The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Dan Peterson didn't get banned, from what I recall; Pahoran did quite a bit.  It was that way on ZLMB as well because Pahoran couldn't resist taking it personal (speaking as one of the mods there who decided to ban him back then, he was really good about not complaining about being banned; I always appreciated that).

Since Peterson and other effective debaters (for example Smac) haven't gotten banned tons, it likely wasn't primarily accusations from people resentful he was a great debater.

 It is not like Pahoran has just started getting banned, it’s been going on a long time.

The irony of the matter is that some of the same personalities here are regulars on the Mormon Discussions board, where they let there true selves shine through and are subsantially nastier than Kiwi/Pahoran ever was on his  worst days. 

But prerhaps you could look through past threads and select from his posts what you consider the most egregious specimen and let each evaluate it for himself or herself. 

Edited June 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But prerhaps you could look through past threads and select from his posts what you consider the most egregious specimen and let each evaluate it for himself or herself. 

Why should I do that?  What would my purpose be?

-------

Quote

The irony of the matter is that some of the same personalities here are regulars on the Mormon Discussions board, where they let there true selves shine through and are subsantially nastier than Kiwi/Pahoran ever was on his  worst days. 

Some, though not all, of Shades people apparently can tell the difference between here and there and figured it was worth it to them to act accordingly. The ones that couldn’t or wouldn't got banned, it would seem or just not interested in posting here.  Same rules apply from what I can see to believers though they probably get more chances to come back and demonstrate they will abide by the rules due to the imbalance of being targets.  It is unfortunate when people refuse to post by the rules, we have probably lost out on interesting and informative conversations

Not sure why it is irony, the moderators' rules only exist for this board.  I doubt any of them want to start expanding their jurisdiction outside the board..though I can see they might want to If someone was somehow harassing board members elsewhere using info received here or something along those lines.

Edited June 2, 2018 by Calm

[Rain]

 

 

On 5/30/2018 at 2:50 PM, stemelbow said:

Main function?  40 million of the Church's far more than 32 billion net worth would not even suggest the Church has a primary principle of helping the poor and needy.  It's like an average person making 50,000/year giving 62 bucks a year to the poor and needy.  I don't think it'd be wise for a person who made 50,000 a year giving 62 bucks a year to charitable causes should go around boasting about giving so much.  On the flip though, the Church requires a 50,000/year person to give them 5,000/year in order for them to be declared worthy.  

I recognize this is a problem with transparency, but people often go with the idea that "humanitarian aid" is the whole budget for the "poor and needy". The more I learn about what the church does to help the poor and needy, the more I suspect that "humanitarian aid" is just one part of helping the poor and needy. Obviously I have nothing to prove that, but the fact that the church seems to consistantly attach the "humanitarian" term with money spent gives me part of that idea.

 

On 5/31/2018 at 8:31 AM, bluebell said:

Churches are not the only organizations that are tax exempt in the U.S.  All charities are.  This is because the services that such groups provide citizens (and thus the country) provide a significant benefit to the country, so it makes sense that the government would provide benefits back to them as well. 

By not burdening churches and other charities with taxes, they are more able to provide services to the poor and needy, thus removing a burden that would otherwise be carried by the state.  Making churches exempt from paying taxes is also a way to keep the church and state separate (a large part of our constitution).  

And church's tax exempt status only applies to the donations they receive.  The church pays taxes on money they make in other ways.

Just to be clear - not all charities are tax exempt and some charities are fully tax exempt and others are not.

 

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

When President Monson announced the fourth mission of the church was to care for the poor and needy, I was very excited because this is a core element of the Christian gospel.  But honestly, I've been surprised how many members don't know about this and how little the church seems to promote this idea to its members.  I couldn't even find a link on the church's web site that talks to it.  Any ideas as to why this hasn't been promoted well? 

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/lds/ci_13965607

 

Perhaps many felt the way I did even if they didn't think through it.  I felt about it much the same as I felt about the change from HT and VT to ministering - that there wasn't really a change - just a word change to emphasize understanding some were missing. I've always thought that helping the poor and needy was intertwined in all 3 missions of the church. If someone was missing helping the poor and needy then they didn't have a full understanding of the 3 other missions.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2018 by Rain

[rodheadlee]

On 6/1/2018 at 7:00 AM, Analytics said:

In the recent press release, the Church said that its two most fundamental budgeting principles are the following:

• Expenditures will not exceed forecasted revenue.
• The budget for operating expenses will not increase at a more rapid rate than anticipated tithing contributions.

