The city of Enoch coming to America

[marineland]

About these two verses in Moses 7.

"And thou hast taken Zion to thine own bosom, from all thy creations, from all 
eternity to all eternity" (v. 31).

"And the Lord said unto Enoch: Then shalt thou and all thy city meet them there, 
and we will receive them into our bosom, and they shall see us; and we will fall 
upon their necks, and they shall fall upon our necks, and we will kiss each other"
(v. 63).

Does this happen before or after the Second Coming?

Will all the worlds created by God have their own versions of the city of Enoch
coming down from heaven and visiting all their respective New Jerusalems created 
on their own versions of Americas on their own worlds?

[Amulek]

39 minutes ago, marineland said:

Does this happen before or after the Second Coming?

My understanding is that most interpretations (see, e.g., Joseph Smith, Orson Pratt, Bruce R. McConkie, etc.) take the position that the City of Enoch returns at the time of the Second Coming. It reunites with the earthly Zion (the New Jerusalem in America). So the embracing and reunion in verse 63 is understood to occur at Christ’s coming, when heaven and earth join, and the Millennium begins.

 

39 minutes ago, marineland said:

Will all the worlds created by God have their own versions of the city of Enoch
coming down from heaven and visiting all their respective New Jerusalems created 
on their own versions of Americas on their own worlds?

No idea. This enters speculative territory since the scriptures are silent on what happens on other inhabited worlds. As is also recorded in Moses, "only an account of this earth give I unto you." 

We simply don’t know if other worlds have Zions or New Jerusalems (I would probably guess 'yes' to the former; not as positive about the latter). It is possible that God follows parallel patterns on other worlds, but we are told only about this planet’s history and future so there's no way to know (at least, not at this time).

 

[Pyreaux]

Regarding the Timing of the City of Enoch's Return

According to the Church, the events described in Moses 7 will happen at the time of or just after the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

The City of Enoch will return to the earth. Moses 7:63 states that Enoch and his city "shall meet them there," referring to the righteous inhabitants of the earth who have built the New Jerusalem in the latter days. 

The sequence of events are that in the latter days, the righteous will build a city called Zion. Then, at the time of the Second Coming, the City of Enoch, which was taken up into heaven, will return and join with it. This fulfills prophecy and unites the two "Zions."

The Old Testament seems to expect Zion to be built, while New Testament has a "New Jerusalem" coming out of heaven. Revelation 21: The Apostle John describes a vision of a "new heaven and a new earth." He then sees "the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God" (Revelation 21:2).

The Heart of the Matter - A Place and a People

I'm going to guess that the reason you might have come up with this question, is that Latter-day Prophets expand Zion as not currently one place, but anywhere the people are gathered. "Zion" can be anywhere. As the Church has grown worldwide, the emphasis has shifted from a single gathering place to building up "stakes of Zion" in every nation. As President Russell M. Nelson has taught, "The place of gathering for Brazilian Saints is in Brazil; the place of gathering for Nigerian Saints is in Nigeria; the place of gathering for Korean Saints is in Korea. Zion is 'the pure in heart.' It is wherever righteous Saints are."

While Zion is a state of being, it is also a specific, physical place.

The City of Enoch: Is a literal city, a physical Zion.

The New Jerusalem: This is a future city prophesied to be built in Independence, Missouri. 

The multiple meanings of "Zion" will ultimately converge. The different, smaller "Zions" around the world (the stakes) are preparing people to be worthy to live in the one, great Zion. A single, unified city, composed of the returning City of Enoch and the New Jerusalem, will be the "real Zion." It will be both a place and a people.

Regarding Other Worlds and Cities of Enoch

The second question delves into a speculative area of LDS theology. While the scriptures clearly state that God has created "worlds without number" (Moses 1:33), the doctrine does not provide specific details about whether each of these worlds has its own version of a "City of Enoch."

We don't assume every world will have the same parallel histories or experiences of the Earth, with each one having its own Prophet Enoch, its own translated city, and its own New Jerusalem. The focus of the scriptures is on the plan of salvation as it pertains to this Earth.

Therefore, while the existence of other inhabited worlds is a belief, the idea of them having their own specific versions of the City of Enoch is a matter of great speculation and is not explicitly stated in the standard works of the Church. The focus of the doctrine is on this Earth and its inhabitants, and the fulfillment of God's plan on this planet.

