Mindful Latter-day Saint Christian Living and Apologetics: Responding to Paul Gee: Understanding the New Jerusalem and Joseph Smith’s Teachings

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash

Paul Gee's critiques of Joseph Smith's teachings on the New Jerusalem raise important questions for Latter-day Saints and curious readers alike. He claims that Joseph Smith's prophecies about building the New Jerusalem are false. But does this argument hold up under scrutiny? We'll look at these claims through scripture and historical context to reveal a fuller, more accurate picture. Understanding Joseph Smith's teachings helps clarify this often-misunderstood doctrine, leaving no room for doubt or confusion. Stick around—this discussion is too important to walk away from.

Understanding the New Jerusalem Concept

The concept of the New Jerusalem is central to Christian eschatology and Latter-day Saint theology. It’s more than a future hope; it represents divine fulfillment and the ultimate gathering of God’s people. Understanding its role helps us navigate the spiritual and doctrinal landscape surrounding it, particularly when addressing critiques like those of Paul Gee.

Eschatological Significance

The New Jerusalem is often viewed as God's ultimate promise to His followers, tied directly to the "end times" and the restoration of all things. For many Christians, this sacred city symbolizes a place of eternal unity between God and man. In Revelation 21, it is depicted as descending from heaven, representing a divine union—a “heaven on earth.”

For Latter-day Saints, the New Jerusalem takes on additional meaning as part of the Millennial reign of Christ. Joseph Smith taught it as a literal city, to be established in Jackson County, Missouri. This location would serve as a center of spirituality, governance, and the gathering of God’s covenant people. This belief aligns closely with the doctrine of restoration, emphasizing that God will restore all things to their rightful purpose.

The New Jerusalem embodies hope—both for a better world here and now and for an excellent, eternal future. It’s not just symbolic; it’s a blueprint for God’s kingdom and a testimony of His promises. Whenever people like Paul Gee attempt to label these teachings as flawed or misinterpreted, they often overlook the broader theological and eschatological framework in which these beliefs are grounded.

Why does the New Jerusalem matter so much? It provides a tangible goalpost, answering deep existential questions about God’s ultimate plan for His children. It ties together God's covenants with His people, past and present, and points us toward the future with purpose and clarity.

Biblical References

The New Jerusalem is a recurring theme in the Bible, with key scriptures offering varying details and interpretations. Here are some of the main references that shed light on its significance:

Revelation 21:2-4: John describes the New Jerusalem as a “holy city… prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” This symbolizes God's intimate relationship with His people.
Isaiah 65:17-19: The prophet Isaiah speaks of new heavens, a new earth, and joy in the creation of Jerusalem, setting a tone for renewal.
Ezekiel 40-48: Ezekiel’s vision of a restored Jerusalem foreshadows a city re-centered on God’s presence and His holy temple.
Hebrews 12:22-23: This passage talks about approaching a “heavenly Jerusalem,” equating it with the assembly of God’s people.
3 Nephi 21:23-24: In the Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ Himself mentions the New Jerusalem, prophesying its establishment by the covenant people in the latter days.

Each passage offers a unique lens through which we can understand the New Jerusalem. Some focus on its physical presence, while others emphasize its spiritual symbolism. For Latter-day Saints, all of these combine to form a singular vision: a literal city tied to divine prophecy and eternal purpose.

Take a moment to consider—what do these scriptures mean to you? Do they inspire hope? When viewed as part of God's eternal plan, the New Jerusalem isn't just an abstract prophecy; it's a promise. A promise that unites us, drives us, and provides meaning in a world often clouded with uncertainty.

Have thoughts or insights on the New Jerusalem? Share them in the comments below—let’s keep this conversation going. Don’t forget to like and share this post with someone looking for clarity on this profound doctrine!

Paul Gee's Claims on Joseph Smith

Paul Gee has frequently critiqued Joseph Smith’s teachings and prophecies, particularly regarding the New Jerusalem. His arguments often revolve around perceived inconsistencies in Joseph’s interpretations of scripture and the historical viability of his prophecies. But do Gee’s critiques hold water? Let’s take a closer look at his claims, focusing both on scriptural interpretation and the historical context of Joseph Smith’s teachings.

