Zion: City Of God Or Gathering Place Of Saints

[Damien the Leper]

This is a topic that I believe deserves more attention to its relevance. I was taught growing up that Zion is wherever the Saints gather. Because that is a loose and vague interpretation I thought it appropriate to reflect on D&C 57.

1 Hearken, O ye elders of my church, saith the Lord your God, who have assembled yourselves together, according to my commandments, in this land, which is the land of Missouri, which is the land which I have appointed and consecrated for the gathering of the saints.

God has obviously declared a specific place that is appointed and consecrated for the gathering.

2 Wherefore, this is the land of promise, and the place for the city of Zion.

The Lord adds emphasis by denoting the land of promise.

3 And thus saith the Lord your God, if you will receive wisdom here is wisdom. Behold, the place which is now called Independence is the center place; and a spot for the temple is lying westward, upon a lot which is not far from the courthouse.

Center place is stated to add greater emphasis of the importance of Zion. That same importance is emphasized by declaring a location for a temple.

4 Wherefore, it is wisdom that the land should be purchased by the saints, and also every tract lying westward, even unto the line running directly between Jew and Gentile;

The land is to be purchased by the saints. When I first read this verse I only saw a command that necessitated obedience. It is so much more. The saints are to sacrifice the very little left to buy land that is consecrated; but not just a land that is consecrated but a land that is to be the foundation of a temple.

5 And also every tract bordering by the prairies, inasmuch as my disciples are enabled to buy lands. Behold, this is wisdom, that they may obtain it for an everlasting inheritance.

Wisdom. This word appeared more than once in the verses cited. Everlasting inheritance. This phrase reminds me a lot of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Excepting Adam-Ondi-Ahman, there has been little done to bring about the literal Zion as described by the Lord in Section 57. I'm not accusing the LDS church of complacency but is anything being done to purchase the land? Or are the Hedrickites still unwilling to budge even though they seem to have given up the idea of building the temple on the Lot. Would the purchase of land also have to include the portions owned by Community of Christ that houses the Temple and the Conference Center?

It just seems odd to me that such an important project is on hold. I say that we let the Zionic Mission continue but also work toward the literal Zion as well.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Valentinus

[LeSellers]

"Zion" is a person, a place, and a couple of things.

He called His people Zion, for they were of one heart and one mind, and holiness reigned among them (not a single scripture, but an amalgam of several, don't ask which ones, some are obvious, others not so much).

It is the area in and around the New Jerusalem (Independence, MO), all of USmerica and all of the Americas (or anyone one of these).

It is an idea, the concept of the ideal community, Utopia (literally "No Place").

It is also (connected with the "Center Place" or "Center Stake"), any stake of the Church, officially called "Stakes of Zion".

The combination of the three connotations is ZION in its widest and fullest sense, but any of them qualifies just as much as the totality.

Lehi

Edited October 20, 2011 by LeSellers

[thesometimesaint]

The center Stake of Zion will be in Missouri. It is also anywhere the pure in heart dwell, and that can be anywhere.

[Calm]

Excepting Adam-Ondi-Ahman, there has been little done to bring about the literal Zion as described by the Lord in Section 57. I'm not accusing the LDS church of complacency but is anything being done to purchase the land?.

I would think that the Church avoids publicizing most of their efforts in this area to avoid speculation, both by those wanting to make a buck at the Church's expense and those Saints who might be prone to read the end times into the Church's actions and make inappropriate decisions and sacrifices based on their faulty assumptions. Unfortunately I've seen this happen from time to time with what little is publicized.

Having said that, I've heard reports over the years from time to time of the Church's efforts from people who live in the area (lived in Kansas for a time and my husband would go on road trips to historical church sites as well as the RLDS/CoC temple) in this area so I am very certain the Church is preparing and will be fully prepared for establishing the Center Stake of the tent of the Zion community when the time comes.

*****yea! Just figured out how to cut and paste with an iPad....it only took me so long because I'm such a good speller, lol.

Edited October 20, 2011 by calmoriah

[CV75]

It just seems odd to me that such an important project is on hold. I say that we let the Zionic Mission continue but also work toward the literal Zion as well.

I think in light of D&C 101 the Church is still waiting for new instructions.

[Cobalt-70]

God has obviously declared a specific place that is appointed and consecrated for the gathering.

...

Excepting Adam-Ondi-Ahman, there has been little done to bring about the literal Zion as described by the Lord in Section 57. I'm not accusing the LDS church of complacency but is anything being done to purchase the land? Or are the Hedrickites still unwilling to budge even though they seem to have given up the idea of building the temple on the Lot. Would the purchase of land also have to include the portions owned by Community of Christ that houses the Temple and the Conference Center?

