc. ! ... All points I have been making since the OP introduced to me something that I was willing and ready to learn. A point that has pierced my soul by the Spirit of the Lord ... and the more I study the more evidence and witnesses I receive after the trial of my faith.

If you are angry right now then I submit to you that you engaged in the wrong spirit, because I am hoping you can feel the joy and excitement I am feeling right now! That is my only goal here on LDSFF. To learn. To teach. To edify.

John himself clarified that the promise was not that he "should not die" but then spelled out Jesus words carefully. I believe we can take his account as authoritative here, provided the translation is accurate. John was clear that the promise wasn't the lack of death but the presence of life until the Lord comes. (verb)

Now brianj if you want to define that word to mean the Lord's final appearance, then I see no need to continue this debate. But if you feel pricked at all in your heart, I invite you to pray on this. This is huge evidence that John indeed will die. Remember the Lord comes several times before the final shakedown that you referred to, and any one of those can qualify here. Pray on it with an open heart.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by brianj »

One thing I will say before focusing on the subject at hand is that, just as you completely misunderstood my point about not changing myself to satisfy you but changing myself to please God, you misunderstood my analogy. I once had a friend who was a strong supporter of sexual depravity, specifically homosexuality. He made it clear that I am showing hatred, offending him, and so forth by belonging to and supporting a church that preaches against homosexuality. If you had such a conversation would you apologize and apostatize to please another person?
Since you appear to have misunderstood me previously I shall explicitly state that I am not accusing you of homosexuality, any other sexual depravity, or apostasy. I am merely using it as an example. Most of my friends are not LDS and support gay rights, so this is something I deal with on a regular basis.
alaris wrote: May 20th, 2017, 10:30 pm
brianj wrote: May 20th, 2017, 5:50 pm In that case, please clearly answer the following question in detail so I can understand you: To you, what is the Second Coming?
I will use a parable of coming home from work to (hopefully) more clearly explain my understanding, which is based on reading of scripture and the words of modern prophets. Have I come home when I leave my desk at 5 pm? No. Have I come home when I exit the office, exit the building, or exit the parking lot? Again, no. Every single one of those events must happen for me to go home, but not one of those events is me coming home. You are correct. ALL of them are your coming home. And if there was a prophecy that someone would not taste of death until you come home, then the moment you start coming home that condition is fulfilled and that person can die at any point. Otherwise the dependency would be your arrival. Come is a verb that means " to move toward something." So when Brian comes home it refers to the whole shebang. If someone was looking out the right window and they saw me driving up the road, they would see the sign of Brian coming home but Brian wouldn't actually be home yet.

In scripture, in modern prophecy, and in every article I have read or speech I have heard the Second Coming is described as a singular event. It seems that you are claiming the Second Coming has already happened, is a process we are in the middle of, or happens many times before the event described as the Second Coming when Jesus purifies the earth and arrives to reign personally for the millennium. Instead of taking issue with my saying that you are wrong because what you say doesn't match what general authorities have said about the subject, how about defending your position? Tell me why you are right!

I have and will patiently do so again. Here is an analogy for you. If I tell my family and my coworkers I'll be back in a year am I back when I come home or when I return to work? To say the definitions, sequence of events, and interpretation of prophecies in the second coming is clear is simply inaccurate. I'll return to "tell me why you are right" at the end of this as I have found further proof, which your ...what can I call it ... your disagreements have led me to further research since you so politely asked for me to tell you why my witness is right.
I don't get it. I said that leaving the office is not coming home, you said I was correct, then you said that leaving the office was coming home.
I would also point out that come has multiple meanings. I referred to the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam Webster and found these definitions in both:
Arrive at a specified place.
Approach.
Occur; happen; take place.

Using these definitions of come, how do you evaluate the comment I first offended you by rebutting?
Referring to Matt 16, you are actively defending your belief that finding out the Father and the Son fulfills "see[ing] the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
Saying those people could now be dead because they lived to see the Son of man arrive at a specified place in his kingdom doesn't seem to fit.
Saying those people could now be dead because they lived to see the Son of man approach in his kingdom doesn't fit either because the sign of the Son's approach isn't visible to the population of the world.
brianj wrote: May 20th, 2017, 5:50 pm Regarding being in a room together, see what I wrote above regarding nonverbal cues and experiences at church. When I do hear someone teach false doctrine I tell them it is a false doctrine as soon as I can cite an authoritative rebuttal. Because the teaching of false doctrine at church can be harmful to listeners I feel an obligation to not be silent.

It's almost like you look forward to this. You and several others here ... or are you one person using several accounts to make it look like there are more of you who are just looking ... waiting for the next opportunity to scratch the "you are wrong" itch and shut someone down? Just like looking for that opportunity appears to be in your nature, it is in mine to stand up against such and reopen the conversation where learning is attained - where we can reason together.


I love debate. If you think my saying that you were wrong then supporting my assertion is offensive, you should see what happens in the American Mensa and Mensa International forums. As you would expect, people who take disagreement personally don't last long.

And if you take a good look at my hundreds of posts I am confident you will find more posts from me communicating that someone was right than someone was wrong.
brianj wrote: May 20th, 2017, 5:50 pm I once sat in a Bishop's office as he said something that I interpreted as, "I don't want you in my ward." I sure hope that he doesn't have to answer for his words because I know he didn't mean what his words communicated to me and I don't hold a grudge. If I did hold a grudge and continued to argue the point until I received an apology or one of us left the ward, would he be in the wrong or would we both be in the wrong? Because of my answer to that question I will no longer spend time debating your emotional response to my words, but I will be happy to continue debating the meaning of the phrase "Second Coming."

I must ask. Is this Bishop's office story related to the one where you often tell people they are wrong at church? Also, I'm sorry to disappoint you but your Bishop is indeed accountable for every idle word. So are you. So am I. Your apparent thick skin doesn't somehow make you the standard by which everyone else is judged. Your requirement to forgive does not somehow make the offender less accountable. Which prophet said we are accountable for every word? Oh yeah that was the Lord Jesus Christ. I've got sad news for you but it's not just our words but our thoughts too! (Yikes.)
No, no direct relation. One example that quickly comes to mind is the common, but completely false, claim that after Joseph Smith was murdered there was a fight between Emma Smith and Brigham Young over who should be the leader. Joseph Smith III doesn't appear to have taken any role in the RLDS faith (now Community of Christ) until about 16 years after his father's murder. Emma Smith initially aligned with Sidney Rigdon and did not push for her son to be recognized as the leader of any church.
Emma Smith appears to have been a good woman in a very difficult position and defaming her does no good for anybody. And, after what happened to her husband, why would she want her son in that position?
Alma 12:14 For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence.

I have prayed about the Book of Mormon. I have prayed about this. Have you? You may be right that this hasn't been revealed by the prophets and you may be right that this isn't essential knowledge, but that doesn't nullify my witness either. So before you tell me I am wrong (lol) perhaps you should study the many evidences I and the OP have given you ... perhaps you should take TWO witnesses of this truth (irony)... kneel down and ask God in humility and sincerity. What have you got to loose? Or do you already know better just like the Israelites knew that looking at that silly brass serpent was a complete waste of time?
I wouldn't be here if I had not prayed about the Book of Mormon many times, and had more affirmative answers than I care to enumerate.
And, as should be obvious, I am someone who loves knowledge and is constantly seeking additional knowledge. But I have come to learn that knowledge is less important than obedience. I understand that when Naomi Randall proposed a fourth verse for her song I am an Child of God, President Kimball suggested she change the end from "teach me all that I must know" to "teach me all that I must do" because what we do is far more important than what we know. Because I recognize this in myself, I don't ask for knowledge unless I believe it will have a significant benefit to me. Asking to see Nephi's vision to better understand details is something I would do or have done, but I generally don't ask about interesting things that I don't believe are important for my life at this time. I would love to know more about the conversion of Abish and her father (Alma 19) but I don't see any need for this information in my life.

