Casey Griffiths:
Faith can become a major obstacle if two people see things very differently towards having a successful marriage.

Scott Woodward:
It’s a high-stakes situation.

Casey Griffiths:
If you are in a marriage and your spouse undergoes a faith transition, sometimes those things just happen, and it can be really, really tough. Stick with them. You never know what’s going to happen to the person. I know a lot of people that are dealing with this kind of issue.

Scott Woodward:
“My wife’s reaction surprised me. She did not panic or get defensive. Instead, she told me how excited she was for me.” Hold on. Some spouses would freak out.

Casey Griffiths:
It’s totally proper and completely appropriate that we emphasize what we have in common, but we also have to get to the point of where we say, And here’s where we’re really different.

Scott Woodward:
I trust the Lord will work out all those details.

Casey Griffiths:
There’s a healthy balance to be maintained in all things, and sometimes you got to leave the Church and go home.

Scott Woodward:
Hello, Casey. We are back.

Casey Griffiths:
We are back, and we’re covering Sections 74 to 75, I got to admit, I have a soft spot for Section 74.

Scott Woodward:
Why is that?

Casey Griffiths:
It just deals with some really tender issues. You know, the idea of mixed-faith marriages, raising children, kind of a nice little revelation that deals with the complexities of being a member of the Church.

Scott Woodward:
Very good. And this is part 2 of this week’s Come, Follow, Me. So we’ve already done Sections 71 through 73 in a previous video, so you haven’t caught that one. Swing back, grab that one. And this is part 2. So let’s dive in then to Section 74, Casey. Where does this come from? Is this even in the right chronological order? I mean, there’s some issues with this section, aren’t there?

Casey Griffiths:
There’s a lot of complexity surrounding that. But I will say this is a great example of how the Doctrine and Covenants is one of the most insightful commentaries on other scripture. Comments on the Bible here, specifically a teaching that Paul shares in 1 Corinthians that is really kind of difficult to wrap your head around. So Section 74 explains scripture, especially 1 Corinthians 7:14, which is a biblical passage that was often used to justify infant baptism, which is a practice that is condemned in the Book of Mormon, specifically in Moroni 8. So here’s where it gets a little fuzzy. The placement of Doctrine and Covenants Section 74 makes it seem as though it was received in early 1832 when Joseph Smith was working on translating the New Testament. However, this revelation probably came a lot earlier. It was probably received in the spring of 1830, which would mean this one should go all the way back by Section 37, if we’re being strictly chronological here. What happened was is when John Whitmer, the Church historian, copied the revelation into Revelation Book 1, he dated it 1830 and gave it the title Explanation of Scripture.

Scott Woodward:
That sounds accurate. So how does it get messed up and placed so far into 1832?

Casey Griffiths:
The revelation was not included in the 1833 Book of Commandments. That’s the first version of the Doctrine and Covenants. But then it was inserted into the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants without a date on it. When Joseph Smith starts to write… Stay with me here. When Joseph Smith starts to write his history in 1838, the editors of Joseph Smith’s history mistakenly assumed that the revelation was given around the time that Joseph Smith recommenced his work on translating the New Testament in early 1832. Remember, in Section 73, the Lord tells him, go back to translating. They’re assuming, Oh, because this has to do with the New Testament, it must go then. However, by 1832, John Whitmer had already copied it into the revelation books, the Manuscript Revelation books, which he uses as the source for the Book of Commandments. These are the books that he takes with him when he goes to Missouri in late 1831. And we still don’t know the exact date when the revelation was given, but John Whitmer’s original dating suggests it was given in New York before Joseph Smith was commanded to move to the Ohio, putting it somewhere before Section 37 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Casey Griffiths:
And the Lord likely revealed this scripture in response to discussions that members were having with new converts about infant baptism. And this updated information actually never really showed up until the 2013 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. So the Joseph Smith Papers project has highlighted that a number of sections in the Doctrine and Covenants probably aren’t in chronological order. Not that that’s a huge deal or anything, but just, you now, for those of us that are really, really wonky about Church history, it could be a big deal. Otherwise, don’t stress about this.

Scott Woodward:
Because it was undated, they just stuck it here. And now we’re so deeply into it that it’s impossible to change the order of things now because now we’d have to update all of our manuals and everything. So who cares? Just…

Casey Griffiths:
Someone that worked on the 2013 edition of the scriptures that I know actually told me that he was given the direction that they shouldn’t change the page numbers, that the page numbers should be the same. And so we’re not even worried about, like, messing up the section order. By 2013, they’re saying, Everybody’s, you know, used to this being on page 113 or whatever, and we’re trying not to mess it up. But if you want to be precise, this probably should come earlier in the Doctrine and Covenants, and the context probably is after the Church was organized and people are reading the Book of Mormon, a lot of people are asking about infant baptism and saying, Well, what about what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7, they went to Joseph Smith and said, Well, yeah, what about what Paul says? But the Book of Mormon says infant baptism is bad. What do you think? And Joseph Smith seeks a revelation and receives it, and this is it.

Scott Woodward:
Okay, so that makes more sense saying that Joseph was working on the New Testament pre-Section 37, because we know he’s actually in the Old Testament during that time. It wasn’t until Section 45 that the Lord said, Okay, now go to the New Testament and start. So that makes sense that this probably arose out of a question that members were asking, more so than coming in the flow of Joseph’s work in the JST in New York.

Casey Griffiths:
That’s probably an accurate way to put it. Not a big deal, not anything that totally changes Church history, but just another example of us striving to get things right, even if it takes us over 150 years sometimes to get it right.

Scott Woodward:
Interesting context. So let’s get into the content here because this is where Church members were confused. They’re wondering about 1 Corinthians 7.

Casey Griffiths:
The way that we see things is that there’s times when the Lord speaks and there’s times when his servant speaks. And I think that the whole context of Section 74 makes it clear that this is Paul giving his commentary. If you look down in verse 5, it says, “For this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself.” And so the Lord is saying this is Paul doing the best he can with the information that he has, and he’s dealing with a very, very sensitive issue, which still affects people in the Church today.