It just seems odd to me that such an important project is on hold. I say that we let the Zionic Mission continue but also work toward the literal Zion as well.

The Mormon concept of Zion has undergone a series of changes. Originally, in about 1830, Zion was to be a great American city established at some undisclosed location in American Indian territory. As details emerged, Smith said that the "center place" was to be in Independence, and that its eastern "stake" (a tent metaphor) was to be in Kirtland, Ohio.

After the Mormons were kicked out of Jackson County in 1833, and then out of Missouri entirely in 1838, Smith had no real plans to return to Jackson County. By 1844, Smith began to speak of Zion as the entire Western hemisphere. However, Nauvoo was still just called a "stake" of Zion, not Zion itself. We don't know whether or not Joseph Smith had completely abandoned the Independence idea, or whether he still intended to move back there some day. Moving back would have been impossible during Joseph Smith's lifetime, because he was a fugitive from the state. As soon as he moved back there, he would have been arrested and tried on capital charges.

Salt Lake City was sometimes referred to as "Zion," but technically, it was still composed merely of "stakes" of Zion. As far as I know, the LDS Church does teach that it will eventually move its headquarters to Jackson County, Missouri. However, they must not think that is going to happen for a very, very long time, because they keep building large structures like the Conference Center in Salt Lake City, and have made no efforts to move any of its offices or institutions to Missouri.

At some point, I think the LDS Church has the option of backing out of moving to Missouri. It could say that Missouri was originally promised to the Saints, but because of disobedience to the United Order, the prophecy of a great city there was set aside.

[Damien the Leper]

I think in light of D&C 101 the Church is still waiting for new instructions.

This is a definite possibility.

Heavenly Father has a bad(?) habit of taking His time...

[LeSellers]

This is a definite possibility.

Heavenly Father has a bad(?) habit of taking His time...

Say "inconvenient" rather than "bad" and you're probably on target.

Lehi

[David T]

It's useful to check out some of Joseph's final words on the Subject from 1844.

His view expanded to recognize at that point all of America as the gathering place of peace and unity, or Zion, with the Temples being focal points of the blessings. The Temple is Eden. The Temples are Eden.

Wherin the original early revelations originated the symbol and viewed Missouri as

• The Gathering Place
  
• The Temple Location
  
• Eden
  

Later enlightenment understood a far more expanding understanding of Zion's Gathering Place, Location of Temples, and associated Eden imagery.

I find it highly unfortunate that this stream of thought was only partially continued in discourse after Joseph's death, without the emphases of the conclusion that the Temples are focal points of the worldwide gathering of Zion, and also represent Eden, the Garden of God (just as all temples with murals have their Garden Rooms decorated with the landscape and flora and fauna of their respective geographical area).

The temple is the template of Zion/Eden, which we are being asked to spread to all the world. Individual locations (such as Jackson County, Missouri) as finite focal designations of such things appear to be to be outdated concepts that have been superseded in revealed practice, if not all of our literature.

Edited October 20, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Maidservant]

JUST A FEW . . .

D&C97:19, 21 And the nations of the earth shall honor her, and shall say: Surely Zion is the city of our God . . . let Zion rejoice, for this is Zion—the pure in heart

D&C 101:18 They that remain, and are pure in heart, shall return, and come to their inheritances, they and their children, with songs of everlasting joy, to build up the waste places of Zion

D&C 84:100 The Lord hath redeemed his people; And Satan is bound and time is no longer. The Lord hath gathered all things in one. The Lord hath brought down Zion from above. The Lord hath brought up Zion from beneath.

D&C 82:14 Zion must arise and put on her beautiful garments

2 Ne 14:5 And the Lord will create upon every dwelling-place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night

D&C 14:6 Seek to bring forth and establish my Zion

Isaiah 49:14 But Zion said, The Lord hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me

3 Ne 20:37 O captive daughter of Zion

D&C 57:2 Wherefore, this is the land of promise, and the place for the city of Zion

D&C 136:18 Zion shall be redeemed in mine own due time

Isaiah 1:27 Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness

2 Ne 8:16, 24 And I have put my words in thy mouth, and have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion: Behold, thou art my people . . . Awake, awake, put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city; for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean

Moses 7:18, 19 [see also 4th Ne]: 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 . . . he built a city that was called the City of Holiness, even Zion

D&C 111:6 Concern not yourselves about Zion, for I will deal mercifully with her

Psalms 125:1 They that trust in the Lord shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever

[Maidservant]

The gospel of Jesus Christ, and the covenants of God to man, have always had a strong element of "place" (literal) and "land" (literal), and thus Zion is no different on that.

