Nephi saw that there would be few church members in our day but that the church would cover the earth

[Sunday21]

Dear Friends,

A number of people have told me that Nephi saw in his vision an lds church in our day of few members but one that would cover the earth. I can not find this in Nephi's vision. Does anyone know the reference?

Many thanks,

[hagoth]

Dear Friends,

A number of people have told me that Nephi saw in his vision an lds church in our day of few members but one that would cover the earth. I can not find this in Nephi's vision. Does anyone know the reference?

Many thanks,

Here.

[Sunday21]

thanks!

[Guest]

Dear Friends,

... Nephi saw in his vision an lds church in our day of few members but one that would cover the earth.  ...

 

If Nephi was talking about today, then the part about few members is certainly true at least in ratio to the rest of the population. 

[hagoth]

If Nephi was talking about today, then the part about few members is certainly true at least in ratio to the rest of the population. 

It might even be an overstatement to assert that the dichotomy of two churches presented in that chapter only relates to LDS vs. non-LDS (or something of that kind). To assert that also would apparently also assert that every LDS member of record, (including both faithful and rebellious) belongs to the Church of the Lamb of God. And one would also thereby be asserting that every good and faithful person of other denominations does not belong to the Church of the Lamb of God.

 

The church manual on that chapter concludes: "Explain that Nephi’s vision provides an overview of much that has occurred and will yet occur in the history of the earth. It also shows us that we must choose between only two options: following Jesus Christ or working against Him and thus following Satan."

 

Is it fair to believe that there are faithful members of other faiths who are following Christ to the best of their ability, and who thereby also belong to the Church of the Lamb of God?

 

In an Ensign article that encompasses some of this topic, Stephen Robinson says: "Babylon is the antithesis of the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem or Zion. Just as Zion is wherever the pure in heart dwell (see D&C 97:21), so Babylon is wherever the wicked live. Latter-day Saints don’t seem to have any trouble understanding that Zion is a spiritual category that may in different contexts mean Salt Lake City or a branch in some outlying area of the world or Far West or Jerusalem or the city of Enoch or the New Jerusalem. Why, then, is it difficult to understand Zion’s opposite, Babylon, in the same way?  This variable identity is what Jacob teaches us in 2 Nephi 10:16: [2 Ne. 10:16] “He that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.”"

 

So can't Zion, or the pure in heart, include people of other faiths?

 

Stephen Robinson later says, "individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records."

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god?lang=eng

 

Thoughts?

[The Folk Prophet]

Thoughts?

 

I get a wee bit squeamish about the idea. Certainly the part that not all members of the LDS church qualify works for me. But I find the "loyalty" only thing a bit too broad. The scriptures are fairly clear on the way one enters into God's kingdom. And loyalty alone is not that way.

[Vort]

So can't Zion, or the pure in heart, include people of other faiths?

 

No. Zion consists of the covenant people of the Lord. Surely a man or woman must be a citizen of the kingdom of God in order to be a member of Zion, which is ruled under that same kingdom. And as we all know, the kingdom of God on the earth today is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Ergo, a non-Mormon cannot be included in Zion, however pure his heart may be.

 

IMO.

[priesthoodpower]

So can't Zion, or the pure in heart, include people of other faiths?

 

 

Yes, through missionary work Im positive that most pure in heart members of other faiths will accept baptism and want to enter into a covenant with the Lord.

 

 

To me, zion is a place where the covenanted people gather and the non-covenanted people around them have an opportunity to join them.

[hagoth]

I get a wee bit squeamish about the idea. Certainly the part that not all members of the LDS church qualify works for me. But I find the "loyalty" only thing a bit too broad. The scriptures are fairly clear on the way one enters into God's kingdom. And loyalty alone is not that way.

 

 

No. Zion consists of the covenant people of the Lord. Surely a man or woman must be a citizen of the kingdom of God in order to be a member of Zion, which is ruled under that same kingdom. And as we all know, the kingdom of God on the earth today is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Ergo, a non-Mormon cannot be included in Zion, however pure his heart may be.

