Scott Woodward:
Our day looks a little different than Joseph Smith’s day. Can I start out that way?

Casey Griffiths:
Circumstances sometimes change, and circumstances can be very individual. I think our job is just to lift everybody where they’re at, to look at them and say, How can I help? That’s the real role of the Church when it comes to families.

Scott Woodward:
But why do you think there’s even, like, judgment in the Church at all about this, Casey?

Casey Griffiths:
We’ve gotten so far to the extreme that that’s seen as a negative when it’s very much a positive. I’m not going to be judgmental about how they fulfill the duties explained in The Family Proclamation. Admire them for doing so.

Scott Woodward:
How many of us fail to magnify our callings because of lack of confidence in ourselves? If we were called to that calling, we could do it. Why wouldn’t God call somebody to a calling? Why wouldn’t the Lord give people an opportunity to serve? The Lord is generous. He just gives people opportunities. Help me, help you, help the world.

Casey Griffiths:
Hello, Scott.

Scott Woodward:
Hello, Casey.

Casey Griffiths:
Here we are once again. We’ve got some juicy sections of the Doctrine and Covenants to deal with, Sections 81 to 83. How would you describe these? Like, key points in organization, definitely. A major step towards forming a First Presidency, which is going to lead to a Quorum of the Twelve, a Quorum of the Seventy, and then some Church financial concerns, which it feels like are big in this section of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, Section 81, 82, and 83 almost have nothing to do with each other, but they are impactful. Like the outcomes of 81, like you said, it’s going to be we’re going to get a First Presidency eventually coming from this. I call that a big deal. And then 82 is continuing this theme started in Section 78 about this United Order or United Firm that the Lord wants to create. It’s like a corporate joining. It’s like a joint partnership between different business entities in the Church to help produce money. And then Section 83, very practical about how to take care of those who may have lost their dad or who don’t have a husband to take care of them. What should be the obligation of the Church? Is the Church to be primary to take care of those things? Or where does family come in, and, you know? So kind of navigating some difficult, timely questions that they were experiencing back then, which still have some pretty relevant modern components to them. That’s right. So…

Casey Griffiths:
So we’re going from like the highest levels of the Church, the First Presidency, down to like the grassroots level, how do you manage your family? And stuff that… I think The Family Proclamation is really influenced by some of the stuff that’s in Section 83, and that’s a big deal right now, too.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. So here we go. We’ll call this kind of a medley this week of some disparate revelations that aren’t really building on each other, but definitely have serious consequences going forward. So let’s dive into it. Give us our first C with Section 81, Context. What’s going on here?

Casey Griffiths:
Section 81 is a short revelation, but it marks a really important step towards the creation of the First Presidency. So the context here is there’s a conference held on January 25th, 1832, in Amherst, Ohio, where Joseph Smith was ordained as president of the high priesthood. And we kind of just take all this stuff for granted today. Like, we usually just say President of the Church. But in this early era of Church history, they’re defining roles like president of the high priesthood and presiding elder. And they don’t even have a First Presidency at this point. There’s pretty much just been Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, the first and second elder. So a few weeks after this conference where Joseph Smith is ordained as president of the high priesthood, this is on March 8th, 1832, Joseph Smith chooses counselors. So he chooses and ordains Sidney Rigdon, and then a guy named, and this might be surprising to some of our listeners, Jesse Gause, to be his second counselor. They’re going to be called the presidency of the high priesthood. Then on the 18th of March, 1833, almost one year after this revelation was received, the First Presidency, as we know it today, was created.

Casey Griffiths:
So this is a stepping stone on the way to creating the First Presidency as we know it. And this revelation outlines some of the duties of a counselor in the First Presidency. You might call this like the proto-First Presidency or like the test run for what’s going to be the First Presidency. Here’s the tricky thing. You’ve probably heard of Joseph Smith, and you’ve probably heard of Sidney Rigdon, but this revelation was originally received on behalf of Jesse Gause. And one tricky thing is that in the earliest copies of the revelation, the name Jesse Gause is crossed out and replaced with a name that might be more familiar to you, which is Frederick G. Williams.

Scott Woodward:
Who is Jesse Gause? Why was his name later crossed out? And why have we never heard of this guy if he was in the proto-First Presidency?

Casey Griffiths:
This is tricky, right? So here’s the background that we know. And some of this stuff is fairly recent research. When I say recent, I mean like, you know, in the last couple of decades. But here’s what we know about Jesse Gause, and we don’t know as much as we want to. Jesse Gause was a relatively new convert. He was baptized in late 1831 or early 1832.

Scott Woodward:
Isn’t everybody an early convert at this point?

Casey Griffiths:
Well, yeah. I mean, the Church is about two years old at this point, so everybody’s a new convert. But where you have people that have been members of the Church for a year or two, we’re talking Jesse Gause probably like a couple of weeks or so. He must have stood out of the crowd because he’s called to be a counselor in the First Presidency. Now, before joining the Church, Jesse was a member of the United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Coming, also known as the Shakers, which we talked about a couple of weeks ago.

Scott Woodward:
Do we know if he was a convert from the efforts that came out of Section 49?

Casey Griffiths:
I don’t think we do know. Like I said, our information on Jesse Gause is extremely limited to the point to where, you know, he shows up in this revelation, but that’s pretty much it. And in the modern Doctrine and Covenants, he’s not even there at all because the revelation was repurposed to apply to Frederick G. Williams. In other words, this is a revelation to a counselor in the presidency of the high priesthood. Jesse Gause was originally supposed to fill this role, but he doesn’t.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, I’m so intrigued. What happened to this guy?

Casey Griffiths:
So here’s what we do know. After he joins the Church, he acts as Joseph Smith’s scribe, and he travels with Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon to Missouri in the spring of 1832. And we’ll talk about that in a minute when we get to Section 82. But Gause only serves in his calling as a member of the presidency of the high priesthood during the spring and summer of 1832 before he runs into some problems. So Jesse Gause goes on a mission with Zebedee Coltrin to the Shaker community at North Union, Ohio. And this is not a random thing at all, because, Scott, guess who’s at North Union that Gause goes to see specifically?

Scott Woodward:
Who?

Casey Griffiths:
His wife, Minerva. So Gause, apparently, was is attempting to convince his wife, Minerva, to reunite with him and to join the Church, and she refuses his offer.

Scott Woodward:
So he joins the Church, and he’s in the proto-First Presidency, and his wife’s not even a member. So this mission is to go get his wife, it kind of sounds like.

Casey Griffiths:
She refuses to join him. Again, our information here is really limited. But after Minerva refuses to get on board with this, she begins to struggle on her mission. And his mission companion, Zebedee Coltrin also becomes ill and has to go back to Kirtland. This is in August of 1832. So Gause continues to travel to the east, but he all but disappears from the records of the Church after he separated from his companion. And what happened to Jesse after he left Zebedee Coltrin is really unknown. It’s presumed that he was residing in Chester County, Pennsylvania, at the time of his death. The article on this kind of just says he walked out of Church history, basically. So he, like, goes on his mission, and never comes back.

Scott Woodward:
He leaves, no doubt dejected. His companion gets sick. They part ways, and he walks out of the Church.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. So we don’t exactly know what happens to him, but there’s a notation in Joseph Smith’s journal that’s written on December 3, 1832, that seems to indicate that Gause was excommunicated, and in his place, Frederick G. Williams was appointed as a counselor in the presidency. So when this revelation is first published, this is several years later in the 1835s, five edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, the name of Frederick G. Williams was included instead of Jesse Gause’s name. And that modification has been present in every edition of the Doctrine and Covenants produced since that time. This action seems to indicate that Joseph Smith and other Church leaders considered this revelation to be direction for whoever was going to hold the position of a counselor in the highest presidency of the Church, generally, and not for a specific person. So there are some revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, like let’s say, Section 11, that are directed specifically to an individual, to Hyrum Smith. This one is directed to a calling. And so it seems like in this case, they felt comfortable just crossing out Jesse Gause’s name because that’s what they do in the manuscripts and putting the name of the person who did serve in that capacity, which is Frederick G. Williams in there.

Scott Woodward:
So interesting. Okay, so let’s look at the revelation itself. Our second C, the content. Verse 1 starts out like this, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, my servant,” Jesse Gause, crossed out, “Frederick G. Williams, listen to the voice of him who speaketh, to the word of the Lord your God, and hearken to the calling wherewith you are called. Even to be a high priest in my church, and a counselor unto my servant, Joseph Smith, Jun., unto whom I have given the keys of the kingdom, which belong always unto the presidency of the high priesthood.” Okay, that’s important. So you mentioned that a year from now, we’re going to actually get the official First Presidency organized on the 18th of March, 1833. Significant moment in the Church. We should probably celebrate that day somehow. March 18th, we get a First Presidency. But right here, the Lord is dropping a super important thing to understand about the presidency of the Church, whether we’re calling it the presidency of the high priesthood, the First Presidency. It’s that they hold the keys of the kingdom of God. Now, that’s going to be brought up again in a year. Section 90, which we’re going to cover pretty soon, comes up about a year later from this Section 81.

Scott Woodward:
And this idea of keys belonging to the presidency of the high priesthood is clarified again. When the Lord will say this, he’ll say to Joseph that his counselors are, quote, “Accounted as equal with thee in holding the keys of this last kingdom.” That’s interesting to me. My mind goes to this question that I had as a teenager, and I’ve heard various versions of it from others, which is like, okay, When the president of the Church dies, who has the authority to ordain another Church president? Don’t you have to be a Church president to ordain a president? It’s like, well, actually, this revelation right here is helping us start to understand that the counselors in the First Presidency actually hold the same keys as the President of the Church. And so do we know who ordained President Russell M. Nelson to be the President of the Church today? We do. It was Dallin H. Oaks because he holds those same keys that the President of the Church holds. And so that’s interesting. So we’re starting to get this theology is starting to crystallize around the keys of the kingdom. Now, we believe these kingdom keys are those very keys that were restored by Peter, James, and John to Joseph and Oliver.

