D&C 81-83 Quotes and Notes

Doctrine and Covenants 81-83 Quotes and Notes

D&C 81 Presidency of the High Priesthood – Frederick G. Williams

Section 81 was received March 7, 1832, just days before Joseph Smith is brutally attacked on the night of March 24, 1832 outside of the Johnson family farm in Ohio. As this revelation presently proclaims, Doctrine and Covenants 81 bids Frederick G. Williams to function as a counselor in the presidency of the Church,^[1]He may have been a first counselor due to his age at the time. This is at least suggested by D. Michael Quinn and also Susan Easton Black. See: Who’s Who in the Doctrine and Covenants, Deseret … Continue readingas a counselor to Joseph Smith, the prophet. It was originally given to Jesse Gause,^[2]Jesse Gause was born about 1784 at East Marlborough, Chester County, Pennsylvania, as the second son of Mary Beverly and William Goss. Jesse’s mother was a Quaker who had fallen under disapproval … Continue reading a man who was 20 years older than Joseph Smith, and eight years older than Sidney Rigdon, who eventually found himself unable to fill the assignment.^[3]I say this because things are complicated here, and we do not have all of the details. It seems that his second wife Minerva, was unhappy with his association with the Saints and would not unite with … Continue reading

Presidency of the High Priesthood – March 1832

Joseph Smith was sustained and ordained President of the High Priesthood on 25 January 1832. He was at this time without counselors, but during the first week of the following March a revelation authorized the Prophet to appoint an unspecified number of counselors to assist “the presidency of the high Priesthood.”^[4] History of the Church , 1:243; Reynolds Cahoon Diary, January 1832, Library- Archives, Historical Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Church Archives), Salt … Continue reading In an entry in one of the records books from Kirtland, Joseph wrote:

               March 8th 1832,

Chose this day and ordained brother Jesse Gause and Broth[er] Sidney [Rigdon] to be my councellers [sic] of the ministry of the presidency of th[e] high Pri[e]sthood.^[5]Kirtland Revelations Book, MS, pp. 10-11, Church Archives. See: Quinn, p. 489.

Both men were simply called “counselors” to the Church president, but President Gause may have had the precedence of being first counselor: Joseph Smith listed him first when recording the organization of the First Presidency, and Jesse Gause was also nearly ten years older than Sidney Rigdon at a time in the Church when seniority was determined on the basis of age.^[6]Joseph Fielding Smith, Essentials in Church History , Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co. , 1973, p. 153. Historian D. Michael Quinn writes, “Before I realized that Jesse Gause was … Continue reading

Why was Jesse Gause, a relatively new member to the faith, chosen as a counselor in the Presidency of the Church?

I do not know, but historian D. Michael Quinn gives us a clue as to why this may have been the case. Quinn writes:

An obvious question about Gause’s appointment is why Joseph Smith chose as counselor a man who had been a member of the Church only a few months, maybe even weeks, when the Prophet could have advanced to that position other men who had been associated with the Church from its beginning. The answer seems to lie in the revelation concerning the United Order that Joseph Smith also received in March 1832, just before he chose counselors and formed a presidency:

For verily I say unto you, the time has come, and is now at hand;  and behold, and lo, it must needs be that there be an organization of my people, in regulating and establishing the affairs of the storehouse  for the poor of my people, both in this place and in the land of Zion. (D&C 78:3)

Jesse Gause had three years’ experience with the communitarian Shaker families in Massachusetts and Ohio, and another twenty-three years’ experience with the close-knit Quakers. To Joseph Smith, he must have appeared ideally suited as a counselor to assist in the organization and direction of the Mormon efforts in living the ideals of the revelatory law of consecration and stewardship.

President Gause actively functioned as a counselor in the First Presidency during the spring and summer of 1832. Joseph Smith’s history records that the Prophet took Jesse Gause with him from Kirtland to Missouri to fulfill the revelation that Joseph establish the United Order among the Saints in Zion. The presence of Jesse Gause and Sidney Rigdon in the meetings in Missouri for this purpose in April-May 1832 was significant, because both had previously been members of religious groups that practiced economic communitarianism. In addition to helping the Prophet establish the United Order in Missouri, Jesse Gause was one of the eight high priests at the Missouri conference of 26 April 1832 who sustained Joseph Smith in his position as President of the High Priesthood.^[7]Quinn, Jesse Gause: Joseph Smith’s Little-Known Counselor, p. 490.