 

IMO.

 

 

Gentlemen, are we perhaps conflating things unnecessarily? Are Zion, [LDS] Church, and Kingdom always intended as one and exclusively the same thing?

 

I respect you both, and don't like to disagree with you, but please consider the following:

 

From D&C 123

And also it is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation, and to all the pure in heart—

For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—

Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven—

These should then be attended to with great earnestness.

Let no man count them as small things; for there is much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things.

 

From that context, I take it to mean that the pure in heart, to which an honest account is owed, includes those of all sects parties and denomination "who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it." Also, there is the following:

 

According to fairmormon.org, there was a leadership body established in Nauvoo and later in Utah that was frequently called the Council of Fifty, but more officially called, by revelation "The Kingdom of God and His Laws, With the Keys and Power Thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ". This "Kingdom of God" was "separate from, but parallel to, the Church."

 

Wikipedia, citing Ehat says, "According to Mormon teachings, while Jesus himself would be king of this new world government, its structure was in fact to be quasi-republican and multi-denominational; therefore, the early Council of Fifty included both Mormons and non-Mormons."

 

Based on all this, are Kingdom, Zion, and LDS Church always and exclusively intended to mean the same thing? Based on the above, I respectfully suggest that something more inclusive is at times intended.

 

Perhaps the pending publication of the Council of Fifty minutes in the Joseph Smith Papers will shed additional light on that matter.

 

With this further context, what are your thoughts?

Edited June 2, 2015 by hagoth

[The Folk Prophet]

Unless you're claiming that it is conflating things to claim that "the church of the Lamb of God" equates to the LDS church or that "the saints of God" equates to the Latter-day Saints, then I'm not sure how the meanings of "the Kingdom of God" and "Zion" parts play into the debate. We're discussing the meaning of 1 Nephi 14:12, after all.

 

I feel quite certain we are not beholden to the aborted Council of Fifty, implicit therein being the potential idea that it was not the Lord's intent for things to be organized that way.

 

I'm also not sure the debate is important. But as for me, I believe the Kingdom of God and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be one and the same.

 

Here's Ezra T. Benson:

 

"I bear humble witness that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restored kingdom of God on earth today."

 

Bruce R. McConkie:

 

"They receive the keys of the kingdom by virtue of which they are empowered to organize, preside over, govern, and regulate the kingdom of God on earth, which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

 

James E Faust:

 

"The authority and power to direct all of the labors of the kingdom of God on earth constitute the keys of the priesthood. Those who possess them have the right to preside over and direct the affairs of the Church in their jurisdiction."

 

Joseph Fielding Smith

 

"We also hold the keys of the kingdom of God on earth, which kingdom is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

 

Richard G Scott

 

"He [Pres. Hinkley] has borne witness that he is not the head of this Church. That head is our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ the Redeemer.

 

He guides it. He has given His life that even in our weakness, we may overcome our mistakes through repentance and obedience to His gospel. Oh, what a favored people we are to have this light, this knowledge, these opportunities for happiness on earth and throughout the eternities. May we commit to share a knowledge of this magnificent work, personally or through missionaries, with our friends and neighbors that they may join this kingdom of God on earth, and receive the consummate, eternal blessings available to them."

 

Etc.

Etc.

Etc....

 

It is quite clear that more recent prophets and apostle "conflate" the Kingdom of God with the Church itself, regardless of any obscure statements or theories about what the Council of Fifty was or was not.

 

As to Zion...well that's a different matter, as Zion doesn't exactly exist yet, and really refers more to a state of existence and character of a people than it does to a formal organization.

[Vort]

Gentlemen, are we perhaps conflating things unnecessarily? Are Zion, [LDS] Church, and Kingdom always intended as one and exclusively the same thing?

 

[...]

 

Based on all this, are Kingdom, Zion, and LDS Church always and exclusively intended to mean the same thing? Based on the above, I respectfully suggest that something more inclusive is at times intended.

 

[...]

