Being caught up into Zion

[TheTanakas]

Can someone clarify this section.

"And after that Zion was taken up into heaven, Enoch beheld, and lo, all the nations 
of the earth were before him" (Moses 7:23).

Enoch is apparently in heaven and beholds all the nations of the earth from above.

"And there came generation upon generation; and Enoch was high and lifted up, even 
in the bosom of the Father, and of the Son of Man; and behold, the power of Satan 
was upon all the face of the earth. And he saw angels descending out of heaven; and 
he heard a loud voice saying: Wo, wo be unto the inhabitants of the earth. And he 
beheld Satan; and he had a great chain in his hand, and it veiled the whole face of 
the earth with darkness; and he looked up and laughed, and his angels rejoiced. And 
Enoch beheld angels descending out of heaven, bearing testimony of the Father and 
Son; and the Holy Ghost fell on many, and they were caught up by the powers of heaven 
into Zion" (24-27).

Is there a large gap of time between when Zion was caught up (verse 23) and when
the Holy Ghost fell on many and they too were caught up into Zion (verse 27), which 
had already been caught up earlier?

[teddyaware]

13 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

Can someone clarify this section.

"And after that Zion was taken up into heaven, Enoch beheld, and lo, all the nations 
of the earth were before him" (Moses 7:23).

Enoch is apparently in heaven and beholds all the nations of the earth from above.

"And there came generation upon generation; and Enoch was high and lifted up, even 
in the bosom of the Father, and of the Son of Man; and behold, the power of Satan 
was upon all the face of the earth. And he saw angels descending out of heaven; and 
he heard a loud voice saying: Wo, wo be unto the inhabitants of the earth. And he 
beheld Satan; and he had a great chain in his hand, and it veiled the whole face of 
the earth with darkness; and he looked up and laughed, and his angels rejoiced. And 
Enoch beheld angels descending out of heaven, bearing testimony of the Father and 
Son; and the Holy Ghost fell on many, and they were caught up by the powers of heaven 
into Zion" (24-27).

Is there a large gap of time between when Zion was caught up (verse 23) and when
the Holy Ghost fell on many and they too were caught up into Zion (verse 27), which 
had already been caught up earlier?

It’s understandable how the phrase “generation upon generation” could cause some confusion here, but by reading verse 24 in the context of the following 20 informative verses it become  perfectly clear that the previously mentioned righteous souls who were taken up to the heavenly Zion were contemporaries of Enoch who were lifted up so as to avoid the destruction of the great flood that would follow soon after the ministry of Enoch, which is the same ministry that was passed on to Noah after Enoch and his people of the city of Zion were taken up to heaven.

24 And there came generation upon generation; and Enoch was high and lifted up, even in the bosom of the Father, and of the Son of Man; and behold, the power of Satan was upon all the face of the earth.

25 And he saw angels descending out of heaven; and he heard a loud voice saying: Wo, wo be unto the inhabitants of the earth.

26 And he beheld Satan; and he had a great chain in his hand, and it veiled the whole face of the earth with darkness; and he looked up and laughed, and his angels rejoiced.

27 And Enoch beheld angels descending out of heaven, bearing testimony of the Father and Son; and the Holy Ghost fell on many, and they were caught up by the powers of heaven into Zion.

28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?

29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?

30 And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever;

31 And thou hast taken Zion to thine own bosom, from all thy creations, from all eternity to all eternity; and naught but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation of thy throne; and mercy shall go before thy face and have no end; how is it thou canst weep?

32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood;

34 And the fire of mine indignation is kindled against them; and in my hot displeasure will I send in the floods upon them, for my fierce anger is kindled against them.

35 Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.

36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren.

37 But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?

38 But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them.

39 And that which I have chosen hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins; inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be in torment;

40 Wherefore, for this shall the heavens weep, yea, and all the workmanship of mine hands.

41 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Enoch, and told Enoch all the doings of the children of men; wherefore Enoch knew, and looked upon their wickedness, and their misery, and wept and stretched forth his arms, and his heart swelled wide as eternity; and his bowels yearned; and all eternity shook.

