NOM

So I'm reading Rough Rolling Stone (great book if you haven't read it) They have just established that Zion will be in Jackson County and we all know the rest about New Jerusalem​ and what not. Perhaps it's on the book and I haven't gotten there yet, but what happened???
I assume RLDS/CC owned much the land and what not. But I was wondered as a kid when we were going to move to Missouri. Not that I would now. But what happened??? I know we have those High in the Mountain Tops and blah blah. But Joseph very specifically said New Jerusalem​ will be established in Independence.
Thoughts??? I tried looking through past threads but couldn't find much about this topic. Links are great too if you got em!

Two words: real estate.

This story is alive and well here in Missouri, especially the Kansas City (Independence) area. A frequent fast and testimony jest in the area is "I'm so grateful I won't have to move for the gathering!" The CC have a beautiful temple in Independence. They offer tours to the public, too! A lot of land is owned by CC but tours are mostly tailored toward the LDS. Most Missouri stakes do youth conference church history trips that revolve at least in part around the myth you mentioned.

So the CC temple is where Joey said it would be???

The LDS church owns the land that Smith originally dedicated but hasn't done anything with it to hasten the work. But the CC people are the ones who got their act together enough to actually build something.



I call it the nautilus.

Hugh Nibley wrote a book about not reaching the goal of Zion. It was the goal of early saints, but was abandoned. But now we have shopping malls and luxury apartments to display the great wealth of the church. A sure sign that going back to Missouri is no longer on the list. It was a concept in the early days, but no longer seems practical either. I've always heard the church has grain silos all the way back to the Midwest to assist the saints in the walk back. Can you imagine a few million saints leaving Utah, Idaho, California, etc and all moving to somewhere in Missouri as refugees?

Snowdrop wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:31 pm But the CC people are the ones who got their act together enough to actually build something.



I call it the nautilus.

I think of it as a shrine to the Tin Woodsman of Oz.

An apologetic response to all of this is pretty easy to give. However, I hesitated to do so, for the simple reason that I think the church is a fraud, and I don't particularly *want* to provide an apologetic response. But then I thought to myself, there may be some on this board that would appreciate it, perhaps because they are still clinging on to a hope in the church. And maybe it might actually help them with some of their family relationships, to smooth things over. I don't know. In any case, here goes... an apologetic response that *somewhat* supports the church. Make of it whatever you want.

To begin the apologetic response, I must first digress and discuss in more detail the 19th century idea of exactly what the "Kingdom" is, and what the "Church" is, from the perspective of the original founders, from which I am a 3rd generation descendant, if anyone cares to know. Yep, that's right... I am talking about my great-grandpa's views here, and he was one of the original founders of the church-- and that's why I know these things.

In those days, the "Kingdom" was thought to be a separate organization from the "Church". I will provide exactly one reference for that, below, although I can produce *many* similar references if I wish to. In DHC 7:382, we have the following:

The Kingdom of God is a separate organization from the Church of God. There may be men acting as officers in the Kingdom of God who will not be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On this point the Prophet Joseph gave particular instructions before his death, and gave an example, which he asked the younger elders who were present to always remember. It was to the effect that men might be chosen to officiate as members of the Kingdom of God who had no standing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Kingdom of God when established will not be for the protection of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints alone, but for the protection of all men, whatever their religious views or opinions may be. Under its rule, no one will be permitted to overstep the proper bounds or to interfere with the rights of others. (DHC 7:382)

To make a very long story very short, the "Kingdom" was to be a political organization, based on the economic principle of "United Order", which is a variation of socialism rather than capitalism. It was to have it's own offices and officers (of which the "Council of Fifty" was one of the them, but there was another council above the 50 consisting of 7 members, and yet another above that-- a "king"-- that would hold sway over all of it. Yes, Joseph was sustained as that "King", as was Brigham at a later time. And yes, many of them thought to escape to the Rocky Mountains, away from the United States, in order to establish a new government based on "United Order", and independent of the United States. This is why the charge of "Treason" came from many elements of the United States, and was also the impetus behind Johnstons's Army, sent to the Utah territory in order to put down the Mormon "rebellion", which history now commonly records as the "Utah War". Yes, there are elements of truth to all of those stories.

Anyway, with that brief introduction, here is the apologetic response to D&C 84: 2-5 that I promised, based on the idea of "Kingdom", as described above (and as taught to me by my own father, who, if he was still alive, would be almost 120 years old now):

"*****************
Where United Order is, there is the Kingdom.
Where the Kingdom is, there is United Order.
Where the Kingdom and United Order are, there is Zion.
"Zion" and the "City of Zion" are the same thing.* (see footnote)
Where Zion is, there is the New Jerusalem.
The "New Jerusalem" and the "City of the New Jerusalem" are the same thing.
Thus, where United Order is, there you will also find the city of the New Jerusalem.

Thus, D&C 84: 2-5 contains the prophecy that in the last days, United Order will be established, or in other words, the city of the New Jerusalem will be built.

The process of laying the foundation was to begin at the temple lot at the western boundaries of the state of Missouri. That was to mark the beginning of the effort to establish United Order in these last days.

And, obviously, before that effort could begin, the saints had to be gathered to the area, so that they could build it. Thus, "the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple...".

Now, if the "City of the New Jerusalem" is the Kingdom of God, then different buildings within that city would represent different stewardships within that Kingdom. The building that best describes the Lord's Church would be the "House of the Lord", or the "Temple of the Lord".

So, where verse 4 says "even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation", it is referring to the stewardship of the Lord's Church, which is contained within the Lord's Kingdom.

To further illustrate this, when the scriptures say "as for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord", what is the house in that verse? Is it an actual, literal building? Or is it a people, a family? The answer is obvious.