Edited September 24, 2025 by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

We simply don’t know if other worlds have Zions or New Jerusalems (I would probably guess 'yes' to the former; not as positive about the latter).

Using the Moses 7:18 definition of "Zion", I'd say that's a definite "yes" on other worlds, although perhaps not called by the same name:

"And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them."  (Moses 7:18)

[marineland]

21 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The second question delves into a speculative area of LDS theology. While the scriptures clearly state that God has created "worlds without number" (Moses 1:33), the doctrine does not provide specific details about whether each of these worlds has its own version of a "City of Enoch."

We don't assume every world will have the same parallel histories or experiences of the Earth, with each one having its own Prophet Enoch, its own translated city, and its own New Jerusalem. The focus of the scriptures is on the plan of salvation as it pertains to this Earth.

Therefore, while the existence of other inhabited worlds is a belief, the idea of them having their own specific versions of the City of Enoch is a matter of great speculation and is not explicitly stated in the standard works of the Church. The focus of the doctrine is on this Earth and its inhabitants, and the fulfillment of God's plan on this planet.

Does that mean then the Second Coming is particular to our earth only?

[marineland]

21 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Using the Moses 7:18 definition of "Zion", I'd say that's a definite "yes" on other worlds, although perhaps not called by the same name:

"And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them."  (Moses 7:18)

How many heavenly New Jerusalems as described in the Book of Revelation, which are
separate from the many cities of Enoch, exist?

[Pyreaux]

33 minutes ago, marineland said:

Does that mean then the Second Coming is particular to our earth only?

Yes, have nothing suggesting Jesus will leave.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

How many heavenly New Jerusalems as described in the Book of Revelation, which are
separate from the many cities of Enoch, exist?

The answer to your question is that if all the other earths created by God were governed by the same laws and principles by which our earth is presently being governed (and since God is omniscient and perfect in his wisdom there’s every reason to believe this is true) then the scripturally affirmed answer to your question is that “worlds without number” have been created, which is tantamount to saying that there are an infinite number of worlds upon which Zion civilizations have previously been established. In other words, what’s presently going on on this earth has been going on forever on other worlds! And as the final verse In the following 4 verses quoted from Moses 1 attest, the ultimate reason for all of this ongoing creative activity is to establish conditions by which it will eventually be possible to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.

37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.

38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory— to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. (Moses 1)

Edited September 24, 2025 by teddyaware

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

Does that mean then the Second Coming is particular to our earth only?

In the sense that He lived here as a mortal man, and is coming again as immortal King... yes.

However, I believe your real question is:

Will He visit all of His vast creation?

Now that is a deep question, that I'm sure will engender varying ideas.

[teddyaware]

52 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

In the sense that He lived here as a mortal man, and is coming again as immortal King... yes.

However, I believe your real question is:

Will He visit all of His vast creation?

Now that is a deep question, that I'm sure will engender varying ideas.

The answer to this “deep question” is found in the magnificent “Olive Leaf” revelation, more commonly known as Doctrine and Covenants 88.

51 Behold, I will liken these kingdoms unto a man having a field, and he sent forth his servants into the field to dig in the field.

52 And he said unto the first: Go ye and labor in the field, and in the first hour I will come unto you, and ye shall behold the joy of my countenance.

53 And he said unto the second: Go ye also into the field, and in the second hour I will visit you with the joy of my countenance.

54 And also unto the third, saying: I will visit you;

55 And unto the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.

56 And the lord of the field went unto the first in the first hour, and tarried with him all that hour, and he was made glad with the light of the countenance of his lord.

57 And then he withdrew from the first that he might visit the second also, and the third, and the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.

58 And thus they all received the light of the countenance of their lord, every man in his hour, and in his time, and in his season—

59 Beginning at the first, and so on unto the last, and from the last unto the first, and from the first unto the last;

60 Every man in his own order until his hour was finished, even according as his lord had commanded him, that his lord might be glorified in him, and he in his lord, that they all might be glorified.

61 Therefore, unto this parable I will liken all these kingdoms and the inhabitants thereof—every kingdom in its hour, and in its time, and in its season, even according to the decree which God hath made.