Scott Woodward:
These are mentioned in Section 27 of the Doctrine and Covenants and Section 128. Remember that Peter, James, and John appear on the banks of the Susquehanna River. We don’t know as much about this as we would like to know, but our two clues are in Section 128 and Section 27, that it says that they, quote, “Declared themselves,” this is Peter, James, and John, “declared themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom and the dispensation of the fullness of times.” That’s verse 20 of Section 128. Subsequent revelations, like Section 65, help to clarify that the essence of what these kingdom keys do is it gives those who hold them the authority to direct how the gospel will “roll forth onto the ends of the earth.” That’s a phrase from Section 65. To build up the kingdom of God on earth in preparation for the return of Jesus Christ, at which time there will be a fusion of the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of earth together. And so these keys help build up the kingdom of God on earth in preparation for the kingdom of heaven to come, essentially. Anything that has anything to do with the kingdom of God on earth would be under the direction, under the supervision of the presidency of the high priesthood, later called the First Presidency. So that’s a big deal. Verse 2 is dropping,like, I think, a really powerful nugget here that starts to have big implications later.

Casey Griffiths:
Right. And it’s going to be confirmed about a year later in Section 90, when the First Presidency is officially organized, the language there, this is Doctrine and Covenants 90:6, says that his counselors would be, this is the wording, “They are accounted as equal with thee in holding the keys of this last kingdom.” And then we would take Section 107 to extend that to say, and the Twelve as well, because that became an innovation introduced in Nauvoo, was that the keys were given to all members of the Telve. Just like you brought up now, when Russell M. Nelson was ordained as President of the Church, Dallin H. Oaks took the lead as the next most senior apostle, but was also assisted by all the members of the First Presidency and Twelve, who today all of them hold the keys necessary to lead the Church if they act under the direction of the First Presidency. The other thing we should mention here, too, is that when this revelation is given, Joseph Smith holds the keys of the kingdom conferred by Peter, James, and John. But restoring the keys was not yet complete. There were more keys to come.

Casey Griffiths:
The most prominent example of this would be when the Kirtland Temple was dedicated, where Moses, Elias, and Elijah all appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and give them further keys. That’s described in Doctrine and Covenants 110. And Joseph Smith also begins to pass these keys on as Church organizations become more complex. He passes the keys to other members of the First Presidency, that’s in Section 90, and then to members of the Quorum of the Twelve, so that they can lead the Church as well. And that leads us to the system that we’re in right now.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. So we can really see how the seeds of what’s going to become this organization, as we understand it today, under the direction of keys held by First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, mission presidents, temple presidents, stake presidents, bishops, all of that. Rewind. It’s right here in Section 81, like the keys first start with the First Presidency, and later they’re going to be subsequently delegated out, all still under the direction of the First Presidency. That never changes, but delegated down as the organizational structure of the Church grows in complexity and breadth. And so verse 2 showing us a really important movement forward in that direction. Okay, let’s go to verse 3 then. “Therefore, verily, I acknowledge him and will bless him,” speaking of Jesse Gause, crossed out, Frederick G. Williams here. “I will bless him and also thee inasmuch as thou art faithful in counsel in the office which I have appointed unto you in prayer always, vocally and in thy heart, in public and in private, also in thy ministry in proclaiming the gospel in the land of the living and among thy brethren. That’s interesting that the promises here that are associated with this position are all predicated upon faithfulness, right, which is relevant because of what happens to Jesse Gause, as we see.

Scott Woodward:
Verse 4, “And in doing these things, thou wilt do the greatest good unto thy fellow beings, and wilt promote the glory of him who is your Lord. Wherefore be faithful, stand in the office which I have appointed unto you, succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees.” It’s very cool to read this. I keep thinking of President Henry B. Eyring and President Dallin H. Oaks. They happen to be the counselors today in the First Presidency, and just thinking about how well they do these things. “And if thou art faithful,” the promise goes in verse 6, “unto the end, thou shalt have a crown of immortality and eternal life in the mansions which I have prepared in the house of my Father. Behold and lo, these are the words of Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Amen.” That’s the full revelation. Seven verses, intimate about what it takes to be a counselor in the presidency of the high priesthood. And frankly, as I read that, Casey, there’s some pretty powerful principles that we would all do well to emulate, lifting up the hands that hang down and strengthening the feeble knees and succoring the weak. In other words, it’s a call to be like Jesus. When you’re called to the presidency of this Church, become more like him. I love that.

Casey Griffiths:
The important structural parts of this revelation are really just the first two verses that explain that keys belong to counselors as well. We’re setting ourselves up for the First Presidency. The rest of this is a call to serve, to bless, to help people, which, you know, the current members of the First Presidency are great examples of, that they do so much to try and uplift and help people and to reach out to those that might be struggling or help them. And I think this is widely applicable counsel, not just to a member of the First Presidency, but you could probably take those last couple of verses and apply them to just about any calling in the Church and say, If you do this, you’ll have done well in your calling.

Scott Woodward:
All right. Third C, Controversies, Casey, with Section 81. Jesse Gause. Got to come back to him for a second. Why would the Lord allow him to be called to the First Presidency if he knew he was just going to fail to serve in this capacity and he was just going walk out of Church history? Why even call him in the first place, you know? What does that say about God, about his omniscience or about character? I don’t know. Any thoughts around that?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, this is another one of those, the foreknowledge of God meets the agency of man, to where, yeah, God has foreknowledge, but that doesn’t mean that God intervenes in every single case, or he doesn’t offer people opportunities to demonstrate their obedience to it. So, I mean, we’ve been talking about this all the way going back to the lost manuscript of the Book of Mormon. If God knew they were going to lose the manuscript, then why let them take the manuscript? Well, in that case, he tells them no two times first, and then the third time says, All right, under these conditions. And sometimes God does allow us to fail. Sometimes, I would say also, too, a calling is extended to someone, but God doesn’t overrule a person’s agency. They don’t have to fulfill the role that God has given to them, but it’s part of his purposes to extend the role to them. I also think that this section is a great illustration of the idea, too, that callings are bigger than the individuals that hold them, if that makes sense. When I was a missionary, there was this patriarch in the stake I was serving in who was just amazing.

Casey Griffiths:
And he was awesome. And everybody talked about how he gave the most beautiful patriarchal blessings and was just so impressed with him. And my companion and I were visiting another person that lived in close proximity to this patriarch, and we had a few minutes, so we stopped in just to visit with the patriarch because we were both curious, like, how does he do what he does? And so I remember sitting there in his front room and a football game was on, and we both were like, Hey, so what do you do to prepare for a patriarchal blessing? And the guy leaned over and dead serious said, I watch football. And we were, like, totally dejected.

Scott Woodward:
I was not expecting that.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, we were expecting him to say, like, I fast for three days, or I read the scriptures for eight hours straight, or I pray for two hours, or I look up everything I can about the individual so that I know their background and their struggles. But then he leaned over and he taught me one of the great lessons of my life. He said, The truth is that the power comes with the calling. He said, I keep myself worthy, and I read the scriptures, and I say my prayers, and everything else that I needed came along with the calling to do this. And then he said, I think the prophet is a good guy who reads the scriptures and says his prayers and keeps himself worthy, and that everything he needs comes along with his calling as well. So don’t associate the calling with just the person. Of course, he was a great person, and I really came to admire him. He was very down to earth, but also very spiritual. But I think he taught me a profound truth there, which is whom the Lord calls, he qualifies. If you’re worthy and you’re called, you’re qualified.

Casey Griffiths:
Jesse could have fulfilled this role, but the Lord has to allow for agency, too, and he just didn’t fulfill the role. So rightly so, Frederick Williams, the one who did fulfill the role, was placed in the revelation because this was a blessing to the counselor in the First Presidency, not a blessing to Jesse Gause or Frederick G. Williams, for that matter.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, there’s kind of some assumptions embedded in my question that I think are, you know, important to tease out. Like why wouldn’t God call somebody to a calling? Why wouldn’t the Lord give people an opportunity to serve, even if they’re not going to fulfill that, right? I think that happens all the time in the Church, honestly. The Lord is generous. He just gives people opportunities. Another assumption is that the Lord called him. Another assumption is that the Lord told Joseph Smith, it needs to be Jesse Gause. I think we need to make room for the president to be able to have some volition in who he chooses, a bishop or anyone who’s ever been in a position where you get to extend a calling or to suggest someone to be your counselor. You know that there’s some of your choice that goes into that, too, right. You’re considering who you’d be able to work with, and you’re being prayerful, of course, but I don’t think there’s someone that’s like foreordained in premortality to be your counselor. Sometimes we can make this too grandiose. What about the foreknowledge of God? What if it was just Joseph’s choice? What if he said, I want to work with Jesse Gause and Sidney Regnan? I choose them to be my counselors. And the Lord acknowledges that and says, Great. We’re going to come up with this again later when we see, what’s his name, Lyman Sherman.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, Lyman Sherman is the other issue that comes up. That’s Section 108 of the Doctrine and Covenants, because he’s called to be an apostle, and then he dies before he can fulfill the calling. That reminds me of… I had a moment where I was serving in a bishopric, and we had to call a Relief Society president. And we talked about it and prayed about it, and we all felt strongly directing towards this one individual. And we called her in and explained that we wanted her to serve the calling. And then she said, You know, actually, we’re in the process of getting ready to sell our house, and we’re probably going to move in about a year. And then she asked the question, like, How come you think the calling came, if that’s the case? And I remember turning to her and feeling inspired to say, I think maybe the Lord wanted you to know that you were worthy to serve in this calling, that you were a good pick for it. And ultimately, what we decided to do was, because we all felt good about it, we called her and she served for one year, and then her family went ahead with their plan and sold their home and moved to a different ward.

