There is no Nauvoo Temple revelation

[Shawn Henry]

Here I think it is a reasonable reading to interpret these verses be about two different houses: first temple, then Nauvoo House. The difference is not very clear though. However, I would argue that the beginning of the verse 56 is too repetitive if the verses talk about same house. It sounds like the boarding of strangers is mentioned to make the difference between the two houses. It is repetitive to mention that the house is build unto Lord’s name, since that was just said.
This I found to be the clearest passage in the revelation that seems to talk about two houses. I can see how someone may read it differently though.

Correct, about verses 22-31, we do generally assume temple, though the Lord's language has always been House not temple. To push back the other way, I would point out verse 27: "and build a house to my name, for the Most High to dwell therein", there is still no translation there, right? Just an assumed transition. If he has already said in 24 that this "house" is a holy house that he will dwell in, why would we think he is talking about another house? Verse 27 gives no hint of a second house and we are already talking about the Lord's House, the boarding house.

As I see, 22-31 are congruent, but I acknowledge what you pointed out and thank you, because that is exactly the feedback I was looking for.

It would be very strange for the Lord to introduce this concept of two separate house of the Lord without talking about it or even saying it to be the case.

I agree, the "And again" in verse 55 is worth considering. Gruden 2.0 mentioned this and here is my response to him: The "and again" is definitely referring to a previous command and though Watcher says it is less likely that he is referring to the command mentioned earlier in the same section, I think it has to, because what other command could it be referring to. There is no other revelation about Nauvoo. Are we to believe that Joseph had one but never delivered it, because that sounds negligent?

Anyway, the text does not support such a transition away from the Nauvoo House, in my opinion. The Lord wouldn't purposely omit any reference to the temple, only to sneak in a cryptic "And again" reference. There's just way too much at stake, the saints being rejected is on the line here and 124 is the section dealing with that and the Lord never says temple once. He wouldn't reject his people for a cryptic hidden "gotcha" reference.

I think the reason Joseph is saying both is the same reason he did and taught everything in Nauvoo, he was testing the saints to see if they would follow what had been previously revealed. This follows along the same lines as everything else; are we willing to disregard the Lord himself when a man says something different? We trusted in the arm of flesh.

Anyway, I hope the above was of interest enough to you to read it and contemplate it. I could be wrong, but in my mind, there is way too much at stake for the Lord to not be clear. Where is this previous revelation about a Nauvoo Temple, there isn't one. All we have in section 124 where the Lord mentions only one House.

Thanks again for your feedback, it is most welcome, the dialogue fills holes in me and quenches a fire. I often just want to know if people can see what I see, whether right or wrong, I just want that connection.

[inho]

I agree, the "And again" in verse 55 is worth considering.

You seem to have misread my reply, since I didn’t write anything about "And again" in the verse 55. But since you brought this up, let me address it. In my opinion this is a clear reference to verse 51, where the Lord says that he had commanded to build up a house unto his name in Jackson county. What was that house in Missouri suppose to be? It was not a boarding house, but a temple.

[logonbump]

I agree, the "And again" in verse 55 is worth considering.

You seem to have misread my reply, since I didn’t write anything about "And again" in the verse 55. But since you brought this up, let me address it. In my opinion this is a clear reference to verse 51, where the Lord says that he had commanded to build up a house unto his name in Jackson county. What was that house in Missouri suppose to be? It was not a boarding house, but a temple.

The building was to be an endowment house and a boarding house to process new entrants into Zion, not a hall for gathering and meetings but a place for individuals to receive ordinances and to find refuge.

[Robin Hood]

A challenge to all; find any reference in Section 124 about the Nauvoo Temple, there isn't one.

The entirety of the section is about the Nauvoo House. The Nauvoo House is the House of the Lord, it is also the boarding house for strangers.

The section heading says 22-28, but read those verses carefully and there is no Nauvoo Temple.

Why is this important? Because the saints made their last efforts to finish the Lord's House on the wrong building. The Nauvoo House didn't even get past the foundation.

The saints were under the deadline to not be rejected as a church and they didn't even get the right building! Holy S!#t.

It is important to note that JS is on record telling them that both were required, and this is likely why the saints were confused, but Joseph's claim fails to explain why the Lord only mentions the boarding house. Why is there no revelation for the Nauvoo Temple? Is this the key that lets us know that the Lord's works are not masonic?

