President Hinckley, Zion, and the Problem of Misused Scripture

 I stumbled across a post on Life After Ministry titled “Reasons Starting with Z”, and the very first thing that caught my eye was a quote attributed to President Gordon B. Hinckley. The blog presents it this way:

“There is no more serious persecution; there is no more gathering to Zion…”

 That’s it. No context. No surrounding paragraph. No explanation of where in his ministry he said it, or why.

So before engaging the writer’s questions, I went to the original source — the August 1997 Ensign, reporting President Hinckley’s May 10–18 tour through New Zealand, Australia, and Mexico. The article covers Hamilton, Auckland, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Sydney, Brisbane, and finally Colonia Juárez.

The quote in question comes from his remarks in Sydney, New South Wales, and here is the full statement:

“What a marvelous thing it is, my brethren and sisters, to have such a great legacy. Now those days are past. There is no more serious persecution; there is no more gathering to Zion. Not too many years ago, more than half of the Church membership lived in Utah. Now just 17 percent of the membership of the Church lives in that state. We’ve expanded over this earth, and we are helping to bring blessings to the people of those nations.” (Ensign, Aug. 1997, 97)

The blog post omits the entire second half of that paragraph — the part that explains why Hinckley said what he said. And even more importantly, it omits the paragraph immediately before it:

Hinckley referenced “Come, Come Ye Saints” and spoke of the pioneer legacy, noting that none of us today can fully appreciate what those early Saints endured.

In other words: Hinckley wasn’t prophesying. He was contrasting 19th‑century frontier persecution with modern global Church growth.

That’s it. Nothing mystical. Nothing predictive. Nothing doctrinally controversial.

The Blog’s First Question: “This qualifies as a false prophecy…”

The writer cites Deuteronomy 13:5 and claims Hinckley’s statement is a “false prophecy.”

But this argument collapses immediately:

1. Hinckley wasn’t prophesying. He was describing historical reality: the Saints are no longer being driven from state to state by mobs, militias, and extermination orders.

2. The writer never demonstrates who supposedly “doesn’t believe this is true today.” The claim is vague, unsupported, and assumes a conclusion without evidence.

3. Deuteronomy 13:5 is quote‑mined. The passage deals with prophets who lead Israel into idolatry. Nothing in Hinckley’s remarks remotely resembles that context.

This is a textbook example of eisegesis — reading one’s own assumptions into the text rather than drawing meaning from the text.

The Second Question: “Why wouldn’t there be a gathering to Zion?”

The writer then quotes Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine on the definition of Zion and the New Jerusalem.

Then Revelation 21:1–2 is quoted to argue that the New Jerusalem cannot be on this earth because “the earth will be no more.”

But again, this is a misreading.

Latter‑day Saint doctrine teaches:

• The earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory (Articles of Faith 1:10).

• The “new earth” in Revelation is not annihilation but transformation — resurrection on a cosmic scale.

• Zion in Missouri refers to the New Jerusalem prior to the Millennium, not the post‑resurrection celestial earth.

The writer’s conclusion — “we can be assured it won’t be on this earth as we know it” — is based on a misunderstanding of both LDS eschatology and the biblical text.

A Final Observation: Coffee?

The post ends abruptly with:

“And last but not least – Coffee!”

No commentary. No argument. No explanation. Just a jab — which seems to function as a rhetorical wink to the blog’s regular readers rather than a serious theological point.

Conclusion

The entire “Reasons Starting with Z” entry relies on:

• Quote‑mining

• Strawman arguments

• Misapplied scripture

• Presumptive conclusions

• Eisegesis instead of exegesis

President Hinckley’s original remarks were pastoral, historical, and encouraging — reminding Saints in Sydney that they share the same covenant legacy as the pioneers, even though they live in a different era with different challenges.

If critics wish to engage Latter‑day Saint doctrine meaningfully, they must begin with context, accuracy, and intellectual honesty. Anything less misleads readers and obscures the very truth they claim to defend.