Casey Griffiths:
But I still feel absolutely great about that. That year that she served was very impactful and helped a ton of people. I feel like the calling came from God. God knew this wasn’t going to work out with Jesse Gause, but that he allows us to use our agency, even if it’s not always for the best or it won’t fulfill his purposes. I feel comfortable saying the calling of Jesse Gause was inspired, but he just chose not to flourish in the calling.

Scott Woodward:
He had some serious issues, obviously, going on in his marriage that he was trying to work out. And like you said, we actually don’t know much about what happens after he walks out of the history of the Church. So we’re going to leave judgment to the Lord on him. But in terms of his continuity in this calling, that certainly was cut short. None of us are indispensable in the Lord’s kingdom. Even Joseph Smith, a couple of times already in the Doctrine and Covenants has been told that if you’re not faithful, I can find someone else to replace you. It’s a privilege. It’s an honor to serve in God’s kingdom, but his kingdom will roll on whether we’re with it or not.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, it’s bigger than all of us. That’s hinted early on, too, where Joseph Smith is basically told he can be replaced if he’s not willing to fulfill the commandments. That you’re important and you matter, but the work will go on, whether or not you choose to be part of it. So, Scott, what are the consequences of this revelation, Section 81 of the Doctrine and Covenants?

Scott Woodward:
Let’s go back to Jesse Gause for a second. So when he left this calling, the blessings that God mentions here in this revelations were given to Frederick G. Williams, as we said, though they remained conditional based on Frederick G. Williams’ faithfulness as well, as verse 3 says. So though the apostasy of Jesse Gause must have been distressing at that time, the elevation of Frederick G. Williams becomes a great blessing for the Church. And het me say something about Frederick G. Williams. Like, he becomes a very stalwart supporter of the Church, a very key figure in many of its most important events. He was picked up as a convert as part of the Lamanite mission. He’s pretty early on there. He actually goes with the missionaries to the Native Americans across the border of the United States. He’s gung-ho from the beginning. In an early revelation, he was counseled not to sell his farm in Section 64:21. In the years that followed, the land from the Williams’ farm was generously deeded to the Church. The Church then uses this land to build a printing house for the scriptures, to provide a place for many Church leaders to build homes. And eventually, that land becomes a spot where the Kirtland Temple itself was built.

Scott Woodward:
Also, Frederick was the scribe for many important documents, including some architectural drawings for the city of Zion, several revelations, the first written account of the First Bision, the 1832 account, is largely in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams, although Joseph Smith’s handwriting is in there as well. For a time, Joseph Smith’s family boards with Frederick’s family. Frederick was a frequent missionary companion of the Prophet Joseph, and Joseph even names his second born son, Frederick Granger Williams Smith. If that doesn’t tell you how close their relationship was. Joseph even wrote in his journal this amazing tribute to Frederick G. Williams. He said, quote, “Brother Frederick G. Williams is one of those men in whom I place the greatest confidence and trust. For I have found him ever full of love and brotherly kindness. He’s not a man of many words, but is ever winning because of his constant mind. He shall ever have a place in my heart and i ever entitled to my confidence. He is perfectly honest and upright and seeks with all his heart to magnify his presidency in the Church of Christ, but fails in many instances,” he says.

Scott Woodward:
That’s interesting. So it sounds like a big glowing compliment. But then he says, But he fails in many instances to magnify his presidency. And this is why, “In consequence of a want of confidence in himself,” Joseph said, “God grant that he may overcome all evil.” Interesting. How many of us fail to magnify our callings because of lack of confidence in ourselves? We were called to that calling. We could do it. We can do it with God’s help.

Casey Griffiths:
And in my judgment, it’s sort of a shame that when we come to this section, we spend a lot of time talking about Jesse Gause because that’s really like an interesting historical trivia, which really is what it is. And we sort of skip over how important Frederick G. Williams was to the early work of the Church. Like we’re not talking about somebody that’s just in for a couple of months, like Jesse Gause. Frederick G. Williams is a key leader, but he might not get his due because he does eventually come into conflict with Joseph Smith over the difficulty surrounding the Kirtland Safety Society. To make a long story short, there is a financial crisis in Kirtland, and it has to do with some things that Church leaders can control and some things they can’t control. There’s a nationwide financial panic, but there’s also a bank that they’ve set up that fails. And that brings Frederick G. Williams into conflict with Joseph Smith over how the bank was managed and how much money was lost. And unfortunately, in May 1837, the Kirtland stake high council levels charges of misconduct against Frederick G. Williams. At a conference of the Church held in Missouri in November of 1837, he was released as a member of the First Presidency, and Hyrum Smith was chosen to take his place.

Casey Griffiths:
Although he was removed from the First Presidency, he remained a member in good standing. He follows the Church during its exodus from Missouri. He settles in Quincy, just downriver from Nauvoo. And then he passes away October 10th, 1842, of a lung hemorrhage. Though one of his children, Ezra, said it was more of a broken heart. And William’s family was actually the only one from the original First Presidency that traveled all the way to Utah and stayed active in the Church. In fact, I have had members of Frederick G. William’s family contact me or go on a Church history tour with me. And we’ve talked at length about, you know, how great he was and from 1832 to 1837, how crucial he was in the Church, and the fact that, you know, even though he’s removed from the First Presidency and never returns to serve in it again, how important he was to some really, really critical developments like the Kirtland Temple, getting the land for that, and then designing and building. Like, Frederick G. William drafts a lot of the early designs for the city of Zion. And so I feel a little sad he doesn’t get his due. And maybe we can start to rectify that here by saying, Frederick Williams was a great guy. He wasn’t perfect. He had his challenges, but he was a very important asset to the kingdom.

Scott Woodward:
So the consequences of this revelation play out in some ways in the life of Frederick G. Williams, but also beyond his life, as we’ve said, that crucial verse 2 in establishing this idea that the First Presidency holds the keys of the kingdom and governs all the Church. And so that’s going to be something that, again, affects us every day in the Church today. So that all starts here in Section 81. All right, we now transition to Section 82 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Casey, let’s start out with the first C here. Drop us into the context of Section 82. What’s going on?

Casey Griffiths:
Section 82 is received in the other Church center at a meeting of Church leaders in Independence, Missouri. That’s one thing you have to kind of keep in the back of your head is that there’s two Church centers, one’s in Kirtland, one’s in Missouri. Kirtland is considered to be the first gathering place, but Missouri is where they’re going to build the city of Zion. And Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon travel to Missouri. That’s where Section 82 is received. And one way to think of this is that it’s a companion to Section 78, which introduces the United Firm, this organization that’s going to oversee some crucial Church businesses, especially the printing of the scriptures, which includes the Doctrine and Covenants. So here’s a little bit more backstory. On March 1st, 1832, Joseph Smith and other Church leaders meet in Kirtland to consider the Church’s financial needs and how to move forward its mission to build the city of Zion. At this meeting, Joseph receives Doctrine and Covenants Section 78, wherein the Lord announces that “the time has now come and is at hand, that there be an organization of the literary and mercantile establishment of my church, both in this place and in the land of Zion.”

Casey Griffiths:
Now, that’s a fancy way of saying it was time to strategically align the Church’s various business ventures, which then included Bishop Newel K. Whitney’s store in Ohio and Sidney Gilbert’s store and the Church’s print shop, which were both in Missouri. And to do this, they created a firm or a business partnership between Church leaders in both locations to unitedly oversee and manage all business efforts of the Church in order to advance the cause of Zion. And as part of this, the Lord also instructs Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Newel K. Whitney to travel to Missouri and sit in council with the Saints who are in Zion about establishing this unified firm. So Section 78 sets them up, travel to Zion, Section 82 is received when they get to Zion, companion revelations. This needs to be acknowledged. But before they leave for Missouri, on the night of March 25th, 1832, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon are forcibly taken from their homes in Hiram, Ohio, by a mob of men led by an apostate named Symonds Ryder. And Joseph was violently tarred and feathered. Sidney was brutally dragged by his heels for some distance along the rough frozen ground, causing severe head trauma.

Casey Griffiths:
His head is severely lacerated. And as a consequence of this, five days later, one of Joseph’s infant children, this is one of his adopted twins, little Joseph Murdock Smith, who was already sick with measles, dies from the exposure to the cold caused by the mob the night of their attack. So that happens right before they’re supposed to go to Missouri. So Sidney Rigdon is probably not at his best on this trip. He’s still recovering. There’s talk about, like, years of recovery, that he’s never the same after this, because this is really the first physical violence inflicted upon the leaders of the Church. Only two days after Joseph’s infant son dies on April 2nd, with very little time to recover from what happened to him, Joseph’s history records that “on Sunday, April 2nd, I started for Missouri in company with Newel K. Whitney, Peter Whitmer, Jr., and Jesse Gause to fulfill the revelation,” referring to Doctrine and Covenants 78 and the instruction that they were supposed to counsel with Church leaders in Missouri. They met Sidney Rigdon on the way. He had been moving his family away from Hiram because of the mob danger. And then together, after about three weeks of traveling on foot, stagecoach, and steamboat, they arrive on April 24th in Independence, Missouri.