 

With this further context, what are your thoughts?

 

I am no historian, nor do I play one on the interwebs. Possibly for that reason, I don't see this as a historical point, but a definitional point.

 

Historical usages are important for determining definition, of course. But none of the things you cite indicate to me that the kingdom of God is meant to be understood as anything other than the LDS Church, or that Zion perhaps lies outside the purview of the Church. I know little of the Council of Fifty other than that it existed for a while and was done away with. But the kingdom of God must be run with Priesthood authority. This much, at least, seems utterly self-evident -- else whatever you're talking about cannot be the kingdom of God. But the Council of Fifty had no Priesthood besides that which was restored through Joseph Smith to the Church. So we must assume that any Priesthood authority the Council of Fifty claimed must necessarily have derived from the Church. And if they claimed no Priesthood authority, then the appellation "kingdom of God" cannot be understood literally.

 

To the larger question of whether non-Latter-day-Saints can be righteous, I gladly concede the point. There are any number of non-Latter-day-Saints of the age of accountability who are more righteous than many baptized members of the Church, doubtless including myself. But I am no measure of the minimum level of righteousness. More importantly, it's not really individual "righteousness" we're talking about, at least not in the sense of how well that person makes himself clean. What we are talking about in Zion is sanctification, and that can occur in full measure only with one who has the gift of the Holy Ghost. (No reference; that's just my understanding.) Therefore, it is not possible for a non-Latter-day-Saint (or a non-whatever-the-kingdom-of-God-on-earth-is-being-called-at-the-time) to be a member of Zion.

 

As I wrote before: IMO. I'm happy to modify my opinion if I find (what I deem to be) sufficient reason to change it. So far, though I do not discount your reasoning, I don't find it persuasive enough to remake my view on the issue. No insult intended to you or your argument.

[Anddenex]

So can't Zion, or the pure in heart, include people of other faiths?

 

 

This is one question that has pondered my mind over the past year or so; initially, my mind accepted the idea that Zion was only members of the Church -- the covenant people of the Lord.

 

Over the past year, my mind and heart have been swayed to believe that Zion is both, covenant people of the Lord, and those of other faiths who are pure in heart and accept the laws within Zion.  It is my understanding that this will be one way people are converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  As they live among the Saints, they will ultimately receive an invitation to join the Lord's covenanted people.  Zion, the pure in heart, then will begin to multiply and grow exponentially.

 

When the Lord returns will only his covenant people be spared his vengeance?  No.  The pure in heart will be spared whether LDS or not.  I imagine, and would not be surprised to even see Atheist among Zion during its genesis.  I can't imagine Zion turning any honest heart away, who wants to live in peace where there are no rich, no poor, and who are willing to live the laws established in Zion.

[skalenfehl]

 

 

D&C 45:54 And then shall the heathen nations be redeemed, and they that knew no law shall have part in the first resurrection; and it shall be tolerable for them.

 

Wow! Heathens will be redeemed! Nephi declared he had been redeemed. The brother of Jared was also redeemed as were many who saw God face to face. And look, they that knew no law will resurrect first! How can this be? They weren't covenant people! Indeed Zion will be filled with people outside the Lord's covenant in the Terrestrial world. 

[Finrock]

My first thought is that the scriptures clearly teach that Zion are the pure in heart. The plain meaning is just that. There are no qualifiers stating that only the pure in heart who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints qualify.

 

But, more importantly there have been several times as I have read the scriptures and pondered these things where the Spirit has whispered to me that the elect and the pure in heart are all over the earth and those who will belong to Zion or who are a part of Zion is not restricted to the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints. 

 

First, consider this scripture:

 

1 Nephi 1

19 And it came to pass that the Jews did mock him because of the things which he testified of them; for he truly testified of their wickedness and their abominations; and he testified that the things which he saw and heard, and also the things which he read in the book, manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world.

20 And when the Jews heard these things they were angry with him; yea, even as with the prophets of old, whom they had cast out, and stoned, and slain; and they also sought his life, that they might take it away.

