The Rising Generation
Posted by Connor on October 2nd, 2006
At the April 6, 1843, General Conference of the Church, Joseph Smith declared:
There are those of the rising genertation who shall not taste death till Christ comes.
Commenting on this, Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated:
The rising generation us the one that has just begun. Thus, technically, children born on April 6, 1843 would be the first members of the rising generation. It is not unreasonable to suppose that many young men had babies at the time of this prophecy and also had other children as much as 50 or 75 years later assuming for instance that they were married again to younger women. This very probable assumption would bring the date up to, say, the 2nd decade in the 20th century and the children so born would be members of that same rising generation of which the Prophet spoke Now if these children lived to the normal age of men generally, they would be alive well past the year 2000 A.D.
This reasoning takes on added significance when considered in connection with the revelation which states categorically that Christ will come “in the begining of the seventh thousands” of the earth’s temporal continuance. (D&C 77:6, 12)
—Mormon Doctrine, p. 692-3
Thiis SHIELDS article discusses the statements attributed to Joseph, with one reference discussing how such a prophesy might be fulfilled by John or the Three Nephites:
This example demonstrates that the fact that a prophet said that some then living would not taste death until Christ came does not necessarily mean that the second coming would be within one human life span of the time of the statement.
However, John and the Three Nephites, though alive at the time of this prophecy, wouldn’t be classified as part of that “rising generation”.
How have you all reconciled this prophecy? Any additional insight or hearsay as to what it might mean? 
Some may hate this, but I wonder if Joseph might have been speculating a bit. How would he know? Are we not told that no one knows the time of His coming?
Comment # 1 left by Eric Nielson on October 3rd, 2006
Are we not told that no one knows the time of His coming?
We’re told that nobody knows the hour or the day. But what about the year or decade?
Comment # 2 left by Connor Boyack on October 3rd, 2006
Some may hate this, but I wonder if Joseph might have been speculating a bit.
I find it interesting that anyone can say that Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, … Spencer W. Kimball, or Ezra Taft Benson was uninspired or speculating on a given statement, without anyone being bothered. However if one says that about Joseph Smith or the current prophet was uninspired or speculating, then all hell breaks loose.
Comment # 3 left by the narrator on October 3rd, 2006
A problem arises when people think they understand what the word generation means. When Joseph used the word in this context I think it is pretty clear he didn’t mean a decade or even a life-time. Rather, it seems quite clear he meant (as did Moroni) something closer to what we think of as a dispensation.
Moroni reported to Joseph:
Sure, it’s true that Joseph witnessed great desolations etc.; but I don’t think that is what Moroni meant–plus, aren’t “famines” and “pestilence” pretty much a constant?
So, for me it all comes down to how you define “generation”; and it seems obvious that in this context it means dispensation.
Comment # 4 left by Wade on October 3rd, 2006
Wade:
I can somewhat see that possibility in the definition of the word “generation”, but that definition can’t always hold true. For example, see 4 Nephi 1:14,18,22,48.
Comment # 5 left by Connor Boyack on October 3rd, 2006
You’re right, it can’t always hold true. The problem is determining when it is true!
I don’t think there is ANY doubt Joseph was speculating (and he would probably be the first one to admit that). Thus, I think his usage of the word “generation” was intentional and a means to make his statement abstract and flexible! He was too smart of a man to allege he knew the time of the second coming!
Comment # 6 left by Wade on October 3rd, 2006
Wade, I think you are right. This is further evidenced by the beginning of the quote I cited. The full text (as we have it):
I think the caveat “were I going to prophesy…” indicates he was offering his own opinion, nothing more.
Anybody disagree?
Comment # 7 left by Connor Boyack on October 3rd, 2006
Connor,
You sly devil, holding out on the full context to stir some debate.
I like your style!
Comment # 8 left by Wade on October 3rd, 2006
A problem arises when people think they understand what the word generation means. When Joseph used the word in this context I think it is pretty clear he didn’t mean a decade or even a life-time.
I disagree. From Joseph Smith’s other revelations concerning the timing as well as how so many of those around him interpreted it, it seems that Joseph did believe that Christ was going to return in the late 19th century.
Comment # 9 left by the narrator on October 3rd, 2006
I disagree.
And that’s the beauty of freedom!
I would be interested in your take on the “other revelations”. But unfortunately, it is fundamentally false to impute to a person beliefs based on how others interpret his statements. If this was logical, we would be in quite a mess!
Comment # 10 left by Wade on October 3rd, 2006
I think we need to suppose that in this situation, as in most, a loving prophet was trying to inspire/ warn/ teach/ strengthen the membership. We really don’t know what he saw with his prophetic eyes or exactly what he meant. He was enlivening him brothers and sisters. It’s like food storage. We’ve been told for years that we need it, to have it on hand in preparation. If they had said “the rising generation” will need it, more of us would probably have it. -
Comment # 11 left by Okie on October 3rd, 2006
I would be interested in your take on the “other revelationsâ€.
