Casey Griffiths:
The Lord had given a revelation just to them, a very consequential revelation, one of the most important ones in the entire Doctrine and Covenants. They have the right to reject it if they want to.

Scott Woodward:
I release you from your burden of having to come and share this with me. Please leave. Boom, he gets put in prison. There are still people that are confused about that today. The Lord’s clarity here, I think, is just a great outcome of this revelation. Well, hey, Casey.

Casey Griffiths:
Hey, Scott. We’re back.

Scott Woodward:
We’re back. We’ve a little bit of feedback that sometimes our episodes have been going kind of long. We thought we would do a little compromise. We tried it last week, and we’re going to try to do it again this week. We’re going to have two parts. This week covers Section 49 and 50. We thought we would do Section 49 as a video and Section 50 as a video so that you can take a little breather there in between. We’ll see how that goes today, Casey.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. I think you’re doing this specifically because you like Section 49 so much. You have done a deep dive into the background, and I love this one, too. This is like one of the funnest revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants to teach because it’s so interesting. It’s given to a group called the Shakers, and the Shakers are so fascinating. It also shows us bumping up against another religious group that doesn’t have completely dissimilar aspirations but has some radically different ideas. Should we get into it?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, let’s do it. Section 49.

Casey Griffiths:
For the context, we’re actually going to break this into two parts. One, to understand this revelation, you need to understand a little bit about the Shakers, the organization that this revelation is given to. Part two, the context of the revelation. Now, Scott, you have done some great work on the background of the Shakers, and there’s not very many Shakers around today, correct?

Scott Woodward:
Yes, definitely. We’ll understand why as we start to learn their story.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. Okay. Last time I checked, there was one Shaker living near Sabbath Day, Lake Maine, and that’s going to come up. But they are a really fascinating chapter in religious history. Give us the background on the Shakers.

Scott Woodward:
About 100 years before this revelation was given. All right, that’s where we’re going to start today. It’s a big context. There was this girl named Ann Lee. She was born in a poor neighborhood, Manchester, England. As she grew up, she became overwhelmed with the poverty and the filth of Manchester. In time, she starts to speak out against the evils of alcohol and also became quite opposed to sex. That’s actually going to feature in Section 49. Keep this in mind. At age 22, Ann attended revival meetings of a religious group known by many as the Shaking Quakers, which was founded by these two called Jane and James Wardley. So Ann joins this group by confessing her sins, and thereafter, she starts participating in the Shaking. The Shaking was basically this ecstatic clapping and dancing and singing and whirling and shaking, which some believed caused sin to fall from believers who did so. Shaking the sin off, dancing the sin off, clapping the sin off, which is kind of a cool idea. But these Shaking Quakers, more formally called the United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing, believed, like some other Christians, that the Second Coming of Jesus was to be soon.

Scott Woodward:
Yet they also believed, quite uniquely, that while his first coming had been in male form, Christ’s Second Coming would be in female form. This is really important to know about the Shakers. Fast forward a couple of years, age 26, Ann’s father presses her to marry his apprentice, a guy named Abraham Standerin, which she does. Despite her aversion, Ann has four children with Abraham, three of whom die in infancy and one at age six. So all of her kids will pass away. And the scarring losses of all of her children devastated Ann, who interpreted them as God’s judgment upon her for her carnal sins. From then on, though she remains married to Abraham, Ann determined to be celibate. And her husband, though frustrated, supported her in this for about a decade. Then in 1770, at age 34, while Ann is in jail for something related to her Shaker beliefs, she claimed that she had a vision. And in this vision, she said that she learned that the cause of Adam and Eve’s fall was that they had committed, quote, “The forbidden sexual act in the Garden of Eden, and were thus expelled therefrom by an angry God.”

Scott Woodward:
And thus, at that instant, it became clear to Ann that the cause of humanity’s separation from God could be boiled down to a single thing. Are you seeing the theme here, Casey?

Casey Griffiths:
Yep.