The Presidency of the High Priesthood – D&C 81.2

To hold the “Presidency of the High Priesthood” is to preside over the high priests or to preside over all who hold the priesthood, be it Aaronic or Melchizedek. “The Presidency of the High Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, have a right to officiate in all the offices of the church” (D&C 107:9). They “form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church” (D&C 107:22). Groups that have broken from the Church, claiming keys of a greater nature than those conferred on the Prophet or keys conferred to them through secret ordinations, are at odds with these revelations.^[8]McConkie and Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration, p. 574.

Joseph Fielding Smith clarified that the relationship between the “Presidency of the High Priesthood” and the presidency of the Church is as follows: “There is a difference between the office of President of the Church and President of the High Priesthood; however, these two offices cannot be separated and must be held by the same person duly appointed and sustained by proper vote. As President of the Church the presiding officer presides over all the membership of the Church. As President of the High Priesthood he presides over all the Priesthood of the Church and has authority to regulate it, for he holds the keys of that Priesthood. . . . The President of the Church holds the supreme authority. . . . He, it is, who holds the right of decision and the right of revelation for the Priesthood and for the Church.” ^[9]Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:311-12.

Frederick G. Williams

Frederick G. Williams, born 1787, was 45 years old at the time when we was chosen as the replacement for Jesse Gause, after his estrangement from the Saints in December 1832. According to Black:

Frederick was serving as a justice of the peace in Kirtland when he met the missionaries sent to the Lamanites. Rebecca readily received their message of the gospel and the Book of Mormon. Before Frederick was converted he carefully weighed the truthfulness of their preaching by comparing the Book of Mormon with the teachings of the Bible. In October 1830 he was baptized, confirmed, and ordained an elder. As the missionaries contemplated continuing their journey to the western frontier, they invited their new convert to join them. Frederick was acquainted with the frontier and his insights proved helpful on the journey. After a ten-month absence he returned to his family in Kirtland…

In May 1834 Frederick deeded his farm to the Prophet and joined Zion’s Camp with the hope of redeeming Zion. He served as paymaster of the camp until the men were discharged. Upon returning to Kirtland he continued to faithfully demonstrate his love of the gospel and the latter-day work. Perhaps because of his unwavering faith he was privileged to witness an angel enter the Kirtland Temple on the day of dedication. He testified that the angel sat “between Father Smith and himself, and remained there during the prayer.” He further testified that “the Savior, dressed in his vesture without seam, came into the stand and accepted of the dedication of the house, that he saw him, and gave a description of his clothing and all things pertaining to it.”^[10]George A. Smith reports this event in Journal of Discourses, 11:10.

Unfortunately Frederick did not maintain his attitude of devotion. Detailed accounts of his fall are sparse and confusing.^[11]For examples of how these historical narratives swirled around for years, see Nancy Cox, “Some sources say that Frederick G. Williams of the original First Presidency had apostatized when Joseph … Continue reading

On 29 May 1837 a Church court was held and five members of the high council expressed their grievances over his actions and those of four others and requested an investigation of their conduct: “We, the undersigned, feeling ourselves aggrieved with the conduct of… Frederick G. Williams… believing that (his) course for some time past has been injurious to the Church of God… We should have an investigation of (his) behavior, believing it to be unworthy of (his) high calling.”^[12]Black, Who’s Who, p. 347. See also Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B. H. Roberts, 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of … Continue reading According to Black, the council did not reach a conclusion of these charges.