Casey Griffiths:
And here they’re relieved to find a group of Saints who were “extremely glad to welcome us among them.” That’s Joseph Smith’s learning. Two days after they get to Missouri, on the 26th of April, Joseph records this context. He said, “I called a general council of the Church and was acknowledged as president of the high priesthood, according to a previous ordination, a conference of high priests, elders, and members held at Amherst, Ohio, on the 25th of January, 1832.” That’s what we’re just talking about in Section 81. Then he said, “The right hand of fellowship was given to me by Bishop Edward Partridge in behalf of the Church. The scene was solemn, impressive, and delightful.”

Scott Woodward:
So why would the bishop give the right hand of fellowship to the President of the high priesthood? Isn’t that a given to me? That’s a given in my mind. If the President of the Church comes to visit, then everyone’s excited and there doesn’t need to be any sort of like, We receive you into full fellowship, or anything like that. But there was something else kind of cooking in the background here. According to the meeting minutes, so Sidney Rigdon stands in this meeting. He reads Section 78 in its entirety to those in attendance and explains what the Lord had commanded them to come to Missouri to do, to establish this United Firm. Then there was a one hour intermission, and it was during this intermission, Joseph Smith recorded in his history. That, quote, “A difficulty or hardness which had existed between Bishop Partridge and Elder Rigdon was amicably settled.” Close quote. Now, it’s helpful to understand a little bit about what this contention was about because it plays out in the first verses of this revelation. So the previous November, Sidney Rigdon had actually written a letter to Missouri leaders, bluntly charging them with a couple of things. For instance, he charges Edward Partridge with, quote, “defrauding funds.”

Scott Woodward:
That’s a heavy accusation. “Insulting the prophet, assuming authority over the prophet.” There’s, like, some authority tension between the leaders in Missouri and leaders in Kirtland here. And then in a special conference in Missouri on March 10th, only a month and a half earlier, Bishop Partridge had confessed his faults, and he had requested the Missouri council of high priests to write a letter to Church leaders in Ohio answering Sidney’s charges against him and asking for forgiveness of those whom he had offended with the assurance that Edward was, quote, “willing to make every confession which Brother Sidney, as a disciple of Christ, could require and forever bury the matter.” So that’s kind of what’s cooking in the background here. So when Joseph and Sidney arrive together, Bishop Partridge extends the hand of fellowship saying there’s no hard feelings. Then during that hour break after the first session, that difficulty or that hardness, Joseph said, was fully resolved between these two men, between Edward and Sidney. It was amicably settled, as Joseph said. The meeting minutes then record that all differences were settled during that intermission, and the hearts of all run together in love. That’s interesting to see that even at the highest levels of Church leadership at this time, there’s some of this interpersonal tension that’s happening, and that has been resolved at this point. So that’s all kind of lingering in the background here.

Casey Griffiths:
It goes all the way back to the first trip to Zion, right, where Edward Partridge isn’t particularly enamored with the place and speaks his mind. And Cindy Rigdon jumps on his case saying, You’re criticizing the prophet. It’s a nice little piece of humanity here to show these are imperfect people who had differing opinions, but who also were good people who were trying to reconcile, forgive, and be followers and disciples of Jesus Christ. Now, let’s take a look at what Section 82 actually says.

Scott Woodward:
The Lord actually opens this revelation with a reference to the reconciliation that just took place between Edward and Sidney. So if you know that, then verse one makes more sense. He says, quote, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, my servants, that inasmuch as you have forgiven one another your trespasses, even so, I, the Lord, forgive you.” It’s beautiful. We got to stop and marinate in that for a second if we wanted. This is good Sermon on the Mount doctrine. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” I forgive people who forgive people. And that is a very powerful principle that I don’t think we can ever be reminded of too much in our lives. Go on a walk and think about verse one a little bit. “Nevertheless,” he continues in verse two, “there are those among you who have sinned exceedingly, yea, even all of you have sinned. But verily I say unto you, beware from henceforth and refrain from sin, lest sore judgments fall upon your heads. For of him unto whom much is given, much is required,” he explains. Remember, he’s talking to Church leaders here who have been given much responsibility in the kingdom.

Scott Woodward:
And then he says, “And he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation,” close quote. Casey, like 20-something years ago, I took a class at BYU-Idaho called Teachings of the Living Prophets from Elder David A. Bednar.

Casey Griffiths:
Oh yeah? Wow.

Scott Woodward:
And at that time, he was a member of the Seventy. He wasn’t yet an apostle. He’d become an apostle, I think, the next semester, actually. But he once asked us this question. It kind of shocked all of us young kids. He said, Who can sin more, you or me? We were like, Wouldn’t it be the same? He’s like, No, let’s say that you go out this weekend and break your covenants, I go out and break mine. Who’s more accountable? And we started picking up what he was saying, and we were like, You. And he’s like, That’s right. Why? Because I have been given more. I have greater light, greater truth, right. He was teaching this very principle, that “he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.” The Lord asks a lot of his Church leaders, but he gives them a lot. And with that comes a pretty heavy responsibility. So I’ll always remember Elder Bednar saying, Who can sin more, you or me?

Scott Woodward:
Let’s go on to verse 4. “Ye call upon my name for revelations, and I give them to you. Thus, inasmuch as you keep not my sayings, you become transgressors, and justice and judgment are the penalty which is affixed unto my law.” So the Lord tells this group, you, along with everybody else, is to “vigilantly watch,” he says in verse 5, “because the adversary spreadeth his dominions, and darkness reigneth, and the anger of the Lord kindleth against the inhabitants of the earth for succumbing to that darkness, and none doeth good, for all have gone out of the way,” he laments. But he assures these flawed Church leaders right here in verse seven, quote, “I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge. So go your ways and sin no more.” Then he reminds them that “unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God.” So if we just back out a little bit here, Casey, I think we can see the Lord is very pleased with their recent reconciliation, their forgiveness of one another. He’s saying, I like that. You’ve been given a lot.

Scott Woodward:
Please stay in that mindset of forgiveness and goodness and kindness. Avoid rebellion, avoid going off the tracks when I’ve given you so much. You ask for revelations, I give you revelations. I’m here to help you succeed, so please don’t sin. The world is heading toward darkness. That’s why I’m doing what I’m doing to try to help save that world. So help me help you help the world.

Casey Griffiths:
The backstory is incredibly valuable to understanding this, right? Because the whole introduction is kind of, look, if you’re going to preach and be servants on my behalf, you’ve got to live the principle of the gospel, too. And that includes basic things like forgiveness and reconciliation. And once these first seven verses are set out as by way of introduction, then the Lord kind of gets into the meat of what he’s trying to do here, which is verses 8 to 24, where he’s going to build upon Section 78 by giving further instructions to this group of leaders regarding the United Firm. So he begins in verse 8 and 9, “I give unto you a new commandment that you may understand my will concerning you, and to know how you may act before me, that it may turn to you for your salvation.” He then goes on in verse 10, says, “I, the Lord, am bound when you do what I say. But when you do not what I say, ye have no promise.” He’s setting us up to understand the conditional nature of what he’s about to command them to do. Like, if you do this, I’ll help you. But if you don’t, you’re on your own.

Casey Griffiths:
“Therefore, I say unto you that it is expedient for my servants, Edward Partridge and Newel K. Whitney, A. Sidney Gilbert and Sidney Rigdon, and my servant, Joseph Smith, and John Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery and W. W. Phelps, and Martin Harris, to be bound together by a bond and a covenant that cannot be broken by transgression, except judgment shall immediately follow in your several stewardships.” In other words, these nine individuals are being brought into a binding legal contract with one another that if they violate, would carry serious penalties. The Lord gives sort of a similar instruction and warning in Section 78:11-12. So specifically, they were to covenant, verse 12 explains, “to unitedly manage the affairs the poor and all things pertaining to the bishopric or the temporal affairs, both in the land of Zion and in the land of Kirtland.” And then in verse 13, the Lord then explains for the first time how he views the relationship between Kirtland and Missouri’s Zion. So crucial stuff for what’s going to come up in the next couple of sections. “I have consecrated the land of Kirtland in my own due time for the benefit of the Saints of the Most High and for a stake to Zion.”

Casey Griffiths:
This is the first mention in the Doctrine and Covenants of the geographical term stake, which is a really, really big deal in the Church and is now really common. And just to give you some background that you might already know, the image of a stake is drawn from the prophet Isaiah’s imagery of Zion as a big expanding tent whose borders will be enlarged in an ever-expanding way until Zion covers the earth. Imagine like a massive tent that has to be stabilized by having many strong stakes. And the Lord here is designating Kirtland as the first such location or stake in what would eventually become a vast network of thousands of Church communities throughout the world, each helping to prop up and stabilize the ever-expanding city of Zion.

Scott Woodward:
It’s almost like the Bedouin tents of old, like, where they can expand as your family gets bigger, you can like… What used to be a wall can be flapped up and become part of a roof, and you can add another piece. It’s like an infinitely expandable tent. It’s such a cool analogy that every stake in this Church is part of the ever-expanding tent of Zion.