42 And Enoch also saw Noah, and his family; that the posterity of all the sons of Noah should be saved with a temporal salvation;

43 Wherefore Enoch saw that Noah built an ark; and that the Lord smiled upon it, and held it in his own hand; but upon the residue of the wicked the floods came and swallowed them up. (Moses 7)

Edited September 27 by teddyaware

[TheTanakas]

21 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It’s understandable how the phrase “generation upon generation” could cause some confusion here, but by reading verse 24 in the context of the following 20 informative verses it become  perfectly clear that the previously mentioned righteous souls who were taken up to the heavenly Zion were contemporaries of Enoch who were lifted up so as to avoid the destruction of the great flood that would follow soon after the ministry of Enoch, which is the same ministry that was passed on to Noah after Enoch and his people of the city of Zion were taken up to heaven.

Does the returned city of Enoch in the future (Moses 7:63) suspend itself (hover) 
above the future New Jerusalem that will be built in Independence, Jackson County, 
Missouri prior to the Second Coming?

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

Does the returned city of Enoch in the future (Moses 7:63) suspend itself (hover) 
above the future New Jerusalem that will be built in Independence, Jackson County, 
Missouri prior to the Second Coming?

It will be both. Enoch’s heavenly city of Zion will descend and merge with its sister city, the latter-day Zion that will be built and established on the American continent by the faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints! The might, majesty and glory of this sacred event will rival any of the sacred events of the past and will mark the beginning of the Lord’s millennial reign on the  earth.

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.

63 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.

64 And there shall be mine abode, and it shall be Zion, which shall come forth out of all the creations which I have made; and for the space of a thousand years the earth shall rest. (Moses 7)

 

 

Edited September 27 by teddyaware

[halconero]

On 9/26/2026 at 10:58 AM, teddyaware said:

It’s understandable how the phrase “generation upon generation” could cause some confusion here, but by reading verse 24 in the context of the following 20 informative verses it become  perfectly clear that the previously mentioned righteous souls who were taken up to the heavenly Zion were contemporaries of Enoch who were lifted up so as to avoid the destruction of the great flood that would follow soon after the ministry of Enoch, which is the same ministry that was passed on to Noah after Enoch and his people of the city of Zion were taken up to heaven.

If you take Genesis, the Book of Moses (both the OT1 and OT2 revisions) and the Doctrine and Covenants 107 timelines as literal histories, there's actually a 635 year gap betwen Zion being taken up into heaven and the flood. Noah spends around 120 years alone building the ark before the flood happens. I put together a spreadsheet a while back that includes this figure:

Note, if you're wondering why Adam shows a 1,000 year lifespan, it's because that's what Oliver Cowdery recorded in Old Testament Revision 1. The Book of Moses as canonised right now relies on Old Testament Revision 2, which was a copy of the *incomplete* OT1. Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith later went back and edited Adam's age there, along with a few others. Interestingly, Brigham Young later stated (I'd have to find it, it's somewhere in the Church's history catatalogue) that Adam, not Methuselah, was the oldest man to have ever lived. He further said that 1,000 was the appropriate lifespan for Adam, as a 1,000 years was a day unto God, thereby fulfilling God's promise that Adam would die in the 'day' he partook of the fruit. Obviously not canon, just relaying the discourse as far as I can remember it (I can look it up sometime, but I have a lot on my plate right now).

[halconero]

On 9/27/2026 at 2:06 PM, teddyaware said:

It will be both. Enoch’s heavenly city of Zion will descend and merge with its sister city, the latter-day Zion that will be built and established on the American continent by the faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints! The might, majesty and glory of this sacred event will rival any of the sacred events of the past and will mark the beginning of the Lord’s millennial reign on the  earth.