What I infer from this is that they want to the church to perpetually grow its financial empire--the basic principle is that while sure, the "operating expenses" of spreading the gospel, redeeming the dead, and perfecting the Saints is great and all that, what's most important is that the corporate empire perpetually grows. (On the other hand I might be misinterpreting the relationship between "expenditures", "revenue", "operating expenses", and "tithing contributions." These are the hazards of dealing with a lack of transparency.)

To the extent I had a real point behind that scriptural quote, it would be that in general, nobody should hoard money. In terms of the Church, I would admire a specific saving goal of, say, fully funding its pension obligations, enough savings to continue operations in a severe, seven-year economic crisis, and enough cash on hand to pay all expenses for a year. But the idea of perpetually saving up money for a rainy day--even after you have enough money to recover from 100 huricains--seems wrong to me.

 

Perhaps.

 

Here is an interesting statistic. By a conservative estimate, Bill Gates has saved the lives of 122 million people. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/14/bill-gates-philanthropy-warren-buffett-vaccines-infant-mortality

The amount of good that some people are doing in the world is staggering.

For how long? How long did he save their lives for? A year? 10 years? 50 years? We save their lives for all eternity.

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I would like to see the church get to a place where they can say enough is enough.  Kinda like Bill and Linda Gates. I would like to see them say It's time to shift from wealth accumulation to humanitarian service. Once this happened, I'm sure the church would be viewed in a much more favorable light.

That's pretty naive.

Good for them, but usually the motivation for the rich to give it away is that 1, the government would get it anyway thru inheritance taxes, 2, might as well make themselves popular as "do-gooders" 3, set up a foundation which will further their business plans, since foundations only have to actually give away a small percentage of what they take in, and 4, employ their families with fat salaries running the foundation forever.

Running a foundation gets you to all the best parties in town, and everyone is your buddy. They call that " social capital" and is why country clubs exist.

Most folks who don't know philanthropy only see the "do-gooder" side.

Ever seen a show on on pbs where they mention the foundation which seems strangely aligned in business with the aim of the show? Like Johnson & Johnson foundation sponsoring some medical documentary?

Gosh I wonder why so many businesses are part of charitable foundations?

 

Edited June 2, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The reality of the do-gooders:

Quote

"Ebocha, Nigeria — Justice Eta, 14 months old, held out his tiny thumb.

An ink spot certified that he had been immunized against polio and measles, thanks to a vaccination drive supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

But polio is not the only threat Justice faces. Almost since birth, he has had respiratory trouble. His neighbors call it "the cough." People blame fumes and soot spewing from flames that tower 300 feet into the air over a nearby oil plant. It is owned by the Italian petroleum giant Eni, whose investors include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Justice squirmed in his mother's arms. His face was beaded with sweat caused either by illness or by heat from the flames that illuminate Ebocha day and night. Ebocha means "city of lights."

The makeshift clinic at a church where Justice Eta was vaccinated and the flares spewing over Ebocha represent a head-on conflict for the Gates Foundation. In a contradiction between its grants and its endowment holdings, a Times investigation has found, the foundation reaps vast financial gains every year from investments that contravene its good works."

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-gatesx07jan07-story.html

So much for "transparency".

It is a total illusion for those with their heads in the sand, and Disneyland dwellers, where people are always good especially if they are not Mormon.

And guess what?  Mormons also are not always good.

Welcome to reality folks!

Either you trust your leaders without transparency or you don't.  If you don't trust your leaders why would you be a member?

Follow your instincts always.

ALWAYS.   Confirmation bias is exactly "following your gut" or the "spirit" - whatever language game you are using.  Those who think we should not follow confirmation bias are simply naive.

Life is not a physics experiment and following our instincts is often all we have.

Sometimes there really IS a bear behind that bush, confirmation bias or not!

Edited June 2, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

On 6/1/2018 at 12:52 PM, Marginal Gains said:

In what way have I criticised the actual humanitarian programme in terms of what it does? I’m saying it should and could be massively better funded. It would be a more honest use of member donations, in my opinion. What’s more important than helping the poor and needy?

Perhaps someone else has already responded to this post of yours, but I don't have time at the moment to read through all six or seven pages that have been generated since my last entry, so I'll just go for it.

