Are We Worthy of Zion?

Did you know that the early Latter-day Saints tried to practice something similar to socialism? 

This all happened from around 1831-1834. During this time, the Saints were split mainly between Kirtland, Ohio (the majority) and Independence, Missouri (a small but growing community). 

The Saints in Kirtland tried out something called the United Order. This was based somewhat on 4 Nephi 1:2-3, right after Christ visited the North American inhabitants: "... and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift."

If you'd like to know a little more about the United Order, and how it compares to Socialism, this seems like a good article -- but the details are not in the scope of this entry I'm writing. In a nutshell, the Saints tried it. The main goal was to make sure that the poor were taken care of. It kind of worked, but then it failed.

At the same time, the Saints in Independence (Jackson County) were building up Zion, the New Jerusalem -- which would become a great city that would one day usher in the Second Coming of the Lord, and all kinds of other good stuffs. In a sense, Independence was marked by revelation to be our Jerusalem on the North American continent -- just as the original Jerusalem is to the Jews (and Mecca to the Muslims). And this also failed. 

The original citizens of Independence didn't like the "Mormons," mainly because these new folks in town didn't like slavery. During this time, Missouri was a slave state -- the first that the Saints tried to settle, and they tended to be abolitionists. The Independence folks feared that if too many Mormons came into town, they'd be too much of a voting block to threaten their way of life -- so they used illegal means to persecute the Saints (usually in the form of mobs attacking with guns, destroying houses, tarring and feathering, and so on). By 1834, the Saints were pretty much driven out of "Zion" into the neighboring county of Clay.

The Doctrine and Covenants captures both of these failures nearly simultaneously. Section 104 appears to be a sort of dissolution of the United Order. And Section 105 is about delaying the building up of Zion. Yet in both cases, there seems to be a sense of "this will all be back." The United Order is expected to be a thing in the future. 

And Independence is still marked as our Zion. The promised temple will be built, and then it will become the New Jerusalem -- Second Coming -- and all that. In fact, just about any Saint today knows to say, "We know the Second Coming can't happen until the temple is built in Independence. If we ever start construction over there, then whoa Nellie! Y'all better watch out."

"But wait!" is what I expect from my non-LDS friends. "Isn't Salt Lake City your Mecca?" I suppose right now it is. It's definitely built up as a major congregation of Latter-day Saints -- with plenty of tourist-related sites to see. It's where we hold our Conferences. It's where our core church buildings reside. It's also where we store the majority of our disaster relief supplies. Right now it appears to be our Zion.

But it isn't. The revelations from the D&C are clear about this. And this has always bothered me -- or at least made me wonder. After the Extermination Order was rescinded in 1976, why did my Latter-day Saint friends not flock back over to Zion, and take it back? Why do they seem content to stay in Salt Lake City? With hundreds of temples being built all over the world, why can't they seem to build one more in Independence?

A few years ago while taking one of my kids out to BYU, we visited the Independence area. Our church has a visitor center there, and there were hardly any people in it -- nothing compared to Salt Lake City. (That was kind of nice.)

Now imagine four corners. (It's not quite four corners, but it's close.) The visitor's center is in the southeast corner. There's basically nothing in the southwest -- forget it even exists.

In the northeast corner, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ (now called the Community of Christ) has built a remarkable temple. (I got to play the organ in there -- couldn't resist playing some "Interstellar" -- much to the chagrin of the organist.) 

This Reorganized church I mention is the second-largest church of Latter-day Saints -- a branch that remained in the Independence when the majority left to Salt Lake City. The ones who remained behind were led by Emma Smith (wife of Joseph) and her son, Joseph Smith III. 

Some might think that this temple fulfills the requirement for Zion, but two problems: #1) my church thinks it's the wrong church. The "original" Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints needs to be the ones to build the temple. And #2) it's in the wrong lot.

For that, you must go to the northwest corner. There, you can see the cornerstones that were laid in the early 1830s. And the rest is an empty field -- except for some kind of museum that was closed at the time we visited. That lot of land is owned by yet another branch of Latter-day Saints with much, much fewer membership.

So, yeah -- our "official" church, with the vast majority of membership of all Latter-day Saint sects, doesn't own the land. So we can't build. (Dang these stupid laws.) Kind of sounds like a watered-down version of the religious strife and conflicting claims happening in Jerusalem now.

Supposedly when the time is right, we're supposed to return to Independence, but not before other things happen. And in reading in the D&C lately, I believe that I may have found a major answer to my questions.

D&C 105:3-5:

But behold, they have not learned to be obedient to the things which I required at their hands, but are full of all manner of evil, and do not impart of their substance, as becometh saints, to the poor and afflicted among them; And are not united according to the union required by the law of the celestial kingdom; And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself.

In other words: if we want Zion to happen, we have to be better people. Thus, taking care of the poor isn't just a nice thing to do -- it's kind of a requirement. Unity -- also a requirement.

It's another reminder that being a Christian, or even a member of the "True Church," alone, is not sufficient enough a requirement to enter into Zion. We have to ... actually be Christian.

As long as we ignore the poor and leave them to themselves, and act with contention toward our family, friends, and neighbors, we really aren't worthy for Zion.

And yes -- I realize that my church participates in an enormous effort to combat poverty and homelessness. I believe most churches do. But many of the Christian membership does not necessarily share this same devotion. I hear often comments like, "The poor choose to be where they are." Or: "We should give our money to the rich so that it flows down to the poor in the form of jobs and charity." But in each case, it's really passing the buck on to others who care about the poor. And is this the best we can do?

Either way, the revelation is clear -- if we're unable to impart of our substance and unite with others, then we'll just have to wait till later to have Zion.