Scott Woodward:
Let me actually read the verse in 1 Corinthians 7:14 that is going to be commented on here. So it says, quote, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” So there it is. Now, What does that mean? What are we to understand that to mean? How does that have implications in, you know, the infant baptism question, et cetera? So watch what the Lord does here. He says, verse 2, “Now, in the days of the apostles,” this is New Testament church time, “the law of circumcision was had among all the Jews who believed not the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Remember that the first generation of believers, they didn’t think of themselves necessarily as something distinct from other Jews. They weren’t Christians and then there’s this other religion called Judaism. They’re all Jews. Paul is a Jew. Peter is a Jew. Jesus was a Jew, right. But there are Jews who don’t believe the gospel of Jesus Christ and that group of Jews are continuing to circumcise their children as the Old Testament commanded to happen in Genesis 17, sign of being part of the Abrahamic covenant.

Scott Woodward:
But this caused a stir between the believers in Christ’s gospel that were Jews and the Jews who didn’t believe. Verse 3 says, “It came to pass that there arose a great contention among the people concerning the law of circumcision, for the unbelieving husband,” that is, a Jew who did not believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, “was desirous that his children should be circumcised and become subject to the law of Moses, which law was fulfilled.” So you have, okay, so the situation here is you’ve got an unbelieving husband and you’ve got a believing Jewish wife. So the unbelieving Jewish husband is saying, We got to circumcise our kids because this is what the law of Moses requires. But the believing wife is saying, But the law is fulfilled, so we don’t need to do that. Okay, so verse 4 says, “It came to pass that the children, being brought up in subjection to the law of Moses, gave heed to the traditions of their fathers and believed not the gospel of Christ, wherein they became unholy.” So if the unbelieving husband’s argument wins out here, then the kids start to believe that the law of Moses is still required, which causes them eventually to become unholy because they’re going with the tradition of their dad.

Scott Woodward:
They want to be good Jewish boys and girls, so they’re following their father’s counsel. “Wherefore,” the Lord says in verse 5, “for this cause, the apostle,” Paul, “wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself.” That’s interesting. We’ll talk about that in a minute. “That a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them.” So because of this contention, Paul began to recommend that believers not marry unbelievers unless they can agree that the law of Moses is not lived in their family. So kind of a big ask there in that context. But this is the situation. Notice how the Lord is contextualizing 1 Corinthians 7:14 here. Super important.

Casey Griffiths:
We talked about this with Doctrine and Covenants 1, but the “whether by my own voice by the voice of my servants, it is the same,” is a phrase that’s really been emblazoned in people’s minds so much that they just assume that any time a Church leader speaks, they are speaking on behalf of God and saying exactly what God wants them to say. And while I sustain D&C 1 and believe that that is true, it also has to be considered in context like we did. It seems like right here the Lord is differentiating and saying, yeah, “For this cause, the apostle wrote unto the church,” this is verse 5, “giving unto them a commandment not of the Lord, but of himself.” And that doesn’t sound like the Lord is saying, Well, Paul totally went against what I wanted him to do here. Paul completely went off the reservation. It seems like the Lord is saying Paul shared his opinion on the matter, and he’s not condemning Paul specifically. But he is sort of saying here that what Paul was saying came from Paul, and therefore, shouldn’t have the same weight as a revelation that comes from God. And as you become a mature Latter-day Saint, that’s one of those things that you have to kind of learn to distinguish that there are times, and usually they’re really clear, when a prophet is speaking on behalf of God.

Casey Griffiths:
And then there are times when a prophet is giving their own thoughtful, well-considered opinion, but not necessarily speaking for God, kind of acting off the experience and the wisdom that they’ve developed on their own.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. And by the way, if you go to 1 Corinthians 7, you’ll see that Paul is actually weighing in on several topics, and he admits that he doesn’t have a revelation from the Lord on some of these. Like in verse 25, I’m looking at, for instance, 1 Corinthians 7:25, he says, “Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.” And then he goes on to give some advice and some counsel. Is that okay? Sure. Why not? Yeah, absolutely. Totally fine. He’s placing his counsel in a certain level of authority, right. This is not directly from Jesus, but here’s my thoughts and counsel. And so the Lord is just acknowledging that, I think, in verse 5. He’s not saying this is good or bad, or I disagree with Paul, or he nailed my thoughts as well. He doesn’t even weigh in, actually, which is kind of funny. He’s just saying this is what Paul said, this is why he said it, this is the context he said it in. And it was his idea, not mine.

Casey Griffiths:
Which is really good to know, to be honest with you. Now, in context, it seems like Paul is commenting on the issue of whether a woman who’s married to a non-believer should continue in the marriage. Paul felt that the believing partner should not initiate a divorce. But if the unbelieving partner desired to end the marriage, the believer should not feel bound to remain in the union. These are still issues that are incredibly heartrending and sensitive today, you know. It seems like I see a lot of those, My spouse has left the Church, or, My spouse no longer believes. And then the question becomes, Well, does this end the marriage? And Paul’s saying, No, don’t end the marriage. But if they want to end the marriage, and it’s for those reasons, you shouldn’t feel obligated to stay.

Scott Woodward:
And by the way, that conclusion is borne out, like, in the verses that are preceding and just after verse 14, like back in 1 Corinthians 7:13, it says, “And the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.” This is explicitly Paul saying, Don’t leave him if he wants to stay with you. But verse 15, “If the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases.” Anyway, just to back up what you’re saying in there because that’s not all embedded in verse 14, but it is in the surrounding verses, exactly what you’re saying. In fact, if we move on to verse 16, then Paul actually says this. Here’s kind of his major punchline, “For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” So what do you think he’s saying here, Casey?

Casey Griffiths:
How do you know that you’re not going to bring your husband to believe? And then saying the same thing to the husband, too. Again, bringing up all these tender issues linked to a mixed-faith marriage. Now, mixed-faith marriages become even more complicated when there’s children involved. And we should be clear that Paul’s use of the word unclean in 1 Corinthians 7 refers to children not being brought up into a proper relationship with the Lord. That’s how it seems like it was being misinterpreted. That little children are unclean, therefore they need baptism. And Paul wasn’t saying anything like that. He was saying, Oh, well, they might not grow up to be in the faith because of this complexity that exists in your relationship.

Scott Woodward:
If their dads continue to persist that they live the law of Moses, that’s going to take them away from the gospel of Christ. Therefore, they will become unholy in time, right. Not saying, children are unholy, so they need to be circumcised, which then leads to children are unholy, therefore they need to be baptized.