 

Notice that Lehi not only testified of the wickedness of the Jews but Lehi testified of the coming of a Messiah and "also the redemption of the world". Lehi taught that the Messiah would not just come to rescue the Israelites, or the Lord's chosen people, but that He would redeem the whole world!.This was blasphemy to the established religion or church in Jerusalem. When the Jews heard that Lehi testified that someone other than the chosen people, the Lord's covenant people, would be saved, they were angry with Lehi.

 

In 2 Nephi chapter 28 Nephi prophesies about the last days. He is clearly speaking about the world and the very churches that will be established around the world in the last days. Meaning, his words are not addressed to those in Zion but about those who have not yet entered in to the covenant of baptism. In speaking about the false churches in the last days and those who are associated with them or fooled by them, Nephi says:

 

14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

 

I believe it is arrogant and condescending to believe and to think that the humble followers of Christ can only be found within the borders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The humble followers of Christ are a part of Zion, notwithstanding they have not joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Just as anyone who has lived and has followed Christ, they will in no wise lose their reward because of some technicality.

 

In testifying how important it is to make the truth of the gospel known to all the world, Joseph Smith wrote in D&C 123:11-12:

 

11 And also it is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation, and to all the pure in heart—

12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—

 

This makes it clear to me that the pure in heart are found all over the world and this is why it is imperative that we make this message known to them so that they can receive the saving ordinances and get access to all that God has revealed to His children in these latter-days. I don't believe that these pure in heart will be reject from Zion because of a legalism.

 

-Finrock

[The Folk Prophet]

Finrock,

 

I don't think anyone has suggested or is suggesting that anyone who desires to become part of the kingdom of God would be rejected. Clearly any and all who so desire will be brought into the kingdom. The only question is whether they count as part of the kingdom or not prior to being baptized into said kingdom, and, certainly, that if they reject entrance to the kingdom (a la baptism) then they are then not part of it.

[Vort]

My first thought is that the scriptures clearly teach that Zion are the pure in heart. The plain meaning is just that. There are no qualifiers stating that only the pure in heart who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints qualify.

 

What does "pure in heart" mean? It means much more than just someone who has integrity and tries to follow God. "Pure in heart" suggests sanctification.

 

Sanctification comes through the Holy Ghost. I have already admitted there are any number of people, LDS and non-LDS, who I consider more virtuous than me, so I am not holding myself up as an example. But sancitication by the Holy Ghost suggests if not demands that one have the gift of the Holy Ghost. And that, by definition, is given only to those who are members of God's kingdom, in our day aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[The Folk Prophet]

It might be useful to consider also Moses 7:18

 

And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.

 

Clearly, based on this description of Zion, not only can we not include "good" people who are of a different mind about truth and whatnot, but we clearly cannot include many church members, what with all the current discord and what-have-you in the church. Of course is should surprise no one that Zion has yet to arrive.

 

One heart and one mine -- a different discussion. Think I'll open another thread.

Edited June 8, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[skalenfehl]

My first thought is that the scriptures clearly teach that Zion are the pure in heart....

 

-Finrock

 

Zion is more than that, though. 

 

 

Moses 7:

18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.

 

The people of Zion are those who

 

1. have one heart and one mind. 

2. dwell in righteousness

3. have NO poor among them

 

There's a lot going on in those three points.

[Finrock]

Zion is more than that, though. 

 

 

The people of Zion are those who

 

1. have one heart and one mind. 

2. dwell in righteousness

3. have NO poor among them

 

There's a lot going on in those three points.

 

Hi Marc!