Scott Woodward:
Furthermore, it was revealed to Ann that she was the female incarnation of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, whom the Shaking Quakers had been waiting for. She said, “I feel the blood of Christ running through my soul and body.” Close quote. After her release from jail, several members of the Shaking Quakers, including some of her own family members, accepted Ann’s vision and revelation as spiritual truth, which solidifies her leadership among them. From then on, they start to refer to her as Ann the Word, or just Mother Ann. Then at age 38 in 1974, as a result of another vision she had, Ann and her followers, which was at that time six men and two women, sail to America. And upon their arrival, Ann’s husband, Abraham, finally ends their marriage, and he leaves her forever. And at this point, Ann and her followers established the first Shaker community in America. And then Ann goes forth preaching the need for everybody to confess their sins, give up their worldly goods, and take up the cross of celibacy by forsaking marriage.

Scott Woodward:
This rather demanding message actually catches on with a certain segment of society, at least. She successfully establishes Shaker communities in six areas in New England. She actually dies in 1784. Over the next several decades, additional Shaker communities are formed by her followers who embraced the fully communal approach to life, wherein believers consecrate all of their property, and where men and women share equal leadership roles, and where a vegetarian diet was encouraged, and where celibacy, of course, was central. In fact, even touching the opposite gender was forbidden, including at their elaborate dances for which they would become famous. What’s interesting for our immediate context here is that one such Shaker community had been established in North Union, Ohio, which is only 15 miles southwest of Kirtland. In fact, prior to the reception of Section 49 in May of 1831, the Saints and the Shakers were actually friendly with each other, and they even traded goods with each other. That kind of gets us from 100 years earlier up to the point where you’re going to now tell us part two, but that’s the general backstory of the Shakers. Now, with that in mind, Casey, what’s the immediate context here with Section 49?

Casey Griffiths:
Let me add a couple of things, too. I think this happens when the Shakers are at their peak. One source I found said that there were about 6,000 Shakers at this point in time, meaning there’s more Shakers than there are Latter-day Saints when this revelation is given. But Shakers, obviously, they’re not making little Shakers, to put it delicately. Their population goes into decline, and that’s why there’s so few of them today. But you can still go to Ohio, and not very far away from Kirtland, there is still a town called Shaker Heights. There’s a monument there that commemorates the community of Shakers that existed there during the time that the Saints start to move into the area. There’s some stuff that the Shakers believe that we can get on board with, like continuing revelation. There’s a lot of stuff that we aren’t on board with, like celibacy. Shakers also believe that the need for ordinances ceased with the apostles, and they don’t believe in the atonement of Jesus Christ, is my understanding as well. Even though they are a Christian organization, they believe Jesus is going to return. Here’s what’s going on. In March of 1831, a man named Leman Copley, who had been a Shaker for several years, gets baptized into the Church.

Casey Griffiths:
Leman lives 35 miles outside of the Shaker community at North Union. He owns a big farm, and he remains married. That gives us an indication that he wasn’t a full participant in Shakerism. In fact, after joining the Church, the leader of the North Union Shakers, a guy named Ashbel Kitchell, criticizes Leman for having taken up with Mormonism as the easier plan. That’s not something you hear very often, Scott, that Mormonism is the easier plan. But I guess, yeah, compared to Shakerism, there’s a lot of benefits. Leman also, though, was still sort of committed to Shaker teachings, their mode of worship. He liked their community. This is the way Joseph Smith describes him. He says, “About this time, Leman Copley, one of the sect called Shaking Quakers, embraced the fullness of the everlasting gospel.” Joseph said, “Leman was apparently honest-hearted, but still retained ideas that the Shakers were right in some particulars of their faith.” Now, it’s clear after he joined the Church that Leman still felt really fondly of the Shakers and he had friends there, and he wanted them to hear the gospel message as well. Here’s what happens. John Whitmer, the Church historian, records that “Leman Copley, who was a former Shaker, was anxious that some of the elders should go to his former brethren and preach the gospel.

Casey Griffiths:
“And Leman said he was convinced that his Shaker friends would be converted by the missionaries if they just learned the truth.” So Leman asked if he can be ordained to preach himself, according to John Whitmer. And Leman might have felt so confident in the outcome because he sees similarities between the two. They both believe in confession of sins. They both believe in visions and revelations by people called by God. They both emphasize spiritual gifts, like speaking in tongues. And at the time, both are living a form of consecration. Leman is hopeful, he’s optimistic, but he might have been underestimating some of the real dramatic differences between the faiths, or maybe a clearer picture of where Shakerism and Mormonism diverge might not have been clear. So as a result of Leman Copley requesting from Joseph Smith about all of this. On May 7, 1831, Joseph Smith’s history states, “In order to have a more perfect understanding on the subject, I inquired of the Lord and received the following revelation.” Now, that’s the immediate backstory to Section 49. Let’s dive in and see how the Lord responded to this inquiry.

