3 ms·

How can there be no connection. The guy is mormon, the inspiration is directly from Smith's writings, etc. I don't know anything about the writings, but from th

by jonah 10y ago

How can there be no connection. The guy is mormon, the inspiration is directly from Smith's writings, etc. I don't know anything about the writings, but from the article, it seems Smith was fairly clear in wanting to do something like this. Of course, yes this is an entrepreneur wanting to do a grandiose thing, but to say there's no connection is silly. (I'm not a Mormon, and have no horse in this race.)

cookiecaper 10y ago
Because in Mormon (and Christian) eschatology, Zion, the New Jerusalem, is a real thing. It's not just one man's experiment to build a utopia. Zion is swamped in religious significance. It can't be built without specific forms of divine help, and it's not Zion without specific markers, like divinely-authorized temples. Smith's early drawings are good as far as they go, but they are non-canonical. They are of only historical interest to the Church. It is fine that Hall has drawn inspiration from them, but it is not fine to imply that there is any connection between Zion the Mormon Concept and Hall's NewVistas project. A copy of an old drawing isn't the distinctive characteristic of Zion. The distinctive characteristic is that a group of people within a specific geographic region are so completely realizing their religious precepts that divine beings make a home there. Joseph Smith's teachings re: Zion are meaningless outside of that context, and invoking Zion in any other way is sacrilege (doubly so when it's to promote a commercial endeavor).
- jonah 10y ago
  So you're saying the true Zion / New Jerusalem of the end times will come about organically rather than in a pre-planned fashion? Fair enough. (I'm not up on my eschatology enough to get into this further.)
  - joshontheweb 10y ago
    I think what he means is that mormon concept of Zion/New Jerusalem cannot be brought about by someone with his standing in the mormon church. It would need to be initiated by the leaders of the church who presumably act in God's name. In fact, the location of the New Jerusalem has already been prophesied. It is supposed to be built up in Missouri. It was already started but never finished. You can go and see where the corner stones for the temples were placed decades ago but never completed. It doesn't mean this guy can't create a nice community but it will never be Zion in the mormon sense of the word. Source: I was raised mormon and my family used to go visit the location where Zion was to be created.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      I don't think it necessarily has to be initiated top-down. But the thing is that this is nothing like Zion, except that it resembles an old drawing. The physical layout of Zion is an unimportant implementation detail. Not only does Hall have no authority, but he also, as far as I know, has not expressed any intention for this to be an attempt at real Zion, and even if he had, it wouldn't matter. One man can't make Zion by himself. Not even the President of the Church can do that, which is abundantly clear from a cursory review of Smith's biography. It requires a people that so fully live the principles of the Celestial Kingdom that divine beings can take up residence among them (see D&C 105:5 [0]). Hall may believe he has found a great city layout in the archives of the Church, and if so, more power to him, but this all has no relation to the real Zion, which is the pure in heart. That's why I keep saying these have nothing to do with each other, except that Hall is copying an old drawing by Smith. If someone was making a serious attempt at building Zion, they would do so by committing themselves to teaching the pure doctrine, engaging in as much service as possible, helping other people fix their economic woes in a self-sufficient, sustainable manner that doesn't necessitate a patron (which basically means supplying the basics while they learn an in-demand skill), and so on. In short, they would do all the things the Church is already doing. All an individual can do is seek to augment that. So, again, while Hall's project is admirable, it has no relation to Zion, because Zion is Zion only once a heavenly people inhabit it. It's not about building a city out to a certain spec. [0] https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/105.5?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/105.5?lang=en...
      - joshontheweb 10y ago
        I don't disagree. Edit: I guess I partially disagree. In order for you to be a 'True Believing Mormon' you would not be able to embark on a project as large as creating Zion/New Jerusalem without the express permission/mandate from the first presidency. Anything outside of this would make you an apostate in their eyes. I don't necessarily subscribe to all of that but the rules are clear within the church proper.
        cookiecaper 10y ago

by jonah 10y ago

cookiecaper 10y ago

Because in Mormon (and Christian) eschatology, Zion, the New Jerusalem, is a real thing. It's not just one man's experiment to build a utopia. Zion is swamped in religious significance. It can't be built without specific forms of divine help, and it's not Zion without specific markers, like divinely-authorized temples. Smith's early drawings are good as far as they go, but they are non-canonical. They are of only historical interest to the Church. It is fine that Hall has drawn inspiration from them, but it is not fine to imply that there is any connection between Zion the Mormon Concept and Hall's NewVistas project. A copy of an old drawing isn't the distinctive characteristic of Zion. The distinctive characteristic is that a group of people within a specific geographic region are so completely realizing their religious precepts that divine beings make a home there. Joseph Smith's teachings re: Zion are meaningless outside of that context, and invoking Zion in any other way is sacrilege (doubly so when it's to promote a commercial endeavor).

jonah 10y ago
So you're saying the true Zion / New Jerusalem of the end times will come about organically rather than in a pre-planned fashion? Fair enough. (I'm not up on my eschatology enough to get into this further.)
- joshontheweb 10y ago
  I think what he means is that mormon concept of Zion/New Jerusalem cannot be brought about by someone with his standing in the mormon church. It would need to be initiated by the leaders of the church who presumably act in God's name. In fact, the location of the New Jerusalem has already been prophesied. It is supposed to be built up in Missouri. It was already started but never finished. You can go and see where the corner stones for the temples were placed decades ago but never completed. It doesn't mean this guy can't create a nice community but it will never be Zion in the mormon sense of the word. Source: I was raised mormon and my family used to go visit the location where Zion was to be created.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    I don't think it necessarily has to be initiated top-down. But the thing is that this is nothing like Zion, except that it resembles an old drawing. The physical layout of Zion is an unimportant implementation detail. Not only does Hall have no authority, but he also, as far as I know, has not expressed any intention for this to be an attempt at real Zion, and even if he had, it wouldn't matter. One man can't make Zion by himself. Not even the President of the Church can do that, which is abundantly clear from a cursory review of Smith's biography. It requires a people that so fully live the principles of the Celestial Kingdom that divine beings can take up residence among them (see D&C 105:5 [0]). Hall may believe he has found a great city layout in the archives of the Church, and if so, more power to him, but this all has no relation to the real Zion, which is the pure in heart. That's why I keep saying these have nothing to do with each other, except that Hall is copying an old drawing by Smith. If someone was making a serious attempt at building Zion, they would do so by committing themselves to teaching the pure doctrine, engaging in as much service as possible, helping other people fix their economic woes in a self-sufficient, sustainable manner that doesn't necessitate a patron (which basically means supplying the basics while they learn an in-demand skill), and so on. In short, they would do all the things the Church is already doing. All an individual can do is seek to augment that. So, again, while Hall's project is admirable, it has no relation to Zion, because Zion is Zion only once a heavenly people inhabit it. It's not about building a city out to a certain spec. [0] https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/105.5?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/105.5?lang=en...
    - joshontheweb 10y ago
      I don't disagree. Edit: I guess I partially disagree. In order for you to be a 'True Believing Mormon' you would not be able to embark on a project as large as creating Zion/New Jerusalem without the express permission/mandate from the first presidency. Anything outside of this would make you an apostate in their eyes. I don't necessarily subscribe to all of that but the rules are clear within the church proper.
      - cookiecaper 10y ago