You say that the Church's humanitarian programme should and could be massively better funded.  That's a valid opinion, and I might even agree with you, but I wrote earlier (and you seem to have ignored it) that the Church's primary purpose is salvation from sin, not humanitarian work.  Christ came here first of all to save us from sin, yes?  Secondarily, he taught his followers to take care of each other. Tithing supports the salvation work of the Church through the support of proselytizing efforts, maintenance of physical facilities of worship, and things related to these things. Funds donated as tithing are not earmarked for humanitarian purposes, but I suppose that portions of it might sometimes be used for it, I suppose, depending upon circumstances. I'd be willing to say that I don't believe that donations for humanitarian purposes do not find themselves in the Church's supposed $32 billion dollar stock portfolio, except perhaps temporarily when they cannot be used immediately.  Funds donated for tithing do not necessarily have anything to do with the humanitarian donations given to the eponymous fund or to fast offerings.  These latter are what are used for humanitarian purposes.

 

On 6/1/2018 at 12:52 PM, Marginal Gains said:

And I guarantee that every penny of money donated to me for charitable causes goes to those exact causes. Directly. 100%. Not on building a stock portfolio.

Well, good for you!   As it happens, that's how the Church does it.  As it is said HERE:

"Donations, principally from Church members but also from people around the world, are used to make relief projects possible. One hundred percent of the donations given to the Church’s humanitarian services are used for relief efforts. The Church absorbs its own overhead costs."

So, MG, you could confidently donate to the Church humanitarian aid fund, knowing that your donation would go towards humanitarian aid.

On 6/1/2018 at 12:52 PM, Marginal Gains said:

Why does the Church need to be wealthy?

That's another question, but I note that an organization with over 15 million members that maintains facilities worldwide in need of maintenance, has a clear need for wealth.

[Jeanne]

Question for everyone.  Does salvation have anything to do with humanitarian work?  Should it?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Question for everyone.  Does salvation have anything to do with humanitarian work?  Should it?

Yes.  And yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  And yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you.  Should there be a priority or justification for ignoring one for the other?  That is, should the church concentrate on sin and directing those to gospel covenants...or should there be a devotion of giving?

[mfbukowski]

The tax code requires only minimum distributions from charitable foundations to other "Charities" to make them a charitable foundation.

So a charity only has to give away a certain percentage of its income to.... charitable causes

BUT

Those "charitable causes" often include  other sub-foundations set up under the same founder. 

So the XYZ family foundation takes in a billion dollars and contributes ALL its required minimum distributions to ANOTHER XYZ family foundation set up for a slightly different purpose.

But note that that minimum amount the foundation must give away is based on the investment return the foundation is receiving on its investments!!

For all you BYU accounting graduates: (emphasis added)

Quote

 

Private foundations are required to spend annually a certain amount of money or property for charitable purposes, including grants to other charitable organizations.  The amount that must be distributed annually is ascertained by computing the foundation’s distributable amount.  The distributable amount is equal to the foundation’s minimum investment return with certain adjustments.

The distributable amount must be distributed as qualifying distributions.  However, a foundation may set aside funds for up to 60 months for certain major projects. Excess qualifying distributions may be carried forward for a period of five tax years immediately following the tax year in which the excess was created.  Special transitional rules apply to foundations created before May 27, 1969.

A foundation that fails to pay out the distributable amount in a timely manner is subject to a 30 percent excise tax under section 4942 on the undistributed income.  The tax is charged for each year or partial year that the deficiency remains uncorrected.  An additional 100 percent tax is triggered if the foundation fails to make up the deficient distribution within 90 days of receiving notification from the IRS of its failure to make minimum distributions.

Limited exceptions to the tax may apply.

 

 

 

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/private-foundations/taxes-on-failure-to-distribute-income-private-foundations

Quote

Distributable amount is equal to the minimum investment return of a private foundation reduced by the sum of any income taxes and the tax on investment income, and increased by--

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/private-foundations/tax-on-private-foundation-failure-to-distribute-income-distributable-amount

Quote

The minimum investment return for any private foundation is 5 percent of the excess of the combined fair market value of all assets of the foundation, other than those used or held for use for exempt purposes, over the amount of indebtedness incurred to buy these assets.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/private-foundations/minimum-investment-return

In other words, under the right conditions, a private charitable foundation need only give away FIVE PERCENT of its corpus every year to other "chariable causes" which might include its own sub-foundations.

That's an incredible business model!