 

My thoughts weren't complete. I'm also having a hard time putting in to words the visual I have in my mind. I also feel that I am likely missing something in my understanding of Zion and so I am interested in continuing this discussion so as to learn and be corrected if necessary. Here is what I believe and understand:

 

I know Zion will be a physical place, an actual city here on this earth. But that is not all, I also understand Zion is a state of being. Zion's borders are not limited to the earth. Zion is not on earth yet in all of its glory. Those who are in heaven with God dwell also in Zion. To be a part of Zion you do not need to be physically near another mortal person. To be of one heart and one mind requires that you have the same spirit within you. If a man is living the gospel of Jesus Christ then his heart and his mind will be one with all those who are also living the gospel of Jesus Christ, regardless of whether the person is a mortal, physical separation, or membership in an organization. Dwelling in righteousness does not require membership in a particular organization. You can dwell in righteousness no matter where you are at.

 

So, what does it mean to have no poor among them? The way that I see things is that right now the members of Zion are scattered still across the world. Many of Zion's inhabitants are fooled by the craftiness of men and so have not yet been gathered. Others are pure in heart and living in rigtheousness but do not yet know or have access to the ordinances of the gospel. Others have been born in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and they have received the ordinances and they have access to all that God has revealed in the latter-days to His prophets. The way that I understand it is that the work to gather and bring all of Zion together in its glory on earth has already commenced. Eventually the division between good and evil on this earth will be so stark that the true versus the false members of Zion will be revealed and I believe that members of the Church will be surprised by how many people who are not members of this Church will be found on the side of Zion and how many members of the Church will be found to be on the side of Babylon. Eventually all those who have had one heart and mind, have dwelt in righteousness, and have done what they can so that no poor are among them will receive the saving ordinances and will finally be united "officially" with the rest of the members of Zion on the earth. Zion the great city will be founded and the Zion of heaven will be united with the Zion of earth.

 

-Finrock

Edited June 9, 2015 by Finrock

[Finrock]

What does "pure in heart" mean? It means much more than just someone who has integrity and tries to follow God. "Pure in heart" suggests sanctification.

 

Sanctification comes through the Holy Ghost. I have already admitted there are any number of people, LDS and non-LDS, who I consider more virtuous than me, so I am not holding myself up as an example. But sancitication by the Holy Ghost suggests if not demands that one have the gift of the Holy Ghost. And that, by definition, is given only to those who are members of God's kingdom, in our day aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

Good Afternoon Vort! :)

 

I did read and consider your point. I believe that D&C 123:11-12 suggest that the pure in heart consist of more than just members of the Church.

 

11 And also it is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation, and to all the pure in heart—

12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—

 

I believe that this scripture is saying that the pure in heart can also be those who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men and those who have been kept from the truth because they know not where to find it.

 

-Finrock

[Vort]

Good Afternoon Vort! :)

 

I did read and consider your point. I believe that D&C 123:11-12 suggest that the pure in heart consist of more than just members of the Church.

 

 

 

 

I believe that this scripture is saying that the pure in heart can also be those who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men and those who have been kept from the truth because they know not where to find it.

 

-Finrock

 

Your point is well-taken, Finrock. But we're talking specifically about Zion, so I am not sure that every and any scriptural reference to the "pure in heart" is identical to Zion. I think your argument is reasonable, but I am not convinced that the terms are narrowly defined and consistently used.

[hagoth]

Your point is well-taken, Finrock. But we're talking specifically about Zion, so I am not sure that every and any scriptural reference to the "pure in heart" is identical to Zion. I think your argument is reasonable, but I am not convinced that the terms are narrowly defined and consistently used.

 

D&C 97 Therefore, verily, thus saith the Lord, let Zion rejoice, for this is Zion—the pure in heart...

D&C 101 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 Zion...

 

Perhaps not every and any, but what Finrock is saying is reasonably well grounded.

Edited June 9, 2015 by hagoth

[Finrock]

Your point is well-taken, Finrock. But we're talking specifically about Zion, so I am not sure that every and any scriptural reference to the "pure in heart" is identical to Zion. I think your argument is reasonable, but I am not convinced that the terms are narrowly defined and consistently used.

 

Your main argument, I believe, is that to be the pure in heart almost certainly requires one to be sanctified. In order to be sanctified one must have the gift of the Holy Ghost. In order to have the gift of the Holy Ghost one must be baptized by authority, etc. Therefore, only those who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be a part of Zion.