Misinterpretations of Scripture

One of Gee’s primary arguments is that Joseph Smith misrepresents biblical teachings about the New Jerusalem. For example, he frequently points to Revelation 21:2-4, where John describes the New Jerusalem descending from heaven. Gee claims that Joseph’s teaching of a literal city established on earth in this dispensation contradicts the scriptural imagery of a heavenly city.

But Gee misses fundamental nuances. Revelation offers a symbolic vision, not explicit instructions about timing or location. Latter-day Saints believe scripture often contains dual meanings—both spiritual and physical. Joseph Smith interpreted the prophecies as pointing to a preparatory process that begins with the gathering of God’s followers in specific geographic locations, such as Jackson County, Missouri (Doctrine and Covenants 84:1-5). This complements, rather than contradicts, the heavenly descent described in Revelation.

Gee also raises concerns about the timeline referenced in Doctrine and Covenants Section 84, in which Joseph prophesies the building of a temple in Missouri. Critics argue the temple wasn’t built within Joseph’s lifetime, thereby undermining his prophetic credibility. However, such an analysis ignores the conditional nature of prophecy. Many of Joseph’s revelations emphasize human agency and divine timing. The failure to build the Missouri temple occurred because of persecution and disobedience—not because the prophecy was false.

Finally, Gee frequently cites Joseph’s reinterpretation of Isaiah 2:2-3, which mentions the mountain of the Lord’s house. Gee argues this couldn't possibly apply to 19th-century America, yet Joseph’s teachings rely heavily on context. Isaiah’s vision of a temple established at the “top of the mountains” perfectly aligns with a broad restoration movement that connects modern locations with ancient covenant promises. For Latter-day Saints, the mountain is symbolic of spiritual elevation, and the "house of the Lord" extends to include latter-day temples.

Contextual Analysis of Joseph Smith’s Teachings

To understand Joseph Smith’s teachings about the New Jerusalem, it’s essential to consider the social and religious environment of the early 19th century. At the time, America was experiencing a surge of millennialist beliefs, with many Protestant movements predicting an imminent Second Coming. Joseph’s revelations regarding the New Jerusalem resonated with this cultural backdrop but expanded upon it in profound ways.

Joseph viewed the New Jerusalem as part of a restoration of all things—a divine plan to renew both spiritual and physical dimensions of the earth. His identification of Jackson County, Missouri, as the place for this city reflected not arbitrary choice but divine guidance rooted in revelation. The area was not merely a symbolic stand-in; it became a focal point for early Church gathering efforts. Despite being driven out by mobs, the promise of establishing Zion in Missouri remains an enduring hope for Latter-day Saints.

Critics like Gee often overlook the flexible nature of prophecy when applied to human history. It’s not uncommon for divine plans to adapt based on external circumstances. Take, for instance, the early Christian apostles who believed Christ’s return would occur within their lifetimes. Were they false prophets, or were their understandings shaped by incomplete revelation?

Joseph’s teachings also emphasized personal responsibility in building Zion. He taught that the New Jerusalem wasn’t just a place—it was a people prepared to meet their God. Doctrine and Covenants 97:21 clarifies this: “Zion is the pure in heart.” In this sense, Missouri serves as both a literal and metaphorical cornerstone for a greater spiritual gathering.

When viewed against historical persecution, it’s clear why certain promises were delayed. Settlers in Missouri faced escalating violence, forcing Latter-day Saints to flee and postpone their plans. However, faith in the ultimate fulfillment of these prophecies persists. For those seeking clarity, understanding Joseph Smith’s vision of the New Jerusalem requires seeing it as a journey of promise, unfolding over time and contingent upon faith, obedience, and divine will.

Exegetical Examination of Revelation Passages

The Book of Revelation contains profound messages that invite deep reflection. For Latter-day Saints, its verses often hold layers of symbolic and literal meanings, particularly passages about the New Jerusalem. Let’s examine a few pivotal moments from this sacred text, exploring their significance for both doctrine and personal belief.

Revelation 3:12 Explained

In Revelation 3:12, Christ promises those who “overcome” that He will make them pillars in God's temple. This symbolic expression carries critical meaning. A pillar represents strength, permanence, and foundational support, qualities fitting for individuals who remain steadfast in their faith. This isn’t about a literal pillar but a promise of eternal belonging in God’s kingdom.