Casey Griffiths:
I don’t think he’s talking about that kind of holiness, but you can see how a person would just take that one phrase that “your little children are unholy” and decontextualize it and use it to say, Well, they’re unholy, so they’re unclean, so they need to be baptized, or something like that. But Paul is teaching a good principle here, which is a sanctifying relationship with God is more likely to develop among children with a believing parent in the home, because regardless of the beliefs of your spouse, the principles of a happy family life are the same. So if we were to quote from the Family Proclamation, Proclamation says, “Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.” And it seems like Paul is just recognizing that the principles of a happy family are the same. Believers need to establish boundaries regarding who they will marry. For example, bringing up a child within the law of Moses and the law of Christ wasn’t possible during this time because the laws were contradictory. It seems like at the time, what Paul is wrestling with is a major issue that exists throughout the entire New Testament, which is, do you have to submit to all the Jewish ritual laws to be a Christian?

Casey Griffiths:
Because at first, Christianity was kind of seen as a sect of Judaism, like a Judaism with a slightly different flavor. And then things started to change. The apostle Peter gets a notice that he can teach the gospel to anybody, not just members of the house of Israel. And then the ball starts to roll to where they’re asking the questions of, Well, what Jewish rituals can we bypass? And obviously a huge one when it comes to, especially adult men, joining the church is going to be, Do I have to be circumcised in order to become a Christian? In Acts 15, there’s a whole passage where they have a big meeting where the Apostles all get together, and this does include Paul, and they meet at Jerusalem, and they have a discussion over whether or not they think that circumcision is necessary for a person to join the church. The conclusion they come to is that it’s not necessary, but it seems like the controversy isn’t ended there, that it continues. And that seems to be the issue that’s coming up here is, Do the children have to be circumcised, which is a provision of the law of Moses if they’re Christians, Paul’s saying, No. And that’s one way in which the two laws were kind of coming into conflict with each other.

Scott Woodward:
So the contradiction was, on the one hand, Jews saying, Circumcision is absolutely necessary.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, it’s required.

Scott Woodward:
Other hand, Christian Jews are saying, Well, it’s not necessary. I mean, Paul will actually, like, circumcise one of his friends. Like he’s still a Jew, and he’ll say it’s okay to continue to live certain laws, but to require Gentiles to submit to these laws will be… That’s outside the purview of what the gospel of Jesus Christ requires. It’s an interesting transitional period during his lifetime of… Jews can continue to be Jews and continue to follow the rituals, but let’s not require Gentiles to conform to that when they receive the gospel of Christ. It’s really an interesting time period that I don’t think we have anything quite equivalent to it in our day.

Casey Griffiths:
Paul is also counseling Christian believers that they shouldn’t marry Jewish believers unless they’ve had a conversation about compliance with the law of Moses. So he’s basically saying, if you marry a husband who’s Jewish and you’re Christian, you should talk about cultural norms of them, which is incredibly relevant to us today. If a Latter-day Saint is going to marry someone who’s not a Latter-day Saint, or if you have a spouse that undergoes a faith transition, it can be really necessary for you to sit down and say, Okay, what is this going to look like? And if you have children, doubly so, you need to sit down and say, Okay, are you still going to support me if I take the kids to church on Sunday? Or what if our child wants to get baptized? Are you going to be supportive of that? And what’s your role going to be that you play there? And things like that. So in that sense, I mean, it’s still really, really relevant in the sense that I know a lot of people that are dealing with this kind of issue. And it seems like Paul is saying, If you haven’t already married the person, you need to have this conversation. And if they’re not on board, you might want to consider not marrying the person.

Casey Griffiths:
But faith can become a major obstacle if two people see things very differently towards having a successful marriage. Now, Paul is saying, If you’re already married, though, stick it out. Stay there, but make sure that you have a conversation about faith boundaries, too. And basically, what he’s advocating here is clear communication, which is key to a successful marriage on any level.

Scott Woodward:
Okay, so let’s continue on with verse 6, but let’s grab the thought back in verse 5 to remember what this is about. He says, “A believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them.” And then he continues that thought in verse 6, “That their children might remain without circumcision; and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews.” So interesting. So some people were speculating in Paul’s day that the reason children needed to be circumcised in the law of Moses was because they were unholy. But he clarifies here in verse seven, “Little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean.” Boom. Okay. So Paul’s teachings in this passage in Corinthians, which often used to support the doctrine of infant baptism. The Lord is saying here that’s an incorrect reading of Paul. Now, according to one modern theologian, they say this, “With the exception of the scripture passage where Jesus blesses little children, no passage has been laid under more laborious contribution to serve the cause of infant baptism than this one.”

Scott Woodward:
So we see the relevance of bringing this up at this time. Now, we know from Restoration scripture, a very different story. The teaching that young children who had not yet reached the age of accountability should be baptized is very strongly refuted in Restoration scripture, starting with the Book of Mormon. The prophet Mormon calls infant baptism lots of words, one of which is “a gross error.” He declares that it’s a “solemn mockery before God that you should baptize little children.” Just out the gates, the Book of Mormon comes swinging. Then we’ve also seen in several sections of the Doctrine and Covenants up to this point, like Section 29, Section 68, talking about how children don’t need to be baptized until they arrive at the age of accountability, which Section 68 declares as eight years old. And so a lot of clarifying that’s happening in here, maybe the little pearl, the doctrinal pearl underneath this is that children are sanctified through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. That’s why they don’t need to be baptized or circumcised or whatever else.

Casey Griffiths:
Like you said, the Book of Mormon, specifically the prophet Mormon, he’s the one that writes those passages, has some very strong things to say about infant baptism. But I recognize that baptizing infants doesn’t come from a bad place, right? It’s a good desire to try and save your children. It comes from bad doctrine, basically.

Scott Woodward:
Misunderstanding scriptures like this.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, misunderstanding phrases like Paul saying, Little children are unholy or anything like that, which Paul is being misunderstood here. And the implications, if you believe that, are devastating because then you believe that any child that died without baptism went to hell or went to limbo, or I don’t know what the current nomenclature is in Christian religions that practice infant baptism, but none of them are good. Basically, that these kids never had a chance at exaltation, at glory, and everything like that. And that seems to be what bothers Mormon. And it makes sense that it would bother Mormon because he probably saw a fair number of children that died before they had reached the age of accountability. And any doctrine that says, They were unholy to begin with or that people are unholy from birth on, that people are just born bad, does lead you to some dark places when you start to think about the implications of what that means.