 

I do not deny the logic of your argument yet I am not able to accept it completely at the moment because I do not connect being pure in heart with being sanctified. Or, really, I am uncertain as to their connection. I'd like to hear your view on it so I can consider it. You stated earlier, "'Pure in heart' suggests sanctification". I guess I would like to know why you believe this? What does sanctification mean to you?

 

-Finrock

[skalenfehl]

Hello, Finrock.

 

As we have no account of Enoch's labors, other than what we read in the Pearl of Great Price, the next best and closest example of Zion is what we read in 4th Nepthi concerning the few generations that lived during and after Christ visited the people. You have to read between the lines, though, throughout the Book of Mormon to catch glimpses of points in time when the people came close. Some examples are the people of King Benjamin, the Anti-Nephi-Lehis and the people at Bountiful after Christ's visit:

 

 

4 Nephi 1:1 And it came to pass that the thirty and fourth year passed away, and also the thirty and fifth, and behold the disciples of Jesus had formed a church of Christ in all the lands round about. And as many as did come unto them, and did truly repent of their sins, were baptized in the name of Jesus; and they did also receive the Holy Ghost.

 

 2 And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.

 3 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.

 4 And it came to pass that the thirty and seventh year passed away also, and there still continued to be peacein the land.

 5 And there were great and marvelous works wrought by the disciples of Jesus, insomuch that they did healthe sick, and raise the dead, and cause the lame to walk, and the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear; and all manner of miracles did they work among the children of men; and in nothing did they work miracles save it were in the name of Jesus...

15 And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.

 16 And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nortumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.

 17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.

 

There is a LOT going on here. But to address one thing you mentioned. The reason there are no poor among them is because they were equal in all things. They had all things common. That's not the same as having all things in common. The BoM never mentions that (except in one or two headers added in later). They had all things common. King Benjamin gave the best discourse on the matter than I have read in any other scripture. A careful study of his words teach us that we should not covet anything at all. Not even our own property. Jesus Christ told Martin Harris not to covet his own property; to pay off his debt and get out of bondage and finance the Book of Mormon. 

 

If you covet your own property, you are not likely to impart of your substance to the beggar when you're out shopping. In this Babylonian society, you worked hard for your cash. You paid taxes on it and by golly, you're gonna spend it on stuff. Nevermind the guy with the cardboard sign who's asking for help. It's this inequality and the mentality that King Benjamin addresses very specifically. 

 

Everything that we think we own came from the earth. Even our own bodies. Our tabernacles of flesh came from the earth. There isn't anything on this earth that didn't come from God. It is ALL His property. And He gives it to us freely. He has taught us how to multiply it for everyone's benefit. The saints in Joseph Smith's day polluted their inheritances and failed to build Zion and were cast out into the wilderness and ended up in Utah. 

 

Until we learn to truly impart of our substance, to impoverish ourselves if necessary to make ourselves equal in all things--to have all things common, we cannot understand charity. How can we be pure in heart and dwell in righteousness if we envy those who have more? Or even if we envy the beggar when others impart generously to them? After all, he didn't earn it! He's taking advantage of hard working people like you and me! This thinking is damnable for we are ALL beggars to God, undeserving of the air, which He gives us to breathe. If you don't believe me, read King Benjamin's words. 

 

The simplest things to learn are not the easiest. We are still so far away from becoming Zion. We love the world too much, and we hate the beggars. We ignore them as we pass them by. This damnable thinking prevents us from becoming pure in heart, from becoming charitable, from becoming Zion. 

[Vort]

Your main argument, I believe, is that to be the pure in heart almost certainly requires one to be sanctified.

 

"Pure in heart" when speaking of Zion. It's a bit of a circular argument, I grant, but such doctrines are not established or understood primarily through logical argumentation. It is beyond doubt that many religious terms have multiple meanings depending on context. I believe that is what is happening here. I do not think you can establish that non-Latter-day-Saints will live in Zion based on the use of the phrase "pure in heart".