Edited September 24, 2025 by teddyaware

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, marineland said:

How many heavenly New Jerusalems as described in the Book of Revelation, which are
separate from the many cities of Enoch, exist?

Interesting questions!

I wonder what non-LDS Christians (e.g. you) think of the rest of the universe? Do you imagine that in the entire universe this earth is the only place inhabited by children of God? In the 1993 film "Contact" Dr. Ellie Arroway marvels about the possible millions of civilizations that were out there in the universe. The man she's talking with says "Well, if there wasn't, it would be an awful waste of space."

Are you familiar with the Fermi Paradox? One description, from Wikipedia (found HERE😞

"The Fermi paradox is the discrepancy between the lack of conclusive evidence of advanced extraterrestrial life and the apparently high likelihood of its existence. Those affirming the paradox generally conclude that if the conditions required for life to arise from non-living matter are as permissive as the available evidence on Earth indicates, then extraterrestrial life would be sufficiently common such that it would be implausible for it not to have been detected."

Why haven't we heard something? If you read all about the paradox, you'll get all kinds of speculation. In itself, it's fun to speculate.

I myself have come up with my own solution to the paradox (this may be the only original thought I've ever had). It goes like this: According the verses mentioned in other posts in the first chapter of the Book of Moses, God has been organizing inhabitable worlds for his children since the beginning of the universe, and each one goes through a similar process to what has happened here. And when the point begins to arrive that in each of these worlds people begin to listen to the music of the spheres as we do now on our earth, and there are billions of people upon each earth, each world experiences a Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, then their Millennium, and for a thousand years they are too busy living in peace to worry further about trying to contact other civilizations in the sky. Mainly because they're too busy doing temple work during that thousand years for everyone else who has ever lived upon their earth. And then, at the end of the thousand years, their Lucifer is released from his binding one last time, the final war occurs, and at the end their world is complete. Like ours will be. And so, they pretty much never start broadcasting so anyone can hear them. And what radio traffic does go out is so attenuated by distance that if it reaches an intelligent-life inhabited world at the right time for them to be listening, it's too weak to be heard. 

Now, in my scenario, Jesus Christ comes in corporeal form only once, and he does it here and nowhere else. It is here where he teaches personally, here where he atones for sin, is crucified, and is resurrected. The other worlds get inspired prophets who teach the same thing to all peoples, which is that the Son of God will come to a special world set aside for the purpose of achieving his atonement. And they look forward to the atonement of Christ, and to the day when they will have Him come before their thousand years of peace begins. This raises more questions than it answers, of course, but who cares? God knows what was, what is, and what will be. My job is just to be the best I can be, while I am doing what I need to do.

Yes, it's a cockamamie theory, but I like it. 

[InCognitus]

21 hours ago, marineland said:

How many heavenly New Jerusalems as described in the Book of Revelation, which are
separate from the many cities of Enoch, exist?

The exact circumstances and place names on all the other worlds that Heavenly Father has created may be different, so nobody can answer this question.  But I can confidently say that there would be a meeting of heaven and earth at the fulfillment of God's plan for those worlds with each and every one of Heavenly Father's creations.

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The exact circumstances and place names on all the other worlds that Heavenly Father has created may be different, so nobody can answer this question.  But I can confidently say that there would be a meeting of heaven and earth at the fulfillment of God's plan for those worlds with each and every one of Heavenly Father's creations.

One of the things I find particularly frustrating about participating on this board is that the answers many participants are speaking are openly revealed in the scriptures, and even though they seem to be very interested in the teachings of the restored gospel they’re apparently not interested enough to do any investigating of their own, desiring instead to be spoon fed without the expenditure of any effort on their part. All marineland would have to do to answer his own questions is read Moses 1 (a focus of this thread and not a particularly long chapter) and he’d discover the answers he’s seeking are presented in black and white in very easy to understand language. When I was investigating the church many years ago, I searched the scriptures and indexes with diligence and passion.

35 (The Lord tells Moses) But only an account of THIS EARTH, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. (Moses 1)

and…

40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning THIS EARTH upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write things which I shall speak. (Moses 1)

[marineland]

On 9/24/2025 at 5:49 PM, Stargazer said:

I wonder what non-LDS Christians (e.g. you) think of the rest of the universe? Do you imagine that in the entire universe this earth is the only place inhabited by children of God?