Scott Woodward:
I like your hypothesis that you gave us in the context, Casey, that you have a bunch of new converts joining our Church, and they start to read the Book of Mormon. And Mormon is very unapologetic about how he explains his condemnation of infant baptism. And a lot of these folks are coming from Protestant Christian backgrounds where they might be asking, What about 1 Corinthians 7:14? I thought that’s what that meant. And so I think that’s a very plausible context with this, that they approached the Prophet Joseph and said, What about this? So that makes a ton of sense, actually, with a bunch of Protestant converts joining our Church, having that conflict. What a great resolution Section 74 is to that question.

Casey Griffiths:
Just kind of working out the nuances between what the Book of Mormon and what people perceive the Bible to teach, but that was clearly being misunderstood in the Bible.

Scott Woodward:
All right, so controversies here in Section 74, Casey. I guess we’ve already started talking about this one, but mixed-faith marriages, good, bad, how are they best managed?

Casey Griffiths:
Well, I don’t want to give that simplistic an answer because the situations are really complicated, right? On the one hand if you are in a marriage and your spouse undergoes a faith transition, they move to a different religion, or they stop believing in the Church or anything like that, that doesn’t carry any connotations that you did anything wrong, that there was any sin involved, that you messed up. Sometimes those things just happen, and it can be really, really tough. And I think Paul is trying to speak to situations with that complexity. And it seems like what Paul is saying here, too, is stick with them. You never know what’s going to to the person. Your gospel living, your righteousness might sanctify your spouse. It might end up changing them in the end. And I’ve seen plenty of examples of that, too, where a marriage didn’t split up because one spouse had a faith crisis or a faith transition, and the other spouse was able to kind of bring them back into the Church gently over a long period of time through their love and their guidance.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, in fact, that actually makes me think of our friend Austin Fife. He was planning on leaving the Church. He tells this story in a really awesome resource, by the way, that if anyone’s interested, you should check it out. It’s called lightandtruthletter.org. This is Austin Fife’s experience, trying to leave the Church, actually. In his introduction, he says this. He says, “In January 2014, I lost my faith. I confessed to my wife that I no longer believed in God, much less a church of Jesus Christ. The conversation hurt, but was a long time coming,” he said. “My loss of faith was gradual, and then all at once. I felt like my whole world had turned upside down. It hurt. I felt confused and lost.” Then he talks about getting the courage to tell his wife what was happening. Here’s what happened. He said, “My wife’s reaction surprised me. She did not panic or get defensive. Instead, she told me how excited she was for me.” Hold on. He said, “I thought was leaving the Church, but she reframed what I was feeling as the start of a journey. Then she made me a promise. She said, If I could find more light and truth outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she would follow me. And she meant it.”

Scott Woodward:
Then Austin goes on to say, It’s been 10 years, and I haven’t been able to. Here is all the issues that are on the internet that people use to tear down faith. Here’s my response to all of those. I can’t find a great reason to leave the Church. In fact, I find a lot of light and truth and beauty and goodness and spirit here. His whole letter is actually incredibly faith-promoting. But to your point, Casey, he highlights his spouse’s reaction. Some spouses would freak out if their spouse says, I’m leaving the Church. But I love her response. I’m excited for your journey. If you can find more light and truth, then I’ll go with you. I think she was speaking from a place of confidence, probably knowing where this would lead, but what a cool story. By the way, our very own Stephen Jones, right here at Scripture Central, has recently interviewed Austin Fife, where he goes into more detail about that story about his wife and her reaction and his journey.

Scott Woodward:
It’s actually really edifying and beautiful. Go check it out at Let’s Get Real with Stephen Jones. Just look up the Austin Fife interview. And so on the one hand, your spouse, as Paul is saying, his language, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife.” You can have an incredible influence on your spouse. “And the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband.” However, it gets a little sticky when we now start talking about children. It can cause conflict as it affects children, which is how the Lord explains it here in this section. Of course, that needs to be considered carefully. The reality is our choices are going to influence our children. That’s why I think prophets have cautioned Church members from marrying outside the faith. For instance, this one from President Kimball, one of my favorites. He says, “Without common faith, trouble lies ahead. When two people marry who have different standards, different approaches, and different backgrounds, it’s a very difficult thing. There are exceptions,” and I think you and I both know people who are exceptions, Casey, that have made this work out really well. “But,” President Kimball says, “The rule is a harsh and unhappy one. Religious differences imply wider areas of conflict. Church loyalties clash and family loyalties clash.”

Scott Woodward:
He said, “Surveys have indicated that only one seven non-member spouses finally joins the Church. The odds are against the others.” By the way, this, I think, is back in the 1970s. I don’t know what the current statistics are, but he says, “Nearly half of those who marry out of the Church become inactive. As parents give up their religion, an increasing number of their children are brought up without any religion.” There’s the crux of the issue, is our choices are going to influence our children, and so there are happy exceptions. But you just want to be careful about this. I think Paul is saying that. He’s not saying you should definitely divorce or you should definitely not marry a non-member, but he’s saying, Oh, you got to be cautious. As long as you can both agree that you can get rid of the law of Moses in your marriage, then it’s going to be okay. There’s certain things that are going to impact the children if you don’t deal with them that we’ve really got to consider here because it’s not just two adults that are involved here. It’s those who come downstream as well.

Casey Griffiths:
Rule of thumb entering into any marriage is to be totally open, to go into marriage with your eyes wide open and then keep them half shut after you’re married. But faith is one of those big issues that you have to talk about. My students, my acquaintances in the ward, just people that I know in general, a lot of times it can be really shattering when they find out after they got married, and some of these folks even married in the temple, that their spouse just wasn’t on board, spiritually, with all the things that the Church requires. And so I would say both have an obligation to be very, very frank on their views about religion and their faith and where they’re at. And that doesn’t mean you give up on somebody that feels like, Hey, I’m still figuring things out, or that doesn’t have all the questions answered. But you need to recognize that being on the same page when it comes to faith has a major impact on your marriage, on your happiness, and most importantly, on your children and how they turn out, too. And this is just the Savior and Paul, and a little dash of Mormon mixed in there, too, all acknowledging that these are really important things that you have to take seriously when you’re considering marriage, when you’re in a marriage, and when you’re having maybe challenges in your marriage because of faith.

Casey Griffiths:
Like I said, something that rends the heart a little bit, but that they care about, and they care because it’s a big deal to everybody involved.

Scott Woodward:
That’s a high-stakes situation. Yeah, well said. All right, finally, with Section 74, Casey, consequences, outcome of this one.