Casey Griffiths:
Then note the imagery in verse 14. He says, “For Zion,” which he’s meaning Missouri, “must increase in beauty and in holiness. Her borders must be enlarged, and her stakes must be strengthened. Yea, verily I say unto you, Zion must arise and put on her beautiful garments,” which is a close paraphrase of the way Isaiah describes this Isaiah 54:2, also verse one. So he goes on, therefore, verse 15 continues, to the end that Zion in Missouri may be built up by the wisdom of the financial strength of the Kirtland stake, and vice versa, the Lord tells them, “I give unto you this commandment that you,” referring to the nine men that make up the United Firm, “bind yourselves by this covenant according to the laws of the land.” That’s what the earliest manuscript says. Then he goes on, “Behold, here is wisdom also in me for your good, for you are all to have equal claim on the properties for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardship, every man according to his wants and needs inasmuch as his wants are just.” Setting up this idea of they’re living an iteration of the law of consecration that’s different from what Section 42 describes and different than what the general Church is being asked to live, but also takes those principles given in Section 42 and uses them in a new and creative way.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, it’s kind of like, what does the law of consecration look like in a business partnership setting? Maybe it’d be helpful just to kind of briefly break down some of the stewardships that were given to the nine men of this firm. We got Edward Partridge, Sidney Gilbert, Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, and W. W. Phelps, who will operate primarily in Missouri. While over in Kirtland, we’re going to have Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Newel K. Whitney, and Martin Harris. Right, so they’re going to kind of break up the two geographical areas and have leadership there. The following year, by the way, Frederick G. Williams and John Johnson are going to be added to the Kirtland branch of the firm. Now, each of these men have kind of their own unique financial stewardships to wisely

Scott Woodward:
let me just break it down real quick. So for instance, Edward Partridge, as the Bishop in Missouri, he’s going to oversee land purchases there. And he had already, by this time, by the way, acquired about 1,200 acres to be used as inheritance for the Saints. Legally purchased, done. Sidney Gilbert, who was the Church’s agent in Missouri, will operate a mercantile store there, which he was already doing. But then this is going to fuse his store with Newel K. Whitney’s store and the printing press, so this is what’s happening with this section. And W. W. Phelps, with the assistance of Oliver Cowdery and John Whitmer, are then going to manage the printing firm, the W. W. Phelps & Company, is what they called it, which was the printing enterprise of the Church in Missouri, which also included printing a Church newspaper and the Book of Commandments, which is the predecessor here to the Doctrine and Covenants.

Scott Woodward:
So now, what Section 70 designated as the literary firm is now being subsumed into the United Firm that’s being established right here in Section 82. Meanwhile, now if we go over to Kirtland, Bishop Newel K. Whitney is overseeing the operations of his own now-consecrated mercantile store, and he also has a profitable ashery nearby, and he’s also managing various properties that he owns in the area. He’s a very good businessman. Then Joseph and Sidney’s responsibility in this firm was most directly responsible for the revelations themselves, to receive and to edit them and get them ready to send to the printers. Then you have Martin Harris, whose responsibility is primarily as a financial supporter to finance the publication of these scriptures.

Scott Woodward:
John Johnson, who’s added a year later from this revelation, he’ll act as a land agent, as an inn operator, as a farm owner. And then Frederick G. Williams is going to manage the Kirtland printing office with the help of Oliver Cowdery once W. W. Phelps’ printing press is destroyed by mob action the next year. So right here in verse 17, right, when the Lord is talking about them having equal claims on the revenue generated by the various money-making endeavors of the other members of the United Firm, it’s helping us understand how the law of consecration will operate at this business level. And they have access to these funds if the Lord is saying, it would help you in, quote, “managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and needs inasmuch as his wants are just.” So if those in Kirtland needed extra funds, they could draw upon the funds generated in Missouri, vice versa, to help each other out to grow this joint venture of the Church. All of this, the Lord explains, “for the benefit of the Church of the living God, that every man may improve upon his talent,” or his stewardship, “that every man may gain other talents,” which is more financial means in this case, “yet even an hundredfold to be cast into the Lord’s storehouse, to become the common property of the whole church, every man seeking the interest of his neighbor and doing all things with an eye single to the glory of God.”

Casey Griffiths:
So there you go. This is the Lord’s vision for the United Firm. And these men are being invited to enter to a legally binding covenant with one another to uphold this vision and to use their unique skills to make it a reality. One modern scholar that wrote about the United Firm said it this way, “Possessing managerial, financial, or publishing skills, members of the United Firm consecrated their time, money, property, and energy, and pledged their cooperation to advance the business of this new joint stewardship.” And as the Lord continues in verse 20, “This order I have appointed to be an everlasting order unto you and unto your successors inasmuch as you sin not.” But let me point out a couple of nuances here. In the earliest manuscripts of this revelation, the word order, here in verse 20, was the word firm. But when they first published the revelation and others related to the United Firm, Church leaders deliberately substituted the word order as a pseudonym for the word firm to obscure the financial nature of this endeavor so as to to protect themselves and the Church from unfriendly people intent on coming after the Church financially.

Casey Griffiths:
So even the name United Order is like a code name, just like we talked about in some of the previous sections. And then he goes on and says, “And the soul that sins against this covenant, and hardeneth his heart against it,” he warns, “shall be dealt with according to the laws of my church, and shall be delivered over to the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption.” Then finally, the Lord concludes the revelation with a wise counsel to “make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you.” Now, that needs a little explanation, too, right? Because it sounds confusing at the outset, but it seems like what he’s saying here is the Church leaders needed to be friendly with their enemies and to engage in commerce with them so as to not stoke the hatred and bring their destructive wrath upon themselves. And as for those who still insist on hurting or abusing them, as Joseph and Sidney recently experienced by this mob attack that happens in Kirtland, the Lord counsels, “Leave judgment alone with me, for it is mine, and I will repay. Peace be with you. My blessings continue with you, for even yet the kingdom is yours and shall be forever, if you fall not from your steadfastness. Even so, Amen.”

Casey Griffiths:
One of the things that it seems like always gets the early Saints in trouble is that they sort of keep to themselves. And the Lord is saying, you might not agree with the business practices or the lifestyle choices of the people around you, but you need to work with them and find a way to come together, make friends, and compromise, which sometimes we have a hard time doing that, you know, but they’re there and we have an obligation to help them. And that tension between, you know, keeping ourselves separate from the world, and like he says here, “making friends with the mammon of unrighteousness” is a healthy one. That when it becomes too imbalanced one way or the other in the Church, we sometimes run into problems with.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, this is totally going to play out relatively soon in our coverage of the Doctrine and Covenants. But about two years hence from this particular revelation, we’re going to see all of this unravel in Missouri because, like you said, they were not following these principles very carefully. So stay tuned for that trouble coming up. But for now, let’s turn to the controversies of Section 82. Okay, so we just talked about the Lord saying, “Make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness” here. What do you think that exactly means? What’s the Lord saying here? Like, be friends with the mammon of unrighteousness? And why is he saying that? And then more broadly, because he seems to be talking about in terms of economics, doing business with people who are not part of your group.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, that’s the first part of this context that maybe we need to really emphasize here is some people would take make friends with a mammon of unrighteousness to be like, Hey, do whatever whatever you have to do to fit in, essentially. But this context is, he’s talking about how to run the businesses of the Church, and mammon is money, essentially. So I think what he’s basically giving them permission to do is to, A, reach out to the people in Independence, in Missouri who might not be living the same standards that they’re living. So it’s okay to, you know, go into business with someone who doesn’t live the word of wisdom, might be a modern way to interpret this or to have your hotel be open on Sunday or something like that. Those are some practical choices that sometimes you have to make when you’re a Latter-day Saint working in the world of finance or business. The second thing, he does mention this in the New Testament. The context is a little bit confusing, but it seems like here he’s trying to prep them to say, Don’t keep yourselves too separate from the rest of the community. That this business venture, which is designed to consecrate all the resources that the Saints have in order to build bigger and better things does have the possibility of isolating the Saints from the people around them.

Casey Griffiths:
And everybody knows that the Saints in Missouri get into trouble. They get into trouble partially because their neighbors aren’t very good or tolerant people, but they also get into trouble because the Saints tend to assert an air of superiority over the people around them. We have some historical sources that indicate that the early Saints were going up to the Missourians and Independence and telling them, like, they either shape up or ship out. Like they need to join the Church or the Lord is going to sweep them off the land.

Scott Woodward:
That’s not making friends.

Casey Griffiths:
It reminds me of, you know, when members of our Church used to go to the Kirtland Temple when it was owned by Community of Christ and basically say, like, You need to join our Church or the Lord is going to get rid of you. When in reality, the way that we got the Kirtland Temple was much less confrontational. We used financial means to do so, and it meant that there was no bloodshed, no violence. A major religious site was transferred from one denomination to another with no blood being spilt, which is a huge, huge deal. We can be creative in the way that we accomplish things.

Scott Woodward:
The exchange of the Kirtland Temple between these two religious groups was because we’re friends, because we like each other, because we trust each other. Those relationships had been built. The context here in this particular revelation is there’s a group of people who we know will eventually drive these Saints out of Jackson County and eventually out of the state of Missouri. And the Lord is giving them a heads up here in verse 22, be friends so they don’t destroy you. That’s his language. They will not destroy you if you’re friends with them, do business together. Don’t make them feel like you guys are some separate group, separate class of citizens, and you’re too good for the locals. Don’t put that air off. It’s going to be bad for you.

Casey Griffiths:
That’s the immediate context. I would say the application that comes today also comes in the idea of making friends with the mammon of unrighteousness means we can adopt practices and maybe methodology from businesses. Sometimes this is a major criticism of the Church. Like I remember someone saying that we were a church with the soul of a Corporation because you go to Church headquarters and they’ve got, like, focus groups or marketing, and everybody’s wearing like, you know, business-style things. Just because we don’t walk around in robes, holding the scriptures and reading them, but sometimes we operate more like a corporation isn’t bad. The Lord is saying, just find the best tools anywhere you can and use them. So if focus groups or targeted advertising or investing in mutual funds allows you to obtain more resources to build up the kingdom of God, go for it. Okay? Feel free to adapt those methods, because sometimes the way the Church blurs the line between the way ecclesiastical organization structure and the way business organizations are structured or operate does make people uncomfortable. But the Lord is essentially saying here, you know what? Go for it. See how they do things and adopt those methods so that we can get more done.