I don't think there are Gods that have created their own respective humans on 
other worlds.

[marineland]

On 9/24/2025 at 5:01 PM, teddyaware said:

59 Beginning at the first, and so on unto the last, and from the last unto the first, and from the first unto the last;

60 Every man in his own order until his hour was finished, even according as his lord had commanded him, that his lord might be glorified in him, and he in his lord, that they all might be glorified.

61 Therefore, unto this parable I will liken all these kingdoms and the inhabitants thereof—every kingdom in its hour, and in its time, and in its season, even according to the decree which God hath made.

Does each kingdom have its own first and the last?

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, marineland said:

I don't think there are Gods that have created their own respective humans on 
other worlds.

There's certainly no literal scriptural evidence for it. But can we not use scripture to find the possibility?

The question of the nature of God is very deep. Saying that God has always existed and that there was never a time when God didn't exist means that there is no beginning and no end. What is the point of time, then? But Genesis itself contradicts this, saying that there was a beginning. A beginning only of the Earth, and God Himself didn't have a beginning? He was always there? And one day, for lack of anything better to do, he created the Earth? Whatever for? 

And having created the Earth, why then did God create Man? Surely the Self-Existent One has no need of creations at all? Let alone a lesser creation that was made to worship Him? Athanasius himself had an answer: "For He was made man that we might be made God." As I understand it, Athanasius formulated his creed (if it was indeed he himself who formulated it) in such wording as it was written in order to make possible the result of that sentence. For, if Christ was not fully God (as well as fully mortal) when upon the Earth, how could He make us like Him in the end?

Perhaps Athanasius was inspired by Paul when the latter wrote: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:16,17)

As joint-heirs, it thus appears that ultimately we can be raised up to become like Him, as also John wrote: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2)

Athanasius seems to have postulated that God made Man because He wanted more beings like Himself. Why? Latter-day Saints say He did this because it is His work and His glory. (Moses 1:39)

And if we are raised up to be like Him, to partake of His divine nature, why then could we not also take up His work, as Jesus himself asked his parents after they lost him in Jerusalem: "And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?" 

Should we not then, ultimately, be about our Father's business (i.e. creating as He created) once we have been made partakers of His divine nature? And if we be about our Father's business, could it not be that He is also about His Father's business? Yes, yes, I know: Heresy!

Why bother calling us His children, then? 

There is, from your point of view, a slight problem with this, since according to the consensus of Nicaea, there are three in one, and we aren't at all like Him in any way. But in that case, how can we be joint-heirs with that, since we are merely one? I'm sure you know that Latter-day Saints reject the Trinitarian idea that came out of Nicaea, an idea which is not supported in scripture (unless contorted unmercifully). Imagine, all that effort just to keep God safely monotheistic.

Edited September 26, 2025 by Stargazer

[The Nehor]

On 9/26/2025 at 4:40 AM, Stargazer said:

There's certainly no literal scriptural evidence for it. But can we not use scripture to find the possibility?

The question of the nature of God is very deep. Saying that God has always existed and that there was never a time when God didn't exist means that there is no beginning and no end. What is the point of time, then? But Genesis itself contradicts this, saying that there was a beginning. A beginning only of the Earth, and God Himself didn't have a beginning? He was always there? And one day, for lack of anything better to do, he created the Earth? Whatever for? 

And having created the Earth, why then did God create Man? Surely the Self-Existent One has no need of creations at all? Let alone a lesser creation that was made to worship Him? Athanasius himself had an answer: "For He was made man that we might be made God." As I understand it, Athanasius formulated his creed (if it was indeed he himself who formulated it) in such wording as it was written in order to make possible the result of that sentence. For, if Christ was not fully God (as well as fully mortal) when upon the Earth, how could He make us like Him in the end?

Perhaps Athanasius was inspired by Paul when the latter wrote: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:16,17)

As joint-heirs, it thus appears that ultimately we can be raised up to become like Him, as also John wrote: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2)

Athanasius seems to have postulated that God made Man because He wanted more beings like Himself. Why? Latter-day Saints say He did this because it is His work and His glory. (Moses 1:39)

And if we are raised up to be like Him, to partake of His divine nature, why then could we not also take up His work, as Jesus himself asked his parents after they lost him in Jerusalem: "And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?" 

