Talk:Second Coming in Mormonism

message: Recently, I keep noticing that the Second Coming theology about the temple that is to be built in Jerusalem keeps getting changed to some other temple outside of the LDS religion. Being exceptionally well versed in LDS theology, I understand that the LDS church believes that it is an LDS temple.  The LDS people refer to all LDS temples as just temples. They usually don't say, "Hey, look at our LDS temple over there!", or "We need to go to our LDS church today!". They refer to them as just a temple or a church, so I understand that it can cause some confusion as to what an LDS person is referring to. However, using some common sense here, it's easy to see that it would be fairly inane for the LDS church to believe anything other than the return of Christ to an LDS temple.  The LDS church believes that it is the one true church on the face of the earth. It believes that the church is led by Christ. It is one of the few temple building religions, believing them and the work done in them to be sacred and the work of God.  So why would it make any sense for a religion, believing that they are led by Christ to build temples and do the work within, to believe he will return to someone else's temple?
I have now added two different apostles teaching to the article about the temple that is to be built in Jerusalem confirming this. I fail to see why an apostles teaching from 1877 is less relevant because of the amount of time that has passed. By this logic the bible should be deprecated 2000 times over. If you feel the need to change it to some other temple, let's discuss it first so we can come to a consensus on what the official doctrine of the church is.
Much appreciated. Lothimos (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The temple in Jerusalem 

message: On July 6th, several changes to this article, and while most of the change were beneficial and appreciated, there is one major thing that I felt detracted from the article and I wanted to find out what the rest of the article's audience opinion was.
Prior to the edits, all scriptural references were made in-line, for example: There will appear a great sign in the heaven, and all the people shall see it. (Matt. 24:30 KJV). The current version has them all as foot notes, so that they now display as There will appear a great sign in the heaven, and all the people shall see it.Matt. 24:30 KJV . I find that the article was easier to read with scriptural references as in-line references and other references as foot notes. This made it very easy to understand what was being used from references and what were being used from scriptures. Wikipedia's guidelines says that whatever referencing scheme you us, it just needs to be consistent throughout the article.
My vote is obviously for the old way, and 208.81.184.4 obviously prefers the new way. What are your thoughts about it?
Are there any other edit thoughts we should consider as an audience? 
Thanks,
Lothimos (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, that is July 6, 2011‎ (more than 3 years ago). - 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline scriptural references vs. footnotes. 

message: The Ludlow article in the 1972 issue of Ensign says that in 1841 "there were fewer than 5,000 Jewish people in the entire land of Palestine," but this does not mean there were fewer than 5,000 *people* in the entire land of Palestine.  Further, 5,000 is a plausible estimate for the numbers of Jews in Jerusalem, given  other estimates from the era, but not for the number of Jews in all of Palestine.
Artificialintel (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious Ensign Reference

message: What is the real purpose of placing the notice "This Section uncritically uses texts from within a religion or faith system without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them."?  Since this is an article that is clearly and only about one faith's beliefs, why would we not use texts from within that religion or faith system?  I'd really love to see a secondary source outside that faith system that understands the faith system better than the faith system itself.  TLP (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Secondary Sources