But also like most things in the gospel, we also carry Zion with us wherever we go, so that wherever we are standing (if we are covenant people) is holy ground, simply by the act of us standing there .

If one wishes to understand Zion, the first place to study is in Moses (PofGP), centrally chapter 7. Secondly, to study on Isaiah (which is also an important reason why Isaiah speaks within the Book of Mormon, too . . . there is GREAT importance on that). Any understanding of D&C "zion" lore, has to begin these two places. Psalms would be the 3rd place. Revelation the 4th. Then selections from D & C. Throw in a little Nibley there. He he.

[Damien the Leper]

The Mormon concept of Zion has undergone a series of changes. Originally, in about 1830, Zion was to be a great American city established at some undisclosed location in American Indian territory. As details emerged, Smith said that the "center place" was to be in Independence, and that its eastern "stake" (a tent metaphor) was to be in Kirtland, Ohio.

After the Mormons were kicked out of Jackson County in 1833, and then out of Missouri entirely in 1838, Smith had no real plans to return to Jackson County. By 1844, Smith began to speak of Zion as the entire Western hemisphere. However, Nauvoo was still just called a "stake" of Zion, not Zion itself. We don't know whether or not Joseph Smith had completely abandoned the Independence idea, or whether he still intended to move back there some day. Moving back would have been impossible during Joseph Smith's lifetime, because he was a fugitive from the state. As soon as he moved back there, he would have been arrested and tried on capital charges.

Salt Lake City was sometimes referred to as "Zion," but technically, it was still composed merely of "stakes" of Zion. As far as I know, the LDS Church does teach that it will eventually move its headquarters to Jackson County, Missouri. However, they must not think that is going to happen for a very, very long time, because they keep building large structures like the Conference Center in Salt Lake City, and have made no efforts to move any of its offices or institutions to Missouri.

At some point, I think the LDS Church has the option of backing out of moving to Missouri. It could say that Missouri was originally promised to the Saints, but because of disobedience to the United Order, the prophecy of a great city there was set aside.

After the expulsion from Missouri, I doubt Smith ever intended to go back. At least there has never been reason to believe he would do so considering the consequences...as you stated above.

I agree that the concept of Zion has changed and I won't argue which is 'correct' because I see truth in them all.

I am curious as to the relevance of the Center Place in light of Adam-Ondi-Ahman. The latter obviously has a great deal of significance but how does it relate to the Center Place?

If the LDS church were to back out of the Missouri significance, what would that mean?

[Cobalt-70]

I think in light of D&C 101 the Church is still waiting for new instructions.

I think that D&C 101 is obsolete by now. This revelation calls for the immediate "redemption of Zion" by "all the strength of my house, which are my warriors...." However, the members of Zion's Camp failed miserably to do what the revelation asked of them. Realizing that Zion's Camp was futile, Smith provided a revelation (D&C 105) that said that Zion would be redeemed after the first Mormons elders received their Endowment in the Kirtland temple (v. 33). But this never happened. So I think these scriptures are now obsolete.

[Cobalt-70]

I am curious as to the relevance of the Center Place in light of Adam-Ondi-Ahman. The latter obviously has a great deal of significance but how does it relate to the Center Place?

If the LDS church were to back out of the Missouri significance, what would that mean?

I think that both Independence and Adam-Ondi-Ahman are more symbolic locations now, more than anything else. Unless, as a constituent of the modern scientific world, you have chosen to live a life of cognitive dissonance, you know that Adam-Ondi-Ahman was not the literal home of Adam and Eve. But the location serves an important symbolic function within Mormonism.

[CV75]

I think that D&C 101 is obsolete by now. This revelation calls for the immediate "redemption of Zion" by "all the strength of my house, which are my warriors...." However, the members of Zion's Camp failed miserably to do what the revelation asked of them. Realizing that Zion's Camp was futile, Smith provided a revelation (D&C 105) that said that Zion would be redeemed after the first Mormons elders received their Endowment in the Kirtland temple (v. 33). But this never happened. So I think these scriptures are now obsolete.

I still wouldn't say it's a completely shut case. Adam-ondi-Ahman is still Adam-ondi-Ahman so there must be some future activity for the Church related to the geographic location. New instruction would apply to whatever the Church needs to do about that.

Edited October 21, 2011 by CV75