Should we not then, ultimately, be about our Father's business (i.e. creating as He created) once we have been made partakers of His divine nature? And if we be about our Father's business, could it not be that He is also about His Father's business? Yes, yes, I know: Heresy!

Why bother calling us His children, then? 

There is, from your point of view, a slight problem with this, since according to the consensus of Nicaea, there are three in one, and we aren't at all like Him in any way. But in that case, how can we be joint-heirs with that, since we are merely one? I'm sure you know that Latter-day Saints reject the Trinitarian idea that came out of Nicaea, an idea which is not supported in scripture (unless contorted unmercifully). Imagine, all that effort just to keep God safely monotheistic.

The irony is that the Book of Mormon seems to tacitly accept the Trinity.

Also I suspect Athanasius would not be flattered by this extrapolation from what he said. The process of theosis that the early Christians accepted was not like what LDS teach.

[marineland]

On 9/26/2025 at 5:40 AM, Stargazer said:

"For He was made man that we might be made God."

Isn't a child born to a God by nature a God?  In the animal kingdom, does a horse
give birth to something with a nature other than a horse?

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, marineland said:

Isn't a child born to a God by nature a God?  In the animal kingdom, does a horse
give birth to something with a nature other than a horse?

Exactly my point. I'm on the side of Athanasius here. 

Romans 8:14-17 -

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

If we were not the children of God, wouldn't He have told us? If we were not a special creation of His, would he not have said so? But He continually calls Himself our Father. Granted that He talks also of our subordination and of our unworthiness, but can the sacred blood of Christ's Atonement not overcome these things in the end? 

Famous Christian apologist C. S. Lewis wrote of this:

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship….  It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all of our dealings with one another…  There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal….” C.S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory, pgs. 45-46)

Edited September 28, 2025 by Stargazer

[Calm]

3 hours ago, marineland said:

  In the animal kingdom, does a horse
give birth to something with a nature other than a horse?

Is a foal born to a champion race horse a champion race horse itself or potentially one?

Is God only God because of his inherent nature or because of his chosen behaviours over the eons as well?

In LDS doctrine God is God both because of his nature and his expressed agency, his chosen behaviours to be our God.

[marineland]

On 9/28/2025 at 5:10 PM, Calm said:

Is a foal born to a champion race horse a champion race horse itself or potentially one?

A foal is a horse with the potential to become a champion.

On 9/28/2025 at 5:10 PM, Calm said:

Is God only God because of his inherent nature or because of his chosen behaviours over the eons as well?

What do you mean by God's nature?

On 9/28/2025 at 5:10 PM, Calm said:

In LDS doctrine God is God both because of his nature and his expressed agency, his chosen behaviours to be our God.

What is Heavenly Father's nature before he is born of his heavenly parents?

[marineland]

On 9/28/2025 at 5:06 PM, Stargazer said:

Famous Christian apologist C. S. Lewis wrote of this:

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship….  It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all of our dealings with one another…  There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal….” C.S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory, pgs. 45-46)

"Possible gods and goddesses" doesn't mean humans will literally become divine in 
the same way as God, but rather that we are destined for a kind of glorified 
existence that is beyond our current understanding.

He uses mythological language ("gods and goddesses") to emphasize the magnitude and 
splendor of the future glory humans are capable of through grace, not our works.

Edited October 1, 2025 by marineland

[ZealouslyStriving]

26 minutes ago, marineland said:

What is Heavenly Father's nature before he is born of his heavenly parents?

Who said He was born of Heavenly Parents?

(See: Blake Ostler)

[Calm]

2 hours ago, marineland said:

What do you mean by God's nature?

His qualities, abilities, personality…

[Calm]

2 hours ago, marineland said:

What is Heavenly Father's nature before he is born of his heavenly parents?

See Zealous’ answer…

But if one assumes the Father was born to heavenly parents (meaning spiritually if parallel to our lives), his potential would be most likely to be like his heavenly parents, who would be Gods.