Grant Underwood does a good look at this in his “Millenarian World of Early Mormonism.” A far better treatment than I ever could.
it is fundamentally false to impute to a person beliefs based on how others interpret his statements.
That is standard exegetical methodology.
We really don’t know what he saw with his prophetic eyes or exactly what he meant. He was enlivening him brothers and sisters.
Brigham Young said that the Adam-God Doctrine was revealed to him. We quickly and without hesitance are able to say that he was speculating or uninspired. The same goes with so many other statements by prophets. Why are we so reluctant to say the same about some of Joseph Smith’s statements?
Comment # 12 left by the narrator on October 3rd, 2006
Narrator:
I said: “It is fundamentally false to impute beliefs to a person based on how others interpret his statements.”
And you said: “That is standard exegetical methodology.”
Your response is a non sequitur! I don’t care whether exegetes impute beliefs to people in their feable attempt to decipher meaning from text. It still remains a fundamentally inaccurate means for determining what someone actually believed.
We quickly and without hesitance are able to say that he was speculating or uninspired.
Who is “we”? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
The name Adam is generic and connotes prototypical man. But I digress, this is substance for another post.
Comment # 13 left by Wade on October 3rd, 2006
Your response is a non sequitur! I don’t care whether exegetes impute beliefs to people in their feable attempt to decipher meaning from text. It still remains a fundamentally inaccurate means for determining what someone actually believed.
This is what I originally said:
“From Joseph Smith’s other revelations concerning the timing as well as how so many of those around him interpreted it, it seems that Joseph did believe that Christ was going to return in the late 19th century.”
This was hardly a non sequitar. It would only be one if I were making some sort of deductive (logically necessary) claim. I used ’seems’ because I don’t believe we can say that Joseph Smith necessarily believed this. It is an inductive claim using a certain methodology.
To claim that only deductive arguments can be used to make claims is ridiculous. A bucket has an unknown proportion of black and white marbles in it that make up a total of a hundred marbles. Connor reaches in and pulls out a random marble. It is black. He does it again. Black. Again. Black. Fifty marbles later and they are all black. I would be totally justified to say that it seems the next marble will be black. No non sequitar there. If I were to be making a deductive claim and say that the next marble will necessarily be black, then I would be guilty of a logical fallacy.
It is a standard exegetical methodology to utilize how others (especially contemporaries) understood a given text. We do it all the time. If I were to say that ‘”tables are for sitting on,” you would claim that you had a pretty good idea of what I meant if you were to see my friends around me sitting on a table. It would be even stronger if you saw me sitting on a table.
Three days before Joseph spoke about the coming generation, Joseph said:
Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.
I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.
I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.
This revelation apparently occured in the early-mid 1830’s. Joseph seemed assured that Christ would not return in his generation. However, his statement a few days later (and how many others understood this and other declarations), point to the notion that Joseph Smith believed that the second coming would come in not his, but the following generation.
Of course one should also take into account Joseph’s view of the Biblical use of ‘generation’ in context of the second coming. While most scholars agree that the early Christians believed Christ would return in their lifetime, Joseph Smith most likely understood that passage differently. However, the former uses of Joseph Smith and his contemporaries hold more weight than the latter.
To deny that methodologies should be used is to render our understanding of the world meaningless.
Comment # 14 left by the narrator on October 3rd, 2006
Maybe some people in the rising generation at the time Joseph made the statement were translated. There are always people who just go missing
and are presumed dead, but their remains are never found.
Comment # 15 left by Bookslinger on October 3rd, 2006
Maybe some people in the rising generation at the time Joseph made the statement were translated. There are always people who just go missing and are presumed dead, but their remains are never found.
Or maybe Joseph Smith was just speculating or maybe even mistook his speculations for revelation - which he admitted to doing before. That’s just what I don’t understand. We are willing to say other prophets were speculating (Adam-God, Blood Atonement, 13,000 year old earth, Jesus’ conception by sexual intercourse, men will never go to moon, moon-men, blacks don’t get priesthood because of ‘X,’ contraception, wives of God, knowledge of God, nature of Atonement, second anointings, Cain being really hairy, half of Joseph Fielding Smith’s ideas, McConkie’s ideas, etc etc etc.
“It was just his opinion”
“It was uninspired”
“Prophets aren’t infallible”
Why do we have such a hard time saying this about Joseph Smith and the current President of the Church?
Comment # 16 left by the narrator on October 3rd, 2006
Narrator:
Why do we have such a hard time saying this about Joseph Smith and the current President of the Church?
Calm down. I think you will be hard-pressed to find any contributors on this site who claim any prophet was/is infallible. In other words, your assertions about people having “a hard time” is really irrelevant to this thread. Indeed, Connor and I rather quickly dismissed the “generation” issue by agreeing that Joseph was only speculating. Of course he speculated.