Scott Woodward:
The content of Section 49. This revelation divides into basically two major parts. Verses 1 through 11 is the Lord’s message directly to Sidney Rigdon, Parley P. Pratt, and Leman Copley. Then verses 12 to 28 is the Lord’s message directly to the Shakers, which these three are supposed to take to the Shaker community. So let’s look at the first part here, verses 1 through 11. The Lord addresses his servants, Sidney, Parley, and Leman, and gives them, quote, “A commandment that you shall go and preach my gospel, which you have received, even as you have received it, unto the Shakers.” Now, Sidney and Parley may have wondered why they were being pulled into this. The Lord explains here that the Shakers, quote, “Desire to know the truth in part, but not all, for they are not right before me and must needs repent.” This is why, he says, “I send you, my servants Sidney and Parley, to preach the gospel unto them.” As for Leman, the Lord says, “He shall be ordained unto this work.” The Lord explains to Sidney and Parley, quote, “That he may reason with them not according to that which he has received of them, but according to that which shall be taught him by you, my servants.

Scott Woodward:
“And by so doing,” the Lord says, “I will bless him, otherwise he shall not prosper.” Now that’s really interesting. That’s going to come into play in the aftermath of this, that the Lord says, Leman, I want you to teach them what you learn from Parley and Sidney. Sidney, Parley, please teach Leman. And Leman can reason with them based on what he learns from you, not based on his former understanding. And that is going to come into play. We’ll see, sadly, he will go against this, but I don’t want to spoil the ending. So the Lord here is basically laying out the only path by which the inexperienced Leman Copley, who is still sympathetic with some Shaker doctrines, will actually succeed in this mission. He’s got to reason with the Shakers based only on the doctrine he learns from Sidney and Parley, and not according to any Shaker doctrines he’s still clinging to. Then in verses 5 through 11, the Lord gets very, very clear about a few core doctrines that perhaps Leman needed some clarification on. First, he says, quote, “I am God, and have sent mine Only Begotten Son into the world for the redemption of the world, and have decreed that he that receiveth him shall be saved, and he that receiveth him not shall be damned.”

Scott Woodward:
Now, something really interesting here, Casey, to point out is that that was the voice of God the Father, speaking. Can we catch that? “I am God, and have sent my Only Begotten into the world.” So this is a pretty rare scriptural moment. The Father is referring to himself here as the Lord in this revelation. But what’s interesting is the very last verse of this revelation concludes like this. It says, “Behold, I am Jesus Christ.” Exactly what point the voice shifts back to Jesus Christ is unclear. But what is clear is that here in verse 5, God the Father, is unmistakably speaking. And what he’s speaking about is the fundamentally crucial salvific role of his son who he sent to the Earth to redeem the world. “And they have done unto the Son of Man, even as they listed,” he continues, referring to Jesus’s crucifixion. Yet following his resurrection, quote, “he has taken his power on the right-hand of his glory, and now reigneth in the heavens, and will reign till he descends on the earth to put all enemies under his feet, which time is nigh at hand.” Okay, clear reminder that Jesus’s Second Coming, though imminent, had not yet happened, contrary to Shaker beliefs, who thought that Ann Lee was the female manifestation of the Second Coming.

Scott Woodward:
So he’s already starting to make some corrections here and lay out the true doctrine.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. And I’ll say this, he really addresses the key differences right off the bat. Like, he is direct with the Shakers and saying, Hey, the whole point of this is that I sent my Son to atone for sins and to be resurrected. Shakers don’t believe in the atonement or the resurrection, and he’s just addressing that. And then he addresses the next biggest difference, which is, and the Second Coming hasn’t happened yet, which is contrary to what Shakers believe.