There was even revelation appointing the oversight committee for the Nauvoo House. The committee for the temple was selected by a council, no revelation there.

To show the importance of the Nauvoo House, look at it mentioned in verse 60 and then notice that in verse 61, it is the house that has "watchmen upon her walls".

When the baptismal font was brought to Nauvoo, it was placed in the Nauvoo House. It was only later when the deadline loomed did the saints move it to the temple. It seems clear from this and from the text of 124 that baptisms for the dead were to be performed in the Nauvoo House.

If historians agree and if quotes from BY and many others confirm that the Nauvoo Temple was never finished, what worse off we are when the building we were supposed to finish in the first place never got past the foundation?

"Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these." Thanks for the warning, Jeremiah. We wish we would have listened to you.

It's pretty clear that Section 124 speaks of both the Temple and the Nauvoo Mansion. I cannot see how this conclusion can be avoided.

[BuriedTartaria]

a great write-up

Yes, that is great work, thanks for bringing that into play. He makes the same mistake though of not even seeing that there is no temple in the whole section. The section in its entirety is talking about the boarding house. The boarding house is the House of the Lord, not the Nauvoo Temple.

I shall have to reread my OP and see how I may have not made this clear, I thought that I had, but many are missing it entirely.

Thanks for the clarification!

[Shawn Henry]

Another separation has to do with location.
The location of the Nauvoo House hadn't been shown to those appointed to build it:

22 Let my servant George, and my servant Lyman, and my servant John Snider, and others, build a house unto my name, such a one as my servant Joseph shall show unto them, upon the place which he shall show unto them also

They had yet to know its place. Joseph would show it to them.

The location of the temple was known to them since it had been chosen:

43 And ye shall build it on the place where you have contemplated building it, for that is the spot which I have chosen for you to build it.

The temple lot had been chosen and is confirmed/revealed in vs 43. They'd already started quarrying materials.
The lot for the Nauvoo House is not yet known to them according to vs 22.

Clearly two separate buildings - especially since the lots are at opposite ends of Nauvoo.

There're 2 problems with this interpretation though.

1. There was no "contemplated building it". By January of 1841, the time of this revelation, they had already broke ground and started the foundation. If the Lord meant the Nauvoo Temple, he would have said, "in the place you have already begun building it" not "contemplated". Contemplation is entirely moot once you have already started the foundation. So, that distinction goes to my side of the discussion
2. There is no transition in the text away from the Nauvoo House up to 43. Verse 55 is the first possible transition, and it is weak.

Thank you though for bringing that verse up, it is an important piece of the puzzle.

[JLHPROF]

Another separation has to do with location.
The location of the Nauvoo House hadn't been shown to those appointed to build it:

22 Let my servant George, and my servant Lyman, and my servant John Snider, and others, build a house unto my name, such a one as my servant Joseph shall show unto them, upon the place which he shall show unto them also

They had yet to know its place. Joseph would show it to them.

The location of the temple was known to them since it had been chosen:

43 And ye shall build it on the place where you have contemplated building it, for that is the spot which I have chosen for you to build it.

The temple lot had been chosen and is confirmed/revealed in vs 43. They'd already started quarrying materials.
The lot for the Nauvoo House is not yet known to them according to vs 22.

Clearly two separate buildings - especially since the lots are at opposite ends of Nauvoo.

There're 2 problems with this interpretation though.

1. There was no "contemplated building it". By January of 1841, the time of this revelation, they had already broke ground and started the foundation. If the Lord meant the Nauvoo Temple, he would have said, "in the place you have already begun building it" not "contemplated". Contemplation is entirely moot once you have already started the foundation. So, that distinction goes to my side of the discussion
2. There is no transition in the text away from the Nauvoo House up to 43. Verse 55 is the first possible transition, and it is weak.

Thank you though for bringing that verse up, it is an important piece of the puzzle.

Actually the groundbreaking was in February, after this revelation. So yes, contemplate is correct.
Sorry - one known location, one yet to be revealed. Therefore two buildings.

As you say "It's in plain English."

[Shawn Henry]

You seem to have misread my reply, since I didn’t write anything about "And again" in the verse 55. But since you brought this up, let me address it. In my opinion this is a clear reference to verse 51, where the Lord says that he had commanded to build up a house unto his name in Jackson county. What was that house in Missouri suppose to be? It was not a boarding house, but a temple.

