A Yellow Dog Wags His Tail In Jackson County

By October 8, 2008

Admin: This post is authored by former occasional guest blogger and friend to JI, Bored in Vernal. Thanks, BiV!

Doctrine and Covenants 84:3-4 instructs the Latter-day Saints concerning the city of Zion, which was to be their “New Jerusalem:”

3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

When the Mormons were expelled from Jackson County at the end of 1833, they were quite understandably worried about what to do with their property. As they relocated in what would become Nauvoo, Illinois, they were instructed to put their energy and resources into building this new home. In March 1839 Joseph Smith “counseled to sell all the land in Jackson county, and all other lands in the state whatsoever.” [1] Within the next two years, a revelation was given absolving the Saints of their responsibilities by the word of the Lord: “. . . I have accepted the offering of those men who I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name in Jackson county, Missouri…” They were told that if enemies hindered them from their work, God would “require that work no more.” [2]

It seems fascinating to me that in spite of the rescinding of the requirement to build Zion in Jackson County, leaders of the Church remained dedicated to the idea that the New Jerusalem would be raised in Missouri. Soon after the death of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, speaking as president of the council of Twelve Apostles, stated in a conference on April 6, 1845:

“And when we get into Jackson county to walk in the courts of that house, we can say we built this temple: for as the Lord lives we will build up Jackson county in this generation.” [3]

This sentiment was perpetuated after the Mormons were established in the Salt Lake Valley. In 1871 Orson Pratt referred to D&C 84 and publicly insisted,

“Here then we see a prediction, and we believe it. Yes! The Latter-day Saints have as firm faith and rely upon this promise as much as they rely upon the promise of forgiveness of sins when they comply with the first principles of the Gospel. We just as much expect that a city will be built, called Zion, in the place and on the land which has been appointed by the Lord our God, and that a temple will be reared on the spot that has been selected, and the corner-stone of which has been laid, in the generation when this revelation was given; we just as much expect this as we expect the sun to rise in the morning and set in the evening; or as much as we expect to see the fulfillment of any of the purposes of the Lord our God, pertaining to the works of his hands. But say the objector, ‘thirty nine years have passed away.’ What of that? The generation has not passed away; all the people that were living thirty-nine years ago have not passed away; but before they do pass away this will be fulfilled.” [4]

Pratt exhibited full confidence that the D&C’s prophecy concerning the Missouri temple being reared “in this generation” would come to pass. But even more, he considered the establishment of Zion in Jackson County as essential to the LDS faith as the forgiveness of sins!

Even after the generation who was alive at the time of Joseph’s prophecy began to pass on, the hope was kept alive within the membership of the Church that one day a temple would be raised in Jackson County. Tidbits of information concerning the events of the last days often included references to Missouri. In October Conference of 1930, J. Golden Kimball remarked: “[t]he western boundaries of the State of Missouri will be swept so clean of its inhabitants that as President [Brigham] Young tells us, ‘when we return to that place there will not be as much as a yellow dog to wag his tail.'” [5]

I find little evidence that any of the Mormons were willing to escape their responsibility to build up Zion in Jackson county by applying the revelation given in 1841 that the Lord no longer required it. Instead, in October 1967 we see an interesting occurrence. President David O. McKay announced plans to build a Visitors Center across the street from the Temple Lot in Independence, on part of the original parcel of ground set apart for this purpose. Alvin R. Dyer, though not a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, was made an Apostle on October 5, 1967, with the blessing pronounced on him that he was to be a watchman over the consecrated lands in Missouri. [6] While serving in this capacity, Dyer wrote a book about the destiny of the Church in Zion, which he titled The refiner’s fire: The significance of events transpiring in Missouri. Dyer often spoke and wrote about his goal of reviving Independence and the general Jackson county area in the consciousness of the Church.