Go out and start a private foundation today!!   

And so much for the illusion that people actually do this to be "charitable" 

It's like the Hollywood movie stars going to protests in favor of gun control while being protected by armed body guards.

This is not a world for the faint of heart.

 

Edited June 2, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Perhaps someone else has already responded to this post of yours, but I don't have time at the moment to read through all six or seven pages that have been generated since my last entry, so I'll just go for it.

You say that the Church's humanitarian programme should and could be massively better funded.  That's a valid opinion, and I might even agree with you, but I wrote earlier (and you seem to have ignored it) that the Church's primary purpose is salvation from sin, not humanitarian work.  Christ came here first of all to save us from sin, yes?  Secondarily, he taught his followers to take care of each other. Tithing supports the salvation work of the Church through the support of proselytizing efforts, maintenance of physical facilities of worship, and things related to these things. Funds donated as tithing are not earmarked for humanitarian purposes, but I suppose that portions of it might sometimes be used for it, I suppose, depending upon circumstances. I'd be willing to say that I don't believe that donations for humanitarian purposes do not find themselves in the Church's supposed $32 billion dollar stock portfolio, except perhaps temporarily when they cannot be used immediately.  Funds donated for tithing do not necessarily have anything to do with the humanitarian donations given to the eponymous fund or to fast offerings.  These latter are what are used for humanitarian purposes.

 

Well, good for you!   As it happens, that's how the Church does it.  As it is said HERE:

"Donations, principally from Church members but also from people around the world, are used to make relief projects possible. One hundred percent of the donations given to the Church’s humanitarian services are used for relief efforts. The Church absorbs its own overhead costs."

So, MG, you could confidently donate to the Church humanitarian aid fund, knowing that your donation would go towards humanitarian aid.

That's another question, but I note that an organization with over 15 million members that maintains facilities worldwide in need of maintenance, has a clear need for wealth.

Aren't we supposed to build the New Jerusalem in Missouri? 

Seriously  I am sure that is in the mind of the leaders.

How much will that cost?  How much will a dollar bill be worth after the destruction?

Do you think there might be some needy in need of humanitarian aid then?

THAT is what they are thinking about I am sure.

Edited June 2, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

How come building the New Jerusalem has not come up on this thread? 

[Bernard Gui]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church is pouring far more money and resources into these sorts of places than it gets from them.  But over time, with faith and hard work, these places can become more self-sufficient, both in terms of membership numbers, leadership capacity, and perhaps even financially.  Wouldn't that be a good thing?  Do we really want to keep our poor brothers and sisters dependent upon others?  Isn't self-reliance a worthy objective?  And if the Gospel is what it claims to be, then isn't obedience to its precepts a necessary component of self-improvement and self-reliance?

50 years ago I served for a time in Danli, out in the boondocks of Honduras, one of the poorest of the poor countries. The branch had about 25 active members, all women and children except for one Melchizedek priesthood holder. He had a small business that involved a few trucks. Other than him, no one in the branch had much of anything. Most paid something in  tithing and offerings. Brother Nolasco was very generous with what money he had.  Today there is a stake in Danli with many prospering members. I can’t imagine how that came to be! But the positive influence of the Church and the gospel on that small part of the vineyard is undeniable.

This boggles my mind...

https://www.ldschurchnews.com/callings/2018-05-31/new-temple-presidents-called-to-serve-in-honduras-japan-and-missouri-47257

 

Edited June 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[strappinglad]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How come building the New Jerusalem has not come up on this thread?  

We are waiting for that yellow dog to leave Missouri .

[Marginal Gains]

40 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Perhaps someone else has already responded to this post of yours, but I don't have time at the moment to read through all six or seven pages that have been generated since my last entry, so I'll just go for it.

You say that the Church's humanitarian programme should and could be massively better funded.  That's a valid opinion, and I might even agree with you, but I wrote earlier (and you seem to have ignored it) that the Church's primary purpose is salvation from sin, not humanitarian work. 

No. The Church has a four fold mission, one of which is helping the poor & needy.

40 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Christ came here first of all to save us from sin, yes?  Secondarily, he taught his followers to take care of each other.

‘Take care of each other’...sounds an awful lot like humanitarian work.

40 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Tithing supports the salvation work of the Church through the support of proselytizing efforts, maintenance of physical facilities of worship, and things related to these things. Funds donated as tithing are not earmarked for humanitarian purposes, but I suppose that portions of it might sometimes be used for it, I suppose, depending upon circumstances.