My mother once asked me, "If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you?" I responded with the truth: "At summer camp my friends jumped off a cliff into the ocean, nobody was hurt, and they all had fun. So I jumped off the cliff and had a lot of fun!" I am intelligent and analytical enough to recognize that if people who looked at the the Nehushtan after being bitten were healed, then I should look at the Nehushtan.

Oh I almost forgot. I learned something new because of your persistent challenges, so thank you. Here are scriptures from each of the four gospels! Holy cow, this must be important. It's in all four!

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

I'd call the splitting of the mount of olives a qualifier. I'm pretty sure those last seven words don't mean till they have seen "brianj's definition of the singular final event of the second coming."
Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Well which is it? Seeing the coming of the son of man? Seeing the kingdom come in power? Seeing the kingdom of God?

Two of them have verbs to describe what John will see before he tastes of death. What about John? Let's hear it straight from the horse's mouth!
John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Did you catch that???? Holy cow!!!! @-)

The brethren at the time were saying that John "should not die" and yet John sees fit to correct them and then repeat the Lord's words verbatim, "Yet Jesus Said not unto him, He shall not die; but, if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"


Do you mind if we take a closer look at these?
Matt 16:28 has a footnote for kingdom referring to the topical guide and the subject Millennium.
Luke 9:27 has a footnote referencing D&C 7:1-8. This section includes a transcript of the big conversation with John, who was told: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory..."
John 21:23 has a footnote referencing Luke 9:27, which I addressed above.

So if "coming in his kingdom" is a reference to the beginning of the millennium, John was told that he should tarry until Jesus comes in glory, and the visit to Jerusalem is going to be in power but not in glory, what should we infer?

That's basically what I've been doing in this thread without realizing I was mirroring what John was doing - repeating the importance of the words, word choice, placement tense etc. ! ... All points I have been making since the OP introduced to me something that I was willing and ready to learn. A point that has pierced my soul by the Spirit of the Lord ... and the more I study the more evidence and witnesses I receive after the trial of my faith.

If you are angry right now then I submit to you that you engaged in the wrong spirit, because I am hoping you can feel the joy and excitement I am feeling right now! That is my only goal here on LDSFF. To learn. To teach. To edify.

John himself clarified that the promise was not that he "should not die" but then spelled out Jesus words carefully. I believe we can take his account as authoritative here, provided the translation is accurate. John was clear that the promise wasn't the lack of death but the presence of life until the Lord comes. (verb)

Now brianj if you want to define that word to mean the Lord's final appearance, then I see no need to continue this debate. But if you feel pricked at all in your heart, I invite you to pray on this. This is huge evidence that John indeed will die. Remember the Lord comes several times before the final shakedown that you referred to, and any one of those can qualify here. Pray on it with an open heart.
Yes, I continue to argue the scriptures you referenced above are references to Jesus coming in glory at the beginning of His millennial reign and not references to the events prior. But I disagree with your conclusion and I would really enjoy it if you focused on why you believe that you are correct in your interpretation of what it means for the Lord to come and why you believe that I am... umm... do you approve of the phrase "less correct" or should I find some other way of expressing it? (I hope you can see humor in how I chose to conclude that sentence)

And I am bothered that you are suggesting I am angry. Why should I be angry over someone disagreeing with me? When my Catholic friends and relatives say I am wrong in my choice of religion or when my atheist friends tell me that opposing homosexual marriage is bigotry, so why should I be angry over you disagreeing with me? Could you be projecting your own angry response on me?

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by Alaris »

You are very clearly not upset. You married your pride to your narrow definitions of what can or can't happen to your own detriment. I know this because my faith became knowledge and you started with a declaration of presumption and pride and have clung to it despite my countering every little thing. How can I be upset? I learned something new and the Lord has given me more to support this knowledge at every turn.

D&C 7 is an amazing scripture. Saying that John will live until Jesus approaches in His glory cleary reinforces what I have been saying. It repeats the promise John will prophecy to all nations again...but that can't possibly be as one of the two witnesses because Brianj said. Well of Brianj and Alaris only one of us has considered this with an open heart and prayed on it. The other... Well it's readily apparent why it's so beyond silly to start a conversation with "You are wrong."

For you to be "right" you are clinging onto only one possibile definition of coming as though it refers to the final events which is how so many close their eyes lest they see their ears lest they hear and their hearts lest they understand and are converted and healed.

Your justification not to pray or consider this truth is not only to your own detriment but to any reader swayed by your narrow understanding of what's possible. A year ago I may have been swayed by what you're saying.

Saying that you have no need to pray but have clearly spent much more time trying to save face is exactly what I referred to with Moses and his staff. Not looking because of pride. Maybe this isn't essential.... Or perhaps that's yet another presumption based of pride. Maybe learning John is one of the two will help you recognize him when he starts to prophecy to all nations... With another witness... while those waiting for 2 of the 15 will presume, "This can't be him so why should I even spend 5 minutes pondering and pray with an open heart."

For those who aren't closed minded to this possibility ... Take a look at the final verses of D&C 7. Peter will minister to James and John. Very interesting....
Last edited by Alaris on May 22nd, 2017, 11:14 am, edited 2 times in total.

dafty
captain of 100
Posts: 428

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by dafty »

Why dont two of you get it settled once and for all...how about a MMA style cage fight? =))
...back on the subject...

Matthew 20
20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons(James and John) came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.
21 “What is it you want?” he asked.
She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom(or stand next to authority to Jesus in His Kingdom).”
22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?”
“We can,” they answered.
23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”
Two Witnesses
Are symbolised by Two Olive Trees, standing on the left and right side of The Bowl...
TPJS,[email protected] to Noah, who is Gabriel; he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in his day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven"

In all honesty I do not claim to know for certain, however, I cant see how James and John are Two Olive Trees and stand next to The Saviour in Priesthood Authority...just food for thought. thanx

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by Alaris »

dafty wrote: May 22nd, 2017, 1:58 am Why dont two of you get it settled once and for all...how about a MMA style cage fight? =))
...back on the subject...

Matthew 20
20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons(James and John) came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.
21 “What is it you want?” he asked.
She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom(or stand next to authority to Jesus in His Kingdom).”
22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?”
“We can,” they answered.
23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”
Two Witnesses
Are symbolised by Two Olive Trees, standing on the left and right side of The Bowl...
TPJS,[email protected] to Noah, who is Gabriel; he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in his day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven"

In all honesty I do not claim to know for certain, however, I cant see how James and John are Two Olive Trees and stand next to The Saviour in Priesthood Authority...just food for thought. thanx
Dafty,

Thank you! :) Debate without contention is ...*ahhh*.... so nice. Secondly, thank you for the challenge. The more I pray and research this the more certain I become. I hope you are sitting when you read this, and I really hope you have a more open mind than our dear brother brianj. I realize saying James is one of the two doesn't nearly have as much scriptural backing as my feelings on the matter have been mostly just that ... until now. So thank you again for the awesome questions to which I have discovered some extremely amazing and intriguing answers. Please read this with an open heart ... and a prayer.

Firstly, James and John asked to sit on either side Jesus and he basically said that that right must be earned and given by the Father. President Ucthdorf gave my second favorite talk during general conference on this. It's a fantastic talk, and I highly recommend it.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference ... u?lang=eng

Secondly, I had been studying and praying about James and John being the two witnesses, so naturally when I heard President Uchtdorf's talk mention the sons of thunder during the Priesthood session my ears perked up. I personally feel that his speaking of these two brothers is not a coincidence. President Eyring's talk too almost seemed like he was speaking to someone specifically at times. Of course this isn't overt, but the feeling I received while listening to President Eyring. Interestingly enough, Presidents Eyring and Uchtdorf are the first and second counselors like James and John are to Peter.