Casey Griffiths:
Again, another issue concerning when this was received might deal with the issue of the age of accountability, which isn’t received till Section 68, too. However, the Book of Mormon had firmly established in the early Church that they weren’t going to do infant baptism. It’s just it wasn’t until a year or two later that they get the age of accountability. So around the time that this revelation was likely received, around the time the Church is being organized, the Lord instructs the Church that children should be blessed in the Church, but that “no one can be received into the church of Christ unless he has arrived unto the years of accountability before God, and is capable of repentance.” That’s in Section 20:70-71. So again, they do have this idea of accountability before baptism from almost the beginning in the Church. It’s just Section 68 establishes that, well, the guideline age for accountability is eight years old. And this is a consistent teaching throughout the history of the Church right down until today. Joseph Smith maintained this teaching throughout his life. In an 1842 discourse that the prophet gave he said this. He said, “The doctrine of baptizing children or sprinkling them, or they must welter in hell is a doctrine not true, not supported by holy writ, and is not consistent with the character of God. All children are redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. And the moment the children leave this world, they are taken into the bosom of Abraham.”

Casey Griffiths:
This seems like one of those things that was also deeply, deeply emotional for Joseph Smith, too. A person who lost several children before the age of accountability. So it’s a big deal to him. And I really like that his criteria are saying it’s not true because it’s not in holy writ. But then he adds another test that’s really, really useful for us when we’re determining the truth of something is, Is this consistent with the character of God? Based on what we know about God and his character, is he going to send little children who didn’t receive baptism to a place that’s not good? I don’t think any church teaches that they go to hell any longer, but to teach that they don’t have a chance of exaltation is a little too much for us to bear. In answer to that, he says, “When children leave this world, they are taken to the bosom of Abraham, which is what I believe also.”

Scott Woodward:
Okay, well, let’s head to our last section of this week’s study, Section 75. Drop us into the background of this one.

Casey Griffiths:
This is received on the occasion of another big Church conference happening. This one happens January 25th, 1832, and it’s held near Amherst, Ohio. The conference, according to the records we have, was attended between 70 and 80 official characters, that’s the wording, from various locations. And at this conference, several important events take place. First, Orson Pratt is appointed as president of the elders. So, Scott, we get our first elder’s quorum president in the history of the Church, it’s Orson Pratt. He’s awesome. Love Orson. We’ve spent a lot of time talking about him on this podcast. Next, Joseph Smith is ordained as the president of the high priesthood, heeding the instructions given in a revelation a few months before that, that the Lord had instructed one should be appointed of the high priesthood to preside over the priests of the Church. So this is another little step on getting us towards a First Presidency.

Scott Woodward:
So did Joseph Smith not preside over the priesthood prior to this moment?

Casey Griffiths:
He did, but I don’t think the official title had been received because they hadn’t really started using the term high priesthood or talking about high priesthood until the June 1831 conference that we spent a little time talking about a little while ago. So those are the two milestones. We don’t have any minutes of this particular conference, but Joseph Smith in his history later records, “At this conference, much harmony prevailed, and considerable business was done to advance the kingdom and promulgate the gospel to the inhabitants of the surrounding country. The elders seemed anxious for me to inquire of the Lord that they might know his will or learn what would be most pleasing to him for them to do in order to bring men to a sense of their condition. For as it was written, all men had gone out of the way, so that none doeth good, no, not one. I inquired and received the following,” and that is Section 75. So Section 75 is another one of those ones that it seems like is made up of two separate revelations, verses 1 through 22 is part one, verses 23 to 36 is part two. A copy of the revelations that was kept by Newel K. Whitney, and actually written in Sidney Rigdon’s handwriting, records it as two different revelations.

Casey Griffiths:
Another collection of revelations kept by Samuel Smith and Orson Hyde includes only the first revelation. And John Whitmer, our Church historian, recorded both as separate revelations, given on the same day in Manuscript Revelation Book 1. When the revelations were published in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, they were just combined into one section, and they’ve been that way ever since. Now, at least one of the revelations was received in the presence of the entire conference, though. Orson Pratt said that a revelation was received, in his words, “In the presence of the whole assembly.” And another person that attended the conference, this guy’s name is Edson Barney, said that Sidney Rigdon wrote the revelation as it was dictated by Joseph Smith. And this is just another one of those examples, like the one we cited with Section 50, where Joseph Smith publicly received the revelation. Everybody saw him do this where he dictated a sentence, the scribe would write the sentence, dictate the next, the next, the next, until the revelation is received. It’s a great example of that, too. Marks this conference that happens in January of 1832.

Scott Woodward:
So their big question at this conference was, What is the will of the Lord for us, essentially? We get these two revelations that come in response.

Casey Griffiths:
Yes.

Scott Woodward:
Okay, so the Lord opens the first revelation here, verse one, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, I who speak even by the voice of my Spirit, even Alpha and Omega, your Lord and your God.” Casey, right now, I have the image in my mind of Joseph dictating this and Sidney writing it down and the elders watching. This is cool to have that in our mind. “Hearken, O ye who have given your names to go forth to proclaim my gospel, and to prune my vineyard. Behold, I say unto you that it is my will that you should go forth and not tarry, neither be idle but labor with your might – lifting up your voices as with the sound of a trump,” this part is really important. “Proclaiming the truth according to the revelations and commandments which I have given you.” Okay, we’re going to come back to that thought in a second. “And thus, if ye are faithful ye shall be laden with many sheaves, and crowned with honor, and glory, and immortality, and eternal life.” So these verses right out of the chute are telling them that it’s not time to be idle.

Scott Woodward:
It’s time to get out there and preach the gospel. What should they preach? Well, you should preach the truth according to the revelations and commandments I have given you. We do like to build on common ground, and there was a lot of common ground in Christian America at this time. But the Lord is also stressing that we should highlight what is unique about our message. There’s benefits of building on common ground, but there’s also a really important need to emphasize why we’re different from those of other faiths. I actually love the story that’s told by Parley P. Pratt, January of 1840 in Pennsylvania. He witnessed Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon do this. Actually, Joseph did it better than Sidney. He says, “A very large church was open for him,” Joseph Smith, “to preach in, and about 3,000 people assembled to hear him. Brother Rigdon spoke first and dwelt on the gospel, illustrating his doctrine,” notice this, “by the Bible. When he was through, brother Joseph arose like a lion about to roar. And being full of the Holy Ghost, he spoke in great power, bearing testimony of, notice what he does, “of the visions he had seen, of the ministering of angels which he had enjoyed, and how he had found the plates of the Book of Mormon and translated them by the gift and power of God.”