For Latter-day Saints, this verse resonates deeply with our teachings about temples and covenants. The power of temples to connect heaven and earth is at the heart of our worship. Just as the overcomers in Revelation are promised eternal association with the divine, temple ordinances offer us an opportunity to secure our connection with God through sacred covenants.

The verse also mentions God writing His name, the city’s name (the New Jerusalem), and Christ’s new name upon the faithful. This act of naming signifies ownership, intimacy, and divine approval. For Latter-day Saints, it aligns with our belief that temple covenants often bring with them a new identity, an eternal name signifying belonging to God’s eternal family. Isn’t it inspiring that Christ invites us to partake in these promises?

It’s worth reflecting on how this emblem of stability—a pillar—applies to us today. Are we striving to be unshakable pillars in our faith, immovable even in trials? Revelation 3:12 encourages us to build the kind of faith that God can engrave His name upon—a lasting testimony of loyalty and holiness.

Revelation 21:2-3 Explained

Revelation 21:2-3 describes a vision of the New Jerusalem, descending from heaven “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” This imagery is profound. A bride symbolizes purity, devotion, and covenant connection, while the descending city represents God's union with His people. How beautifully this parallels our covenants and promise of eternal life!

For Latter-day Saints, the New Jerusalem is more than an eschatological hope—it’s a part of our prophetic vision for Zion’s establishment. The New Jerusalem symbolizes holiness, community, and unity with God. What’s more, for us, it ties directly to the restoration of all things. We’re called not just to look forward to its descent but to prepare and gather for its establishment.

The promise that “God’s dwelling place is now among the people” is crucial in understanding the New Jerusalem’s purpose. It’s not just about geography or golden streets; it’s about God being with us—a divine intimacy where He calls us His people and promises to “wipe away every tear.” This fulfills the longing of every human soul: to feel perfectly loved and completely known by our Creator.

As believers, we also see this passage as a personal call to action. The New Jerusalem isn’t just a future city—it’s a mindset and mission. It grows as we center our lives on Christ, live our covenants, and build Zion within and around us. So, are we building our own New Jerusalem step by step? Are we inviting God to dwell more fully in our homes and hearts today?

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments—how do these revelations inspire your faith and give purpose to your efforts? Let’s keep this conversation alive, and don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe if this post resonates with you. Your perspective could be the spark that helps someone else connect with these powerful truths!

Joseph Smith’s Teachings on Zion

Joseph Smith’s teachings on Zion are foundational to understanding the doctrine of the New Jerusalem as taught within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Zion isn’t merely a physical location; it’s a spiritual pursuit—a covenant between God and His children. While critics often misunderstand or misrepresent these principles, the scriptural context and covenantal theology provide clarity and depth to Joseph Smith’s revelations.

Doctrine and Covenants 84:2-4

Doctrine and Covenants 84:2-4 is a cornerstone passage in understanding Zion and the New Jerusalem. It reads:

"Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem."

In this revelation, Joseph Smith identified Jackson County, Missouri, as the location for the New Jerusalem, where God’s people would gather in preparation for Christ’s Second Coming. But what does this mean? Does it demand immediate fulfillment, or is it a broader promise contingent on faith and obedience?

This passage outlines Zion as both a physical and spiritual gathering point. The establishment of the New Jerusalem wasn’t merely a construction project—it was an effort to build a holy city where God could dwell among His people. While a temple in Missouri was prophesied but not realized during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, this doesn’t negate the prophecy. Like many biblical promises, its timing hinges on God’s will and humanity's readiness. Consider the Israelites being delayed in reaching their promised land because of disobedience; the same pattern can be seen here. Zion is a work in progress, requiring both effort and divine intervention.

This prophecy calls believers today to reflect: How are we helping to “stand upon Mount Zion”? Are we spiritually preparing ourselves to become a people worthy of God’s presence? Zion isn’t just about geography—it’s about building Christ-centered communities and hearts. The New Jerusalem remains an ongoing hope, not a forgotten failure. Criticisms like Paul Gee’s fail to see this larger picture, reducing prophetic promises to transactional deadlines.

Covenantal Theology

The concept of Zion cannot be fully understood without addressing covenantal theology, the sacred relationship between God and His followers. From Adam to Noah, Moses to Christ—and now through modern prophets like Joseph Smith—the covenants represent God’s invitation for humanity to partner with Him in His divine work.