Thirdly, you mentioned the two olive trees standing on the left and right side of the Bowl. Thank you again for that. I have yet again found several pearls that reinforce my testimony. Here is one:
Revelation 11
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
Zechariah 4
2 And said unto me, What seest thou? And I said, I have looked, and behold a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top of it, and his seven lamps thereon, and seven pipes to the seven lamps, which are upon the top thereof:
3 And two olive trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and the other upon the left side thereof.

11 ¶ Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof?
12 And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?
13 And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
14 Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.
Please note that in Zechariah 4 there is one candlestick with two olive trees on either side. John mentions two trees and two candlesticks and appears to be referencing something outside his own writing and could very clearly be referencing Zechariah 4:3,14. The "two" candlesticks could be referencing lone candlesticks as he does not specify here whether they are 7-candled .. candlesticks.

So what is the seven-candled candlestick? Here is an artists rendition of the vision - all credit to the artist:

Image

So we have seven candles on one candlestick flanked by two olive trees. The bowl of oil is above the candlestick feeding into each of the sticks giving them light...and two golden pipes into the olive trees. This is giving me the chills. I think the symbolism of the bowl is clear - it's above and the source of light to the seven candlesticks - It is the Lord Jesus Christ.

The seven candlesticks is also clear to me - They are the seven dispensation heads and the seven archangels, including Michael and Gabriel. So what about the two olive trees? Well first let's ask ourselves, who stands next in authority to the seven? Why James and John. This is why James and John are in the temple endowment - not only are they illustrating a "watch and learn" eternal principle, but they both have a strong destiny - a destiny that is represented by olive trees...

But why Olive trees? It is the job of Davidic Servant to gather up the house of Israel which is often symbolized by an olive tree all throughout the scriptures. Here is Moses 7:62 again.
Moses 7:62 And righteousness will I send down out of heaven; and truth will I send forth out of the earth, to bear testimony of mine Only Begotten; his resurrection from the dead; yea, and also the resurrection of all men; and righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, an Holy City, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem.
Righteousness is James. Truth is John. Their jobs are to sweep the earth and gather the elect from the four quarters of the earth unto a place which the Lord shall prepare. Olive Trees indeed.

But this is not all...

The Sons of Thunder

Why would the Savior name James and John the sons of thunder? Surely it could just be an affectionate nickname that is unexplained. Or is it?
Mark 3:17
17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
Is there a plausible explanation to this nickname that can add more weight to James and John being the two olive trees in Zechariah 4 - the two anointed ones?

Revelation 10 (The same chapter that starts the paragraph about the two witnesses with John being told he himself will prophecy again to peoples, nations, tongues, and kings.)
3 And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices.
4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.
Woh ... this is heavy stuff. The sealed portion of John's revelation was uttered by seven thunders. Is there any correlation we can find with this and with Zechariah 4. Let's see ... seven ... candles! Let's say for a moment the seven candles and the seven thunders both represent the dispensation heads - the highest order of angel - the archangels themselves. Would it not make sense that John's Sealed Revelation would include the fullness of the record of each dispensation?

So why Sons of Thunder? Well what does the Son of God mean? The Son of God is called the Son because he did not receive a fullness at first.
D&C 93:14
14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.
Coincidentally (or not) D&C 93 speaks of how the Lord ascends and how we ascend and smack dab in the middle says "18 And it shall come to pass, that if you are faithful you shall receive the fulness of the record of John."

I submit to you all that the Sons of Thunder are called that because they have not yet received the "Thunder" themselves yet but stand next in authority. This is why the lesser Priesthood was given to Joseph Smith by its greatest representative John the Baptist and why the Melchizedek Priesthood had three men standing - Peter who spoke and James and John who participated. This symbolizes Godhood by participation much as Jesus was the God of Israel before He inherited all - how the Holy Ghost is also a member of the Godhead without offering the atonement himself. They symbolize the Path of Ascension.

Avraham Gileadi - expert Isaiah scholar and LDS-converted Jew - believes the Davidic Servant will ascend to the next "level" along with the Earth as it ascends to the next level for the millennium. There is rich symbolism of ascendancy and purification through descent followed by ascent. I too believe this and largely came about this belief during my own studies and personal revelation - I did not find out that Gileadi's published works also support many of the principles I have discovered through “careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts" and by searching "into and contemplat[ing] the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity. How much more dignified and noble are the thoughts of God, than the vain imaginations of the human heart! …
“… Let honesty, and sobriety, and candor, and solemnity, and virtue, and pureness, and meekness, and simplicity crown our heads in every place; and in fine, become as little children, without malice, guile or hypocrisy. And now, brethren, after your tribulations, if you do these things, and exercise fervent prayer and faith in the sight of God always, He shall give unto you knowledge by His Holy Spirit, yea by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost." ~ Josephs Smith, History of the Church, 3:295–96
This is why James and John are following Peter around - they are learning to become Peters, or archangels, themselves. Peter: "This is how Satan is cast out. Take note." OK that's not a direct Peter quote but you who have been to the temple know what I mean.

Thank you again dafty and brianj - I feel very much the fulfillment of the Lord's promise in my own life:
D&C 84:88
88 And whoso receiveth you, there I will be also, for I will go before your face. I will be on your right hand and on your left, and my Spirit shall be in your hearts, and mine angels round about you, to bear you up.
A final footnote: If James is the other witness ... and if that other witness it the Davidic Servant himself ... then consider why John would word things the way he does in his Revelation. Would he not leave clues without being overt so only those with open hearts and humble minds can discover? If you study about the many prohecies of the Davidic Servant in Isaiah ... well let's sidenote that ... why did Nephi quote Isaiah for us? Why did Jesus Himself quote Isaiah so much when He appeared in the Americas? The Book of Mormon is written for us to look forward and prepare for that which lies ahead. Back to the Davidic Servant, the Lord conceals him for a time. That fact is not lost on me as I publicly offer my opinion ... but I have prayed on this and feel very strongly I am permitted to share. Thank you. Alaris.

EDIT: I'm adding this bit for thaabit.
Luke 6: 5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
For those of you who are still yet thinking it can't be John because John is translated ... who gave John the power of translation? Who can take it away when He seeth fit? Remember how John corrected the "Brethren" who thought John would not die and repeated again the Lord's exact promise. Why would he correct them if the promise meant John would not die. He will die, and it will not be a twinkling like the three nephites who were promised would not taste of death themselves. John wrote his gospel around the same time he wrote Revelation so he may have seen the end from the beginning before being sure to carefully restate the Lord's promise to him.