Casey Griffiths:
And you have to admit, we’re pretty good at that. You know, I’ve read Clayton Christensen’s “The Mormon Way of Doing Business.” The truth is, the Harvard Business School has a lot of Latter-day Saints there, and those people are pretty effective at what they do. And when you run down the current leadership of the Church, you have people that come from pastoral or educational backgrounds, but you also have people that come from corporate or business backgrounds, and they’re getting the job done, right? You might have an apostle who comes from a corporate background who’s not the most inspiring speaker, but behind the scenes, he knows how to make decisions and organize people and get the best out of the people that he works with. If that comes from his business background, that’s great. He doesn’t have to be an expert in every verse of scripture in order to bring to bear a set of skills that will help build the kingdom of God.

Scott Woodward:
That’s right. Consecration is about bringing your talents, giving your might, mind, and strength to the kingdom of God. And that might be unique. Like you’re saying, it might be business skills. It might be all manner of skills that could be, bring it, see if that can help build the kingdom of God. And in this case, like Section 82 is being very, very clear that it’s not only okay, but actually really essential that the Church becomes involved in commercial business interests and enterprises, right. In order to build the kingdom of God, like, this has to happen. So that’s going to require a full suite of human skills, not just ecclesiastical skillset, but a lot of different skills. So I like where you took that.

Casey Griffiths:
Let’s ask another question here, too. But I want to bring this one up in verse seven. “Now, verily, I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge. Go your ways and sin no more. But unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God.” That can be strong medicine. You could interpret this as saying, like, if you sin again, all your sins come back to you. I don’t think he’s saying all your sins, but is he saying that, for instance, all your sins linked to a particular idea come back to you? Like one drink, if you’re a former alcoholic, are you an alcoholic again? Or how do you interpret that?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, you run through all the different scenarios and they don’t quite make sense. Right, like, I’ve sinned 7,284 times. I’ve been fully forgiven of all those sins, and then I sin again. Do all those sins come rushing back? Is that what he means by the former sins return? Or is it categorical, like you’re saying? Or you had a problem with drinking, or you have a problem in this case, the context here was forgiveness, right, like they had just forgiven each other for some interpersonal tensions between leaders of the Church. He says, Good job. I have forgiven you now. Please don’t go sin anymore, because unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return? So is it this idea of like if you dig up those old grudges now that you’ve forgiven each other, if you bring it back up, like, it’s just going to cause problems again. I think that’s one interpretation that might be fair in this context. The words trip me up, just like verse 6 trips me up, by the way. Verse 6 says, “The anger of God kindleth against the inhabitants of the earth, and none doeth good, for all have gone out of the way.”

Scott Woodward:
That trips me up, Casey. Yes, there are people that do good. My wife is amazing. She does good all the time. Like, she is so good. I’m certain there were people in 1832 that were doing good. I kind of wonder here if the Lord’s hyperbole is at play, if there’s some hyperbole here in saying everyone needs repentance. If that’s what he’s saying in verse 6, 100%, I’m totally on board with that. Everyone has gone out of the way in some way. And in verse seven, please stop sinning. If you sin again, then your former sins return. Have we not resolved that? If you go back to the former sins, then the old ones seem to come back to… I don’t think it’s literal. I don’t think he means that if you sin today, then all your past sins come rushing back, or even the same category of sins. Let’s say that you had a problem with pornography or you had a problem with a shoplifting, you had a problem with whatever. I don’t think he’s saying that if you look again, then all your past progress you’ve made is wiped out and you’re back to square one. I don’t think he’s saying that.

Casey Griffiths:
You have to distinguish between you made a mistake and you gave up. Because a lot of times you’ll have a kid who’s making progress, and then he’ll slip up, basically. And he’ll assume, Oh, did I… Does this mean all my progress is wiped out? And you have to essentially say, No, it’s not all wiped out, but the potential is there. If you give up, you’re always going to be a little bit vulnerable to this. So as long as you look at the situation and assess and say, I’m not going to do this again, no, your former sins don’t return. But if a person just gives up and decides they’re going to do whatever they want to, they can fall as far back as they have and maybe even further if they don’t repent and remedy the situation. So it’s kind of like telling an alcoholic, you know, you can’t go to those kinds of parties anymore, or you can’t hang out in bars anymore because you’ve overcome a very serious sin. But if you even dip your toes into those waters again, the possibility that it’ll all wash back into your life is really there. Maybe that’s what the Lord’s referring to, but he’s using kind of extreme language here to share that idea.

Scott Woodward:
It reminds me of an awesome conference talk. It might have been his last conference talk, that Elder Richard G. Scott gave, where he talked about the stripling warriors and how their dads had buried their swords. Remember this talk? He talked about how their dads had had a vulnerability. They had a serious vulnerability toward violence. And because of their vulnerability, which their sons did not share, their dads could not go to war again, but their sons could. They buried their weapons deep. And I just remember Elder Scott talking about this idea that some sin is going to create lifetime vulnerabilities. It doesn’t mean you can’t be forgiven of it, but it does mean you’re going to have a vulnerability for that kind of sin the rest of your life. And so like you said, don’t go back to the bar. It’s going to be very difficult for you to avoid the temptation because you have a vulnerability. Is that what the Lord is talking about here in verse seven? I don’t know, but I think that warning is still well placed. Heal this relationship and move on. I think there’s lots of ways to interpret verse 7.

Casey Griffiths:
It’s clear that the Lord is giving a pertinent warning, which is just, Hey, don’t dip your toe into those waters again because there’s a possibility you might fall into the pool.

Scott Woodward:
In criminal justice, isn’t this called recidivism? Recidivism, this idea that criminals can go back to their former life once they’re released from prison. And it’s like, yeah, recidivism is a thing with sin, particularly the more addicting that sin may have been, the vulnerability to going back to it is greater. Therefore, you must be more vigilant. All right, Casey. Last C here for Section 82, the consequences. What flows out from this revelation?

Casey Griffiths:
Within days of this revelation being received, William W. Phelps and Sidney Gilbert drafted the bond or the legal contract for the members of the United Firm. And Sidney Gilbert and Newel K. Whitney were appointed as the financial agents to act in the name of that firm for their respective branches. And although the United Firm has pretty simple beginnings, primarily just being a group governing a mercantile store in one location and a print shop in Missouri, the councils made it a policy that their regulatory scope would also include additional special business that occurred in either branch of the firm. Thus, the United Firm, brought about by Section 78 and 82, constitutes the beginning of the corporate management of the Church’s financial and commercial interests. So all the stuff that sort of stirs up controversy today, where the Church has a stake in some commercial ventures, sort of starts here with the United Firm and is laid down in the revelations. And sometimes people that get really upset about the Church operating in this way aren’t understanding our origins or specifically the revelations that the Lord has given and the direction he’s given to kind of manage the building up of the kingdom of God, the progression of the Church here.

Scott Woodward:
Here are the foundational revelations, Sections 70 and 82, that show that having commercial interests and being involved in business and joint business ventures like this are part of the Zion-building program. Now, unfortunately, we should tell the aftermath of this, too, that this United Firm, which the Lord said could be everlasting, his language, only lasted two years. There’s a couple of reasons for this, a couple of complicating factors during this two-year period that put a pretty strong strain on the firm, including, for instance, Missouri mobs, that’ll do it, pressing debt, and greedy Church members. So in April 1834, in D&C 104, the Lord announced that he was dissolving this United Firm, ultimately because he said, quote, “Some of my servants have not kept the commandment, but have broken the covenant through covetousness and with feigned words.” However, it only dissolved dissolves the joint stewardships of the men involved. It, importantly, does not dissolve the corporate management of the Church’s financial and commercial interests. That’s going to continue, right? Though the organizational structures and methods for doing Church corporate business ventures is going to evolve over the years and not quite look like this original United Firm. Those principles stay firmly in place, no pun intended.

Scott Woodward:
Those principles are going to be that upon which we build what you see today in the Church’s amazing business success. So in that way, these revelations are really crucial, although this original thing dissolves. Importantly, too, this does not end the need for Church leaders and members to consecrate their time, their talents, their money to advance the cause of Zion. In fact, the Church continues to thrive financially today directly because Church leaders and members continue to consecrate today.

Casey Griffiths:
And it does kind of show the law of consecration has a lot of flexibility built into it. Okay, we’re going to have a firm for a little while that manages these interests. Then we’re going to dissolve the firm. We’re going to combine the orders. There’s all kinds of interesting combinations that the tools given in the law of consecration can be used to further God’s work. So not just one way to do things.

Scott Woodward:
All right, Section 83, Casey. Now we are going from the big ideas like a First Presidency or the financial management of the Church down to the everyday, aren’t we?

Casey Griffiths:
The management of a family and how you take care of things. So from the highest levels of the Church to the grassroots levels of the Church, it shows that the Lord is concerned with every single aspect of how the Church affects us and how we integrate his teachings into our lives.

Scott Woodward:
Let’s do it. Let’s get into Section 83 here then. Give us the context here. What’s going on with Section 83?

Casey Griffiths:
This is still that trip that Joseph and Sidney took to Missouri. In the spring of 1832, after they had that horrible incident happen with the mob, Joseph Smith receives Section 83 while he’s in council with leaders of the Church in Missouri. The revelation deals with the laws of the Church, specifically the law of consecration and how it was administered to women and children who had lost their husbands or fathers. Now, the question of how to administer the law of consecration was probably brought to the forefront in Joseph’s mind, because during his trip to Missouri, he makes a visit to a settlement consisting primarily of Saints from Colesville, New York. These Saints had traveled to Missouri and settled Kaw Township, which was about 12 miles away from Independence, Missouri. And you got to keep in mind, these are some of Joseph’s closest friends and earliest converts of the Church, the Knight family, for instance, that we spent so much time talking about. They’re part of this group. They’re some of Joseph’s dearest friends. In fact, when he visits the Colesville Saints, this is how he describes it. He says, he “received a welcome only known by brethren and sisters united as one in the same faith and by the same baptism and supported by the same Lord.” Then he adds “the Colesville branch, in particular, rejoiced as the ancient saints did with Paul. It is good to rejoice with the people of God.”