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.

63 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.

64 And there shall be mine abode, and it shall be Zion, which shall come forth out of all the creations which I have made; and for the space of a thousand years the earth shall rest. (Moses 7)

Another interesting take, again, by Brigham, was a statement of his that Joseph taught that the City of Zion was more akin to a country, and comprise the area of the Gulf of Mexico America. Combined with Joseph's other statements regarding the entirety of North and South America comprising Zion, it seems, if Brigham's statement is accurate, that they imagined it as more a merger of countries.

[longview]

59 minutes ago, halconero said:

Note, if you're wondering why Adam shows a 1,000 year lifespan, it's because that's what Oliver Cowdery recorded in Old Testament Revision 1. The Book of Moses as canonised right now relies on Old Testament Revision 2, which was a copy of the *incomplete* OT1. Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith later went back and edited Adam's age there, along with a few others. Interestingly, Brigham Young later stated (I'd have to find it, it's somewhere in the Church's history catatalogue) that Adam, not Methuselah, was the oldest man to have ever lived. He further said that 1,000 was the appropriate lifespan for Adam, as a 1,000 years was a day unto God, thereby fulfilling God's promise that Adam would die in the 'day' he partook of the fruit. Obviously not canon, just relaying the discourse as far as I can remember it (I can look it up sometime, but I have a lot on my plate right now).

I thought I read somewhere years ago that both Adam and Methuselah both had the same lifespan:  999 years and 6 months? According to Lecture of Faith 2:41 "Methuselah in the 1656th, it being the same year in which the flood came." Your chart shows him living from 800 to 1800. 

[halconero]

3 hours ago, longview said:

I thought I read somewhere years ago that both Adam and Methuselah both had the same lifespan:  999 years and 6 months? According to Lecture of Faith 2:41 "Methuselah in the 1656th, it being the same year in which the flood came." Your chart shows him living from 800 to 1800. 

Yeah, this chart is a combination of the OT1, which Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith mostly worked on together + Doctrine and Covenants 107.

Alternatives are the classic Genesis/D&C 107, and OT2/D&C 107. OT2 is mostly a copy of OT1, but is missing some edits that Cowdery and Smith addd later on. It forms the basis for the Book of Moses we publish today.

Out of all these, OT1 tends to add the most years in the earlier patriarchal timelines. Enoch gains an extra 65 years, for example (he only gets 365 in the original Genesis account). The cumulative result is that the Flood date gets pushed a little bit later.

As I said, I’m not saying one account is better or more correct than another; just different. I mostly did this out of curiosity when digging in the Joseph Smith papers.

I’ll see if I can post the original xlsx file sometime, so people can pick it apart. I’m migrating from Windows to Linux (Fedora) at the moment, and I’m finding Office 365 formats  to be the least friendly to transitioning. So this, plus a few others, are a bit messy atm.

[Calm]

Did they add explanations for why they changed it?  If not, in your opinion was it primarily an attempt to harmonize the scriptures or an attempt to use symbolical number or their understanding based on some scholarship or speculation they had studied or heard somewhere?  Or something else?  I am assuming here if it was revelation, they would have mentioned it, not saying it’s impossible for it to be revelation (though I think with what little I know about this in particular, it’s more likely symbolic language rather than actual dates).

[TheTanakas]

On 9/27/2026 at 4:06 PM, teddyaware said:

t will be both. Enoch’s heavenly city of Zion will descend and merge with its sister city, the latter-day Zion

How will the physical cities merge?

[TheTanakas]

On 9/29/2026 at 6:56 PM, halconero said:

If you take Genesis, the Book of Moses (both the OT1 and OT2 revisions) and the Doctrine and Covenants 107 timelines as literal histories, there's actually a 635 year gap betwen Zion being taken up into heaven and the flood. Noah spends around 120 years alone building the ark before the flood happens. I put together a spreadsheet a while back that includes this figure:

Why the 40 year gap before Enoch is blessed by Adam?