EDIT EDIT: Thaabit reminded me that the idea of the Davidic Servant being one of the two witnesses was new to him. So here is a scripture in Isaiah that is clearly referring to the Davidic Servant and how it aligns nicely with the two witnesses. (I mentioned this in an earlier thread, but putting it here to tie it together.)
Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
2 And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord;
3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
The rod of Jesse is defined in the Doctrine and Covenants as the Davidic Servant. Righteousness is used to describe him throughout Isaiah - see Moses 7:62 above.
Revelation 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
Breath/Fire Lips/Mouth Slay/Devour Wicked/Enemies. This is not a coincidence. These are the same people.
Last edited by Alaris on May 22nd, 2017, 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dafty
captain of 100
Posts: 428

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by dafty »

Hi,At first I didnt want to ask this simple question after your lengthy post as it would somewhat undermine it and the effort you put into it. However, I will anyway , coz Im eager to find out :p . How do you justify the fact that John himself says in rev11- that these two are 2 olive trees AND 2 candlestick that stand before the Lord of the earth. Its very nice that illustration you put up but I question its validity. They are 2 out of 7 rather than 2 outside/besides of the 7. Also, who stands before the Lord of the earth? Gabriel claimed that not John.Lastly , How about the Two Olive Tree Cherubims on the ark of covenant, these do not symbolize James and John. thanks for your great input.
PS. I also believe The Bowl symbolizes our Saviour(somewhat) and that the 7 are Archangels..May I just add that since Two Olive Trees 'empty themselves' into The Bowl, therefore Its hard to envisage that it symbolizes The Lord as its Him that's the ultimate source of the Oil(Holy Spirit) and not Two Trees.However, it only makes sense to me that there is some connection. Secondly, believe that The candlesticks are connected to Rev 2 and a word translated from greek word ECCLESIA(church, congregation or family). So I do think that the candlesticks symbolize these families/congregations from which the 7 Stars(actual individuals, messengers, servants, Archangels come in flesh as per JSTeachings) will ARISE/come from. x
...sorry for all the post edits. Ive been eager to discuss the subject ASAP but Im babysitting my little one and its Havoc =))

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by Alaris »

dafty wrote: May 22nd, 2017, 12:19 pm Hi,At first I didnt want to ask this simple question after your lengthy post as it would somewhat undermine it and the effort you put into it. However, I will anyway , coz Im eager to find out :p . How do you justify the fact that John himself says in rev11- that these two are 2 olive trees AND 2 candlestick that stand before the Lord of the earth. Its very nice that illustration you put up but I question its validity. They are 2 out of 7 rather than 2 outside/besides of the 7. Also, who stands before the Lord of the earth? Gabriel claimed that not John.Lastly , How about the Two Olive Tree Cherubims on the ark of covenant, these do not symbolize James and John. thanks for your great input.
PS. I also believe The Bowl symbolises our Saviour and that the 7 are Archangels..
Hey I edited my post above since you posted your reply--the EDIT sections at the end. I appreciate your undermining sentiment but my spirit is on fire as I typed that post above - this is why contention is so silly - it chases away the spirit. TRUTH is comfortable all by itself and doesn't need but be to chase away the darkness.

First of all I don't justify - the Lord does. He reveals and is unable to reveal to those who cling on to traditions and presumptions. I have learned so much since my wife and I approached the Lord in humility asking for further light and knowledge. He gives me a gem one at a time, and each time He gives me a gem ... I'm pretty sure it has been every time ... I'm always taken aback - how can this be? This conflicts with my earlier understanding ... And though it conflicts with my presumptions, as I move forward in faith, the Lord sends me confirmation after confirmation as you have seen unfold in this thread.

Unlike some on LDSFF I am not presumptive. I don't presume to know everything. I am however open to learning and open to being wrong. How sad our culture is today that being wrong is viewed as a weakness.

OK let's look at them being two Olive Trees AND two candlesticks - I'll have to study on this because perhaps there is another scripture elsewhere that refers to two candlesticks. That is certainly a possibility. He does not however say they are 7 candled candlesticks. If they are single candled-candlesticks then the symbolism to me means they are waiting to join the order of seven.

In your interpretation they are two of the seven not two in addition to the seven. You have presumed but have you prayed? In Zechariah these two olive trees are clearly standing in addition to the seven. There are two golden pipes running oil to the trees as well (interesting considering these are olive trees) - but we cannot presume the pipes come from the Lord as it does not specify. It's possible the pipes come from the candlestick which would symbolize the two trees being subservient to the 7.

"Standing before the God of the Earth" - I do not think that means that this can only be Michael or Gabriel. Is there somewhere that it is written that only Gabriel or Michael stand before God? Certainly in the temple James and John stand before Jehovah and receive instructions and return and report.

The two cherubim - Frankly I have not considered their identity, but I really do not think the cherubim represent John or James or Gabriel or Michael. In fact Cherubim have four wings and Seraphim have 6. I personally believe the symbolism is indicative of their level (See my thread on the 7 archangels and the 7 levels of humanity.) I believe cherubim are angels after the order of Aaron and Seraphim are angels after the order of Melchizedek. John and James are Seraphim imho - one level below archangels. Have a look at Gileadi's work that speaks of the Davidic Servant's ascent. This certainly could symbolize going from standing before the Lord to standing beside him.

EDIT:
An important word at the end of Zechariah:
Zechariah 4:14 So he said, “These are the two who are anointed to serve the Lord of all the earth.”
What does anointed mean? It means they are chosen to do something? This is what the olive trees symbolize - they are chosen to gather the branches and to make one tree again ... perhaps the duality symbolizes the fact there are two jerusalems...perhaps it symbolizes a spiritual gathering first .. one being temporal and one physical. This is clearly the job of the Davidic Servant. Also, Joseph Smith has already said John is fulfilling this task:
“John the Revelator was then among the Ten Tribes of Israel who had been led away by Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, to prepare them for their return from their long dispersion” (History of the Church, 1:176).
EDIT EDIT

Thaabit reminded me that Val Brinkeroff believes John to be the Davidic Servant. I can see why as there is certainly parallel scriptures in Revelation and in Isaiah - but I think he is one brother off.

EDIT EDIT EDIT

This third edit is to reply to your subsequent edit. I can see your passion in your typing haha! :)

I do not see where the oil empties into the bowl. I believe it is the other way around and like I mentioned earlier it doesn't specify if the oil comes from the bowl or from the candlestick.
Zechariah 4: 11 ¶ Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof?
12 And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?
13 And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
14 Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.
Verse 12 is sort of hard to read, but the golden pipes empty into the branches. Also, the trees clearly stand beside the candlestick on the left and right side. As for that last sentence, the Lord stands above the seven (see Isaiah 6) and the two stand by the Lord. In this vision, it is clear to me the trees / anointed ones are after the seven in authority.
Last edited by Alaris on May 22nd, 2017, 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dafty
captain of 100
Posts: 428

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by dafty »

:ymhug: hi again,lol
you wrote "The rod of Jesse is defined in the Doctrine and Covenants as the Davidic Servant. Righteousness is used to describe him throughout Isaiah - see Moses 7:62 above.
Revelation 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
Breath/Fire Lips/Mouth Slay/Devour Wicked/Enemies. This is not a coincidence. These are the same people." Correct me If Im wrong. You say James is ROD and ROOT I presume would be John? Just asking a bit off subject I guess. Thanks again for your interesting posts. I shall read and digest ;)

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by Alaris »

dafty wrote: May 22nd, 2017, 1:08 pm :ymhug: hi again,lol
you wrote "The rod of Jesse is defined in the Doctrine and Covenants as the Davidic Servant. Righteousness is used to describe him throughout Isaiah - see Moses 7:62 above.
Revelation 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
Breath/Fire Lips/Mouth Slay/Devour Wicked/Enemies. This is not a coincidence. These are the same people." Correct me If Im wrong. You say James is ROD and ROOT I presume would be John? Just asking a bit off subject I guess. Thanks again for your interesting posts. I shall read and digest ;)
Well let's have a look!
D&C 113:
1 Who is the Stem of Jesse spoken of in the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, and 5th verses of the 11th chapter of Isaiah?
2 Verily thus saith the Lord: It is Christ.
3 What is the rod spoken of in the first verse of the 11th chapter of Isaiah, that should come of the Stem of Jesse?
4 Behold, thus saith the Lord: It is a servant in the hands of Christ, who is partly a descendant of Jesse as well as of Ephraim, or of the house of Joseph, on whom there is laid much power.
5 What is the root of Jesse spoken of in the 10th verse of the 11th chapter?
6 Behold, thus saith the Lord, it is a descendant of Jesse, as well as of Joseph, unto whom rightly belongs the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdom, for an ensign, and for the gathering of my people in the last days.
Both the ROD and the ROOT descendants of Jesse and one is a descendant of Ephraim and one is a descendant of Joseph. That certainly sounds like they could be brothers, but again one of the assumptions I make is that James will be reborn. (If you don't believe in Multiple Mortal Probations please lay all the scriptures about Elias in the NT and the D&C side by side and come back :) ) As such, the genealogy could be slightly different but we all know genealogy is important. Also compare verse 6 and the priesthood / keys to D&C 7 (The whole section is about John's destiny)
D&C 7
5 I say unto thee, Peter, this was a good desire; but my beloved has desired that he might do more, or a greater work yet among men than what he has before done.
6 Yea, he has undertaken a greater work; therefore I will make him as flaming fire and a ministering angel; he shall minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth.
7 And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James; and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come.
Wow! This is certainly synchronous. Also note how verse 7 is future tense.