Scott Woodward:
He goes on and says, to that point, “I, the Lord, have spoken it, but the hour and the day no man knoweth, not even the angels in heaven know, nor shall they know until he comes.” It hasn’t happened yet, and nobody knows when it’s going to happen. So what do we do in the meantime before he comes? Now he lays it down. “Wherefore,” he says, “I will that all men shall repent for all are under sin.” And then he makes one exception, which is curious here. He says, “Except those which I have reserved unto myself, holy men that ye know not of.” Close quote. What on earth? He just dropped this really interesting thing in passing that everyone on earth is under sin except for some holy men that you don’t know about. Casey, I don’t know if Joseph ever learns who those holy men were that he’s talking about, but there are clearly people that Joseph doesn’t know about that God is also working with, and I don’t know what to make of that. Do you have commentary on what he might mean there?

Casey Griffiths:
The straightforward thing to say would be that we’re talking about John the Beloved and the Three Nephites, but it does open up a world of possibilities, right? Of other things that are happening that we might not have a record of. Probably wouldn’t be responsible for us to get too specific in comment on it. It’s just a really interesting but cryptic passage.

Scott Woodward:
Perfect. Let’s lay it right there. That is an interesting passage, 100%. We’ve got our marching orders, right? Before Jesus returns, it’s our job to repent our sins in preparation for that day. This is why he says, quote, “I have sent unto you mine everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.” And the Lord’s everlasting covenant, remember, he defined that back in Section 39, which was repentance, baptism by water, and the Holy Ghost, which enables those who receive it to become the children of Christ and heirs in his kingdom. And so he says, “The nations of the Earth shall bow to the everlasting covenant. And if not of themselves, they shall come down for that which is now exalted of itself shall be laid low of power.” With this urgent message as the backdrop, he says to Sidney and Parley and Leman, “I give unto you a commandment that ye go among this people,” the Shakers, “and say unto them, like unto mine apostle Peter,” the following things. Now we transition to verses 12 through 28. This is what the Lord wants to say directly to the Shakers through Sidney, Parley, and Leman.

Casey Griffiths:
We can break this down into four distinct messages. The first one in verses 12 through 14 is that the Shakers need to receive the everlasting covenant. “Believe,” this is what it says, “on the name of the Lord Jesus who was on the earth and is to come and the beginning and the end. Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, according to the holy commandment, for the remission of sins. And whoso doeth this shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands of the elders of the church.” So you notice the subtle phrases there. He’s telling them, and is to come, is that him trying to gently correct them, that they think Jesus has already come. They think that Ann Lee was the female manifestation of Jesus, and the command to be baptized, according to the holy commandment, is another embedded corrective. Since Shaker beliefs only require the confession of sins, they don’t really require baptism. So first message, repent and be baptized because Jesus is coming. Again, subtle correctives there. Do you want to tackle the second message?

Scott Woodward:
The second message is in verse 15 through 17. And this is where the Lord strikes at the very heart of Shakerism’s, like, fervent emphasis on celibacy. And these verses are priceless. The Lord says, quote, “Verily I say to you that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore,” he continues, “it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation, and that it,” meaning the earth, “might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.” The Lord did not pull any punches there. He is emphatic. Not only is marriage not the root of all evil on this earth, as Ann Lee had felt, it is the very purpose of the earth’s creation itself. Let’s just let that sink in for a second. He said, “All this that the earth might answer the end of its creation”, at the very heart of which is making a way for those men and women who were created, quote, “before the world was made,” he said there, to come to earth.

Scott Woodward:
To deny marriage is to deny one of the most fundamental purposes of God and his plan. It’s not lost on us, Casey, that 15 prophets, seers, and revelators, when they put together the Family Proclamation, actually pull language from this very verse to make this point very, very clear.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. I mean, honestly, this is huge. It’s probably the earliest indication in the Doctrine and Covenants that marriage is going to be a big deal within the Church. Up to this point, we’ve been similar to other Christian denominations in that most thought that marriage was a net positive and the family was good. But this is saying, No, this is the whole reason why I did all this, and it’s going to lead us down the road to eternal marriage and the importance of the marriage covenant in our theology. This is a major milestone in the Doctrine and Covenants, and it just happens to come where the Lord being really direct with the Shakers about what they’ve gotten wrong here.