Scott Woodward:
Okay, that’s not in the Bible. None of that’s in the Bible. “He commenced,” Parley says, by saying, quote, “if nobody else had the courage to testify of so glorious a message from heaven and of the finding of so glorious a record, he felt to do it in justice to the people and leave the event with God.” And then Parley P. Pratt says, “The entire congregation was astounded, electrified, as it were, and overwhelmed with the sense of the truth and power by which he spoke and the wonders which he related. A lasting impression was made, and many souls were gathered into the fold.” Close quote. It’s interesting, right? That Sidney gave a good Christian message. Great message centered in the Bible about the Christian gospel. Good job, Sidney. But Joseph stood up and testified of what made us unique, the Book of Mormon, the visions, the angelic ministrations, and that’s what electrified the congregation. A really interesting example of what the Lord is saying here. Please, proclaim the truth according to the revelations and commandments which I have given you.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, and I am all on board with building on common beliefs. I really, really do like that. But sometimes, you know, as a missionary, I would sometimes sit there and feel like Joseph Smith must have felt where we spent a half hour saying, Oh, you guys believe in the Bible? We believe in the Bible. You know, talking about what we had in common and not talking about what makes us different. One of my old teachers used to say that that’s like going into someone’s home and saying, Oh, you have a vacuum? We have the exact same vacuum as you. And that’s not a great way to sell. Not that selling is the same thing as sharing the gospel with people. But sometimes you have to reach the point to where you say, Here’s what’s different about us. Here’s what makes us unique. And emphasizing those unique aspects of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is a big deal. It’s totally proper and completely appropriate that we emphasize what we have in common. But we also have to get to the point of where we say, And here’s where we’re really different. If we’re really going to convert people, if we’re really going to reach their hearts and help them understand why what we’re doing is different.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. And the common ground we have with other Christians is immense. It is immense. Joseph Smith once said, “Wherein do we differ from our religion and other Christian religions?” He said, “Not much.” But we do have a few core things. Now, this is my language, but we have a few core things. I always like to say in the conversation about whether Mormons are Christians, that whole thing that can get really frustrating for Latter0day Saints. What I like to say to our Christian brothers and sisters is that we are Christianity plus. We’re everything, about the Bible, about Jesus, about the revelations, about the message of the Bible, all of that, yes, plus. Add to that, the Book of Mormon. Add to that, the message that the gospel of Jesus Christ and the keys of authority have been restored in our day. And we have these marvelous temples that are meant to help gather Israel in preparation for Jesus’s return. Okay, we’ve got that extra layer of a couple of things there on top of the Bible. But boy, we’re with you on everything biblical. And now we have a couple items of good news we would also like to share. And that’s it. So we’re Christianity plus a little, right? And that little makes a big difference.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. George Albert Smith used to introduce it by saying, “Take all the good you have and let us add to it.” We don’t want to take away anything good that you already have, but we’re going to add to it as well. And it’s important that when we talk with people about our religion, about our faith, that we do get past the building on common beliefs to say, And here’s what God has revealed to us that makes us a little bit different. So let’s keep rolling through the section here. The next part, starting in verse 6, addresses several elders, William McLellin, who we’ve talked a little bit about is here. The Lord says, “I revoke the commission which I gave him to go into the eastern countries.” This is verse 6. “I give unto him a new commission and a new commandment, in the which I, the Lord, chasten him for the murmurings of his heart; and he sinned; nevertheless, I forgive him and say unto him again, Go ye into the south countries.” Then he calls Luke Johnson to go with him, tells Luke Johnson to “call on the name of the Lord for the Comforter, which shall teach them all things which are expedient, praying always that they faint not, and inasmuch as they do this, I will be with them even unto the end.”

Scott Woodward:
What’s the Lord talking about here with William McLellin having sinned, and now the Lord inviting him to change course? What’s happening?

Casey Griffiths:
Maybe something’s going on with William here, but you remember in Section 68, he’s called to serve a mission with Samuel Smith, and they leave to preach in eastern Ohio on November 16, 1831. But on December 15, McLellin gets really sick. He gets a violent cold that confines him to his bed. The elders’ mission, this is William and Samuel’s, is cut short, and McLellin comes back to Hiram on December 29th, just 44 days after his mission began. And when Samuel Smith wrote about this brief term in the mission field, he commented, “We went a short distance, but because of disobedience, our way was hedged up before us.” And Samuel never really elaborates on what this means, but in this revelation, McLellin is rebuked for the murmurings of his heart. That’s in verse seven. Then he’s assigned to a new field of labor with Luke Johnson instead of Samuel Smith. So they didn’t get along, maybe.

Scott Woodward:
Because of disobedience, whatever that was.

Casey Griffiths:
That’s how Samuel phrases it. Then the Lord here says that William was murmuring. And so I don’t know exactly. We don’t have more details than that. But we do know that William McLellin wasn’t cut off from the Lord because of his disobedience or his illness. The Lord’s given him another chance here. In fact, during the time between returning from his first mission and receiving this revelation, he actually has a really amazing experience. Years after this, William McLellin told Orson Pratt that on January 18, 1832, about a week before where Section 75 is given, he found himself alone with Joseph Smith in the translating room, in the Johnson home, the place where Joseph Smith was working on the Bible translation. And he said, “William asked Joseph to inquire of the Lord regarding an important matter. Joseph replied, Do you inquire of God? I will pray for you that you may obtain. And William complied with the prophet’s instructions, later recalling, I did receive and I wrote it. And when I read it to him, Joseph Smith shed tears of joy and said to me, Brother William, that is the mind of the will of God. And as much a revelation as I’ve ever received in my life, you have written it by the spirit of inspiration.”

Casey Griffiths:
And William later writes this. He says, “I was never vain enough to suppose that I was planted in Joseph’s stead, nor that it was my duty or privilege to receive by revelation laws or regulations for the whole Church, I knew better. But at that time, I saw, heard, and felt what I wrote. There and then, I learned a principle and was put in possession of a power that I shall never forget. I learned to know the voice of the Spirit of God, clothed in words. And if I had heeded its voice from that day to this, I should have missed very many difficulties through which I have passed.” So this is kind of a neat little coda, like a connection to that early experience where the Lord challenged William to write scripture, but he failed. This episode shows that the Lord had his eye on William McLellin. Even though William’s having problems, he’s complaining, he’s a little arrogant, I guess you’d say, the Lord says, No, I’m going to help you figure this out. And Joseph Smith acts as a mentor towards him, learning that even somebody as troubled as William McLellin could be inspired to learn that the Lord knew him and knew his desires.