The only thing we know know for sure is that tithing supports the building of a $32 billion stock portfolio. The rest of what you say is conjecture. I say that because up until this year, when explaining how tithing was used, the building up of stocks and bonds and residential and commercial property investments and for-profit business investments, was glaringly absent.

40 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'd be willing to say that I don't believe that donations for humanitarian purposes do not find themselves in the Church's supposed $32 billion dollar stock portfolio, except perhaps temporarily when they cannot be used immediately.  Funds donated for tithing do not necessarily have anything to do with the humanitarian donations given to the eponymous fund or to fast offerings.  These latter are what are used for humanitarian purposes.

Tithing not used for humanitarian purposes. Got it. I wasn’t arguing otherwise.

40 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, good for you!   As it happens, that's how the Church does it.  As it is said HERE:

"Donations, principally from Church members but also from people around the world, are used to make relief projects possible. One hundred percent of the donations given to the Church’s humanitarian services are used for relief efforts. The Church absorbs its own overhead costs."

So, MG, you could confidently donate to the Church humanitarian aid fund, knowing that your donation would go towards humanitarian aid.

Bernie Madoff said all investments given to him were profitable. Should I believe him or ask for proof?

40 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

That's another question, but I note that an organization with over 15 million members that maintains facilities worldwide in need of maintenance, has a clear need for wealth.

Well no, I disagree. It has a clear need for operating expenses. Which it obviously covers with extreme ease as the surplus has been amassed into a stock portfolio worth $32 billion, plus bonds, property and for-profit business interests. I’d say the operating costs for maintaining the portfolio of religious buildings is insignificant on the basis of how much surplus the Church has managed to stash away.

[Marginal Gains]

55 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Aren't we supposed to build the New Jerusalem in Missouri? 

Seriously  I am sure that is in the mind of the leaders.

How much will that cost?  How much will a dollar bill be worth after the destruction?

THAT is what they are thinking about I am sure.

Serious question: Do you believe the Church has amassed so much wealth in order to build an enclave in Missouri?

If the dollar is going to be worthless after some cataclysmic happening, what’s the point in stashing so many of them?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you.  Should there be a priority or justification for ignoring one for the other? 

I don't think so.  They should be worked on in tandem.

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

That is, should the church concentrate on sin and directing those to gospel covenants...or should there be a devotion of giving?

I think the Church should fulfill its mandates as to the spiritual and temporal salvation of men.  At the same time.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Question for everyone.  Does salvation have anything to do with humanitarian work?  Should it?

Absolutely.  We cannot be saved if we are ignoring the temporal needs of our neighbors.  

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  They should be worked on in tandem.

I think the Church should fulfill its mandates as to the spiritual and temporal salvation of men.  At the same time.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree...so why don't they?

[Guest]

On May 30, 2018 at 9:05 AM, FearlessFixxer said:

https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/05/30/mormonleaks-compiles-information-connecting-mormon-church-to-32-billion-of-investments/

Before everyone jumps my bones and tries to tell me I am trying to make the church look bad....

This is about transparency.

This can be seen from a faithful perspective, a negative perspective, and a neutral perspective.

Personally, It matters not to me how much the church has in the stock market, but I think their tithe payers have a right to know.

 

Cheers
 

And immediately presupposing what everyone might say, with a quick sign off...does not inspire confidence. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Serious question: Do you believe the Church has amassed so much wealth in order to build an enclave in Missouri?

If the dollar is going to be worthless after some cataclysmic happening, what’s the point in stashing so many of them?

How could you NOT know the church leaders not only believe in but are planning for the New Jerusalem?  It is all over the place in the scriptures!!

God's not making more real estate and it doesn't take much time to get stocks into tangible assets.

Bricks, mortar and concrete,  steel, bulldozers and even labor should be quite cheap during a major depression leading to a full meltdown. And the jobs become humanitarian aid to those who want to work.

This is common sense.

Try to see how others think. It isn't very hard.

After all, I once was an atheist too, but I got better. 

I was a pretty militant Marxist out to destroy the opium of the masses until I got educated in the philosophy of science.

It's everything about HOW things work and NOTHING about why it's all important.

What is the purpose of the earth?  Can a scientist answer that?

What's the purpose of YOUR life on earth and what should you do with your life's energy before you become dirt?  Can science tell you what is important in life??