Scott Woodward:
I don’t know that he could have said it more emphatically than to say, Actually, marriage is like why the Earth was created. This is how I get mankind here so that they can have this probation experience and we can do the kingdom of God project. So marriage good, sex within marriage good. This is at the heart of what makes this whole thing run.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. Okay. So third message, verses 18 through 21, this addresses the issue of vegetarianism. That was emphasized by the Shakers. Not all Shakers were vegetarians, but some were, and it seems like these ones were since the Lord addresses it. He says, “Whoso forbid to abstain from meats,” or biddeth to abstain, as footnote 18a clarifies, “that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God.” Let’s break this down. It might be fine for a person to choose to be a vegetarian themselves, but forbidding others to eat meat goes a little too far. “For behold,” the Lord continues, “the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air and that which cometh of the earth is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have an abundance. But,” he adds a clarification, such abundance “is not given that one man should possess that which is above another,” creating iniquity, comparison, and withholding from those in need, “wherefore the world lieth in sin.” Then he adds, “Wo be unto the man that sheddeth blood, or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.” This is a balancing principle to what he’s talking about earlier here.

Casey Griffiths:
On the one hand, animals are ordained to be used by humans for food and clothing, but they’re not just supposed to be killed or wasted outright, meaning killed and then not used for food or clothes. When we have no need for them, animals should be allowed to thrive. I know a lot of enthusiastic hunters at the Church, and I don’t want to offend them. Those that are enthusiastic about hunting can take that and kind of weigh it in their own mind as well. I’m not asking anybody to be a vegetarian, but he also does teach this great principle that wasting flesh is bad.

Scott Woodward:
In the fourth and final message of the Lord to the Shakers in verses 22 to 25, the Lord addresses another of their core beliefs about Jesus’s Second Coming. So now he just hits it straight. He’s been kind of alluding to it earlier on and teasing at it, but now he just says this, really point blank, quote, “Verily I say unto you that the son of man cometh not in the form of a woman.” A clear reference to Ann Lee, right? “Neither of a man traveling on the earth.” It’s not going to be some secret thing, right? “Wherefore, be not deceived, but continue in steadfastness, looking forth for the heavens to be shaken, and the earth to tremble and reel to and fro as a drunken man, and for the valleys to be exalted, and for the mountains to be made low, and for the rough places to be made smoothand all this when the angel shall sound his trumpet.” In other words, this is going to be dramatic. It’s going to be global. Nobody’s going to miss the Second Coming of Jesus. This is not going to be a subtle, quiet thing where someone can say, No, Jesus has already come.

Scott Woodward:
Go meet him in the desert. No, not a thing. This is going to be an unmistakable thing. “But before the great day of the Lord shall come,” he prophesies, “Jacob,” meaning the house of Israel, “shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as the rose.” Also, he says, “Zion shall flourish upon the hills and rejoice upon the mountains, and shall be assembled together unto the place which I have appointed.” A likely reference to the New Jerusalem he’s been talking about the last several sections. And that’s it. So then the Lord concludes in verses 26 to 28 by inviting them to “go as I have commanded you, repent of all your sins, ask and ye shall receive, not and it shall be opened unto you.” And by assuring those who do that, he says that “I will go before you and be your rearward, and I will be in your midst, and you shall not be confounded. Behold, I am Jesus Christ, and I come quickly. Even so. Amen.” So that is the content of Section 49.

Casey Griffiths:
Let’s hit some controversies with Section D&C 49. Again, the Lord does a pretty good job dealing with all these, but let’s start with, is it okay to be a vegetarian if you’re a Latter-day Saint?

Scott Woodward:
Short answer, yes. Just don’t push it on other people. Don’t forbid other people from eating meat. Sure. Okay, that was easy. Why does D&C 49 say that marriage is between one man and one woman? Now, in our monogamous society, that makes total sense. But don’t Latter-day Saints have a little bit of an uneven past in terms of one man, one woman relationships?

Casey Griffiths:
I think most people are aware of that, Scott. I want to point out something interesting, which is prior to 2013, Official Declaration 1, which in the Doctrine and Covenants is the commandment to end plural marriage, didn’t have a little italicized introduction like the other sections of the Doctrine and Covenants do. In 2013, there was a little italicized introduction there. The italicized introduction to Official Declaration 1 quotes Section 49. This isn’t the revelation itself, but these italicized introductions are commentary, and they’re past correlation, they’re pretty close to official commentary on this. The first line starts out and says, “The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage, unless he declares otherwise.” I would add, so does the Doctrine and Covenants, too. I mean, the actual official text of Section 49 of the Doctrine and Covenants in this verse states, and it’s pretty difficult to misunderstand, “it is lawful that he should have one wife and the twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation.” I think you can reconcile this just by saying, Hey, this is the rule. Plural marriage is an exception, which Jacob 2 allows you to do fairly easily.