Likewise, what is the "house of the Lord", or the "temple of the Lord"? Is it an actual, literal building, like a temple building or a church house? Or does it instead refer to a specific people, or a specific stewardship within the City of the New Jerusalem (i.e., within the Kingdom)?

The temple spoken of in those verses represents the house of the Lord, which in turn represents the Lord's church within that Kingdom. And the beginning of the building of the Kingdom (i.e., the establishment of "United Order") was starting at that time.

If anyone is curious, the book "Building The City Of God", by Leonard J Arrington, documents over 200 attempts at establishing United Order in those days. It's a rather dry book to read, but I still found it very interesting, and directly supports what I had been taught as a child.

"****
* footnote: The phrase "Zion and the City of Zion are the same thing" is not technically completely accurate, but it is close enough for the purposes of this article. To be more precise, "Zion" is a condition (of United Order), and the "City of Zion" is the place where that condition exists. The same holds true for any discussion of the "New Jerusalem".

I thought that the "temple lot" church (Hedrickites) owns the dedicated land for the temple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_ ... emple_Lot)

Is this in debate as to whether it is THE actual spot?

Wow Just Curious that was awesome. I don't care one way or the other I was just wondering. That's a great explanation. I forgot about the Council of 50 (my wife got a kick out that take). I just assumed Joseph proclaimed or even had revelation that New Jerusalem would be in Independence, MO. Doesn't Adam Ondami take place in Jackson County somewhere?? You think the 15 will be invited to that??

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:53 am I thought that the "temple lot" church (Hedrickites) owns the dedicated land for the temple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_ ... emple_Lot)

Is this in debate as to whether it is THE actual spot?

I was thinking the same thing. There was a law suit back in the early or mid part of the 1900's and because the LDS church was slow on the draw, the RLDS won the suit and established ownership of the temple plot specifically. Not sure where the Hedrickites come into play here.

moksha wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:20 am

Snowdrop wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:31 pm But the CC people are the ones who got their act together enough to actually build something.



I call it the nautilus.

I think of it as a shrine to the Tin Woodsman of Oz.

I almost burst out laughing during a serious discussion of why memorizing church leaders names are so important.

So the RLDS church won the lawsuit but later Hendricks (the prophet/seer of the much smaller Church of Christ (splintered from Joseph) but in 1930 they did an appeal and the Church of Christ owns the land. They were actually in the process of building a temple until the Great Depression hit.
Oh the RLDS church never owned the lot. This guy Hendricks bought the land and the RLDS Church tried to sue to get the land which they thought was rightfully there's.
As to be expected the LDS Church has tried numerous times to buy the lot but they won't sell.

Bloodhound98 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:37 pm So the RLDS church won the lawsuit but later Hendricks (the prophet/seer of the much smaller Church of Christ (splintered from Joseph) but in 1930 they did an appeal and the Church of Christ owns the land. They were actually in the process of building a temple until the Great Depression hit.
Oh the RLDS church never owned the lot. This guy Hendricks bought the land and the RLDS Church tried to sue to get the land which they thought was rightfully there's.
As to be expected the LDS Church has tried numerous times to buy the lot but they won't sell.

I hear they have a pretty awesome book store on that lot.

From Wiki:

"Ownership of the property later became the subject of court challenges among some sects of the Latter Day Saint movement that arose from the succession crisis following Smith's assassination, most notably between the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and the Community of Christ, formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS Church). In 1891 the Reorganized Church, founded by Smith's son Joseph Smith III, sued in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri to take possession of the property. It won in lower court, but lost in the United States Court of Appeals. The United States Supreme Court refused to review the case.[7]

The Temple Lot is currently owned by the small Church of Christ (Temple Lot), which acquired the land in 1867. This organization made a failed effort in 1929 to build a temple of its own on the property,[8] which represents to date the only attempt to erect such a structure since the time of Joseph Smith. Currently this body has its headquarters on the site, which has twice been damaged by arson attacks. The Temple Lot church has insisted since about 1976 (when final attempts at conciliation by the RLDS Church took place) that it will not cooperate with other Latter Day Saint or Christian denominations in building a temple, nor will it sell the Lot, regardless of any price that might conceivably be offered.[2] Some members of other Latter Day Saint groups have described the Temple Lot church as "'squatters' on the location,"[9] but that organization steadfastly defends its right to possess the property as its physical and spiritual "custodian".[10]

The Community of Christ, the second-largest church within the modern Latter Day Saint movement, now owns the bulk of the original 63 acre (26 ha) property around the Temple Lot, often referred to as the greater Temple Lot. This land had been purchased in the 1830s by Latter Day Saint bishop Edward Partridge to be the central common and sacred area according to the Plat of Zion. It maintains its world headquarters in this area, opening its Auditorium to the south of the Lot in 1958, while in 1994 it dedicated its Independence Temple just to the east.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Lot

Great info! I just read that same thing while in EQ. I swear to you I literally thought about moving to Kansas City so the move to Zion wouldn't be that hard. Lol

The Temple Lot church's land is a portion of the temple parcel. It's the "traditional" spot of the original dedication, but the corner stones they unearthed in the 20th are believed by historians to be from the 20th century, so the actual dedication spot is unknown. Community of Christ's Temple is built on the Temple Parcel, as is the LDS visitor center.

I wrote an article with maps here:
https://bycommonconsent.com/2009/01/19/the-temple-lot/

Very interesting. Joseph had some big dreams!! 24 temples?? Lol interesting they didn't decide to build a temple too.

Those maps are outstanding. Very helpful.

Great map. Sort of like an armchair travelog.

Any details of that UN Peace Monument in the illustration?