He was excommunicated on March 17, 1839, and was restored to the fellowship of the Saints at Commerce, Illinois, in April 1840.^[13]The Joseph Smith Papers. I am going with this date as it corresponds to The Joseph Smith Papers. I am aware of the discrepancy contained in Black’s brief biography of him where she quotes HC 3:55, … Continue reading

D&C 81.3 Faithful in Counsel

Elder Rolfe Kerr related the following:

I was a relatively young and recent appointee to a major administrative position at Utah State University. I had great admiration for the university president with whom I served. I was very anxious to please him. On major issues I would anticipate the position that he was most likely to take and make my comments accordingly in our deliberations. I began to notice that he didn’t ask for my opinion very often. Then an issue arose where the president and all the other members of the president’s council were united in how best to solve that particular problem at hand. I felt strongly that their position was wrong, and I mustered the courage to express my contrary view. A sudden and very awkward silence fell over the room. The president said, “Well, this apparently deserves more thought before we make the decision.” I left the meeting only to have the president follow me to my office, closing the door behind him after he entered. You can imagine what I thought was coming. He said, “Rolfe, you may have noticed recently that I have not asked for your opinion very often. You typically have accurately thought out what my position is most likely to be on the issues before us, and then you have taken that position. Not until today has your opinion been of real value to me. I know what I think on issues. What I need in the decision-making process is to know the contrary opinion. Only then can we make knowledgeable and well-reasoned decisions. Thank you.” My position on that issue eventually was adopted and is still in place as policy at Utah State University now 30 years later.^[14]W. Rolfe Kerr, “On the Lord’s Errand,” CES Satellite Training Broadcast, August 2005, 5.

D&C 82

In obedience to the Lord’s command to “sit in council with the saints which are in Zion” (D&C 78:9), the Prophet Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Newel K. Whitney, and Jesse Gause arrived in Jackson County, Missouri, 24 April 1832. The purpose of this visit was to establish a branch of the United Firm in Missouri according to the Lord’s command (see commentary on D&C 78:3-4). At this time Joseph met with the brethren in a council of high priests. After the Prophet “Joseph Smith [was] acknowledged by the High Priests in the land of Zion to be President of the High Priesthood.”^[15]Cannon and Cook, Far West Record, 44. Sidney Rigdon read the commandment of God to organize the United Firm in both Ohio and Missouri. The Prophet recorded that “during the intermission, a difficulty or hardness which had existed between Bishop Partridge and Elder Rigdon, was amicably settled, and when we came together in the afternoon, all hearts seemed to rejoice and I received the following.”^[16]McConkie and Ostler, p. 577. See also: Smith, History of the Church, 1:267.

The Rift Between Partridge and Rigdon

Historian Matthew Godfrey^[17]Matthew Godfrey, as of the publishing of this podcast, is the general editor and the managing historian of the Joseph Smith Papers Project. Previous to this Godfrey worked as a historical consultant … Continue readingrelates the following in regard to the rift between Partridge and Rigdon:

In the fall of 1831, Sidney Rigdon charged Edward Partridge with “insult[ing] the Lord’s prophet in particular & assum[ing] authority over him in open violation of the Laws of God.”^[18]Matthew Godfrey, “Seeking after Monarchal Power and Authority”: Joseph Smith and Leadership in the Church of Christ, 1831–1832, Mormon Historical Studies 13, nos 1-2 (Spring-Fall 2012), p. … Continue reading After Rigdon made his accusations, a conference held in January 1832 in Jackson County, designated by its participants as a “General Conference . . . in the land of Zion,” considered the charges. According to minutes of the conference taken by Oliver Cowdery, participating elders recounted that Rigdon had proffered “certain charges against the said Bishop . . . detrimental to his character and standing as a Bishop in the church of Christ.” However, because Rigdon was not in Missouri, the conference determined it had “no legal right to proceed to a trial” of Partridge in Rigdon’s absence. Instead, the conference recommended the composition of “a friendly humiliating letter” to Rigdon, “advising that this difficulty be settled and thereby the wound in the Church be healed.”^[19]Godfrey, p. 23. See also: Oliver Cowdery to Joseph Smith, January 28, 1832, Joseph Smith Collection, CHL. 49.