I hope I didn't misread it; I suppose I simply thought when you quoted 55 you meant to emphasize that part. Thanks for clarifying.

I definitely acknowledge that this is the first time the Lord has called his house a boarding house, but as the text reads, the boarding house is the one with watchmen upon her walls and that is undoubtedly temple language and I still see the Nauvoo House being the house in the text where baptisms are performed.

Thanks again for your comments.

[Shawn Henry]

The building was to be an endowment house and a boarding house to process new entrants into Zion, not a hall for gathering and meetings but a place for individuals to receive ordinances and to find refuge.

Just to clarify, are you agreeing with me that the ordinances listed in verse 39 are the ordinances of the Nauvoo House, the boarding house, that these newcomers to the House of Israel were to be endowed in the boarding house?

[Shawn Henry]

Thanks for the clarification!

You're welcome.

How do you see the text written? Do you see a transition away from the Nauvoo House to the Nauvoo Temple? If so, in what verse.

[inho]

I hope I didn't misread it; I suppose I simply thought when you quoted 55 you meant to emphasize that part. Thanks for clarifying.

My point was that verse 55 sounds to talk about the temple ("and again" as reference to verse 51 supports this), whereas 56 seems to start talking about something else: Nauvoo house.

Here I think it is a reasonable reading to interpret these verses be about two different houses: first temple, then Nauvoo House. The difference is not very clear though. However, I would argue that the beginning of the verse 56 is too repetitive if the verses talk about same house. It sounds like the boarding of strangers is mentioned to make the difference between the two houses. It is repetitive to mention that the house is build unto Lord’s name, since that was just said.

[Shawn Henry]

Another separation has to do with location.
The location of the Nauvoo House hadn't been shown to those appointed to build it:

22 Let my servant George, and my servant Lyman, and my servant John Snider, and others, build a house unto my name, such a one as my servant Joseph shall show unto them, upon the place which he shall show unto them also

They had yet to know its place. Joseph would show it to them.

The location of the temple was known to them since it had been chosen:

43 And ye shall build it on the place where you have contemplated building it, for that is the spot which I have chosen for you to build it.

The temple lot had been chosen and is confirmed/revealed in vs 43. They'd already started quarrying materials.
The lot for the Nauvoo House is not yet known to them according to vs 22.

Clearly two separate buildings - especially since the lots are at opposite ends of Nauvoo.

There're 2 problems with this interpretation though.

1. There was no "contemplated building it". By January of 1841, the time of this revelation, they had already broke ground and started the foundation. If the Lord meant the Nauvoo Temple, he would have said, "in the place you have already begun building it" not "contemplated". Contemplation is entirely moot once you have already started the foundation. So, that distinction goes to my side of the discussion
2. There is no transition in the text away from the Nauvoo House up to 43. Verse 55 is the first possible transition, and it is weak.

Thank you though for bringing that verse up, it is an important piece of the puzzle.

Actually the groundbreaking was in February, after this revelation. So yes, contemplate is correct.
Sorry - one known location, one yet to be revealed. Therefore two buildings.

I remember reading a lot more, but the two quotes off the church's website are all I could find.

"Land for a new temple in Nauvoo was secured in 1840."

"At the same time the temple was under construction, Joseph Smith received revelation and introduced new teachings that transformed the very purpose of Latter-day Saint temples."

I found it interesting too that this quote below confirms they dedicated an unfinished temple.

"Though portions of the temple were unfinished, the entire temple was dedicated on May 1, 1846." That's off topic though.

I did find your ground breaking date though, but you still have the bigger problem of no transition in the text away from the Nauvoo House.

So my question still stands.

[Shawn Henry]

I hope I didn't misread it; I suppose I simply thought when you quoted 55 you meant to emphasize that part. Thanks for clarifying.

My point was that verse 55 sounds to talk about the temple ("and again" as reference to verse 51 supports this), whereas 56 seems to start talking about something else: Nauvoo house.

Here I think it is a reasonable reading to interpret these verses be about two different houses: first temple, then Nauvoo House. The difference is not very clear though. However, I would argue that the beginning of the verse 56 is too repetitive if the verses talk about same house. It sounds like the boarding of strangers is mentioned to make the difference between the two houses. It is repetitive to mention that the house is build unto Lord’s name, since that was just said.

Yes, I agree the language doesn't flow well from 55 to 56. You are right to point that out.