While still an Apostle, Spencer W. Kimball became interested in the gathering of American Indians (“Lamanites”) into the Church. As his inspiration, he took D&C 52:2 where instructions are given to convene the next conference in Missouri where missionaries to the Indians had gone. In this verse, the Lord consecrates the land to his people, the “remnant of Jacob.” Elder Kimball gave his opinion of why the temple in Independence had not been built in a timely manner:

I’ve known people who have been promised in their patriarchal blessings that they would live to see the temple built and some of them are dying and haven’t seen the temple built. Do you know why? In my estimation, the Lord’s time table is directed a good deal by us. We speed up the clock or we slow the hands down and we turn them back by our activities or our procrastinations. And do you know why I think people who are actually promised that they would live to see the temple built are dying before the completion of the temple? Because we haven’t converted the Indians in large enough numbers; never shall we go to Jackson County until we have converted and brought into this church great numbers of Lamanites. Now you just as well set that down as a basic fact. [7]

After the Church began to acquire land in the vicinity of Jackson county and following the organization of multiple stakes in Missouri, additional folklore began to develop concerning the return to Zion. In the late 1970’s the Church made an effort to counter the myths that were circulating. Graham W. Doxey, former president of the Missouri Independence Mission, warned Church members:

Myth #1: We’re going to walk to Missouri to prepare for the Second Coming. Scripture makes it clear that Missouri has a prophetic role to play in the Second Coming and it seems logical that some people will need to go there to assist in portions of that work. But the scriptures contain no references that spell out in detail how that assistance will be given.
One of the quotations I hear frequently repeated is part of a sermon by Joseph F. Smith in 1882: “When God leads the people back to Jackson County, how will he do it” Let me picture to you how some of us may be gathered and led to Jackson County. I think I see two or three hundred thousand people wending their way across the great plain enduring the nameless hardships of the journey, herding and guarding their cattle by day and by night. “This is one way to look at it. It is certainly a practical view. Some might ask, what will become of the railroads? I fear that the sifting process would be insufficient were we to travel by railroads.” (Journal of Discourses, 24:156-57.)

This is a vivid mental picture, but people frequently remember the picture and forget he said “some of us” and “may be gathered.” We should also keep in mind that he said this is “one way to look at it,” remembering also the perspective of 1882. From our perspective in 1979, it seems even less likely that we would sell our automobiles and herd cattle along our freeway systems. But we simply have no scriptural information about who–if any general Church members–will be called to go back and the means that they might use. The prophets of our day have not found it timely or necessary to speak on the matter. [8]

Despite these cautions, thousands of members of the Church still have in their minds the romantic picture of walking to Jackson County in the latter days. With the announcement in the October 2008 General Conference of a temple to be built in “the greater Kansas City area,” imaginations have again been fired. Where will the Temple be located? Are the last days upon us? Is this the beginning of an effort to bolster the Church’s presence in an area of religious significance for the Mormons?

[1] History of the Church 3:274-75.
[2] H. Michael Marquardt, The Independence Temple of Zion. This revelation came from the manuscript volume “Book of the Law of the Lord, and was read by John C. Bennett at the April 1841 General Conference.
[3] Times and Seasons 6 (1 July 1845):956.
[4] Journal of Discourses, Vol. 14, p. 275.
[5] J. Golden Kimball, Conference Report, October 1930, p.59.
[6] H. Michael Marquardt, The Independence Temple of Zion. Dyer was later set apart as a third counselor in the First Presidency (1968). This was one of the very few times when a man who was not a member of the Council of the Twelve served as an Apostle.
[7] Ibid. From a copy of the December 1963 talk obtained from President Kimball’s secretary as quoted in Book of Mormon Student Manual (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed., 1981), 427-28. Kimball speaking to the Lamanites [Indians] said: “You must flourish, and you must become a great people so that you can go back to Jackson County with us and we with you, and we will build there the magnificent temple which Orson Pratt said will be the most beautiful building that ever was built or that ever will be built. . . . They must be leaders in their communities, because not too far away there is going to be a great migration to Jackson County, Missouri, and there we are going to build the great temple” (426-27).
[8] Graham W. Doxey, “Missouri Myths,” Ensign, Apr 1979, 64