Now the Davidic Servant (James) is a descendant of Jesse and Ephraim - this makes sense to me since Ephraim has so much to do with restoring Israel.

Honestly I did not consider the root as John before now as many presume (there's that word again) that it's Joseph Smith as have I. This is certainly an interesting possibility! This does remind me of a blog I found months ago when I first learned that James may indeed be the Davidic Servant:

http://ldssoul.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=241


Again, the poster is saying that John is the Davidic Servant. However, all the reasoning he uses can be applied to his brother James! You have to presume it can't be James to settle on John (just like you have to presume John can't die even if the giver, the Lord Himself, wills it.) The death of the two anointed ones are a type of Christ are they not??

From MarkMyWords' post:
In contrast, I have the writings of John Lennox in his book, "Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists Are Missing the Target" page 208.

First, let me introduce John Lennox. John Lennox is an Oxford Professor and Mathematician and Philosopher; and, John Lennox is one of the premier Christian Apologists of our age. John Lennox has debated the New Atheists in person. From everything that I have seen of John Lennox, he is a premier researcher, and he goes out of his way to get his facts straight. If John Lennox prints it, then I consider it accurate and true, because he always has evidence for what he writes.

On page 208 of "Gunning for God", John Lennox writes: "Jesus' mother's sister was called Salome, and [Salome] was the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John." Simple, and true. It fits precisely with what the LDS Bible Dictionary is telling us -- James and John are the sons of Zebedee, and Salome is Zebedee's wife. That's what the LDS Bible Dictionary says!

This would mean that James and John would call Mary the mother of Jesus, "Aunt Mary". This would also mean that Jesus Christ would call Salome the sister of Mary, "Aunt Salome". This would make Jesus Christ, James, and John first cousins. This also means that if Jesus Christ has a legal right to be the Davidic Servant through his mother Mary, then James and John have an equal legal right to be the Davidic Servant through their mother Salome.

Furthermore, if Zebedee is the heir to the Throne of Israel, the true heir to the House of Ephraim, then it's possible that James and John have more of the blood of Ephraim, the birthright son, within their bones than Jesus Christ does.
So James and John are certainly descendants of Jesse if Jesus' mother is their aunt. This certainly is yet more evidence to back up what I've been saying - that James is the Davidic Servant and John is the second witness---especially when you link this to D&C 113. Thanks Dafty!

EDIT: As I ponder on this, if the root is Joseph Smith, why would the revelation say that he is a descendant of Joseph and not Ephraim?

EDIT EDIT:
Here is the scripture referenced in D&C 113 referring to the root who may be John.
Isaiah 11:10 ¶ And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
His rest shall be glorious? Why mention his rest unless .. he's been walking around for 2,000 years. Rest indeed.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Added D&C 7 verses & commentary

EDIT X4: The term "candlestick" in Reve 11:4 is from the greek word: λυχνίαι which means "lampstand" Compared to Revelation 1:20 -

Rev 1:20

"and the seven lampstands are the seven"

From Rev 11:4
"and the two lampstands that stand"

So apples to apples it appears as though the candlesticks in 11:4 are two lone candles if you compare them to the 7 candlesticks in Rev 1:20. These are not candelabrum.

from http://biblehub.com/greek/luchniai_3087.htm

dafty
captain of 100
Posts: 428

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by dafty »

Hi sorry for another quick post. Ill prob have to edit it again lol one of these days i should sit down and make my point tidily with scriptural references...we shall see but for now quick couple of points:
1stly. You say 2 Olive Trees are beside 7 Archangels. However, if you read Rev 1:20 7 candelsticks/lampstands are 7 churches (Ecclesia-congregation or family). The Archangels are 7 STARS. Therefore, in Zachariah 4 , we see 7 candled menorah that illustrates 7 FAMILIES not ANGELS. ANGLES are STARS that The Lord holds in His right hand(Rev1). I personally believe stars come from/are associated with the 'FAMILIES '.
2ndly. "THESE ARE TWO CANDELSTICKS"- why would 2 individuals be two Families(candelsticks=ecclesia Rev1:20)? Well, my opinion is they are a bit like two sticks of the Ezekiel 37, and will come from Joseph and Judah and stand at the Partriarchal Head of their familes/lineages.
AS I SAID, IM NOT PREACHING HERE MORE LIKE ASKING QUESTIONS. LET ME KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS X

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by Alaris »

dafty wrote: May 23rd, 2017, 2:07 am Hi sorry for another quick post. Ill prob have to edit it again lol one of these days i should sit down and make my point tidily with scriptural references...we shall see but for now quick couple of points:
1stly. You say 2 Olive Trees are beside 7 Archangels. However, if you read Rev 1:20 7 candelsticks/lampstands are 7 churches (Ecclesia-congregation or family). The Archangels are 7 STARS. Therefore, in Zachariah 4 , we see 7 candled menorah that illustrates 7 FAMILIES not ANGELS. ANGLES are STARS that The Lord holds in His right hand(Rev1). I personally believe stars come from/are associated with the 'FAMILIES '.
2ndly. "THESE ARE TWO CANDELSTICKS"- why would 2 individuals be two Families(candelsticks=ecclesia Rev1:20)? Well, my opinion is they are a bit like two sticks of the Ezekiel 37, and will come from Joseph and Judah and stand at the Partriarchal Head of their familes/lineages.
AS I SAID, IM NOT PREACHING HERE MORE LIKE ASKING QUESTIONS. LET ME KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS X
John saw from the beginning to the end, and I am positive he knew the seven churches were not going to stick around much longer after he recorded his revelation. The number 7 is highly symbolic of spiritual progression, and I believe each of the seven archangels are given charge over each of these levels. Though the candlesticks represent the churches in Revelation, the symbolism likely does not end there. You say they represent "families" - yet I feel they represent orders or classes of beings. Ecclesia from wikipedia:
Ecclesia (or Ekklesia) in Christian theology means both: a particular body of faithful people, and the whole body of the faithful. Latin ecclesia, from Greek ekklesia had an original meaning of "assembly, congregation, council", literally "convocation".
I like bodies of people more than families - if you feel family is a better term, do you believe these are tribes or like tribes? The tribes themselves I believe are sub-classes of spiritual progression though I have not deciphered that completely ... yet. The symbolism of the tribes encampment order and the wall around new Jerusalem that John describes in revelation each comprise of a square with three tribes along each wall. I believe the square represents the order of Aaron, so my current direction of thought is the 12 tribes are all sub-classes or steps of spiritual progression to master the order of Aaron. The order of Melchizedek is much smaller in number - perhaps that is the symbolism behind Joseph's tribe splitting - to account for the Melchizedek order spawning from the Aaronic order - then the order of Ephraim bringing the fullness of the gospel to Manasseh would be highly symbolic indeed.