According to D&C 107:49, Enoch does not walk with God until after he is blessed, at
age 65.

"Enoch was twenty-five years old when he was ordained under the hand of Adam;
and he was sixty-five and Adam blessed him. And he saw the Lord, and he walked
with him, and was before his face continually; and he walked with God three hundred 
and sixty-five years, making him four hundred and thirty years old when he was 
translated".

Edited Saturday at 01:54 PM by TheTanakas

[Calm]

9 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

Why the 40 year gap before Enoch is blessed by Adam?

Why not?

[halconero]

On 9/30/2026 at 12:22 AM, Calm said:

Did they add explanations for why they changed it?

Do you mean changed the ages of the Patriarchs (I'm using that term loosely here to refer to the father-son outlined from Adam to Jacob (Israel), rather than just Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) or why they changed OT1 versus OT2?

I feel pretty confident about the answer to the second. Put briefly, Joseph Smith began his work of translating the Old Testament in June 1830 (side note: I'm always struck by just how *early* the Book of Moses emerged in the early Restored Church, given how dense it is theologically), with Oliver Cowdery as a scribe. Cowdery leaves for his mission in October 1830, and Joseph cycles through John Whitmer, Emma Smith, John Whitmer again, and then Sidney Rigdon. In March 1831, Joseph switches over to translating the New Testament and John Whitmer makes a copy (OT2) of the original translation efforts (OT1). When Cowdery gets back from his mission, he and Joseph go back revise the ages of the some of the Patriarchs (shown in the graph above), but do so in OT2. When Joseph finishes his work on the New Testament in July 1832, he goes back to the Old Testament, and picks up with Whitmer as his scribe, who uses the OT2 (without the revised ages) instead of the OT1. Exceedingly long story short, because of manuscripts and excerpts being all over the place between the Church and the Community of Christ, and lack of a good understanding (at the time) of the Bible translation process from an administrative point of view, the Church ended up relying on OT2 for our current version of the Pear of Great Price. That isn't a slight on anyone, historical contingencies, and my impression is that the Church and the Community of Christ have been very earnest to work with each other on matters of historical records and archiving as it pertains to overlapping histories.

As to first question: why did they change the ages of the Patriarchs, they did not add an explanation as far as I'm aware (I might be wrong on that, obviously).

On 9/30/2026 at 12:22 AM, Calm said:

If not, in your opinion was it primarily an attempt to harmonize the scriptures or an attempt to use symbolical number or their understanding based on some scholarship or speculation they had studied or heard somewhere?  Or something else?

Symbolic, in my opinion. The ages diverge from those in Genesis, and I can't identify any particular event with which they were trying to tie the ages of the Patriarchs. Note that I don't think symbolic has to imply that they didn't think the stated ages they were writting in where fake in some ways. God represents things symbolically with real, material things all the time (e.g., the water of baptism representing cleansing; baptism itself representing death, burial, and resurrection). So Adam being 1,000 years old can, at least to Joseph (as Brigham asserts), simultaneoulsy be real, and symbolic of a mortal 'day' of life. This is just a hunch, but Zion persisting 365 years has a 'year of years' feel to it.

On 9/30/2026 at 12:22 AM, Calm said:

I am assuming here if it was revelation, they would have mentioned it, not saying it’s impossible for it to be revelation (though I think with what little I know about this in particular, it’s more likely symbolic language rather than actual dates).

My guess is that it was revelation, which doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't also symbolic. The only reason I say revelation is that the timeline for the age changes lines up with the rest of the translation work Joseph was doing, which he did consider revelatory. Likewise, Joseph always seemed comfortable with the idea that previously published work was open to further revelatory editing, even the Book of Mormon.

Ultimatley, I might be wrong about the above, and I'm not too emotionally attached to it if I'm wrong. Most of this stuff just has me like 🤷‍♂️ .