When Sidney Rigdon read the minutes of this meeting, he prepared a statement of charges of misconduct against the conference, stating that its proceedings were “not according to the laws and regulations which we have received by revelation.” Co-signed by Jesse Gause, David Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., Hyrum Smith, and Reynolds Cahoon, the statement did not address the conference’s handling of the Partridge matter, but charged other abuses of power.^[20]The statement specifically complained about the conference appointing Oliver Cowdery, William W. Phelps, and John Corrill as a committee to superintend schools in Zion, as well as designating that … Continue reading Rigdon and the other signatories originally requested that Joseph Smith, as president of the high priesthood, hold a court in Zion to consider removing the minutes from the Church records—another assertion of Smith’s authority over those in Missouri.^[21]Sidney Rigdon, Jesse Gause, David Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., Hyrum Smith, and Reynolds Cahoon, Charges against Missouri Conference, ca. March 1832, General Ecclesiastical Court Trials, 1832–1963, … Continue reading There is no record of Smith ever holding such a court, but the minutes of the conference, as recorded in 1838 in what became known as the Far West Record, were a much more condensed version than those kept by Cowdery at the time of the meeting, indicating that some action was taken.^[22]Godfrey, p. 35. See: Compare Minute Book 2, January 23, 1832, with Cowdery to Smith, January 28, 1832. In March 1832, another conference in Missouri met to compose the aforementioned letter to Sidney Rigdon. Admitting that the charges Rigdon had made against Edward Partridge were “partially correct,” the conference emphasized Partridge’s repentant spirit, relating that he had said that “if Br. Joseph has not forgiven him he hopes he will, as he is & has always been sorry.” According to the conference minutes, Partridge and Rigdon had, at some point, met and reconciled themselves, but Rigdon, refusing to let the matter drop, continued to accuse Partridge of improprieties. The conference therefore requested that Rigdon “candidly reflect upon” the accusations he had made “and ask himself whether he was not actuated by his own hasty feelings rather than the Spirit of Christ when indicting” Partridge. Indeed, “the duty of a disciple of Christ is to promote union harmony & brotherly love,” the conference continued, “& not at any time imprudently prefer charges & demand confession & settlement of the same in the absence of a br[other].”^[23]Ibid., see: Minute Book 2, March 10, 1832.

Although this conference placed the blame for the conflict on the shoulders of Sidney Rigdon, events in the spring of 1832 indicated that Joseph Smith did not necessarily agree with that action. In March 1832, after Rigdon had jointly experienced with Smith a vision of “the economy of God and his vast creation throug[h]out all eternity,” which became known simply as “the Vision,”^[24]Ibid., see: Vision, February 16, 1832 [D&C 76], in JSP, R1, 415. Smith ordained Rigdon, together with Jesse Gause, as his “councillers of the ministry of the presidency of th[e] high Pri[e]sthood,” indicating his approval of Rigdon.^[25]Ibid., see: Journal Entry, March 8, 1832, in JSP, R1, 433–35. A March 1832 revelation also clarified the need for Smith, Rigdon, and Newel K. Whitney, who had been appointed a bishop in Ohio in December 1831,^[26]Ibid., see: Revelation, December 4, 1831 [D&C 72], JSP, R1, 237; Hyrum Smith, Diary, February 10, 1831, photocopy in Manuscript Series, CHL. to regulate the Church in Missouri. “Sit in council with the saints who are in Zion,” the revelation declared. “Otherwise Satan seeketh to turn there hearts away from th[e] truth that they become blinded and understand not the things which are prepared for them.”^[27]Ibid., see: Revelation, March 1, 1832 [D&C 78], in JSP, R1, 444–45.