Casey Griffiths:
We know that plural marriage was revealed around this time, around 1831, but obviously had not been implemented into the Church. We can also argue that plural marriage was never a majority practice within the Church either. The standard has been monogamy. Even if you’re looking at it from a timeline perspective, we practice plural marriage for about 50 years, and then the rest of the time, we’ve been strong defenders of monogamy. I think you can make this work just by saying, Yes, monogamy is the rule, polygamy is the exception to the rule, and the Lord here is talking to people that aren’t familiar with the nature of the marriage covenant. I mean, in this point, the Latter-day Saints aren’t even familiar with it. He’s given them the basic rule that everybody follows and that we still follow in the Church today. I don’t see any conflict, really.

Scott Woodward:
I like that to say that this is the rule, that the Lord is laying down the rule here, which Jacob, too, also does a really good job saying, One man, one woman, that’s the rule.

Casey Griffiths:
Scott, I guess the other thing is it’s introducing marriage as a sacred covenant here, but marriage between a man and a woman. What would be the implications for someone that’s a member of the LGBTQ community?

Scott Woodward:
I think that’s a really important question. When we’re trying to look at scripture for doctrine, what the Lord is saying here, I think is a really interesting commentary on why man and woman marriage is the plan. It’s the plan because as he says here, verse 16, “It’s lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation.” That’s not the end of the sentence. Now he explains what he means. “That it,” meaning the earth, “might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.” How are we going to get premortal men and women onto earth? How are we going to get them here? There is one way. There is one way and one way only. It’s through a man and a woman marrying and becoming one flesh in order to bring about children. This is why, scripturally speaking, this is central to God’s plan for his children. This is gentle, it’s clear, it’s biologically obvious that this is the way that children are made. I think when we’re talking about this really sensitive issue, I think it’s probably a little more beneficial to talk about what we’re for, which is man-woman marriage, and God’s plan to bring children to Earth than to suggest that we are against, if that makes any sense, Casey.

Casey Griffiths:
Intimacy and closeness is something that God intends to exist between a man and a woman that love each other. For anybody listening that’s in a marriage where you can’t have children, I would say the Lord here says it’s ordained of God to fulfill the purpose of the Earth, to bring forth the measure of man. But that doesn’t mean that it only exists for the creation of children. The commandment God gave to Adam and Eve to be one flesh was as important as the commandment he gave to them to be fruitful and multiply. Those are both elements of intimacy.

Scott Woodward:
If we get into the weeds of this and we get into the controversies of that, you can see why this is so tangled and nobody’s going to untangle this. It’s not something that’s untangleable. But I just think it’s beautiful to note that the Lord here is stating what he’s for. Like, Ann Lee was against marriage, and the Lord is saying, I’m for marriage because he gives this reason. So I can’t find anywhere in scripture, where the Lord is directly saying anything like, I’m against people who have same-sex attraction. I’m against this. I’m against that. Even Matthew 19, the Lord is so gentle to those who never married. He calls some of them eunuchs for the kingdom’s sake. But he says, Some are born as eunuchs, meaning they don’t have attraction to the opposite sex. And he says, For them, maybe it’s okay not to marry. He’s really gentle. He’s kind. I’ve never seen him condemn anyone in that group. All I see him saying here is what he’s really, really strongly for, that the purpose of this Earth was created so that we can get people here. And man-woman marriage is the way that’s done.

Casey Griffiths:
All right, so we move on to the consequences of Section 49. Let’s talk about the consequences, which in this case are a story. Basically, after Section 49 is given, May 7nth, Sidney Rigdon and Leman Copley travel to the Shaker settlement in North Union, where they meet their leader, Ashbel Kitchell, with whom Leman was already acquainted. And this one’s kind of interesting because Ashel Kitchell actually leaves behind the history of this encounter. We get to see this from the other side, from the Shaker side of things. When he met with Sidney, this wasn’t the first time that Ashbel, the leader of the Shakers, had met with the Mormons, as he called Church members. In his personal history, he states that he met Oliver Cowdery the previous year when Oliver and the other missionaries had stopped at North Union on their way to the borders of America for the Lamanite mission. He recalled that Oliver Cowdery had borne his testimonies, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, and then left several copies of the Book of Mormon with the Shaker community before departing. Ashbel said, “I believed that I should one day have to decide what to do about the matter.