If you have not taken a look already, please see my post on the significance of the 7 archangels with spiritual progression:

viewtopic.php?t=45353

Coincidentally enough (or not) I use the 8 uses of the word "overcometh" in Revelation to discuss each of the seven levels, including the 8th which is Jesus Christ Himself. There would be no need for an eight candlestick as they may indeed represent each of these levels of progression as well as the archangel who is given charge over each. I also make the case that each dispensation head shows the ultimate example of overcoming their respective level.

Avraham Gileadi has also written on 7 levels of beings, but his differs a bit from mine, though I've only skimmed over it once:
Finally, I do not think the 7-headed candlestick in Zechariah 4 represents the 7 churches. What would be the purpose of that as the seven churches didn't last long and didn't achieve much that we know of? It is this vision that John references when he mentions the two olive trees, which to me, gives further significance to the 7 churches themselves representing these orders or classes of beings. Each level requires light for it to progress to the following level - which is what the church & archangels both do.

dafty
captain of 100
Posts: 428

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by dafty »

alaris wrote: May 23rd, 2017, 11:12 am
dafty wrote: May 23rd, 2017, 2:07 am Hi sorry for another quick post. Ill prob have to edit it again lol one of these days i should sit down and make my point tidily with scriptural references...we shall see but for now quick couple of points:
1stly. You say 2 Olive Trees are beside 7 Archangels. However, if you read Rev 1:20 7 candelsticks/lampstands are 7 churches (Ecclesia-congregation or family). The Archangels are 7 STARS. Therefore, in Zachariah 4 , we see 7 candled menorah that illustrates 7 FAMILIES not ANGELS. ANGLES are STARS that The Lord holds in His right hand(Rev1). I personally believe stars come from/are associated with the 'FAMILIES '.
2ndly. "THESE ARE TWO CANDELSTICKS"- why would 2 individuals be two Families(candelsticks=ecclesia Rev1:20)? Well, my opinion is they are a bit like two sticks of the Ezekiel 37, and will come from Joseph and Judah and stand at the Partriarchal Head of their familes/lineages.
AS I SAID, IM NOT PREACHING HERE MORE LIKE ASKING QUESTIONS. LET ME KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS X
John saw from the beginning to the end, and I am positive he knew the seven churches were not going to stick around much longer after he recorded his revelation. The number 7 is highly symbolic of spiritual progression, and I believe each of the seven archangels are given charge over each of these levels. Though the candlesticks represent the churches in Revelation, the symbolism likely does not end there. You say they represent "families" - yet I feel they represent orders or classes of beings. Ecclesia from wikipedia:
Ecclesia (or Ekklesia) in Christian theology means both: a particular body of faithful people, and the whole body of the faithful. Latin ecclesia, from Greek ekklesia had an original meaning of "assembly, congregation, council", literally "convocation".
I like bodies of people more than families - if you feel family is a better term, do you believe these are tribes or like tribes? The tribes themselves I believe are sub-classes of spiritual progression though I have not deciphered that completely ... yet. The symbolism of the tribes encampment order and the wall around new Jerusalem that John describes in revelation each comprise of a square with three tribes along each wall. I believe the square represents the order of Aaron, so my current direction of thought is the 12 tribes are all sub-classes or steps of spiritual progression to master the order of Aaron. The order of Melchizedek is much smaller in number - perhaps that is the symbolism behind Joseph's tribe splitting - to account for the Melchizedek order spawning from the Aaronic order - then the order of Ephraim bringing the fullness of the gospel to Manasseh would be highly symbolic indeed.

If you have not taken a look already, please see my post on the significance of the 7 archangels with spiritual progression:

viewtopic.php?t=45353

Coincidentally enough (or not) I use the 8 uses of the word "overcometh" in Revelation to discuss each of the seven levels, including the 8th which is Jesus Christ Himself. There would be no need for an eight candlestick as they may indeed represent each of these levels of progression as well as the archangel who is given charge over each. I also make the case that each dispensation head shows the ultimate example of overcoming their respective level.

Avraham Gileadi has also written on 7 levels of beings, but his differs a bit from mine, though I've only skimmed over it once:
Finally, I do not think the 7-headed candlestick in Zechariah 4 represents the 7 churches. What would be the purpose of that as the seven churches didn't last long and didn't achieve much that we know of? It is this vision that John references when he mentions the two olive trees, which to me, gives further significance to the 7 churches themselves representing these orders or classes of beings. Each level requires light for it to progress to the following level - which is what the church & archangels both do.
Thanks a lot for your very insightful input. Much appreciated x

User avatar
thaabit
captain of 100
Posts: 231
Location: Utah

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by thaabit »

Gileadi explains Isaiah's allegory of the olive tree (Isaiah 11) along these lines (and don't quote me, this is just how I recall it). You have the stem of Jesse which is the trunk of the olive tree (Christ as explained in D&C 113). The various natural branches are broken off and moved to various parts of the vineyard (Jacob 5). Gileadi concludes that to be the Lamanites, the Jews, and the 10 tribes from the Book of Mormon. Then in order to graft the natural branches back in, a rod or sapling emerges from one of the stumps in the original tree. That sapling can never bear fruit, but it can be used to graft back in the natural branch which can then bear fruit. In order to do that, the sapling must grow up and then be cut off at the root and the natural branch spliced in at that point. However, a small piece of that rod remains in the new branch where it joins it to the original tree (the holy seed, which could be the 144k and their ilk). From that rod comes the branch in Isaiah 11:1. Jeremiah also references a branch of righteousness (righteousness being a term that references the DS in Isaiah according to Gileadi).
Jeremiah 33:15
In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/jer/3 ... ng=eng#p14
The only time Isaiah uses the same term (tsemach) for branch is here (and it seems a millenial context):
Isaiah 4:2-3
2 In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.
3 And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/isa/4.2?lang=eng#p1
Then in Isaiah 11:10 it references a root of Jesse. Could there possibly be 3 servants mentioned here (rod, branch, root)? I'm not really sure myself. I will say that the rod being partly a descendent of Jesse, and the root being a descendent makes it seem like one is direct and the other indirect. I find the use of the term Jesse curious, to be sure. Why Jesse, and not David?

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by Alaris »

thaabit wrote: May 23rd, 2017, 4:48 pm Then in Isaiah 11:10 it references a root of Jesse. Could there possibly be 3 servants mentioned here (rod, branch, root)? I'm not really sure myself. I will say that the rod being partly a descendant of Jesse, and the root being a descendant makes it seem like one is direct and the other indirect. I find the use of the term Jesse curious, to be sure. Why Jesse, and not David?
I think Jesse is used rather than David because Jospeh Smith taught "the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his lineage" (TPJS, p. 339) In other words David did not fulfill the full measure of his sonship to Jesse and therefore others must fulfill the Davidic Covenant.

Excellent question about "partly." How is someone partly a descendant? You are either descended from someone or you're not ... unless you are adopted in maybe? Or perhaps the language means "part" Jesse and "Part" Ephraim. Here is a third possibility:

I think partly could mean - dare I say it here - that the Rod was a direct descendant of Jesse in a past probation. Reread the verse with that in mind:
D&C 113:4 Behold, thus saith the Lord: It is a servant in the hands of Christ, who is partly a descendant of Jesse as well as of Ephraim, or of the house of Joseph, on whom there is laid much power.
Contrast the Rod to the Root
D&C 113:6 Behold, thus saith the Lord, it is a descendant of Jesse, as well as of Joseph, unto whom rightly belongs the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdom, for an ensign, and for the gathering of my people in the last days.
So the root is of Jesse and of Joseph without "partly" thrown in there. Certainly since it is the Lord speaking here, the chances of the language being different - just because - is slim to none.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by brianj »

alaris wrote: May 21st, 2017, 9:24 pm You are very clearly not upset. You married your pride to your narrow definitions of what can or can't happen to your own detriment. I know this because my faith became knowledge and you started with a declaration of presumption and pride and have clung to it despite my countering every little thing. How can I be upset? I learned something new and the Lord has given me more to support this knowledge at every turn.