[halconero]

On 10/3/2026 at 7:47 AM, TheTanakas said:

Why the 40 year gap before Enoch is blessed by Adam?

According to D&C 107:49, Enoch does not walk with God until after he is blessed, at
age 65.

"Enoch was twenty-five years old when he was ordained under the hand of Adam;
and he was sixty-five and Adam blessed him. And he saw the Lord, and he walked
with him, and was before his face continually; and he walked with God three hundred 
and sixty-five years, making him four hundred and thirty years old when he was 
translated".

No clue, tbh. I think it's interesting and probably relevant to Joseph's ever-growing doctrine on Priesthood that, in Joseph's revelations, Enoch and his father Jared were the first to be blessed by Adam, and that Enoch's blessing coincides both with the establishment of Zion and his walking with God. Also that almost everyone else (save Mahalaleel) has to wait until the gathering at Adam-ondi-Ahman.

We also don't really know much about the nature of the blessing. Was it a Patriarchal Blessing? Something pertaining to priesthood office? No clue! Seems important, though!

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, halconero said:

Do you mean changed the ages of the Patriarchs (I'm using that term loosely here to refer to the father-son outlined from Adam to Jacob (Israel), rather than just Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) or why they changed OT1 versus OT2?

I feel pretty confident about the answer to the second. Put briefly, Joseph Smith began his work of translating the Old Testament in June 1830 (side note: I'm always struck by just how *early* the Book of Moses emerged in the early Restored Church, given how dense it is theologically), with Oliver Cowdery as a scribe. Cowdery leaves for his mission in October 1830, and Joseph cycles through John Whitmer, Emma Smith, John Whitmer again, and then Sidney Rigdon. In March 1831, Joseph switches over to translating the New Testament and John Whitmer makes a copy (OT2) of the original translation efforts (OT1). When Cowdery gets back from his mission, he and Joseph go back revise the ages of the some of the Patriarchs (shown in the graph above), but do so in OT2. When Joseph finishes his work on the New Testament in July 1832, he goes back to the Old Testament, and picks up with Whitmer as his scribe, who uses the OT2 (without the revised ages) instead of the OT1. Exceedingly long story short, because of manuscripts and excerpts being all over the place between the Church and the Community of Christ, and lack of a good understanding (at the time) of the Bible translation process from an administrative point of view, the Church ended up relying on OT2 for our current version of the Pear of Great Price. That isn't a slight on anyone, historical contingencies, and my impression is that the Church and the Community of Christ have been very earnest to work with each other on matters of historical records and archiving as it pertains to overlapping histories.

As to first question: why did they change the ages of the Patriarchs, they did not add an explanation as far as I'm aware (I might be wrong on that, obviously).

Symbolic, in my opinion. The ages diverge from those in Genesis, and I can't identify any particular event with which they were trying to tie the ages of the Patriarchs. Note that I don't think symbolic has to imply that they didn't think the stated ages they were writting in where fake in some ways. God represents things symbolically with real, material things all the time (e.g., the water of baptism representing cleansing; baptism itself representing death, burial, and resurrection). So Adam being 1,000 years old can, at least to Joseph (as Brigham asserts), simultaneoulsy be real, and symbolic of a mortal 'day' of life. This is just a hunch, but Zion persisting 365 years has a 'year of years' feel to it.

My guess is that it was revelation, which doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't also symbolic. The only reason I say revelation is that the timeline for the age changes lines up with the rest of the translation work Joseph was doing, which he did consider revelatory. Likewise, Joseph always seemed comfortable with the idea that previously published work was open to further revelatory editing, even the Book of Mormon.

Ultimatley, I might be wrong about the above, and I'm not too emotionally attached to it if I'm wrong. Most of this stuff just has me like 🤷‍♂️ .

Thanks for the info.  Like you, I find it interesting (though not enough to dig into myself at this point  ), but nothing hinges on it.  I just like learning about the process and purpose of this.