Casey Griffiths:
“At length, I concluded that I was dedicated and entirely devoted to God and desired to do what was right, that if God had any hand in that work, he would inform me by some means that I might know to do.” Now the moment’s here, right? There’s representatives from the Mormons directly present with him. The Lord is reaching out to Ashbel and the Shaker community with the revelation that Sidney Rigdon has. Yet neither Sidney nor Leman mentions the revelation of the Shakers immediately. Instead, they spend the evening discussing and comparing their respective faiths with Ashbel. I guess a little building on common beliefs. The next morning, they engage in a pleasant conversation, and Ashbll suggested that at this time, neither of them should try to force their doctrine on the other, but let the time be spent in feeling the Spirit. To this request, Sidney consented, agreeing that he would subject himself to the order of the place. They still haven’t read the revelation.

Scott Woodward:
Then Parley P. Pratt shows up.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, Parley. I love Parley. A little before the Sabbath meeting of the Shakers is beginning, Parley P. Pratt arrives. Remember, he’s been called, too. He asked Sidney and Leman how things were going, and they told him that Ashbel had requested, and they agreed to just observe at this time and try not to convert each other. According to Ashbel Kitchell, this is what he writes, “Parley told them to pay no attention to me, for they had come with the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the people must hear his message.” So they go into the Shaker meeting, and they sat down quietly. And then, according to Ashbel Kitchell, “Sidney Rigdon arose and stated that he had a message from the Lord Jesus Christ to this people, and asked if he could have the privilege of delivering it. He was answered he could. He then read Section 49 to them in its entirety. As he did so, Leman Copley was in tears, perhaps feeling overcome with joy that his hope of sharing the gospel with his Shaker friends was being realized. However, when Sidney was through, Ashbel Kitchell responded by saying he rejected their message and said he released Sidney, Parley, and Leman,” and this is his own words, “and their Christ from any further burden about us and take all the responsibility upon myself.”

Scott Woodward:
I release you from your burden of having to come and share this with me. Please leave. I’ll take the responsibility of me and my people upon myself, and I will dismiss you guys. But how does Sidney reply to that?

Casey Griffiths:
According to Ashbel Kitchell, Sidney Rigdon said, This you cannot do. I wish to hear the people speak. He wants to hear from them for himself. So Ashbel tells the people they can speak for themselves, which they did, saying they were fully satisfied with what they had, and they wish to have nothing to do with these elders or their Christ. Again, this is from Ashbel Kitchell’s perspective. At this point, Sidney relented and he puts the revelation away. But then, according to Ashbel Kitchell, Parley P. Pratt stood up and commenced shaking his coattail and said that he shook the dust from his garments as a testimony against us, that we had rejected the word of the Lord Jesus. At this point, Ashbel Kitchell gets upset. He calls Parley. Well, he rails a Parley. Here’s what he writes. He said, “He called Parley, you filthy beast. Dare you presume to come here and try to imitate a man of God by shaking your filthy tail? Confess your sins and purge your soul from lust. He then turned to Leman in his fear and said, You hypocrite, you knew better. You knew where the living work of God was. But for the sake of indulgence, you could deceive yourself in them, but you shall reap the fruit of your own doings.”

Casey Griffiths:
Then he dismisses the congregation, and Parley gets on his horse and goes home. Parley summarizes the visit in his autobiography where he says, “We fulfilled the mission as we were commanded in a settlement of this strange people near Cleveland, Ohio. But they utterly refused to hear or obey the gospel.” From Parley’s perspective, we came, we tried, they rejected us.

Scott Woodward:
Then, meanwhile, like Ashbel’s rebuke of Leman Copley, we find out that that actually stung Leman deeply. And soon afterwards, he’s going to become pretty conflicted in his loyalties between the Church and the Shakers. In fact, as a result of D&C 48, received back in March, Leman had agreed to offer his large farm in Thompson, Ohio, for the Saints from Colesville, New York, to come and live as they gathered to Ohio. Remember Section 48 said to the Kirtland Saints, Give of your land if you have some. He said, I have some. You guys can come stay on my property in Thompson. But after this experience, Leman’s resolve to uphold his agreement was shaken. In fact, he soon reconciles with the Shakers at North Union. And then together with Ashbel Kitchell by his side, he goes to his farm in Thompson, where Ashbel starts preaching to the Saints celibacy, and after which the Saints were evicted from Leman’s farm. Like Leman says, You got to leave. So that summer, Church fellowship is withdrawn from Leman for these actions. And over a year later, his fellowship is reinstated, though, in 1832, October, when he asked Joseph for forgiveness.