Article filed under Miscellaneous


  1. According to Bryce Haymond?s blog:

    For the temple serving the greater Kansas City area, the site will be in Clay County, Missouri, on residential land within the Kansas City limits that is already being developed by the Church. The development is known as Shoal Creek. [As the crow flies, this is about 11.5 miles from the Temple Lot in Independence, Missouri, and only 2-4 miles from Liberty Jail.]

    Comment by Howard — October 8, 2008 @ 6:11 pm

  2. Howard, not sure if you have seen the official announcement on the Church’s site or not.

    Note that the revelation you quote from being in the “Book of the Law of the Lord” is section 124. Marquardt cites the HC but it is unclear to me if Bennett read that specific revelation. Wouldn’t be surprised if he did, though; and agree that it rescinds the injunction to build.

    While I think that the idea of “redeeming Zion” was fairly potent in Nineteenth century Mormonism, I don’t think it was anything close to what we have today. Folks like Woodruff seem to me to not care too much about it, instead focusing on temples, preaching the gospel and building Zion where they were.

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 8, 2008 @ 6:36 pm

  3. Thank you for clearing up this issue! I had never heard the story portrayed that way.

    Admin. Note: Edited for relevancy (or lack thereof).

    Comment by Nathan — October 8, 2008 @ 6:38 pm

  4. FYI, Nathan’s an Anti, making the rounds and spamming all the mormon blogs. He was at BCC a half-hour ago.

    P.S. how can BIV be a former guest-blogger, if this is a guest-blog we’re reading right now (and a darned good one to boot)?

    Comment by Steve Evans — October 8, 2008 @ 7:03 pm

  5. Interestingly, the story in the Deseret News has brought a comment from someone who “almost” bought a home in the Shoal Creek Valley development. The commenter said that “They were having a hard time getting people to buy a house in that development,” perhaps due to the 1920s architectural styles.

    Here’s a link from 2003, announcing the Shoal Creek Valley Development’s groundbreaking, and demonstrating that it is indeed a project of the LDS church. http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2003/01/20/daily16.html

    Here’s a 2008 story, giving a full update on construction and future plans for the development. http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2008/04/21/focus25.html?q=%20Shoal%20Creek%20Valley%20%20LDS%20OR%20Mormon

    So what do we have here? The LDS church decides to spend invest its money in an enormous “master-planned community,” and suddenly there’s a “revelation” to build a temple right in the middle of it, which will naturally result in purchasing rush by LDS buyers. I guess I’m just not “spiritual” enough to avoid seeing the proFIT motive, eh?

    Comment by Nick Literski — October 8, 2008 @ 7:12 pm

  6. Nathan, thanks for stopping by. Goodbye.

    Steve, thanks for the background on Nathan and his friend with the oh-so-impressive credentials. Regarding BiV’s status … I’ll see what I can do.

    Comment by Christopher — October 8, 2008 @ 7:21 pm

  7. Evans, you’re just jealous that BiV is here and not there.

    Comment by Ann — October 8, 2008 @ 7:23 pm

  8. proFIT motive

    Nick, come on. Isn’t that kind of hyperbole a bit beneath you? I’m used to much more articulate and thoughtful responses from you. At least you didn’t mention “morgbots.”

    Comment by SC Taysom — October 8, 2008 @ 7:27 pm

  9. Nick, I suppose you are not spiritual enough. Many of your comments are odd, but this is the first time I’ve read something quite this loathsome from you. I hope this is not a trend.

    Ann, you got me dead to rights.