Casey Griffiths:
He loves these people, and when he sees their temporal concerns, it’s going to be natural that he’s going to bring them up and make it the subject of inquiry to the Lord. The Colesville Saints, like we mentioned, have been involved in some of the most dramatic and important events in Church history up to this point, they heed the call to gather to Ohio. But you’ll remember, Leman Copley, the guy whose land they’re supposed to settle on, goes back on his promises that he’s going to live the law of consecration. That’s in Section 54 of the Doctrine and Covenants. And so they’re commanded to relocate to Missouri. They make a long journey to Missouri at great sacrifice. And then they’re there when Joseph Smith arrives in Missouri for the first time, too. That’s commemorated in Doctrine and Covenants 59. The other thing that we can see is that among this dedicated little group of Saints, there are at least two widows. We know of one called Phebe Crosby Peck, who has four children, and Anna Slade Rogers, who had a daughter, and both women had lost their husbands in 1829 before the law of consecration was revealed.

Casey Griffiths:
And so it seems natural that Joseph’s friendship with them may have led to him asking the Lord how the law of consecration relates to the widows and the fatherless, which, again, is dealt with here freshly. But dealing with and helping the widows and the fatherless is a theme that goes all the way back to the Old Testament. Isaiah talks a ton about this, and it seems to be a signature of the Lord and his concerns when he sees his servants down here on earth is that they make sure that they are keeping an eye on and taking care of the widows and the fatherless.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Section 42 mentioned taking care of the poor and the needy. And so this is now zooming in even more granular to the widows and the fatherless, specifically. So this is the next level of granularity. I wonder, too, if Edward Partridge wondered, you know, if he was doing it right as the bishop who was meant to administer this, how can he best help them? So I’m sure Section 83 came as a great benefit to Bishop Partridge as well.

Casey Griffiths:
These are questions bishops still wrestle with today in every setting. It’s just kind of a universal thing.

Scott Woodward:
So let’s see what the Lord says. Verse 1, “Verily, thus saith the Lord, in addition to the laws of the church concerning women and children, those who belong to the church who have lost their husbands or fathers.” Here’s his instruction, verse 2, “Women have claim on their husbands for their maintenance until their husbands are taken. And if they are not found transgressors, they shall have fellowship in the church. And if they are not faithful, they shall not have fellowship in the church, yet they may remain upon their inheritances according to the laws of the land.” Okay, so this is clearly deeply, contextually embedded into the system at that time. They’ve received lands of inheritance according to the law of consecration of property. So if their husband dies, do they get to keep the land of their inheritance? The answer is yes. What if they are not in good fellowship in the Church? Yes, they still get to retain their land inheritances. Interesting questions they must have been asking at this time. Verse 4, what about the children? “All children have claimed upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.” This kind of brings us to what our modern Family Proclamation says, doesn’t it?

Scott Woodward:
Where the First Presidency, Quorom of the Twelve, talk about children and parents and their relationship to each other, where it says that, “But by divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.” So there you go. You have three expectations as fathers: preside, provide, protect. Those remain enforced today, the Proclamation says. But, Casey, it seems like that’s embedded right here in this section.

Casey Griffiths:
I teach classes on family. There’s a class we do, specifically called The Eternal Family, that goes through the Proclamation kind of line by line. And this is a little controversial because the idea that fathers are to preside, provide, and to protect, are in The Family Proclamation. Now, I want to emphasize a couple of things. The Proclamation explains the role of fathers and mothers, but then it adds this sentence, which it seems like nobody reads to, “Fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” Providing for families remains one of the most important expectations the Lord has for fathers. And it’s not new, really. The apostle Paul, this is 1 Timothy 5:8, “If any provide not for his own,” and specifically for those of his own house, “he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” So the Lord is just stating his expectations here and restating them in The Family Proclamation and restating them by the leaders of the Church that fathers are expected to provide for their families. Now, there can be a number of interesting combinations as to how that plays out, but again, it’s an expectation the Lord has.

Casey Griffiths:
And just to offer recent commentary, this is D. Todd Christofferson in General Conference. He said, “Breadwinning is a consecrated activity. Providing for one’s family, although it generally requires time away from the family, is not inconsistent with fatherhood. It is the essence of being a good father. Work and family are overlapping domains. This, of course, does not justify a man who neglects his family for his career or the other extreme, one who will not exert himself and is content to shift his responsibility to others.”

Casey Griffiths:
The scriptures say that, the Proclamation says that, the current leadership of the Church says that. And in this situation, it seems like we’re dealing with individual adaptation, which the Proclamation also addresses, too, where situations like divorce or other circumstances might change typical family dynamics. Even in those situations, fathers are expected to do the best they can to provide for their family. So for instance, the general handbook of the Church lists a person who deliberately abandons family responsibilities, including a nonpayment of child support and alimony as someone that’s in danger of a membership council. And so even if there’s been a divorce, that your obligation as a father still remains in place. I’d also add here, too, that these words don’t just mean money. They don’t just refer to financial support.

Scott Woodward:
Do you think in the context of Section 83, it’s only talking about financial support, but the general principles can be broader?

Casey Griffiths:
It’s financial support. That’s the first thing we think of because everybody’s got eat. But, I mean, it means involvement in a person’s life. It means that you have to provide love and emotional support to your wife and to your kids. Like, I went back once and for my family class, reviewed what’s the counsel that the leaders of the Church have given to fathers. The most common counsel given to fathers was something like this, and I’m just choosing Howard W. Hunter here because he said it succinctly. He was talking to fathers and he said, “You should express regularly to your wife and children your reverence and respect for her. Indeed, one of the greatest things a father can do for his children is to love their mother.” And I would say love is part of that support, too. Your obligations are financial, emotional, spiritual.

Scott Woodward:
The word that is used here is kind of a curious word. In verse 2, “Women have claimed on their husbands for their maintenance.” Then in verse 4, “All children have claimed upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.” It’s an interesting word. Usually, we use it in like a negative context, like high maintenance. But maintenance means keeping things running smoothly, right. You tune your car, you go for maintenance on your car, like regularly. Like, as a father, you are responsible, as a husband, you’re responsible, like President Hunter saying here, to make sure that the relationship is running smoothly with your wife, that her needs are taken care of, etc. And for your children, making sure that things are running well. Maintenance. Are they clothed? Great. Do they have the support they need financially? Good. What about in other areas of their life? How are things running? That would be an important part of presiding, is making sure that the maintenance, is everything’s maintained well in your home. And in the case where fathers die or they’re no longer part of the picture, then there needs to be some adjustments made, which is exactly what Section 83 is getting at here, right?

Casey Griffiths:
That leads us right to the next two verses, which say, “After that, they have claimed upon the church, or in other words, upon the Lord’s storehouse, if their parents have not wherewith to give them inheritances.”

Scott Woodward:
Speaking of the children here?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, speaking of the children, referring back to them, “and the storehouse shall be kept by the consecrations of the Church, and widows and orphans shall be provided for as also the poor.” This is the, Hey, if anything goes wrong, father and mother can’t provide for the family, or there’s some sort of situation like the loss of a father or the loss of a mother that makes it especially difficult for someone to provide for their family, then the Church steps in and can offer assistance and help. Now, I’ll point out that one of the first things a Church leader will do if your family is struggling financially is ask you to seek out help from other sources, too, government support and other programs and things like that. But the Church is there to make sure that everybody’s fed and housed and has clothing on their back and a warm bed to sleep in. That’s one of the biggest things that we’ve been asked to do.

Scott Woodward:
So the first line of responsibility being laid out here is that husbands are to provide for their wives and children. And tf there ever is a circumstance where that’s not possible, then, line two, the Church comes in to help here. It’s family first, Church second in terms of financial support.

Casey Griffiths:
Part of the financial support for the Church can be providing you with the means and resources to seek out financial support. Like in my word, we have, you know, experts in government programs who could take somebody and say, Hey, let’s go and have a look at how we get you enrolled in WIC or something like that. That’s Women, Infant, and Children, a government program to help provide for you there, too. But the Church also has storehouses. It has things like Deseret Industries and other means to try and provide for families, especially if they’re really struggling. And we’ve mentioned this a couple of times, but other than the Bishop and the Relief Society president, in most wards, you don’t know how much of this stuff goes on behind the scenes. There’s just a lot. Like maybe if you’re on the ward council, you’re aware of how much this happens. But it is a very big, big responsibility for the Church.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. What I love about Section 83 here is that it’s showing how serious the Lord is about taking care of widows and children. Like you said, this is a theme that goes all the way back to the Old Testament. There are laws in the law of Moses on how to take care of widows and children. It seems a consistent theme in scripture. The Lord really cares that the most vulnerable amongst us are taken care of. We see that in the ministry of Jesus. We see that all over. It’s no surprise here that Section 83 is, again, echoing those same principles of taking care of them. Anyone that’s listening to this that may be in a situation where you don’t have support from family, you have some serious financial need, like, do not hesitate to go talk to your bishop and let them help you evaluate your circumstance and talk about what might be the next best steps forward. If Church resources are best or if there’s other resources that can help, this is built into why there is a Church of Jesus Christ, right, to help people who are not in a position to be able to help themselves.

Scott Woodward:
So you can do that shamelessly and fully throwing yourselves upon the graces of the Lord’s Church here and trust in the guidance and counsel of the bishop that he gives you in that circumstance.