For the early Saints, the idea of “Zion” was much more than a gathering in Missouri; it was a covenantal mission. Zion required a people prepared to live higher laws, embracing unity, humility, and consecration. As Doctrine and Covenants 97:21 explains, “Zion is the pure in heart.” It’s not just about physical location—it’s a state of being. The covenant made with Joseph Smith extended this timeless principle, promising blessings of peace, prosperity, and divine protection in exchange for obedience and faithfulness.

Think about the analogy of a marriage covenant. Just as a bride and groom commit to an eternal partnership built on loyalty and trust, God’s covenant with His people is an intimate, reciprocal relationship. Our commitment to Him isn’t one-sided; He doesn’t just demand faith; He promises abundant blessings in return. The New Jerusalem is the spiritual “wedding feast,” where this divine partnership will reach its ultimate fulfillment.

So, how does this apply to us today? Are we honoring our covenants? Are we becoming the kind of people who could stand in Zion? Building the New Jerusalem isn’t limited to laying brick and mortar—it starts in our homes, our wards, and our hearts. Joseph Smith’s teachings remind us that Zion is a collective effort dependent on our covenantal faithfulness. When we live in alignment with God’s laws, Zion becomes less of a distant hope and more of a present reality.

Zion isn’t some utopian dream or an outdated goal. It’s God’s eternal blueprint for His children, both yesterday and today. Paul Gee’s critiques miss this essential truth: Zion is alive and progressing. It’s not just a prophecy—it’s a partnership, a call to action, and a promise of eternal belonging. How are we answering that call? Let’s take part in building Zion, one step at a time.

Reconciling Building and Descending

Joseph Smith’s teachings about the New Jerusalem challenge us to see God’s eternal plans from a broader perspective. The New Jerusalem isn’t merely a structure or a city—it’s a divine union of heaven and earth. Critics often misunderstand how such prophecies reconcile the heavenly descent described in scripture with Joseph Smith's vision of earthly building. But the truth is, these elements complement each other, forming a complete and cohesive plan.

Scriptural Integration

Scripture presents a fascinating, intertwined depiction of God’s work: the heavens reaching down, and mankind striving upward. The New Jerusalem exemplifies this unity. Revelation 21:2 describes the city descending from heaven, “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” At the same time, Doctrine and Covenants 84:4 speaks of the New Jerusalem being built on earth by God’s covenant people. How do these ideas connect?

The key is understanding the dual nature of prophecy—spiritual symbolism alongside literal fulfillment. When Revelation mentions the holy city descending, it signifies God’s intervention and presence. The descent isn’t just a geographical event; it represents God’s willingness to dwell among prepared and sanctified people. But preparation is crucial. The scriptures make it clear that believers must actively build and purify themselves to create a place worthy of God’s presence.

Take Ezekiel 37:27-28, where God says, “My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God.” This shows that while God bridges the gap, humanity also has a responsibility to rise toward Him. Similarly, Hebrews 12:22-23 declares the faithful have “come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.” It’s a call for spiritual elevation—even as the New Jerusalem descends, we must ascend in faith and devotion.

Latter-day scripture reinforces this relationship. In 3 Nephi 21:23-24, Christ proclaims His people will build the city. This work mirrors the Lord’s prayer: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Just as faith calls us to act, the establishment of Zion is a collaboration between divine grace and human effort. The New Jerusalem isn’t solely about golden streets and celestial light. It’s about bringing heaven’s principles to life here and now.

These scriptural connections reveal an answer our critics often overlook. Is the New Jerusalem in heaven or on earth? It’s both. God invites us into a shared labor, blending the eternal truths of heaven with the faithful actions of His children on earth.

Joseph Smith’s Vision

Joseph Smith’s vision for the New Jerusalem fully aligns with this scriptural harmony. He taught that God’s kingdom is both heavenly and earthly—a unity achieved when the saints fulfill their covenants and prepare themselves for God’s presence.

In identifying Jackson County, Missouri, as the location of Zion, Joseph Smith didn’t contradict the celestial descent described in Revelation. Instead, he revealed how God’s children are meant to prepare a foundation for that divine arrival. He viewed Zion not just as a future city, but as a present responsibility. Doctrine and Covenants 97:21 teaches that “Zion is the pure in heart.” Following this principle, the physical building of the New Jerusalem is inseparable from spiritual preparation.