Casey Griffiths:
So this is another one of those William McLellin goes and seeks. In fact, maybe let’s put this in sequence here. The first time he encounters the Lord, he’s asked these secret questions, and Joseph Smith gets the revelation. Then he’s audacious enough to claim that he can write a revelation like Joseph Smith can. He fails, and then he has this humbling experience where his mission kind of goes sideways and it doesn’t work out very well. And when he approaches Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith says, You actually can receive a revelation. And his language here suggests, Okay, I knew that this wasn’t a revelation the way Joseph Smith receives revelation. It wasn’t revelation for the Church, but I came to know the words of the Lord. I think this is a really neat addition to the story we always end with on William McLellin, was just that he couldn’t produce a revelation. He does eventually produce a revelation, but he kind of has to go through this up and down through the school of hard knocks before he gets to the point where the Lord teaches him how to do it.

Scott Woodward:
I love that Joseph Smith had confidence that William could receive that kind of revelation for himself. It kind of reminds me of the story I remember in a General Conference where Elder Rasband said that before he was called to the Twelve, that he was the junior companion Seventy assigned to accompany the apostle on a particular Thursday, I think it was, to assign mission calls. And he talked about how the screen is up there, and you have the mission, a picture, and then you got all the missions of the world. And he remembers that President Eyring was the one he was working with. And he said, Elder Rasband, where do you think this missionary should go? And Elder Rasband said, Guatemala? And Elder Eyring was like, No, that’s not right. And then he went on to assign him to the correct mission or whatever. He says, This happened a couple of times, and then sometimes Elder Eyring would ask him what he thought, and other times he wouldn’t. He said, In one particular missionary, the picture comes up, and in his mind, he said, I had a really distinct thought, like, Japan. And he said, I didn’t know Elder Eyring was going to turn to me.

Scott Woodward:
But he did, he turned to me and said, Where do you think this sister should go? And he said, Japan. And President Eyring said, Yes, Japan. He said, Let’s go there. And they went on the map and found the exact mission to go to. And he’s like, Oh, this was right here’s a senior apostle teaching a junior Seventy who’s going to become a member of the Twelve, which, by the way, is what happens with William McLellin. Here’s Joseph Smith training William McLellin, who’s going to become a member of the original Twelve. But teaching him how to receive revelation and knowing when it’s actually happening versus when it’s not. Joseph will later say, “Revelation is a principle you got to grow into.” It’s not an on-and-off switch. You got to learn it. You got to learn the language of revelation. So very cool to see William being tutored here.

Casey Griffiths:
William McLellin. He’s writing this whole thing after he leaves the Church. That’s when he writes, “The Lord answered my five questions.” He writes, “If I had heeded its voice from that day to this, I should have missed many, very many,” those are his exact words, “difficulties through I have passed.” I just feel for the guy. He’s totally aware, right? And most of the stuff he’s writing after he’s left the church, he just kind of kills me sometimes, where I want to have a conversation with him sometime and say, Hey, what was going on, you now?

Scott Woodward:
So then picking it up in verse 13, we start to see several mission companionships that are being paired together. Orson Hyde and Samuel Smith. Verse 14, Lyman Johnson and Orson Pratt. And they’re called to go on a particular mission to a particular place. Verse 15, Asa Dodds, Calves Wilson, whoever’s “faithful and overcomes all things, shall be lifted up at the last day.” Some promises sprinkled in here. And again, Major N. Ashley and my servant Burr Riggs. They need to go to the south. So the Lord is pairing up several companionships here because remember, that was their original question was, What is the Lord’s will for us? And so he’s now getting really, really specific. I want you guys to go east. I want you guys to go west. I want you guys to go south. And then he says, verse 18, “Yea, let all those take their journey, as I have commanded them, going from house to house, and from village to village, and from city to city. And in whatsoever house ye enter, and they receive you, leave your blessing upon that house. And in whatsoever house ye enter, and they receive you not, ye shalt depart speedily from that house, and shake off the dust of your feet as a testimony against them.”

Scott Woodward:
We’ve dealt with this a couple of times now in the Doctrine and Covenants. Here that is again, Casey, that New Testament idea of dusting your feet as a witness against those who reject your message, which we no longer practice that as far as I know. Verse 21, “And you shall be filled with joy and gladness; and know this, that in the day of judgment, you shall be judges of that house, and condemn them.” Don’t know why you’d be glad about that. “And it shall be more tolerable for the heathen in the day of judgment, than for that house; therefore, gird up your loins and be faithful, and you shall overcome all things, and be lifted up at the last day. Even so. Amen.” Harsher condemnation for those that reject the message of God’s servants than most of us are comfortable with facing that head-on. But the Lord is pretty explicit here. It’s not good. When people reject this message, it’s not good. And those who were the servants that shared that message with them, you will one day play a role in judging them. I don’t know what to do with that, Casey, because we’ve talked about this before.

Scott Woodward:
The complexity of this is, What if they’re just having a bad day? What if they’re like, No, I don’t want to hear what you have to say today. But in a month, they would be ready. I trust the Lord to work out all those details. But every time we come across this idea, we’ve come across it a few times now in the Doctrine and Covenants, it always trips me up.

Casey Griffiths:
I think he’s tying together these ideas that even if we know someone’s going to reject the gospel, we still have an obligation to share it with them. Part of what we do is get rejected, for lack of a better way of saying it, and that we don’t always go into every situation with an assurance of success. Sometimes what the Lord’s asked us to do is basically offer them a chance to hear the gospel. And if they reject it, he’ll deal with it. And we might actually, you know, be there, like he said at the judgment day, either speaking for or against them or just sharing our perspective on what happens, but that we aren’t always destined for success. Sometimes the obligation that we’ve been asked to follow is just to say, I shared the gospel. I gave them a chance to hear it and to accept it.

Scott Woodward:
Good thoughts.