    Comment by Steve Evans — October 8, 2008 @ 7:28 pm

  10. SC and Steve, you’re entitled to believe that the chosen location has absolutely nothing to do with return on investment. For that matter, you’re entitled to believe that deity is highly interested in the LDS church making greater profits on their Shoal Creek Valley development and, therefore, has revealed to Mr. Monson that a temple should be built there, in order to gain both spiritual and financial benefits. I’m sorry you feel that it’s “loathesome” or “hyperbole” for me to see the plan in more naturalistic terms.

    Comment by Nick Literski — October 8, 2008 @ 7:38 pm

  11. Wow, Nick, it’s rare for me to think of you as an enemy of the Church as opposed to a mere outsider. I regret that you have wanted to change your approach in this respect.

    Comment by Steve Evans — October 8, 2008 @ 7:40 pm

  12. Nick,
    I don’t object to your ideas about the relationship between the church’s investment and the placement of the new temple. In fact, your comment in #10 is just the kind of reasonable stuff I have come to expect. I guess I was just genuinely surprised by the tone of the first of the first comment.

    Comment by SC Taysom — October 8, 2008 @ 7:50 pm

  13. Steve, I don’t believe that the fact that I am critical of some actions/aspects of the LDS church makes me an “enemy” of the LDS church, but I suppose that sort of thing is in the eye of the beholder. I certainly have no interest in destroying the LDS church, or denying LDS members their rights to worship “how, who, or what they may.” In fact, I would readily defend the latter.

    Comment by Nick Literski — October 8, 2008 @ 7:51 pm

  14. You’re right, SC, I could have been more gentle in tone. Mea culpa.

    Comment by Nick Literski — October 8, 2008 @ 7:53 pm

  15. Gee, I thought I would get more scholarly comments by posting this on JI. Good thing old Stapers is around to save the day.

    Comment by Bored in Vernal — October 8, 2008 @ 8:06 pm

  16. Folks like Woodruff seem to me to not care too much about it, instead focusing on temples, preaching the gospel and building Zion where they were.

    For what it’s worth, President Woodruff was involved in litigation over the temple lot in Independence. While the case was technically between Hendrickites and the RLDS, Woodruff testified in the case and the court expressed its belief that the Utah church was the “power behind the throne” of the Hendrickites. See Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Church of Christ, 60 F.937 (C.C. Mo. 1894).

    Comment by JimD — October 8, 2008 @ 8:19 pm

  17. I don’t understand why there is perceived to be an irreconcilable discrepancy between accepting the offering of men who had tried but failed to establish a city of Zion in the 1830s, while retaining the command and expectation that Zion would be established there at some future date. (It’s hard for me to judge any nuances of the claimed release from responsibility to build Zion; I’m not familiar with the source, and the link to Marquardt’s writing gives only an abbreviated quotation — I’d need the complete quotation with context to even start thinking about it’s meaning.)

    In any case, men who were there in both Missouri and Nauvoo and who were as intimately familiar with Joseph Smith, his revelations, and whatever was discussed in conferences, expected a return to Missouri. When Brigham Young gave instructions for his burial, for instance, he gave two sets — one in case the Saints had returned to Missouri, and one in case he died while they were still in the mountains. He wasn’t the only one. So without something better than whatever Marquardt claims is the meaning of the abbreviated quotation, I’m sticking with the expectation that Zion will be built in Jackson County at some future date.

    Alvin R. Dyer was, um, quite a character, wasn’t he? He submitted a lot of reports that are filed as part of David O. McKay’s office diary, some of them concerning the purchase of lands in Missouri. He actually resented any dime spent on Nauvoo, because he thought everything should go toward his personal projects in Missouri.

    Comment by Ardis Parshall — October 8, 2008 @ 8:19 pm

  18. Thanks for the post, BiV. I didn’t have time earlier to respond, but have a minute now. I think because of the early discourse discussing Independence as the Zion and Missouri in general as such a historically (and future) significant place, tied with the notion that the LDS time in Missouri was rather difficult, it is hard for modern Mormons to let go of Missouri as a future place of significance where the Church will eventually succeed.