Because of this revelation, Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Newel K. Whitney, and Jesse Gause traveled to Missouri in April 1832 to meet with Church members residing in Jackson County. Not only did they hope to counsel with the leaders there, they also hoped to resolve the dispute between Rigdon and Partridge, thus restoring unity among the leaders. At a conference held in Independence on April 26–27, 1832, according to a later history of Joseph Smith, the differences between Partridge and Rigdon were “amicably settled.”^[28]Ibid., see: Joseph Smith 1838 Manuscript History, vol. A–1, 210. According to the minutes of the meeting, “all differences settled & the hearts of all run together in love.” Such unity was emphasized at the conference by the high priests in attendance who acknowledged Smith as the president of the high priesthood, and by Partridge, who extended the right hand of fellowship to Smith on behalf of the Church in Zion.^[29]Ibid., see: Minute Book 2, April 26, 1832. This act, which was a practice of some Protestant churches at this time, was patterned after Galatians 2:9, which states that James, Cephas, and John gave to Paul and Barnabas “the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.” Some denominations extended it “when men were set apart to the pastoral office, to give them a public pledge of Christian and ministerial fellowship.” Partridge seemed to extend the hand for a similar purpose here.^[30]Ibid., see: Rev. Brown Emerson, “Right Hand of Fellowship,” in Lyman Beecher, The Design, Rights, and Duties of Local Churches: A Sermon Delivered at the Installations of the Rev. Elias … Continue reading A later history recounted that Joseph Smith regarded the event “as solemn, impressive, and delightful.”^[31]Joseph Smith 1838 Manuscript History, vol. A–1, 210.

Essentially the rift between Partridge and Rigdon may possibly be seen as a power struggle over ideas and feelings. Who was to be in charge of the Church? The Gathering to Missouri? Partridge, who was in Missouri at the time, had strong feelings as to how the gathering should take place and who should be the first peoples to come to Zion. In his group of Saints that had these feelings were W.W. Phelps and John Corrill. Joseph Smith and many Saints in Ohio had feelings that essentially disagreed with many things Partridge asserted, specifically how the gathering should take place and who should be in charge of the arrangement. As historian Matthew Godfrey states:

The difficulties between those in Missouri and those in Ohio indicated that a sort of power struggle was occurring between the two groups over the administration of the gathering to Zion and the respective roles of Joseph Smith, Edward Partridge, and others in that governance. If Smith or the elders wanted to send people to Zion but Partridge did not think they could be accommodated, Partridge was accused of a lack of faith and of attempting to undermine the Prophet’s authority. Conversely, when Smith reprimanded Partridge or others, he was perceived as acting in a dictatorial way. This led John Corrill and Ezra Booth to accuse the Mormon leader of being unduly despotic in his actions as the head of the Church, but other leaders in Ohio, such as Sidney Rigdon, supported the Prophet in the difficulties, believing that Partridge and others were not giving enough respect to the Prophet’s position.^[32]Ibid., p. 29. Godfrey continues: For his part, Smith denied any tendencies towards despotism, claiming that such charges were “absolutely false” originating in the father of all lies.” He … Continue reading

Another reason there became strong feelings against Joseph Smith in the Spring of 1832 may be traced to how many of these converts felt religion should work. Many of these early Saints had a view that in their newfound faith, there should exist a more equal and democratic approach to leadership. Once again from Godfrey:

Still another reason for the conflict was that many of the leaders with whom Smith had difficulties were individuals who had come from religions with a more democratic form of leadership, where authority was not centered in one individual. Reformed Baptists, Methodists, and other denominations all put more emphasis on the governing power of congregations and conferences, and individuals converting from those religions to Mormonism probably had similar expectations of leadership.^[33]Ibid., p. 29.

Why Understanding these Historical Issues Affect Our Understanding of D&C 82

Seeing how these early brethren related with each other, and knowing that there were struggles between those in Ohio and some of the brethren in Missouri help give context to many of the passages in D&C 82. For example, in D&C 82.2 it says, “Refrain from sin, lest sore judgments fall upon your heads.” As one gospel teacher wrote:

The Spirit of the Lord cannot dwell in unclean tabernacles. “He that repents not,” the Lord declared, “from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man” (D&C 1:33). Those that sin will always reap as they have sown. So it was that the Saints in Zion were warned that if they did not repent the Lord would visit them according to their works with “sore affliction, with pestilence, with plague, with sword, with vengeance, with devouring fire” (D&C 97:26).