Casey Griffiths:
Let’s keep going. Verse 23, the Lord picks up again and says a few wise things about the nature of missionaries being supported. Now, missionaries are different back then. Most of these people were married men. Some of them weren’t, but there is the question of their families and supporting their families. So verse 24, “It is the duty of the church to assist in supporting the families of those, and also to support the families of those who are called and must need to be sent into the world to proclaim the gospel into the world. Wherefore, I, the Lord, give unto you this commandment, that ye obtain places your families, inasmuch as your brethren are willing to open their hearts. And let all such as can obtain places for their families, and support of the church for them, not fail to go into the world, whether to the east or the west, to the north or to the south.” He’s setting up this idea that, hey, it’s not just the missionary. It’s the whole village that’s supporting the missionary, that’s sending them out. We still see this happen today. There have been times when my ecclesiastical leaders have called me and said, Hey, we got a missionary going out.

Casey Griffiths:
His family is in kind of a tough place financially. Can you help them? And yes, absolutely. That’s part of my obligation. But he’s also speaking to these adult men, and most of them are adult men, to say, Hey, you got to make sure your family’s okay before you take care of these.

Scott Woodward:
Don’t go on your mission if you haven’t taken care of your family. Once they are taken care of, don’t fail to go out on your mission. But family first.

Casey Griffiths:
Just priorities and balance, right? Take a look at verse 28. “And again, verily I say unto you, that every man who is obliged to provide for his own family, let him provide, and he shall in nowise lose his crown; and let him labor in the church. Let every man be diligent in all things. And the idler shall not have place in this church, except he repent and mend his ways.” And then he calls several more elders to the ministry. This includes people like Thomas B. Marsh, who’s going to be a big deal later on, Hyrum Smith, Reynolds Cahoon, Sylvester Smith, Stephen Burnett. All these people are going to be important a little bit on. But the major instruction here is take care of your families, then take care of your gospel obligations, which is something that is showing up in a lot of these sections, kind of where church and family meet and how to manage the two.

Scott Woodward:
Can we swing back to verse 28 for a second? It seems like the Lord is saying here that if you’ve been called on a mission, but you find that you cannot get your family taken care of, you’re obliged to provide for your own family. He says, Let him provide then, and he shall in nowise lose his crown, meaning you don’t get to go out on your mission. That’s okay. Take care of your family and let him labor in the Church. The Lord’s providing a great deal of flexibility here with mission calls, like, you’re called to serve. Now, step one, see if you can get your family taken care of long enough for you to go out and serve and come back, and they’re still going to be okay. If you can’t do that, then don’t serve your mission. Just continue to labor in the Church, and you won’t lose your reward. I don’t know that I’ve often caught verse 28 there. There’s a great deal of flexibility and mercy there. And I think for some people who, for whatever reason, are not able to serve full-time missions because of whatever circumstance, whether it’s mental health or whatever, I feel the Lord’s gentleness in verse 28 and non-condemnation there.

Casey Griffiths:
That could be a really powerful verse, right, for someone that isn’t able to serve, maybe not for reasons that are in their control. The Lord says, Ye shall in nowise lose your crown. You got to take care of your family. You got to take care of your family, right? And I also love the emphasis here where he says, You need to provide for your family. Every man is obliged to provide for his own family. This is something both ancient and modern prophets have taught. Paul, when he was writing to Timothy, said, “If any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” The Family Proclamation today teaches that fathers are asked to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. I like this quote from D. Todd Christofferson, where he said, “Breadwinning is a consecrated activity.” And he added, “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 the sake of his career, or at the other extreme, one who will not exert himself and is content to shift his responsibility to others.”

Casey Griffiths:
So you can see those two ideas closely there, too, that you provide for your family and don’t be idle. You get out there and you do what you can to take care of the people in your stewardship. Once they’re taken care of, you move on to the next stewardship, which is to do what God asks you to do.

Scott Woodward:
Very important prioritization here. Okay, very good. Let’s talk controversies, and I think you’re already kind of hitting on this, Casey, but let me ask you, so providing for your family versus fulfilling Church callings, how do you strike that balance?

Casey Griffiths:
Oh, man, that is hard, right? Now, I would say, I think, we’ve discussed this before, but family, right, is your highest obligation. The most important work that you do takes place within the walls of your own home. And I also will say, I think that there’s a fair degree of overlap between Church service and taking care of your family. When I had a really intense calling, I was lucky that it involved working with the youth in my ward, and I happened to have a son and daughter that were part of that youth. So I didn’t feel like I was neglecting my family because I was spending time with my children. I was taking them on trips. We were spending moments together. In fact, some of the most valuable moments I had with my oldest daughter and my son came not in spite of the Church, but because the Church asked me to fulfill responsibilities. And I was there acting in my Church role, but also being a dad, along with that, too. At the same time, it can be really treacherous because serving the Lord is an important calling that a lot of people sometimes do prioritize over their family.

Casey Griffiths:
If you neglect your family for the sake of your Church career, that can be really dangerous as well. So there’s a healthy balance to be maintained in all things. And sometimes you got to leave the church and go home and spend time with your family. And sometimes you do have to spend time away from your family to accomplish what the Lord wants you to. Let’s talk consequences.

Scott Woodward:
So this is happening at a conference that January, and let’s call this another baby step toward adding to the organization of the Church as we know it today. As you mentioned, Orson Pratt was officially called as the first elder’s quorum president. Then Joseph Smith is ordained as, quote, “President of the high priesthood,” which may not in the moment seem incredibly significant because he was already the leader of the Church. But this is taking steps toward forming the First Presidency, and they’re going to be called the presidency of the high priesthood in Section 107, where we really start getting the structure of the priesthood laid out in the Church. But these are baby steps there. Of course, this also deals with many of the figures who will eventually become part of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and fill other important leadership positions in the Church. The Lord is giving them experience, sending them out to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ as it has been received through Joseph Smith. And they’re getting valuable Church experience here. William McLellin is getting rebuked but given second chances. Like the Lord is teaching and training and helping prepare these men, in this case, for valuable leadership roles that are coming up in their lives.

Scott Woodward:
So a lot of consequences that flow out of Section 75, some structural and some personnel development, if you will.

Casey Griffiths:
It’s one of those baby steps towards the Church that we understand and know today. And so it has good counsel for fathers, but also shows us how line upon line, the Lord is restoring the Church of Jesus Christ according to his will and design.

Scott Woodward:
Well, Casey, that was fun. That was a good run. This week. And next week we get to dig into the big one. People will call Section 76, going forward, “The Vision.” And it’s for good reason that this has a been given so much emphasis in the Church, from Joseph Smith’s day to our present day. Section 76 is huge. You won’t want to miss it, so stay tuned. We’ll see you next week.

Casey Griffiths:
A lot to look forward to.