I really like some of what you say, but I get really confused and disappointed when you brandish your axe and begin another grinding session. E.g. your irresponsible dismissal of “half of JFS’s ideas” and all of “McConkie’s ideas”. I don’t want to “speculate” as to why you get so upset about trivial issues and make unreasonable and strange comments; but I do suggest you take a step back sometimes–this is one of those times.
I will concede the point that you did use the word “seems” in your previous statements which imputed beliefs to Joseph. And this does change the meaning of your statement. But it felt as though you were being just a touch disingenuous in your assertion.
Finally, I never claimed “methodologies should [not] be used”! To the contrary, often certain flawed methodology is all we have to discern reality. And unfortunately, some methodologies are more accurate than others. I was only saying common sense and basic logic reveal the inherent flaws in imputing beliefs to a person based on how others have interpreted that person’s statements.
Sure, it may be an exegetical tool, but a person can also attempt digging a canal through nigaragua with a toothpick. It’s simply not an effective or reliable tool to acheive the desired result! And this is why I viewed your response as a non sequitur. Now that you pointed out your usage of the word “seems”, I stand corrected and feel slightly better about your argument–but only slightly.
Comment # 17 left by Wade on October 3rd, 2006
Wade:
I was commenting on Eric Nielsen’s first comment when he said “Some may hate this, but I wonder if Joseph might have been speculating a bit.” His acknowledgement that ’some may hate this’ points to the fact that I was elaborating on that many in the Church refuse to say that Joseph Smith was speculating about a specific thing, while at the same time are quick to say that Young, Fielding Smith, McConkie and others were speculating.
The reason I wrote up a list of different things was just to give examples of the many things that many LDS are quick to say are mere speculations.
Sure, it may be an exegetical tool, but a person can also attempt digging a canal through nigaragua with a toothpick. It’s simply not an effective or reliable tool to acheive the desired result! And this is why I viewed your response as a non sequitur.
That is a false analogy. The understanding of a text by the texts contemporaries is a widely accepted methodology for exegesis, and commonly practiced by most people on a regular basis. Digging a canal with a toothpick is not.
Comment # 18 left by the narrator on October 4th, 2006
The understanding of a text by the texts contemporaries is a widely accepted methodology for exegesis, and commonly practiced by most people on a regular basis.
Ah, I think I’ve just found our problem: you analogize to understanding ancient “text” while I think it is fundamentally flawed to “impute beliefs to someone” based on how other people interpret that person’s statements.
I’ll try and use a better comparison than digging a canal through Nicaragua with a toothpick. Is it not plain for all to see it would be foolish to conclude I believe something based on someone’s comment about my statement after they have taken the liberty of interpreting what they thought they heard me say? True, it may effectively discern reality from time to time, but it is not a realiable tool from which to make conclusions about what someone believes. Granted, Loyd’s usage of the word “seems” probably brings us closer to a compromise. And I realize Loyd and many other smart people disagree with me on this, but I think reasonable people can also see my point.
Moreover, I think the real issue in this disagreement is the purpose behind drawing the conclusion. If one is interested in grasping a general historical concept or idea, imputing beliefs to someone may not be too harmful even if those beliefs are not accurate. However, if the purpose is to perceive the “fruits” of a prophet, I part ways with exegesis! I would much rather rely on my own interpretation based in reason, faith, and personal revelation. Making conclusions that determine ones course in life is far too important a process to be influenced by suspect methods. For example, inadmissible hearsay statements cannot be admitted in court or considered by a jury because they are unreliable and counsel cannot confront the evidence that purports to offer the “truth” concerning the matter asserted. Similarly here, it is inherently unreliable and foolish to employ exegesis when making conclusions about prophetic fruits! Â
If you haven’t noticed, this is a touchy issue with me because I am irked by academics (and others) who profess to know any given thing based on their flawed methods which render truth unknowable! There are very few “learned” people who are honest with themselves.Â
Comment # 19 left by Wade on October 4th, 2006
Like me… -
Comment # 20 left by Okie on October 4th, 2006
Precisely.
Comment # 21 left by Wade on October 4th, 2006
Didn’t Talmadge explain in Jesus the Christ that in an unabridged dictionary you can find the definition of generation to mean a group of people..not necessarily confined to time. He was citing the scripture when Christ tells the apostles that their generation shall not pass away before Jerusalem is sacked. And then it finally happened — but a long time later (beyond the scope of the traditional definition of generation). Was Christ falsely prophesying or was he estimating or whatever?
Or was Talmadge too afraid to dismiss Christ as fallible?
Comment # 22 left by Ryan on October 5th, 2006
and I’m really not feeling as grumpy or snarky as that last comment sounded. I was just in a hurry.
Comment # 23 left by Ryan on October 5th, 2006
Or was Talmadge too afraid to dismiss Christ as fallible?
I think the fallibility should first be pointed to the authors of the Gospels - whom we have no idea who they are.
Comment # 24 left by the narrator on October 6th, 2006