A critical spirit that embraced evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed became common, as evidenced by the following letter written by the Prophet to W. W. Phelps after his return to Ohio. “We received a letter from brother John Carl [Corrill] by the hand of Broth[er] [Sidney] Gilbert after we arrived home from Indiana who arrived here before us, but what did it contain . . . we learned by Broth[er] John’s letter that the devil had set to work to reward us by stirring up your hearts (I mean those who were engaged in this wickedness) by raking every fault, which those eyes that are filled with beams could see in looking for motes in the eyes of those who are laboring with tender and prayerful hearts continually for their salvation.”^[34]McConkie and Ostler, p. 578. See also Dean Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 245.

With Greater Light Comes Greater Opportunity for Condemnation – D&C 82.3

Elder Bruce R. McConkie said, “Members of the Church are sometimes guilty of the same sins that afflict fallen man generally. When they are, their condemnation is greater than it otherwise would be because of their greater light and knowledge. In addition, many acts become sinful for the saints that would not be so considered had they not taken upon themselves the obligations of the gospel.”^[35]Bruce R. McConkie, New Witness to the Articles of Faith, p. 225. Concerning those who sin against greater light, we read in the Book of Mormon, “Thus we can plainly discern, that after a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God, and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened, and thus their state becomes worse than though they had never known these things” (Alma 24:30).

The Adversary Spreadeth Dominions, and Darkness Reigneth – D&C 82.5-7

Reading these verses in their historical context can be helpful to see that this section is dealing with more than just the general idea of sin. By accusing each other, these early brethren were essentially helping to set up many of the circumstances that would come together in the 1838 Mormon War that would cause the Saints to be expelled from the state and reap great suffering and loss of life. If they would have been unified in love, so much of the pain, property loss, and apostasy of the 1838 conflict would have been averted.

Several Names Mentioned in D&C 82.11

McConkie and Ostler explain D&C 82.11 as it unfolded in its historical context:

The next day the council of brethren to whom this revelation was given reconvened and determined that the names of the branches of the United Firm in Ohio and Missouri would be “Gilbert, Whitney & Company in Zion. And Newel K. Whitney & Company in Kirtland Geauga Co. Ohio.”^[36]McConkie and Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration, p. 580-581. See also: Cannon and Cook, Far West Record, 45.

Beginning with the first printing of this revelation in 1835, the names of the individuals in this verse were not published. Their identities were veiled by the use of unusual names in place of their own. Elder Orson Pratt explained, “The names that were incorporated when it was printed, did not exist there when the manuscript revelations were given, for I saw them myself. Some of them I copied. And when the Lord was about to have the Book of Covenants given to the world, it was thought wisdom, in consequence of the persecutions of our enemies in Kirtland and some of the regions around, that some of the names should be changed” (Journal of Discourses, 16:156). Editions of the Doctrine and Covenants prior to 1981 gave the following names in place of those of the brethren: Alam (Edward Partridge); Ahashdah (Newel K. Whitney); Mahalaleel (Sidney Gilbert); Pelagoram (Sidney Rigdon); Gazelam (Joseph Smith); Horah (John Whitmer); Olihah (Oliver Cowdery); Shalemmanasseh (W. W. Phelps); Mahemson (Martin Harris).^[37]Ibid., p. 580-581.

Stakes to Zion… her borders must be enlarged – D&C 82.13-14

This is the first designation of a stake to Zion in the Restoration. “In prophetic imagery,” explained Elder McConkie, “Zion is pictured as a great tent upheld by cords fastened securely to stakes. Thus Isaiah, envisioning the latter-day glory of Israel, gathered to her restored Zion, proclaimed: ‘Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes; For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left. . . . For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.’ (Isa. 54:2-7.) And of the millennial Zion, Isaiah exulted: ‘Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnities: . . . a tabernacle that shall not be taken down; not one of the stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither shall any of the cords thereof be broken.’ (Isa. 33:20.)

“In keeping with this symbolism, the great areas of church population and strength, which sustain and uphold the restored Zion, are called stakes. They are the rallying points and the gathering centers for the remnants of scattered Israel.”^[38]Ibid., p. 581. See also: Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 764.