Casey Griffiths:
And to go back to an earlier theme, the support that the Church offers also isn’t just financial. A large part of the work of the Church is to provide a surrogate family to its members, but especially to those who’ve lost family members. The Family Proclamation that we mentioned earlier contains a phrase that says, “Disability, death, and other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation,” and then says, “extended family should lend support when needed.” But that extended family can be grandma, grandpa, aunts, and uncles. It can also be elder’s quorum presidents, and Relief Society presidents, and young women and young men presidents, the covenants of consecration allow the Church to form a large extended family that can offer support if a parent is missing or if a family is dealing with other challenging circumstances. And again, a large part of the work of the Church is to help those people. In an average ward council meeting, you spend a long time talking about people that are more vulnerable, for whatever reason, divorce or disability or anything. Elder Christofferson, just to continue his talk, spoke specifically to those who are dealing with the challenge of living without a father in their life.

Casey Griffiths:
He said this, “To children whose family situation is troubled, we say you yourself are no less for that. Challenges are at times an indication of the Lord’s trust in you. He can help you directly and through others to deal with what you face. You can become the generation, perhaps the first in your family, where the divine patterns that God has ordained for families truly take shape and and bless all the generations after you.” So in our day, we’re dealing with not only widowhood, which, of course, was a common thing back in Joseph Smith’s time, but we’re dealing with divorced families, we’re dealing with mixed-faith marriages, and a number of other circumstances. And it’s imperative for the Church to look after those who live in complicated family situations. My grandfather was killed in a car accident when my dad was very young, and my grandmother struggled to take care of the family. I am grateful for the Church members that reached out and helped them as they worked through this. I’m also pretty impressed with my dad, you know, who’s always had a job and had a job from the time he was little so that he could work to be self-sufficient also.

Casey Griffiths:
So I’m grateful for the Church, but I’m also grateful for the principles of self-reliance that the Church teaches that allow us to help, but also allow people to help themselves.

Scott Woodward:
Well said. Okay, controversies with this section, Casey. Our day looks a little different than Joseph Smith’s day. Can I start out that way?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Our society is designed in a way today that seems much more amenable to women being able to work, to help provide financially for their families. And so what about that? In our day, like how might we talk about that? Does the Church teach that women should stay home with their children and not work and let dad go and do it all? Is that a teaching of the Church? Let me ask that, number one. And then what do we say about homes where the mother is the primary breadwinner? What about that?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
So two kind of heavy, modern applications of this. Like, what do we do with that?

Casey Griffiths:
This comes up a lot in eternal family classes. And I don’t think it’s controversial to say that fathers should be breadwinners for their families, that they should help provide. But some people take that idea to mean that women should never work outside the home or that a woman who has a career is sacrificing her family. Now, it is true that some leaders of the Church have said that women should stay home with their children, particularly when they’re very young. And I haven’t heard that taught recently by leaders of the Church. More recently, we’ve heard leaders of the Church kind of acknowledging these difficult choices, because sometimes when women work, it’s not out of desire, it’s out of necessity. But sometimes it is out of desire. Like, they want to contribute, they have talents and gifts. For me, it’s yes. But there’s a lot of judgment, sometimes culturally, among this.

Casey Griffiths:
Here’s a talk. Quentin L. Cook dealt with this. He said, “Women are confronted with many options and need to prayerfully consider the choices they make and how those choices affect their family.” And again, you can swap out women and put men in here, and everything still works. But he goes on to say this, “These are emotional, personal decisions, but there are two principles that we should always keep in mind. First, no woman should ever feel the need to apologize or feel that her contribution is less significant because she is devoting her primary efforts to raising and nurturing children. Nothing could be more significant in our Father in Heaven’s plan.” And let me pause here and say, I have had a number of women who were stay-at-home moms introduce it by saying, I’m just a mom. You know, like that isn’t a huge deal. And sometimes in our drive to equalize treatment of men and women in the Church. I think sometimes this is discouraged. I’ve had women come up to me in my classes, especially family classes, and sometimes say, Hey, is it okay if I just want to stay home and raise my kids? We’ve gone so far to the extreme that that’s seen as a negative when it’s very much a positive if a person chooses to do that. It’s a noble thing to do, and you should never consider yourself just a mom or just a housewife. That’s an incredibly important and vital role. Here’s the second thing he says, “We should all be careful not to be judgmental or assume that sisters are less valiant if the decision is made to work outside the home. We rarely understand or fully appreciate people’s circumstances. Husbands and wives should prayerfully counsel together, understanding they’re accountable to God for their decisions.”

Casey Griffiths:
So if a woman works outside the home, either out of necessity or choice, he’s saying, Hey, back off and don’t be judgmental. First of all, like you mentioned, Scott, the Proclamation calls them equal partners in carrying out these roles. So women are expected to provide, preside, and protect. If your kids are being attacked by a bear and you’re a woman, you can’t be like, That’s not my job. I’m not going to deal with that. And we’ve already talked about how women have a co-presiding role within a family. There are tons of families where women help provide. And in my family, my wife, I remember early on when she was pregnant with our first, kind of said, We’re going to have a baby, and I need you to get a job because I need you to provide for us. I’m going to stay at home when the children are young. And at the time, I was in college and I was, you know, taking, like, African history and bowling. Like, I was just really enjoying my undergraduate experience. And having children made me sort of focus up and get serious.

Casey Griffiths:
And by the time the baby came, I had a viable career and I was able to provide. At the same time, too, just to use my wife as an example, she’s really gifted. She’s a lighting designer, and she does theatrical lighting for plays. And at a certain point, when our kids were getting a little bit older and we’re spending a lot of time in school, she came to me and said, I’d like to work, too. And we probably could have survived just on my salary, but she wanted to use her talents to bless and help others. And that’s been a huge blessing in our life, too. And there might be weeks when I work all day and she’s home with the family, and then we, you know, high five as I come in the door, and she’s on her way to a play because she mostly works at night. That’s what works for us. It might be completely different in a different family, and I’m not going to be judgmental about how they fulfill the duties explained in The Family Proclamation. Just admire them for doing so.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, I love how Elder Cook put it. It’s husband and wife, you guys counsel together, make a decision, making sure that it’s a wise one, whatever you’re going to do. But why do you think there’s even, like, judgment in the Church at all about this, Casey? Because like there’s a lot of different cultural contexts outside of the Church. Nobody even bats an eye if the woman works outside the home. That’s almost like just normal. Does it have anything to do with past teachings by leaders of the Church?

Casey Griffiths:
It could. And again, I’m not saying that those leaders of the Church were wrong to say what they say. Just saying that circumstances sometimes change, and circumstances can be very individual. I think for fathers and mothers, you’ve noted here that Elder Christofferson and Elder Cook both address the feelings of guilt and emotion that sometimes comes when a father or a mother has to leave the home to provide for themselves. Like I feel guilty sometimes coming here to record this podcast thinking maybe I should be out, you know, throwing the ball with my son, or, you know, going on a bike ride with my daughters. But like Elder Christofferson said, this is a consecrated activity. I’m doing this to provide for my family. And my wife helps provide for my family, too, but also helps contribute to the world and make the world a better place by using her talents as well. So let’s just be cautious with this and recognize that times and circumstances can and do change. And we look to the current leaders of the Church to take our cues from while honoring the past leaders of the Church as well for the good people that they were.

Scott Woodward:
I really appreciated when I saw Elder Cook stand up in conference and say what you just quoted him saying. I think he’s responding to that tension that we’re in a different time. We’re 2025. This is a different time and place than 1987. And so here we are. Like you said, what matters is what the current leaders of the Church are saying to this particular context. And the principles haven’t changed. The principles are, it’s kind of like we’ve been talking with the law of consecration. The principles are take care of your family. As a husband and wife, you work together to do that. You are competent and trust in God’s promptings. Be prayerful. Do what you feel is best for your family. The end. No judgment.

Casey Griffiths:
When we read the teachings of Church leaders, we need to look for what’s timely, what applied to their time, and what’s timeless. I think the counsel in Section 83 is timeless. But when you look at the counsel leaders of the Church, like, for instance, Brigham Young, you’re going to find a lot of sermons on irrigation, which might be considered timely as well. We learn to separate those two as we study them closely and adhere to what they have to say. But the most important prophet in my mind is the current prophet and the current leadership of the Church. And so I honor everybody involved here. I think our job is just to lift everybody where they’re at, to look at them and say, How can I help? That’s the real role of the Church when it comes to families. So we’ve talked about controversies. Scott, what are the consequences of Section 83 of the Doctrine and Covenants?

Scott Woodward:
So where families are incomplete or where parents are not in a position to be able to fulfill fulfill their responsibilities, the Church is designed, Section 83 says, to help provide a surrogate family, starting out with the most basic needs of financial and then going from there, right, to help provide for children, to raise them in the gospel, et cetera. So the Church can provide goods and assistance as part of its storehouse of resources and also provide the skills of the members of the Church to help and to build those who are most vulnerable. And by the Church, let’s be clear, Casey, we mean us. We mean the people listening to this. We mean the people who are neighbors to these folks, right, who have time and talents to contribute. Yes, it’s also to local bishoprics to take care of, especially in the more sensitive, maybe financial needs, for sure. The Bishop and the Relief Society president, elder’s quorum president, will often work together to help people in those ways as well. And so when we say the Church is to provide, we’re talking about very much a local effort.

Casey Griffiths:
Well navigated. There’s a lot of tricky issues in these sections, from the highest to the lowest levels of the Church, but good, good counsel.

Scott Woodward:
Really good. Well, Casey, as always, been a pleasure to be with you. We look forward to next week when we get to tackle another whopper that’s kind of right up there with Section 76 in terms of its, like, doctrinal significance. We’re talking about Section 84, so buckle up.

Casey Griffiths:
All right. We’ll see you then.