Remember the temple prophesied in Doctrine and Covenants 84:1-5? This temple represents more than a missed deadline; it’s a symbol of a covenantal process that unfolds on God’s timeline. Persecution may have delayed its construction, but it didn’t erase the ultimate promise. Joseph emphasized that Zion’s establishment depends on the faithfulness of its people. The delays only reinforce the need for personal and collective repentance, patience, and trust in God’s timing.

Think of Joseph’s vision like planting a garden. He wasn’t creating an instant forest but laying seeds for growth. His teachings encouraged early Saints—and us today—to cultivate Zion by living righteously, gathering as one, and sanctifying our lives. Only then could the divine blessings, including the heavenly descent of the New Jerusalem, come to fruition.

Joseph's revelations also tied closely with the restoration of all things. By establishing Zion on earth, he taught, we don’t usurp heaven’s role—we fulfill it. Zion becomes the meeting point between God and man, a place where earthly preparation and heavenly glory merge into one eternal reality.

So, when Joseph spoke of building Zion, he wasn’t dismissing divine intervention. He was inviting believers into an eternal partnership. By working to build, we prepare ourselves to receive. By purifying our hearts and striving for Zion, we help fulfill God’s plan to bring heaven to earth.

The New Jerusalem isn’t just an abstract theological puzzle—it’s a calling. Are we building Zion in our own lives, preparing ourselves for the heavenly city to descend? Let me know your thoughts in the comments. And while you’re here, don’t forget to share this post and keep the conversation going!

Temple Symbolism in Latter-day Saint Doctrine

Temples occupy a central place in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are more than places of worship—they are sacred spaces that connect us with God. One of the most remarkable aspects of the temple is its use of symbols. These symbols transcend language and culture, offering layers of meaning and teaching eternal truths. Through temple symbolism, members gain a deeper understanding of God's plan and their role within it.

Covenants and Sacred Ordinances

Temples are designed to teach spiritual lessons through physical means. Every element—from the building's design to the ordinances performed—serves as a symbol of the Savior's life, the plan of salvation, and our eternal journey. But why symbolism? The Lord often teaches through symbols because they engage the mind and heart simultaneously, allowing deeper truths to unfold over time.

When we enter the temple, we step away from the distractions of the world and into a space designed for revelation and reflection. White clothing, for instance, symbolizes purity and equality before God. There's no rank, wealth, or status in the temple—only children of God striving to draw closer to Him. Likewise, the architecture, artwork, and even the spires pointing heavenward remind us of our higher, divine potential.

The ordinances performed in temples—such as baptisms for the dead, endowments, and sealings—tie this symbolism to covenants. Baptism symbolizes rebirth, while the endowment represents a spiritual journey, equipping us with knowledge and power to return to God. Sealings give eternal significance to family relationships, showing that God’s plan is fundamentally about love and unity.

In the temple, every action carries meaning. When we kneel, it reflects submission to God. When we participate in ordinances, it signals commitment to live His commandments. These physical acts represent the spiritual transformation we aim for, much like how a wedding ring represents the promise of fidelity in marriage. The outward act points to an inward change.

So, what makes temple symbolism so profound? It bridges the gap between heaven and earth. It takes abstract spiritual concepts and makes them tangible, allowing us to see, hear, and participate in God’s plan. Have you noticed how symbols deepen your connection with gospel truths? If so, share your thoughts below.

Eisegesis vs. Exegesis in Paul Gee’s Argument

When we interpret scripture, the difference between eisegesis and exegesis is critical. Exegesis involves drawing meaning from the text based on its context, while eisegesis imposes one’s own ideas onto the text. Understanding this distinction is vital when analyzing Paul Gee’s critiques of Joseph Smith’s teachings on the New Jerusalem. Gee’s approach, unfortunately, leans heavily toward eisegesis, often using selective readings to bolster his conclusions rather than engaging in a thorough, contextual analysis.