Isaiah’s words were “awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city” (Isaiah 52:1). In a later revelation the Lord explained that Isaiah “had reference to those whom God should call in the last days, who should hold the power of priesthood to bring again Zion, and the redemption of Israel; and to put on her strength is to put on the authority of the priesthood, which she, Zion, has a right to by lineage; also to return to that power which she had lost” (D&C 113:8). For the borders of Zion to be enlarged is to have the kingdom of God extend beyond its current boundaries.^[39]Ibid., p. 581.

D&C 82.22 The Mammon of Unrighteousness

D&C 82.22 reads as follows: “And now, verily I say unto you, and this is wisdom, make yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you.”

This text reads very similarly to Luke 16.9 which reads as follows: “And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.”

The Greek we will examine from this verse is κἀγὼ ὑμῖν λέγω ποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖς φίλους ἐκ τοῦ μαμωνᾶ τῆς ἀδικίας… which says, “And I say to you, “Go and make yourselves friends out of the mammon of the unjust.”^[40]I find the rest of this Greek sentence provocative: … Continue reading ἀδικία is a word that essentially means injustice. The Jews lived in a time when injustice prevailed, especially to those crushed under the weight of the Roman empire and all that entailed. The other word that needs attention is the word μαμωνᾶ, a word that can mean treasure, riches, or something that can be trusted in. Thayer gives the following help:

μαμωνᾶς [Strong’s G3126](G L T Tr WH), incorrectly Μαμμωνᾶς (Rec. (in Matt.)), μαμωνᾷ (Buttmann, 20 (18); Winer’s Grammar, § 8, 1), ὁ, mammon (Chaldean מָאמונָא, to be derived, apparently, from אָמַן; hence, what is trusted in (cf. Buxtof, Lex. chald. talmud. et rabbin. col. 1217f (especially Fischer edition, p. 613f); according to Gesenius (Thesaurus i., 552) contracted from מַטְמון, treasure (Genesis 43:23); cf. B. D., under the word; Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, 2:269]), riches: Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13 (where it is personified and opposed to God; cf. Philippians 3:19); Luke 16:9, 11. [lucrum punice mammon dicitur, Augustine (de serm. Dom. in monte, 1. ii. c. xiv. (sec. 47)]; the Septuagint translated the Hebrew אֱמוּנָה in Isaiah 33:6 as θησαυροί, and in Psalm 36:3 (Ps. 37:3) πλοῦτος.]^[41]See: Joseph Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Hendrickson Publishers, 2019, p. 388.

From this verse in Luke, I would put forth that Jesus is telling his followers to associate and work with the Roman world in which they lived. That they were to work to have discourse not only with the outside world, but to work with the corrupt leaders of the temple, that some discourse would be better than none. I am getting this from the overall context of Luke 16, where the steward is able to procure at least something from the debtors of the master, rather than obtaining nothing. It seems from the context of this passage that Jesus is commending the steward for his effort, even though he didn’t obtain all that was owed (see Luke 16.1-12).

D&C 83 Women and Children

Historical Background

After traveling from Ohio to Independence, Missouri, in April 1832, Joseph Smith and his companions remained in Missouri for two weeks, conducting Church business and “sitting in council with the Saints,” according to the commandment they had received in Doctrine and Covenants 78:9. Joseph arrived in Independence on 24 April. He held conference on 26 April, and, after reconciling some hard feelings between the Missouri and Ohio brethren, received Doctrine and Covenants 82. The conference continued on 27 April, and Joseph noted that the Saints in Missouri “were settling among a ferocious set of mobbers, like lambs among wolves.”^[42]Garrett and Robinson, Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants, Volume 3, Deseret Book, 2000. See also: Smith, History of the Church, 1:269.

Joseph then visited the Colesville Saints in Kaw Township, west of Independence, on 28 and 29 April and returned to Independence the following day for meetings of the literary firm and the newly organized united order (united firm). At this meeting of the literary firm, it was agreed to print only three thousand copies of the Book of Commandments rather than the ten thousand originally planned.^[43]Cannon and Cook, Far West Record, 46. A subsequent meeting of the united order appointed Sidney Gilbert and Newel K. Whitney as agents for the two branches of that order in Missouri and Ohio, respectively. It was also agreed that the united order should take out a loan for fifteen thousand dollars, probably for startup costs for the bishops’ storehouses.^[44]Garrett and Robinson. See also: Smith, History of the Church, 1:270; Cannon and Cook, Far West Record, 47–48.