But that would just raise more questions. For example, the transition, if there, would be too late in the chapter, right? Because we have verse 26 talking about bringing the gold and silver to the Nauvoo House and verse 39 listing the ordinances in the Nauvoo House.

So if that is the transition, it would be a one verse only transition and then in verse 56 we are right back to the Nauvoo House and the rest of the chapter is also the Nauvoo House. The Lord takes the time in the revelation to call out the names of the committee members of the Nauvoo House, but he can't take one verse to give a solid indication of a second house. That is ten times more odd than how verse 55 and 56 fit together.

[JLHPROF]

Another separation has to do with location.
The location of the Nauvoo House hadn't been shown to those appointed to build it:

22 Let my servant George, and my servant Lyman, and my servant John Snider, and others, build a house unto my name, such a one as my servant Joseph shall show unto them, upon the place which he shall show unto them also

They had yet to know its place. Joseph would show it to them.

The location of the temple was known to them since it had been chosen:

43 And ye shall build it on the place where you have contemplated building it, for that is the spot which I have chosen for you to build it.

The temple lot had been chosen and is confirmed/revealed in vs 43. They'd already started quarrying materials.
The lot for the Nauvoo House is not yet known to them according to vs 22.

Clearly two separate buildings - especially since the lots are at opposite ends of Nauvoo.

There're 2 problems with this interpretation though.

1. There was no "contemplated building it". By January of 1841, the time of this revelation, they had already broke ground and started the foundation. If the Lord meant the Nauvoo Temple, he would have said, "in the place you have already begun building it" not "contemplated". Contemplation is entirely moot once you have already started the foundation. So, that distinction goes to my side of the discussion
2. There is no transition in the text away from the Nauvoo House up to 43. Verse 55 is the first possible transition, and it is weak.

Thank you though for bringing that verse up, it is an important piece of the puzzle.

Actually the groundbreaking was in February, after this revelation. So yes, contemplate is correct.
Sorry - one known location, one yet to be revealed. Therefore two buildings.

I remember reading a lot more, but the two quotes off the church's website are all I could find.

"Land for a new temple in Nauvoo was secured in 1840."

"At the same time the temple was under construction, Joseph Smith received revelation and introduced new teachings that transformed the very purpose of Latter-day Saint temples."

I found it interesting too that this quote below confirms they dedicated an unfinished temple.

"Though portions of the temple were unfinished, the entire temple was dedicated on May 1, 1846." That's off topic though.

I did find your ground breaking date though, but you still have the bigger problem of no transition in the text away from the Nauvoo House.

So my question still stands.

I would argue you have the greater problem since you are relying on an argument of semantics that disregards what actually happened.
The history and the revelation shows that the temple lot had been selected/contemplated and was confirmed by the Lord in verse 43 before they actually broke ground.

The same revelation shows the initial instruction to build the Nauvoo House on a yet to be revealed lot in vs 22 which turned out to be on the other side of the city.

You can use whatever linguistic argument you like but they clearly reference two different properties. Whatever else you take that to mean it's plain as day there are two properties referenced. One known to them and one not yet known.

[Shawn Henry]

I would argue you have the greater problem since you are relying on an argument of semantics that disregards what actually happened.
The history and the revelation shows that the temple lot had been selected/contemplated and was confirmed by the Lord in verse 43 before they actually broke ground.

The same revelation shows the initial instruction to build the Nauvoo House on a yet to be revealed lot in vs 22 which turned out to be on the other side of the city.

You can use whatever linguistic argument you like but they clearly reference two different properties. Whatever else you take that to mean it's plain as day there are two properties referenced. One known to them and one not yet known.

If the plot of land for the Nauvoo House down by the river is the one Joseph had contemplated, then your whole argument falls apart. That could just as easily support the history, that the saints took it upon themselves to build the temple without waiting for the Lord, which is supported by the fact that the Nauvoo Temple does not have its own revelation. The Nauvoo House is mentioned by name.

Are you really going to say that the Lord doesn't know how to differentiate between two houses and can only describe one of them?

Besides, your whole argument has already fallen apart because in verse 45 they are told if they do these things, they won't be moved out of their place, and they clearly were.

The Lord has shown the ability to speak clearly throughout the section and everywhere else in scripture. Why would we believe that this is the one time when he combined two houses into one?

This matches the history perfectly, the Lord tells the saints one thing, then has Joseph test them to see if they'll do the opposite and they do every time.