    I don’t know how significant it was in shaping opinions and perpetuating folk beliefs, but the “Horseshoe Prophecy” attributed to John Taylor that was introduced and widely circulated in the mid-20th century, explained that when the prophecy should be fulfilled, the residue of righteous Saints would leave Utah and join the Lamanites in rebuilding Zion.

    Comment by Christopher — October 8, 2008 @ 8:20 pm

  19. Uh, “its meaning” not “it’s meaning” — ugh.

    Comment by Ardis Parshall — October 8, 2008 @ 8:20 pm

  20. sorry BiV, I’ll settle down.

    Comment by Steve Evans — October 8, 2008 @ 8:21 pm

  21. I have a chapter that touches on this in my dissertation and book if you are really interested in some boring scholarly arguments, BiV. Common human decency forbids me, however, from foisting that upon the innocent readers of the JI on a Wednesday evening.

    Comment by SC Taysom — October 8, 2008 @ 8:24 pm

  22. Steve, compliments always gratefully accepted.

    Ardis, I don’t think Marquardt claims the Saints were released from responsibility to build Zion, it’s purely my own rather uninformed opinion. Certainly the writings of the Church leaders point in the opposite direction. Christopher adds to the preponderance of these statements with the “Horseshoe Prophecy,” and there are many more. In fact, if there are any writings that do interpret D&C 124 as a release, they would be interesting to consider. Here in this post, however, I am just wondering why not. Why didn’t the leaders of the Church seize upon this as justification for leaving, and why do they persist to the present day in believing that we will return to build the Temple on that very cornerstone on the Temple Lot?

    Comment by Bored in Vernal — October 8, 2008 @ 8:39 pm

  23. BiV, thanks for the clarification. Without knowing more than I do now, I’d say that Section 124 isn’t a release for all time, but merely for those who had tried but been hindered by enemies. It doesn’t say the Lord no longer wants a house there ever, or that Jerusalem won’t ultimately be built there. Reading it as a complete changing of the course of prophetic history is rather too much.

    But as usual, I point out that I don’t know nothin’ ’bout nothin’ that happened before history began, on 24 July 1847.

    Comment by Ardis Parshall — October 8, 2008 @ 8:54 pm

  24. Nick: So the Church is going to spend millions of dollars on a temple to increase the odds that mormons, who are about 1% of the population in MO are going to move into a neighborhood so they can make a maybe a million dollars off housing there?

    That might be what is happening, or it might just be that being the developer in the area, they already owned a large chunk of land and are cheap.

    But hey don’t let common sense win you over.

    Comment by Matt W. — October 8, 2008 @ 10:09 pm

  25. Matt, if you read the 2008 story about the development, I think you’ll find it’s far more extensive than “maybe a million dollars” worth of housing. I also think it’s a huge mistake to assume that only current residents of Missouri would purchase housing there. As a resident of Nauvoo, I had the opportunity to observe the sudden influx of LDS to the area, and the attendant rise in property prices, once the temple was announced. While Shoal Creek isn’t Independence, I can readily see LDS members moving from Utah and elsewhere, based largely on this temple being built in the vicinity of “Zion.”

    Frankly, I’m surprised nobody has brought up the really interesting alternative view. The Shoal Creek Valley project is not only residential, but commercial, corporate, etc. What if Shoal Creek Valley is an experiment in modern “Zion city” design, which would actually be a prime reason to build a temple in the middle of it? That would be my most optomistic way of looking at it!