D&C 7 is an amazing scripture. Saying that John will live until Jesus approaches in His glory cleary reinforces what I have been saying. It repeats the promise John will prophecy to all nations again...but that can't possibly be as one of the two witnesses because Brianj said. Well of Brianj and Alaris only one of us has considered this with an open heart and prayed on it. The other... Well it's readily apparent why it's so beyond silly to start a conversation with "You are wrong."

For you to be "right" you are clinging onto only one possibile definition of coming as though it refers to the final events which is how so many close their eyes lest they see their ears lest they hear and their hearts lest they understand and are converted and healed.

Your justification not to pray or consider this truth is not only to your own detriment but to any reader swayed by your narrow understanding of what's possible. A year ago I may have been swayed by what you're saying.

Saying that you have no need to pray but have clearly spent much more time trying to save face is exactly what I referred to with Moses and his staff. Not looking because of pride. Maybe this isn't essential.... Or perhaps that's yet another presumption based of pride. Maybe learning John is one of the two will help you recognize him when he starts to prophecy to all nations... With another witness... while those waiting for 2 of the 15 will presume, "This can't be him so why should I even spend 5 minutes pondering and pray with an open heart."

For those who aren't closed minded to this possibility ... Take a look at the final verses of D&C 7. Peter will minister to James and John. Very interesting....
Nice job with the ad hominem attacks. According to you I am:
married to my pride
Someone who refuses to pray
presumptive
closed minded

Did I miss any of your attacks against my person?
I said that I don't feel the need to pray for information that is not directly related to my salvation and you somehow twisted that to claim that I do not pray?

There is obviously no reason for me to reply to anything you post after I hit the submit button in a moment. After accusing me of pridefulness then throwing so many personal attacks my way I have to wonder when you last looked in the mirror. And, since you seem to have difficulty understanding may of the things I have previously said, let me specify that by "looked in the mirror" I was figuratively referring to undertaking a little personal introspection as opposed to looking at an optical reflection of yourself.

dafty
captain of 100
Posts: 428

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by dafty »

thaabit wrote: May 23rd, 2017, 4:48 pm
Then in Isaiah 11:10 it references a root of Jesse. Could there possibly be 3 servants mentioned here (rod, branch, root)? I'm not really sure myself...
In Gileadi's own words:"The identity of the shoot, stock, and branch appears from clues in Isaiah’s olive tree allegory. The words “of Jesse” (vv 1, 10) yield a Davidic and messianic identity for all three individuals. The sprig that is grafted into the shoot—which becomes the fruit-bearing branch—is Jehovah’s end-time servant who represents Israel’s ethnic lineages (vv 10-12; Isaiah 4:2). The shoot into which the sprig is grafted—that does not, in the end, bear fruit—is a servant of Jehovah who represents Israel’s assimilated lineages. The stock is Jehovah, who represents his people Israel as a whole (cf. Isaiah 53:2)."(IsaiahExplained, Apocalyptic Commentary)
thanx

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by Alaris »

The Rod and the Root - The Two Witnesses? I color coded the links that tie the scriptures together - Isaiah 11, Moses 7, and Revelation 11 - to show that the Rod and the Root are the two witnesses! I've already mentioned some of these points and scriptures in this thread, but I thought I would tie these four scriptures together to show how they all tie together.

D&C 113 adds some clarity as to whom the Rod and the Root are as mentioned in Isaiah 11.
D&C 113:
3 What is the rod spoken of in the first verse of the 11th chapter of Isaiah, that should come of the Stem of Jesse?
4 Behold, thus saith the Lord: It is a servant in the hands of Christ, who is partly a descendant of Jesse as well as of Ephraim, or of the house of Joseph, on whom there is laid much power.
5 What is the root of Jesse spoken of in the 10th verse of the 11th chapter?
6 Behold, thus saith the Lord, it is a descendant of Jesse, as well as of Joseph, unto whom rightly belongs the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdom, for an ensign, and for the gathering of my people in the last days.
There are keywords and phrases to tie these together. I have color coded them so they can be matched easily.
Isaiah 11
Davidic Servant
1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
2 And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord;
3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
Righteousness is one of the key words Isaiah uses to describe the Davidic Servant. This word ties into Moses 7:62. Slaying with the breath of his lips I have made orange and ties into Revelation 11.
The Root - John?
10 ¶ And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
13 The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.
The root of Jesse is a separate person. His rest shall be glorious perhaps because he's had a very long day of labor (2000+ years.) Isaiah 11:12 The gathering from the four corners of the earth ties into Moses 7:62 in addition to Isaiah 11:4-5 tying the key word "Righteousness" into Moses 7:62.
Moses 7
Righteousness = The Rod, Davidic Servant, Truth = The Root
61 And the day shall come that the earth shall rest, but before that day the heavens shall be darkened, and a veil of darkness shall cover the earth; and the heavens shall shake, and also the earth; and great tribulations shall be among the children of men, but my people will I preserve;
62 And righteousness will I send down out of heaven; and truth will I send forth out of the earth , to bear testimony of mine Only Begotten; his resurrection from the dead; yea, and also the resurrection of all men; and righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, an Holy City, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem.
I believe truth coming from the earth (as opposed to righteousness being sent down out of heaven) refers to John who has been on a long, earthly sojourn. Moreover, the person is referred to as a ROOT in Isaiah 11 - A root comes from .... that's right! OUT OF THE EARTH! If John is the root, then the symbolism is rich - he's been here all along ... hidden ... yet working and growing for the sake of the Olive Tree. (Jacob 5.)
Revelation 11:

1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.
Isaiah 11 - he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
and
Revelation 11 - fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies.

Breath of his lips /fire proceedeth out of their mouth | slay the wicked / devoureth their enemies. I think that's a pretty huge clue that the Davidic Servant is one of the two witnesses. Hrm ... 11:11 ... maybe that's why I keep seeing that.

Lastly the mentioning of an earthquake aligns Revelation 11 to Moses 7:61.

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by Alaris »

Matthew 20:
20 ¶ Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
I wonder if verse 23 is a prophecy of the two witnesses who will be overcome and will be dead 3.5 days - with an earthquake that accompanies their deaths no less:
Revelation 11:
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by Alaris »

alaris wrote: May 24th, 2017, 11:59 am The Rod and the Root - The Two Witnesses? I color coded the links that tie the scriptures together - Isaiah 11, Moses 7, and Revelation 11 - to show that the Rod and the Root are the two witnesses! I've already mentioned some of these points and scriptures in this thread, but I thought I would tie these four scriptures together to show how they all tie together.