[JLHPROF]

I would argue you have the greater problem since you are relying on an argument of semantics that disregards what actually happened.
The history and the revelation shows that the temple lot had been selected/contemplated and was confirmed by the Lord in verse 43 before they actually broke ground.

The same revelation shows the initial instruction to build the Nauvoo House on a yet to be revealed lot in vs 22 which turned out to be on the other side of the city.

You can use whatever linguistic argument you like but they clearly reference two different properties. Whatever else you take that to mean it's plain as day there are two properties referenced. One known to them and one not yet known.

If the plot of land for the Nauvoo House down by the river is the one Joseph had contemplated, then your whole argument falls apart. That could just as easily support the history, that the saints took it upon themselves to build the temple without waiting for the Lord, which is supported by the fact that the Nauvoo Temple does not have its own revelation. The Nauvoo House is mentioned by name.

Are you really going to say that the Lord doesn't know how to differentiate between two houses and can only describe one of them?

Besides, your whole argument has already fallen apart because in verse 45 they are told if they do these things, they won't be moved out of their place, and they clearly were.

The Lord has shown the ability to speak clearly throughout the section and everywhere else in scripture. Why would we believe that this is the one time when he combined two houses into one?

This matches the history perfectly, the Lord tells the saints one thing, then has Joseph test them to see if they'll do the opposite and they do every time.

Well history also states that Joseph himself instructed them to suspend work on the Nauvoo House in favor of working on the Temple. Apparently he understood his revelation differently than you and prioritized accordingly.
As far as I'm concerned you've failed to make your case in any way - the scripture indicates two separate properties, Joseph prioritized the temple, and I see no indication that it was ever thought of as the equal to the temple by the man that actually received the revelation and directed the construction of both.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want, but I'm afraid you'll have to do better than this to convince me that D&C 124 is only about the Nauvoo House. I don't see any credible historical evidence to support your view or that Joseph shared it. So until some new information and documented history is provided I'm happy to end our discussion on this topic. Thanks for the exercise!

[innocentoldguy]

"Reading other people's minds", what the heck are you talking about?

You give a lot of opinions here and make several declarations regarding what the Lord was thinking about the saints when you're clearly engaging in the most myopic, uncharitable, and outright wrong reading of section 124 possible. Perhaps you should leave the judgments of Joseph Smith and the early saints up to the Lord.

I'm talking about how the text is written, what the Lord actually said. We have the entire section in plain English, there is no mind reading old man.

No, you're talking about how you understood the text, which is wrong. Consider your take on verses 60-61, for instance, where you claim the Lord is talking about the Nauvoo House. He isn't. He's talking about Nauvoo itself being the cornerstone of Zion, not the Nauvoo House. As an aside, I don't think calling me an "old man" is quite the ad hominem you seem to think it is. Nice try though.

The Lord calls the Nauvoo House the House of the Lord throughout the whole section.

Admittedly, the way is written in Section 124 is confusing. However, a quick read through Joseph Smith's other writings, such as Section 127, makes it clear that the Lord is talking about the Nauvoo Temple. The Joseph Smith Papers website may also help you better understand.

How about you stop running your fingers on the keyboard and actually read the section and tell us what verses speak of the temple.

How about you work on your reading comprehension and breadth of study, and spend more time trying to understand the gospel and less time trying to tear it down?

That's what I'm challenging you to, show me the verses, show me the language in English.

Read Section 127 and Joseph Smith's other writings on the subject. Easy.

If one were to ask anyone unfamiliar with the text, someone without preconceived notions, how many houses are referenced in the section, that person would say only one.

I doubt it, since the introduction to the section clarifies the text and since section 127 gives more detail about the Nauvoo Temple. Is Section 124 confusing in the way it was written? Yes. Is it clarified elsewhere? Yes.

[innocentoldguy]

Most of this is pretty suspect, but I'll just ask for three cites for now:

What is your source for the claim that there was ever a baptismal font in the Nauvoo House?

For the claim that "historians agree" that the Nauvoo Temple wasn't completed?

For the claim that Brigham said it wasn't completed?