    Comment by Nick Literski — October 8, 2008 @ 11:31 pm

  26. What if Shoal Creek Valley is an experiment in modern ?Zion city? design

    Nah. That would only be accurate if all the homes were identical, built in the most economical manner possible, etc… so as to avoid one home being nicer than another… you know, the kind of disparity that fosters pride and wreaks havoc in a consecration/Zion society

    Comment by Ryan — October 9, 2008 @ 12:23 am

  27. “During this period the thought was that only one temple would be built at the center place. But in June 1833 a draft containing a drawn plat of the city of Zion with explanations regarding the city center and plans for a number of houses called temples was sent to Missouri. This included a draft for ‘the house of the Lord which is to be built first in Zion.’ On the plat were marked numbers for 24 ‘temples,’ that were to be twenty-four buildings for the purpose of ‘houses of worship’ and ‘schools.'”

    Nick: one down, 23 to go.

    Comment by Bored in Vernal — October 9, 2008 @ 6:23 am

  28. I don’t believe that the idea that the Church would place a temple in a given locale for pecuniary reasons would phase members of the Church.

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 9, 2008 @ 9:46 am

  29. The “Zion” model of city building has been largely ignored in the last hundred years. Not since polygamous families escaped to Mexico has a large Mormon community been built from scratch. With such a strong history of urban planning, I would place the last hundred years as the exception rather than the rule. This is a return to our roots.

    Of course, I think this model was part of the cause of anti-Mormon sentiment. Ever since we abandoned the practice, we have been gaining in acceptance in the rest of the world. Would the return to planned Zion communities portent a new wave of persecution? Apparently Nick has decided that the enterprise, and the possibility of locating the temple in the middle of it, is proof of our leaders’ profit motive. The housing market is so lucrative right now.

    I can understand Nick’s reaction, though. We are taught to be cynical about other’s motives. His point of view is probably no different that a typical American’s would be. And if that is a typical response, just how negative would the response be from someone with an axe to grind.

    Comment by BruceC — October 9, 2008 @ 10:11 am

  30. Regarding what revelation was read during the April 1841 conference:

    The report in the Times and Seasons (found here) states that Bennett read “revelations” (plural) from the Law of the Lord “received since the last general conference”. There were three revelations received between October 1840 and April 1841: Section 124, 125 and an uncannonized revelation dated 20 March 1841 (found here). The description of the “revelations” sound a lot like 124 and the revelation of 20 March 1841, but not so much with 125 (although the “&c” in the description in the Times and Seasons leaves it open for anything really).

    Comment by Robin Jensen — October 9, 2008 @ 11:09 am

  31. I’m not saying there had to be three revelations read by Bennett over the pulpit (actually there probably wasn’t a pulpit). I’m just stating the possibility.

    Comment by Robin Jensen — October 9, 2008 @ 11:12 am

  32. Thanks for the download, Robin.

    Comment by J. Stapley — October 9, 2008 @ 11:48 am

  33. Thanks for this great post, BiV. You ask some great questions. Aside from Steve T.’s thoughts in his dissertation, I know that Steve Harper is writing a book on Jackson County that looks not only at the history of the cultural differences leading to the expulsion but also as the place of JC in later Mormon thought through the present (seems like two separate projects to me, but we’ll see what he comes up with). I know he’s found some fascinating stuff on the Church’s position on JC in the post-WWII period, but I’ll let him share those insights if he chooses to.

    On the career of D&C 141, the section was invoked several times by Mormon leaders to explain the Manifesto of 1890 as an example of a previous time when God released his people from their obligations when impeded by persecution. However it’s fairly ambiguous whether the leaders interpreted D&C 141 (or the Manifesto) as simply a temporary release that, at a future date when persecution had ceased, would be reinvoked.

    Comment by David G. — October 9, 2008 @ 2:10 pm

  34. BiV: Nice write-up. Thanks.

    “This post is authored by -former- occasional guest blogger…Bored in Vernal.”

    Now you can be like Prince: the blogger formerly known as the blogger formerly known as Bored in Vernal.

    BruceC (29): “Not since polygamous families escaped to Mexico has a large Mormon community been built from scratch.”