Scott Woodward:
But Leman continues to vacillate in his faith for the next several years after this mission to the Shakers, until he finally does break with the Church permanently in 1838. And he remains in Ohio for the remainder of his life. So this backfires on Leman. It was him. It was his zeal that prompted this. He’s the one that approached the prophet. He’s the one that got Section 49 to be received. He agitated the question, and now it backfires on him. And remember how the Lord said, Go with what Parley and Sidney teach you, not with what you’ve received from the Shakers? Well, he doesn’t. He’s going to side with Ashbel Kitchell on this, and that’s the sad aftermath there. What do we make of all this, Casey? What are we to learn from what happens here in Section 49? Any lessons learned?

Casey Griffiths:
We use this model earlier, but this is another Parable of the Sower, where the roots didn’t go down deep enough. He initially is really enthusiastic about the gospel, wants to share with his friends. But when there’s a little pushback, when there’s pressure, when there’s persecution, he becomes vulnerable. He rejects the word. Or the other possible lesson is that we could learn from the Shaker’s example that people simply have their agency to choose to accept or reject the gospel if they want to, even when they’re presented with a personalized revelation to them from God himself. That is kind of a killer, right? That the Lord had given a revelation just to them, a very consequential revelation, one of the most important ones in the entire Doctrine and Covenants. But they have the right to reject it if they want to.

Scott Woodward:
It reminds me of when Ammon comes in to King Lamoni and he just starts serving him. He just starts serving him. But meanwhile, Aaron went to a different city and instead of serving the people to win their hearts, Aaron just starts preaching. Remember what happened to him right away? Boom, he gets put in prison. Yeah, he’s thrown in jail right away. He takes this approach of, Well, it’s the gospel. We just got to teach it. Forgetting humans are humans. You got to be loving and kind and thoughtful and reason with them together. Come now, let us reason together.

Casey Griffiths:
I admire Sidney Rigdon building on common beliefs, but look at the revelation itself. The Lord is blunt. Jesus was sent to Earth to save people and was resurrected. That is the biggest doctrinal disagreement that we have with the Shakers. He’s telling them because he loves them.

Scott Woodward:
I don’t know. Do you think Parley was moved upon by the Holy Ghost? Because I’m just looking at the fruits. The fruits were this backfired. It wasn’t good. Why would the Lord give Section 49 to these people if there wasn’t a chance for them to receive it? I just wonder if it got blown up because of the hasty approach.

Casey Griffiths:
This is all Monday morning quarterbacking, right? We don’t know what might have been. My personal judgment is that Sidney Rigdon’s approach probably wouldn’t have worked either, and maybe they would have parted on better terms. In this particular situation, the Shakers were so off the mark. I mean, the Lord himself said, Give this message to them. Maybe we could dispute over, Hey, what was the right time and place? The bottom line is Sidney hadn’t given the revelation to them until Parley shows up and tells him to.

Scott Woodward:
We’ll let our listeners decide on what do you think with that approach. What we’re pointing out here is that there are maybe a variety of lessons that we can learn from Section 49. But I think the greatest enduring benefit that comes from all of this is the revelation of Section 49 itself, and perhaps most particularly the way that it articulates the doctrine that it is central to the purpose of the Earth’s creation for man and woman to marry and have children. There was some people that were confused about that back in 1831, and there are still people that are confused about that today. The Lord’s clarity here, I think, is just a great outcome of this revelation.

Casey Griffiths:
This revelation, even though it’s another one of those successful failures, right, where they don’t convert the Shakers. But we do get this text that is incredibly valuable, that has a number of points that are going to be expanded upon, maybe most crucially, the importance of marriage in God’s plan.

Scott Woodward:
That was fun. Okay, that’s part one of this week’s Come, Follow, Me. Stay tuned for part two, where we’ll dive into Section 50 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which has its own cluster of really interesting insights. And so stay tuned.