D&C 113 adds some clarity as to whom the Rod and the Root are as mentioned in Isaiah 11.
D&C 113:
3 What is the rod spoken of in the first verse of the 11th chapter of Isaiah, that should come of the Stem of Jesse?
4 Behold, thus saith the Lord: It is a servant in the hands of Christ, who is partly a descendant of Jesse as well as of Ephraim, or of the house of Joseph, on whom there is laid much power.
5 What is the root of Jesse spoken of in the 10th verse of the 11th chapter?
6 Behold, thus saith the Lord, it is a descendant of Jesse, as well as of Joseph, unto whom rightly belongs the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdom, for an ensign, and for the gathering of my people in the last days.
There are keywords and phrases to tie these together. I have color coded them so they can be matched easily.
Isaiah 11
Davidic Servant
1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
2 And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord;
3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
Righteousness is one of the key words Isaiah uses to describe the Davidic Servant. This word ties into Moses 7:62. Slaying with the breath of his lips I have made orange and ties into Revelation 11.
The Root - John?
10 ¶ And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
13 The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.
The root of Jesse is a separate person. His rest shall be glorious perhaps because he's had a very long day of labor (2000+ years.) Isaiah 11:12 The gathering from the four corners of the earth ties into Moses 7:62 in addition to Isaiah 11:4-5 tying the key word "Righteousness" into Moses 7:62.
Moses 7
Righteousness = The Rod, Davidic Servant, Truth = The Root
61 And the day shall come that the earth shall rest, but before that day the heavens shall be darkened, and a veil of darkness shall cover the earth; and the heavens shall shake, and also the earth; and great tribulations shall be among the children of men, but my people will I preserve;
62 And righteousness will I send down out of heaven; and truth will I send forth out of the earth , to bear testimony of mine Only Begotten; his resurrection from the dead; yea, and also the resurrection of all men; and righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, an Holy City, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem.
I believe truth coming from the earth (as opposed to righteousness being sent down out of heaven) refers to John who has been on a long, earthly sojourn. Moreover, the person is referred to as a ROOT in Isaiah 11 - A root comes from .... that's right! OUT OF THE EARTH! If John is the root, then the symbolism is rich - he's been here all along ... hidden ... yet working and growing for the sake of the Olive Tree. (Jacob 5.)
Revelation 11:

1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.
Isaiah 11 - he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
and
Revelation 11 - fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies.

Breath of his lips /fire proceedeth out of their mouth | slay the wicked / devoureth their enemies. I think that's a pretty huge clue that the Davidic Servant is one of the two witnesses. Hrm ... 11:11 ... maybe that's why I keep seeing that.

Lastly the mentioning of an earthquake aligns Revelation 11 to Moses 7:61.
An interesting reference to truth and righteousness who I believe to be the two witnesses where the same words may represent them as the rod and the root respectively in my post above. This is from the Rabbi Kaduri prophecy and an excerpt from what his son and grandson reported:
Kaduri’s Portrayal of the Messiah

A few months before Kaduri died at the age of 108, he surprised his followers when he told them that he met the Messiah. Kaduri gave a message in his synagogue on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, teaching how to recognize the Messiah. He also mentioned that the Messiah would appear to Israel after Ariel Sharon’s death. (The former prime minister is still in a coma after suffering a massive stroke more than a year ago.) Other rabbis predict the same, including Rabbi Haim Cohen, kabbalist Nir Ben Artzi and the wife of Rabbi Haim Kneiveskzy.

Kaduri’s grandson, Rabbi Yosef Kaduri, said his grandfather spoke many times during his last days about the coming of the Messiah and redemption through the Messiah. His spiritual portrayals of the Messiah—reminiscent of New Testament accounts—were published on the websites Kaduri.net and Nfc:

“It is hard for many good people in the society to understand the person of the Messiah. The leadership and order of a Messiah of flesh and blood is hard to accept for many in the nation. As leader, the Messiah will not hold any office, but will be among the people and use the media to communicate. His reign will be pure and without personal or political desire. During his dominion, only righteousness and truth will reign.

“Will all believe in the Messiah right away? No, in the beginning some of us will believe in him and some not. It will be easier for non-religious people to follow the Messiah than for Orthodox people.

“The revelation of the Messiah will be fulfilled in two stages: First, he will actively confirm his position as Messiah without knowing himself that he is the Messiah. Then he will reveal himself to some Jews, not necessarily to wise Torah scholars. It can be even simple people. Only then he will reveal himself to the whole nation. The people will wonder and say: ‘What, that’s the Messiah?’ Many have known his name but have not believed that he is the Messiah.” ~from http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/t ... fault.aspx
That last paragraph obviously isn't a reference to the Messiah but could be a reference to the lesser YAHWEH or the Davidic Servant. At some point, the Davidic Servant is told to Awake and Arise by Jehovah. (Isaiah 51:9.)

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by Alaris »

This just keeps getting better and better:
Matthew 20: 20 ¶ Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Mark 10:35 ¶ And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.
36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?
37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.
38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.
So first about the right hand and left. I submit to you that James and John may have had an inkling as to what their missions were by this point in time. They grew up with Jesus after all and knew him longer than any of the other Apostles. Did they ask this out of the blue? Did they not know that Peter was the chief apostle?
Daniel 12: 5 ¶ Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river.
6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?
7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.
In case there could be any mistaking, the time, times, and half a time are referring to the prophecies in Revelation - 3.5 years / 3.5 days / 42 months / 1260 days - all factors of 3.5
Zechariah 4:11 ¶ Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof?
12 And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?
13 And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
14 Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.
Zechariah 4 and Daniel 12 are referring to the end time prophecies of the two witnesses. John himself identifies the two witnesses with the two olive trees.

Back to the scriptures in Matthew and Mark where the Lord asks James and John if they can partake of the cup? They answer yes like any good disciple would. Then, he tells them they shall - future tense - and they shall be baptized with the same baptism of Jesus. What is the baptism Jesus was baptized with? James and John surely had been baptized already - and what does baptism symbolize? Death, Burial, and Resurrection. Well you can make the case that James partook of that baptism when he was martyred. However, John is still alive ...
Revelation 11:11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
So the two witnesses suffering on behalf of Israel, their death for 3.5 days, and subsequent resurrection - I say that qualifies as a fulfillment of the prophecy made by Jesus Christ Himself that James and John will partake of the cup will be baptized with the same baptism.

Oh and thank you dafty for pointing out Jeremiah 30 to me:
Jeremiah 30:10 ¶ Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith the Lord; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid.
James is Greek for Jacob.
Daniel 8:3 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last.
4 I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.
Verse four sure fits with the other scriptures I've mentioned in this thread - Gathering the elect from the four corners of the earth. Power is given to the two witnesses and "no beasts might stand before him."

The horns also fit for James and John. James is higher in authority - the taller horn ... and he came up last "Out of heaven" where the smaller horn came from "out of the earth" - being here and hidden all along.

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by Alaris »

And better:
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 77)
14 Q. What are we to understand by the little book which was eaten by John, as mentioned in the 10th chapter of Revelation?
A. We are to understand that it was a mission, and an ordinance, for him to gather the tribes of Israel; behold, this is Elias, who, as it is written, must come and restore all things.

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by Alaris »

I keep on receiving information like a floodgate about this topic, but I can see that I have somewhat hijacked this thread as some of what I'm saying doesn't support the OP but is supporting my secondary claim that the first witness is James / Jacob (maybe one and the same.) Apologies to Frank / friendsofthe for taking over the thread. I have tried to avoid a blog, but I see no other way. Once I finish gathering enough information together, I will make one blog post and link to it in a new thread. A sneak preview to any lurkers whom I have may swayed - One witness represents Justice and one represents Mercy - one New Jerusalem - one Old Jerusalem - One Elohim and One Jehovah - and the numbers given - the key - 3.5 years, 1260 days, and 3.5 days I have ... well the key to .. unlock that key. That sounded better in my head. Understanding the significance of 3.5 is a key that will unlock the understanding of WHY the witnesses must die and why the Lord Jesus Christ's Prophecy to James and John partaking of the cup and the baptism of Jesus Christ's baptism is so beautiful and significant. I'll be sure to add all props where due as I didn't even take a second look at this until friendsofthe posted this thread, and dafty sent tons of relevant information my way. Thanks all! I'll post this as soon as I can get it together but it is a TON of information at this point. @-)

User avatar
friendsofthe
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1904
Location: Payson, Utah
Contact:

Re: The Second Woe and the "two witnesses"...

Post by friendsofthe »

Well, thanks for the apology but I personally feel that your postings are relevant enough to this thread, so post away! However, I have a problem with James being one of the two witnesses since he has already died. Joseph Smith said that those who are translated have a future mission to perform. So I'm good with John but not so much with James.... :)

Post Reply