Nope- only what you call "confirmation bias" can tell you anything about what is important in life- and YOU get to form your own biases all by yourself

You just don't see that.

Edited June 2, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Rain]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  They should be worked on in tandem.

I think the Church should fulfill its mandates as to the spiritual and temporal salvation of men.  At the same time.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes.

D&C 29

31 For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal—

32 First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work—

33 Speaking unto you that you may naturally understand; but unto myself my works have no end, neither beginning; but it is given unto you that ye may understand, because ye have asked it of me and are agreed.

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.

 

Spiritual and temporal - intrinsically connected.

[mfbukowski]

The New Jerusalem- Encyclopedia of Mormonism

The 10th Article of Faith.  Do you think that General Authorities accept the Articles of Faith???

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/New_Jerusalem

 

Quote

 

New Jerusalem

 

 

See this page in the original 1992 publication.

Author: Doxey, Graham W.

For Latter-day Saints, the gathering of Israel in the last days, and the building of the city of Zion and of the New Jerusalem, are closely related concepts.

The tenth article of faith, written by the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1842, declares that the New Jerusalem will be built upon the American continent. He learned this as he translated the Book of Mormon (3 Ne. 20:22; Ether 13:2-6). Additional revelation on this subject came in September 1830 and was further clarified in the subsequent months (D&C 28:9;42:33-36, 62, 67;57:3). In July 1831, Joseph Smith traveled to Jackson County, Missouri, at the command of the Lord, where it was announced that the long-awaited gathering of Israel would commence. The city of Zion (also called the New Jerusalem) and its temple would be built in Independence, Missouri (D&C 57:1-3).

Even as the ancient tribes of Israel were scattered north of the Holy Land and their identity was lost, their prophets foretold a gathering of Israel in the last days in a consecrated land (Jer. 31:1-12). Zion would be reestablished. This prophecy includes the promise that the "pure in heart" will receive the higher principles and truths of the full gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 97:21;100:16;101:18). Both where and how they live will come about under divine influence. Since favorable spiritual conditions may exist anywhere in the world, cities of Zion and of Zion people, the "pure in heart," could be located anywhere in the world (D&C 97:21). However, there is to be a "center place," or capital city, of Zion. It is referred to both as "the city of Zion" and as "the city of New Jerusalem" (D&C 57:2;84:2; cf. 45:66-67).

The writings of Ether, written prior to 125 B.C., abridged by Moroni ₂ in the Book of Mormon, prophesy of the preparations for the coming of the messiah and of a New Jerusalem in the Western Hemisphere. It is to be built by the remnant of the seed of Joseph of Egypt (Ether 13:3-10). Ether also speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem of old, adding that it will be rebuilt with a temple and become a holy city (Ether 13:11).

Also, the book of Revelation speaks of "the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven" (Rev. 21:2, 10). This may relate to the return of the city of Enoch, the Zion that in Enoch's day was caught up into heaven (Moses 7:12-21, 59-64).

The future rebuilding of the Holy Land for the house of Judah and the building of the New Jerusalem in the Western Hemisphere for the house of Joseph are associated with the return of the Messiah to the earth. Of this era, the 1845 Proclamation of the Twelve (MFP 1:252-66) says: He will assemble the Natives, the remnants of Joseph in America; and make them a great, and strong, and powerful nation: and he will civilize and enlighten them, and will establish a holy city, and temple and seat of government among them, which shall be called Zion.

And there shall be his tabernacle, his sanctuary, his throne, and seat of government for the whole continent of North and South America for ever. In short, it will be to the western hemisphere what Jerusalem will be to the eastern….

The city of Zion, with its sanctuary and priesthood, and the glorious fulness of the gospel, will constitute a standard which will put an end to jarring creeds and political wranglings, by uniting the republics, states, provinces, territories, nations, tribes, kindred, tongues, people and sects of North and South America in one great and common bond of brotherhood. Truth and knowledge shall make them free, and love cement their union. The Lord also shall be their king and their lawgiver; while wars shall cease and peace prevail for a thousand years [pp. 259-60].

The prophet Isaiah declared that in a future time "out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem" (Isa. 2:2-3; cf. Micah 4:1-2). Latter-day Saints believe this refers to the two Zion headquarters in the two hemispheres from which the Messiah, the returned Son of God, will reign triumphantly over the whole earth. GRAHAM W. DOXEY

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I agree...so why don't they?

CFR that they don’t.