What does D&C 84 say?
The September 1832 revelation says the temple in Jackson County, Missouri, would be built in “this generation.” It was not built during the lifetime of those who heard the revelation. The text does not say “if the Saints are obedient.” D&C 84 and its manuscript
What happened later?
The Saints were expelled from Jackson County in 1833. D&C 105 postponed Zion’s redemption in 1834 and cited the people’s need for preparation and unity. In 1841, D&C 124 released those diligently prevented by enemies from building the city and house. Orson Pratt still expected the 1832 generation to witness construction in 1870. Applying the release to the earlier prediction about timing is a further interpretive step. D&C 105 · D&C 124:49–55 · Pratt, 1870
A reply you can use
“The original generation language is difficult. I read the promise alongside the conditional temple instruction in D&C 97, the postponement in 1834, and the release in 1841. That is the basis for my belief that the undertaking changed under those circumstances. I still need to account for the earlier wording.” D&C 97:15–18
What the 1832 revelation says
Doctrine and Covenants 84 was received in Kirtland on September 22–23, 1832. Its original manuscript says the temple at the Independence, Missouri, temple lot “shall be reared in this generation,” and repeats that “this generation shall not all pass away until a house shall be built unto the Lord” and filled with the Lord’s glory. Verse 31 again places a house “in this generation upon the consecrated spot.” The text does not attach an explicit “if the Saints are obedient” condition to those timing statements. It is reasonable to read “generation” in its ordinary, time-bounded sense; under that reading, the promise was not fulfilled in the lifetime of the people who heard it. Original text and manuscript history · D&C 84
The wording is early, not a later insertion after the Saints left Missouri. The Joseph Smith Papers dates the revelation to 1832 and shows “reared” as an insertion in the manuscript transcription. The revelation did not appear in the 1833 Book of Commandments; the Joseph Smith Papers’ edition chart lists it as section 4 in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants and section 84 today. Portions of the revelation were discussed or quoted in 1833 issues of The Evening and the Morning Star, but the full section was not printed in the 1833 Book of Commandments. The timing promise is visible in the 1832 manuscript. Publication chart · Joseph Smith Papers, revelation text and introduction
Plans, expulsion, and postponement
The Saints treated the Missouri temple as a real project. In June 1833, Joseph Smith and other Church leaders drew a plan for the House of the Lord, and a revised plan followed that summer. The documents specify the Independence temple lot. The original 1833 city plat envisioned 24 temples, a broader plan than the single temple named in D&C 84; those should not be conflated. June 1833 temple plan · Church history of the Independence temple lot
In November 1833, Missouri residents violently expelled the Saints from Jackson County. In June 1834, D&C 105 told the Saints to “wait for a little season” before Zion’s redemption. It also attributes the delay partly to disobedience and disunity among Church members. This is evidence that leaders understood the project had been delayed before the original hearers had died. But D&C 105 speaks directly about redeeming Zion; it does not explicitly revise the “this generation” wording in D&C 84. D&C 105:1–10
In January 1841, D&C 124 addressed the Missouri temple directly. Verses 49–53 say that when people diligently attempt a commanded work and enemies hinder it, the Lord will “require that work no more” of them and accept their offerings. Verse 51 applies this to the city and house in Jackson County. This provides a textual basis for saying the Saints were released from that command under the circumstances. It does not expressly say the deadline in D&C 84 was redefined, explain “this generation” as an indefinite period, or give a new date for the Missouri temple. Original 1841 revelation, D&C 124 · D&C 124:49–55
One contemporary apostolic witness complicates the idea that the 1841 release had already made the generation language nonliteral. In a May 5, 1870 conference sermon, Orson Pratt said he expected the Saints to return and build the Jackson County temple “during the generation that was in existence in 1832,” and compared his confidence in that timing to confidence that the sun would rise the next day. Pratt was one speaker, not proof that every Church member or leader shared his view. Still, the sermon shows that at least one senior leader continued to understand the deadline in an ordinary generational sense after D&C 105 and 124. Journal of Discourses 13:354–363, especially 362 · BYU scan, vol. 13, p. 362
How should “this generation” be read?
Joseph Fielding Smith noted that interpreters have taken “generation” to mean 100 years, 120 years, an indefinite period, or the present dispensation. This is a later interpretive discussion, not a recorded explanation by Joseph Smith of what he meant in 1832. Church seminary materials have also taught that the city and temple will still be built and read “this generation” as the dispensation. A Church historic-site article says the Saints did not build the planned Independence temples and, speaking of the site’s future, states: “We do not know exactly how, when, or where these words will be fulfilled.” Church manual discussion of D&C 84 · Church Missouri historic-site article
Why read the undertaking conditionally?
In August 1833, section 97 tied the promised divine presence in the temple to the people building and keeping it holy. It also made Zion’s prosperity and protection conditional on covenant obedience. That instruction preceded the main November expulsion. Together with sections 105 and 124, it gives a believer a textual basis for treating the Zion undertaking as a relationship with obligations and changing instructions. Applying that framework to section 84’s promise about timing takes an additional interpretive step. D&C 97:10–18, 25–27
Bowman and the Tanners argue that releasing the Saints from their work leaves the promised outcome unfulfilled. A believer needs to answer that inference directly. My reading is that the gathering, the building, and the promised blessing belonged to one covenant undertaking that was later postponed under changed circumstances. The ordinary lifetime reading remains a serious challenge to that explanation, especially in light of Pratt’s continued expectation. Bowman’s argument · The Tanners’ chapter
The Independence site specified by the revelation remains unbuilt. A Kirtland temple or a nearby building needs a separate explanation for how it could fulfill a promise tied to this location. The Church continues to expect future fulfillment while leaving the exact manner and timing open. Current historic-site guide
A reply you can use
“The original wording gives you a serious objection. I read the promise with the conditional temple instruction in 1833, the postponement in 1834, and the release from the obstructed work in 1841. I believe the larger promise remains, while recognizing that the earlier timing needs explaining. Does your objection turn on the meaning of generation, or on whether the later revelations could change the undertaking?”
For a separate timing claim, see Joseph Smith and the Second Coming in 1890.