Here is a quote from Brigham Young:

"We build one in Nauvoo. I could pick out several before me now that were there when it was built, and know just how much was finished and what was done. It is true we left brethren there with instructions to finish it, and they got it nearly completed before it was burned; but the saints did not enjoy it." (JD 18:304)

Here is a site the gives details about how the Nauvoo Temple wasn't completed.
https://salemthoughts.com/Topics/Nauvoo_Temple.shtml

They may not have finished the entire building, but the baptismal font was dedicated on November 8, 1841, the attic was dedicated in December of 1845 for the purpose of marriage sealings, and the entire temple was dedicated on May 1, 1846.

[Shawn Henry]

Section 127

wrong reading of section 124 You saying my reading is wrong is not helpful. You explaining or showing where and how it is wrong would be helpful and that was my challenge. Don't be afraid of dialogue, this back and forth is how we learn. Everyone putting forth an idea should welcome it being challenged. That's how they harden and stand the test of time.

Consider your take on verses 60-61, for instance, where you claim the Lord is talking about the Nauvoo House. He isn't. He's talking about Nauvoo itself being the cornerstone of Zion. The "watchmen upon her walls" in 61 could be referring to either the Nauvoo House or Zion, both mentioned in verse 60, but the point is, it is still the Nauvoo House we are talking about. The Nauvoo House is being associated with the cornerstone of Zion, not the Temple. The Nauvoo Temple is clearly not being referenced.

Section 127, makes it clear that the Lord is talking about the Nauvoo Temple. That section does say Temple, but Section 124 still says Nauvoo House, the boarding house. We already know that there are two, as Joseph confirms, but that doesn't change the fact the 124 is solely about the Nauvoo House. If 127 is correct in mentioning the Temple, then by the same standard 124 is correct when saying Nauvoo House. Clearly the Lord knows how to differentiate. The only of the two houses connected to the criteria to not be rejected as a church is the Nauvoo House.

trying to tear it down It is not my intention to tear down, unless it be the precepts of men. My intention is to build up what the Lord is actually saying and I am simply giving my opinion of what that is. Could I be wrong, of course. Could you be wrong, of course, but we both are required to "search these things" and a healthy dialogue helps in that endeavor.

And old is only what you have already titled yourself, right old guy?

[innocentoldguy]

Section 127

wrong reading of section 124 You saying my reading is wrong is not helpful. You explaining or showing where and how it is wrong would be helpful and that was my challenge. Don't be afraid of dialogue, this back and forth is how we learn. Everyone putting forth an idea should welcome it being challenged. That's how they harden and stand the test of time.

Consider your take on verses 60-61, for instance, where you claim the Lord is talking about the Nauvoo House. He isn't. He's talking about Nauvoo itself being the cornerstone of Zion. The "watchmen upon her walls" in 61 could be referring to either the Nauvoo House or Zion, both mentioned in verse 60, but the point is, it is still the Nauvoo House we are talking about. The Nauvoo House is being associated with the cornerstone of Zion, not the Temple. The Nauvoo Temple is clearly not being referenced.

Section 127, makes it clear that the Lord is talking about the Nauvoo Temple. That section does say Temple, but Section 124 still says Nauvoo House, the boarding house. We already know that there are two, as Joseph confirms, but that doesn't change the fact the 124 is solely about the Nauvoo House. If 127 is correct in mentioning the Temple, then by the same standard 124 is correct when saying Nauvoo House. Clearly the Lord knows how to differentiate. The only of the two houses connected to the criteria to not be rejected as a church is the Nauvoo House.

trying to tear it down It is not my intention to tear down, unless it be the precepts of men. My intention is to build up what the Lord is actually saying and I am simply giving my opinion of what that is. Could I be wrong, of course. Could you be wrong, of course, but we both are required to "search these things" and a healthy dialogue helps in that endeavor.

And old is only what you have already titled yourself, right old guy?

If you're going to continue staring at a 1" section of the trunk of an elephant through a paper cone and insisting it's a snake, there's not much else I can do to help you. I don't do myopic readings of the gospel and would suggest you stop doing so as well.

Also, 60-61 are CLEARLY talking about Nauvoo being the cornerstone of Zion, not the Nauvoo house. Reading comprehension can be your friend. The same section refers to the stake in Nauvoo (there was only one) being the cornerstone of Zion as well as the High Council, so it is obvious that the whole of Nauvoo was the cornerstone of Zion, not the Nauvoo House. The Nauvoo House was just where weary travelers could contemplate the gospel, look out the window, and enjoy the cornerstone of Zion, which was Nauvoo.

Please don't try to backpedal on one of your myriad ad hominem arguments or attempt to make your logical fallacies my fault.