    Not that it changes your point (and depending on what you mean by “large”), but the from-scratch-with-grid-style-streets-and-a-Mormon-school Mormon colony at Kelsey, TX, post-dated the Mexican colonies by more than a decade (though I don’t recall when the last Mexican colony started). Perhaps coincidentally, President Duffin, the Mission President overseeing Kelsey, was also involved in the negotiations for land purchases in Independence.

    Comment by Edje — October 9, 2008 @ 2:13 pm

  35. Edje, I thought someone might bring up some colony I hadn’t heard of yet. Of course, it wouldn’t be hard. I’m still pretty new at this.

    Comment by BruceC — October 9, 2008 @ 5:00 pm

  36. Looks like Kelsey, TX lasted only about 20 years. Too bad.

    Comment by BruceC — October 9, 2008 @ 5:06 pm

  37. Edje #34, now if someone would only design me a cool symbol to go with the title…

    Comment by Bored in Vernal — October 9, 2008 @ 5:17 pm

  38. No.34. The “last mexican colony” is a bit tricky. The original colonies, as you know, were founded in the mid 1880s and continued into the 1890s. However, since most all Mormons were kicked out during the Mexican Revolution in 1912 settlers began moving back in and resettling after things quieted down. During this second phase some spots were abandoned while others were resettled and a few branched into other locales, but were very small in number and were usually tied to the bigger, already established colonies such as Dublan and Juarez.

    Comment by V — October 9, 2008 @ 5:19 pm

  39. David, interesting connection. It seems to me that in both cases the Saints expected the commandment to be reinvoked. In the case of the Manifesto, people retained this expectation for quite some time, but just in the past generation it seems to have faded. It’s just my own opinion, but I see the support of marriage for one man and one woman as a commitment not to ever reinstate polygamy.

    As for the temple in Jackson county, members to this day continue their expectations that it will one day become a reality. Does anyone know when the last official statement was made concerning building a JC temple on the original site?

    Comment by Bored in Vernal — October 9, 2008 @ 5:27 pm

  40. The quotes from Brigham Young and Orson Pratt above, referring to Jackson county being built up before their generation passed away, came from a misconception in the early church, that continues to this day, that the temple mentioned in D&C 84:4-5 is the temple in Jackson county.

    Verse 4: Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

    “This place” means where the revelation was given, namely Kirtland Ohio. The beginning of the New Jerusalem was in Kirtland.

    Verse 5: For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.

    Verse 5 was fulfilled in Kirtland Ohio. No need to look forward to the fufillment of this. It has already happened.

    I also refer you to D&C 101:17-20

    Zion shall not be moved out of her place, notwithstanding her children are scattered. 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 Zionâ?? And all these things that the prophets might be fulfilled. And, behold, there is none other place appointed than that which I have appointed; neither shall there be any other place appointed than that which I have appointed, for the work of the gathering of my saintsâ??

    So yes, Zion will be built in Jackson county. But don’t feel badly that Orson Pratt and Brigham Young were mistaken about D&C 84. They were prophets, they just weren’t perfect (like me- just kidding).

    Comment by Keven Jackson — May 5, 2009 @ 12:18 pm


Recent Comments

Questions on CFP: 2020 MHA Poster: “Will MHA accept proposals from students who have already sent in a proposal for a presentation or panel? If so should the poster be a…”

Steve Petersen on 2019 In Retrospect: An: “Joey, thanks for putting this together! I still need to make it through a lot of these, but it’s nice to have a collection to…”

J Stuart on 2019 In Retrospect: An: “Thank you, Steven and David!”

David Morris on 2019 In Retrospect: An: “The University of Szeged in Hungary recently published our anthology "Mormonism in Europe: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives". The 382-page book features essays by leading…”

Steven L Mayfield on 2019 In Retrospect: An: “American Polygamy by Craig Foster and Mary Ann Watson The History Press”

wvs on JWHA CFP 2020 (St.: “Looking forward to this. Thanks J.”