Sometime on 30 April 1832 (perhaps in connection with the meeting of the literary firm or united firm, although their minutes do not mention it), Joseph received Doctrine and Covenants 83. He recorded the event as follows: “On the 30th [of April], I returned to Independence, and again sat in council with the brethren, and received the following: [D&C 83].”^[45]Ibid. See also: Smith, History of the Church, 1:269.

Women have claim on their husbands – D&C 83.2

The primary responsibility for the support of married women in the Church lies not with the Church but with their husbands. In the context of the law of consecration, faithful wives have the right to claim support from their husbands as part of their covenant relationship. This was a very liberal idea in frontier America in the nineteenth century. President Ezra Taft Benson declared: “This is the divine right of a wife and mother. She cares for and nourishes her children at home. Her husband earns the living for the family, which makes this nourishing possible. With that claim on their husbands for their financial support, the counsel of the Church has always been for mothers to spend their full time in the home in rearing and caring for their children.”^[46]Ibid. See also Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 547.

Certainly there are exceptions to this policy in practice. Not every female Church member has a husband; not every married sister has a worthy husband; some sisters have husbands who are disabled or otherwise unable to work. Financial realities may be different from the ideal, and in such cases adjustments can be made in righteousness. Nonetheless, the general policy remains, and it applies to the vast majority of cases: the husband bears primary responsibility for the support of his wife and family as long as he lives (see 1 Timothy 5:8).^[47]Ibid.

The responsibility for each person’s social, emotional, spiritual, physical, or economic well-being rests first upon himself, second upon his family, and third upon the Church if he is a faithful member thereof. No true Latter-day Saint, while physically or emotionally able, will voluntarily shift the burden of his own or his family’s well-being to someone else. So long as he can, under the inspiration of the Lord and with his own labors, he will supply himself and his family with the spiritual and temporal necessities of life.^[48]Spencer W. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 366, emphasis added.

Widows and Orphans – D&C 83.6

According to President Joseph F. Smith: “It is intended that the widows shall be looked after when they are in need, and that the fatherless and the orphans shall be provided for from the funds of the Church; that they shall be clothed and fed, and shall have opportunity for education, the same as other children who have parents to look after them. When a child is fatherless and motherless the Church becomes the parent of that child, and it is obligatory upon the Church to take care of it, and to see that it has opportunities equal with the other children in the Church. This is a great responsibility. Have we ever seen the day since the Church was organized when we could carry out this purpose of the Lord fully, and to our heart’s content? We have not, because we never have had the means to do it with. But if men will obey the laws of God so that there shall be abundance in the storehouse of the Lord, we will have wherewith to feed and clothe the poor and the orphan and to look after those who are in need in the Church.”^[49]Joseph F. Smith, in Conference Report, Oct. 1899, 39–40.

Yahweh is the God of widows and orphans, he is the “father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows” (Psalm 68.5). When the text says “judge” it is using the word dayan, דַיַּן (H1781) which is a defender or an advocate. Many Old Testament texts testify of Jehovah’s care for the widows and orphans (see Deuteronomy 10.18, 16.11, 24.17, 24.20, 26.12, 27.19, Psalm 146.9, Isaiah 1.17, 9.17, Jeremiah 7.6, Zechariah 7.10, Malachi 3.5).

He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment (Deuteronomy 10.18).

On leaving some for the poor after harvesting, the scripture records the following:

When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands (Deuteronomy 24.19).

The Lord is a God of the widows and fatherless throughout the Old Testament. He knows those that are cast out, as we read in Isaiah, “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem” (Isaiah 27.13). God knows the נִּדָּחִים naddayim, or the outcasts. The poor among Israel are known unto the Lord!

---