Selective Citations in Gee's Work

One of the most troubling methods in Gee’s argument is his frequent reliance on selective scripture citations. By isolating verses from their broader narrative or doctrinal framework, he distorts their intended meaning. Critics often quote Revelation 21:2 about the New Jerusalem descending from heaven as proof that Joseph Smith’s teachings about constructing it on earth are unscriptural. But does that verse tell the whole story? Hardly.

Scripture often works on multiple layers—spiritual, historical, and prophetic. Revelation 21:2 speaks of a heavenly city, but it doesn’t negate the idea of earthly preparation. Latter-day Saints believe in a pattern of dual fulfillment: the New Jerusalem descends from heaven because God’s people have prepared a place worthy of His presence. Gee’s interpretation, however, ignores this narrative, instead imposing his assumption that the New Jerusalem must be exclusively celestial in origin.

By focusing narrowly on certain elements while ignoring others, Gee creates a distorted view. His method is akin to reading a single chapter in a novel and claiming to understand the entire plot. Quotes plucked out of context can be persuasive, but they fail when viewed within the larger tapestry of scripture. One must ask: is Gee explaining the text on its own terms, or is he bending it to fit his argument?

Implications of Misinterpretation

Misinterpreting scripture isn’t just an academic error; it has real-world consequences. For faith communities, it can lead to confusion, misplaced judgment, or even doubt. By favoring eisegesis over exegesis, Gee’s critiques risk obscuring the profound doctrines surrounding the New Jerusalem.

Joseph Smith’s teachings about Zion and the New Jerusalem align with a broader understanding of God’s plan. In Doctrine and Covenants 84:4, the Lord declares that His people will build the New Jerusalem. This involves faith, effort, and covenantal obedience. Gee dismisses these responsibilities, suggesting that the prophecy's fulfillment should’ve been instantaneous or purely divine. This oversimplification diminishes the role human agency plays in God’s work—a central theme in Latter-day Saint theology.

When we strip scripture of its full context, we foster spiritual shallowness. It’s like relying on sound bites instead of understanding the entire conversation. Gee’s critiques, based on incomplete readings, discourage deeper exploration of scripture. Worse, they sidestep the transformative power of the New Jerusalem’s promise—a divine city built not just of walls and streets but of faith, unity, and eternal purpose.

So, what happens when scripture is misunderstood? It can plant seeds of division where there should be understanding. It can replace faith with skepticism, leaving us more focused on finding faults than truth. In a world already full of doubt, we must ask ourselves: do we want to understand scripture, or simply weaponize it against others?

Your thoughts matter in this discussion. Have you encountered similar interpretations that felt incomplete or unfair? What does the New Jerusalem mean to you? Let’s explore these ideas together—join the conversation in the comments below!

Conclusion

When evaluating critiques like Paul Gee's against the teachings of Joseph Smith on the New Jerusalem, we uncover a deeper need for thoughtful scripture study combined with an understanding of historical and doctrinal context. Gee's arguments often rely on selective interpretations, creating a flimsy framework that doesn’t hold up under closer examination. For Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith’s revelations about Zion and the New Jerusalem remain not just relevant but central to understanding God’s ongoing work with His covenant people. These teachings should inspire faith, obedience, and a forward-thinking commitment to building Zion both spiritually and physically.

Scriptures like those in Revelation, Isaiah, and the Doctrine and Covenants collectively paint a dynamic vision of a city where heaven meets earth. But it’s not just a future event—it’s an everyday effort. Preparing for the New Jerusalem means living with purity of heart and taking active steps to create communities centered on Christ. The physical and spiritual aspects don’t compete; they complement one another, creating a holistic understanding of God’s plan.

Critics may continue to misinterpret Joseph Smith's role and teachings, focusing on perceived inconsistencies while missing the larger picture of restoration and covenantal theology. Their arguments often dismiss the human factor involved in fulfilling divine promises and misunderstand the timing of prophecy. However, as believers, we should see these critiques as opportunities to affirm our faith, study scripture deeply, and make our own preparations for Zion.

What are your thoughts? How do Joseph Smith’s teachings on the New Jerusalem affect your understanding of God’s plan for His children today? Join the discussion in the comments, and don’t forget to share and engage with others as we continue exploring these profound truths.

Mindful Latter-day Saint Christian Living and Apologetics

Pages

Monday, January 6, 2025

Responding to Paul Gee: Understanding the New Jerusalem and Joseph Smith’s Teachings