D&C 98-101 Quotes and Notes

D&C 98 August 6, 1833

The historical background, much of which provided here by Garrett and Robinson is worthy of note:

Although Joseph Smith wrote almost nothing about the reception of Doctrine and Covenants 98 in his History of the Church, that revelation was one of three Joseph included in a letter dated 6 August 1833 and addressed to “Beloved Brethren” in Zion.^[1]Smith, History of the Church, 1:403–6. The other two revelations contained in the 6 August letter were Doctrine and Covenants 94 and 97. In Joseph’s letter to the Missouri Saints, he mentions having received an earlier letter dated 9 July 1833 (now lost) from Oliver Cowdery who was in Missouri at that time. It is possible that Oliver’s letter to Joseph contained some information about anti-Mormon feeling on the rise in Jackson County or that Joseph had learned of such feelings by other means. However, no mob activity had taken place by the time of Oliver’s letter on 9 July, and the first indication of any organized opposition against the Saints in Jackson County is reflected in an “extra” edition of The Evening and the Morning Star dated 16 July, or one week after Oliver’s letter had already been sent to Kirtland. Prior to that date, editions of the Star make no mention of anti-Mormon feelings in Jackson County. It is improbable that any details of the mob activity^[2]As to the mob activity in July of 1833, Bishop Edward Partridge, who was the presiding authority in Jackson County at the time of the violence, gives us the following information: Some of [our … Continue reading of 20–23 July could have reached the Prophet in Kirtland by 6 August, the date on which he sent Doctrine and Covenants 94, 97, and 98 to Missouri, and he may have had no knowledge of the troubles there at all. The first detailed information concerning mob activity in Missouri did not reach Joseph in Kirtland until mid-August with the arrival of Oliver Cowdery^[3]Historian Richard Bushman writes, “On August 9, 1833, Oliver Cowdery arrived in Kirtland with bad news.  Jackson County citizens were demanding that the Mormons leave, and, under pressure, the … Continue reading as a special messenger from the Missouri Saints.^[4]See Painesville Telegraph, 16 Aug. 1833.

In fact, it runs somewhat counter to the evidence to assume that Doctrine and Covenants 98 was intended primarily for the Missouri Saints. Neither Zion nor Missouri is specifically mentioned in this revelation, but the church at Kirtland is so mentioned (see v. 19). The use of the second person plural throughout this revelation, with the exception of verses 19–21, which mention the Kirtland church in third person, indicates that it was directed through Joseph and his associates to the whole Church with a specific warning to Kirtland, in much the same way as Doctrine and Covenants 97 was directed through Joseph to the whole Church with specific instructions and a specific warning to Missouri. While it is true that the mention of “afflictions” and “enemies” would fit the situation in Missouri in the summer and fall of 1833, it would also fit the situation in Kirtland since at least the fall of 1831. The principles, promises, and wisdom of Doctrine and Covenants 97 and 98 would prove invaluable to the entire Church in all the days to follow 6 August 1833.^[5]H. Dean Garrett and Stephen E. Robinson, A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants, volume 3, Deseret Book, 2010, emphasis added.

These sections speak of the importance of the Constitution of the United States, and emphasize that it is for the “protection of all flesh” (see D&C 101.77-80), mentioning that “it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another” (D&C 101.79). Slavery was certainly a hot topic in Missouri in 1833, for many reasons.

The question of slavery in 1833 and the position of those leading the church in Missouri (it must be remembered that in July 1833 when the mobbing starts Joseph Smith is in Ohio, 900 miles away) can be confusing. From the introduction to volume 3 of the History of the Church, we are provided with some background information:

The question of slavery in Missouri was a delicate one. It will perhaps be remembered that it was the application of the territory of Missouri for admission into the Union, 1818-19, that brought the question of slavery into one of its acute stages before the country; and inaugurated a long series of debates in the National Congress on the subject. It was upon the admission of Missouri into the Union in 1821 that the great Compromise which bears the state’s name settled, not the question of slavery itself, but, for the time, the agitation of it.

That Compromise consisted finally in this: that while Missouri herself was admitted with a clause in her constitution permitting slavery, and also prohibiting free people of color from immigrating into the state, slavery was forever to be prohibited in all territory of the United States north of the line thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude (the southern boundary line of the state of Missouri); and Missouri was required “by a solemn, public act” of her legislature, to declare that the clause in her constitution relating to the immigration of free negroes into the state, should never be construed to authorize the passage of any law by which any citizen of either of the states in this Union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities to which he is entitled under the Constitution of the United States.

These historical facts are referred to here that the reader may be reminded that slavery was a delicate question in Missouri; that her people were super-sensitive about it since she was the first territory upon which the National Congress sought to impose the prohibition of slavery as a condition precedent to her admission into the Union, which, up to that time, had been a matter left to the people of the territory seeking admission to determine for themselves. Of course this attempt at restriction of slavery was made by northern members of the national Congress.  All the sentiment for the restriction of slavery was in the North. In 1831 the sentiment for the positive abolition of slavery had made such progress in Massachusetts, that William Lloyd Garrison established in Boston “The Liberator,” a paper which advocated “the immediate and unconditional emancipation of every slave in the United States.” As a result of this agitation anti-slavery societies were formed and active measures taken to advocate these opinions by means of lectures and pamphlets. These extreme measures against slavery did not meet with the approval of all or even the majority of the people of New England, much less with the approval of the people of other northern states. Still this agitation arose and was chiefly supported in New England. It will not be difficult to understand, therefore, that any considerable number of people from that section of the Union immigrating into a slave state would arouse suspicion; especially when that immigration was into a slave state upon which, when as a territory she had made application for admission into the Union, prohibition of slavery was sought to be enforced by the northern members of the National Congress. Nor will it be sufficient to dispel this suspicion to aver that these particular immigrants from New England, and other northern states are not abolitionists; that they take no part with, and do not share the fanatical sentiments of, the abolitionists; that their objects and purposes are of an entirely different and larger character.

The answer to all this was given in a public document drawn up to voice the sentiment of a great mass meeting of the people of Clay county—a people, be it remembered, who at the time (1836) were not unfriendly towards the Saints, but a people who a few years before had received the Saints into their homes, and given them shelter when they were exiles from Jackson county, and who, at the time of the utterance I am about to quote was published, were in a covenant of peace with the Saints, and the Saints in a covenant of peace with them—I say the answer to all disclaimers on the part of the Saints respecting their not being abolitionists was found in this public utterance: “They are eastern men, whose manners, habits, customs and even dialect are essentially different from our own. They are non-slaveholders, and opposed to slavery, which in this peculiar period, when abolitionism has reared its deformed and haggard visage in our land, is well calculated to excite deep and abiding prejudices in any community where slavery is tolerated and protected.”

I call attention to these facts that the student of the history of the Church may appreciate the weight of influence they would have in creating popular sentiment against the Saints; a matter which hitherto, if I may be permitted to say so, has not been fully appreciated. One can readily see what a potent factor this sentiment against New England and other northern states people would be in the hands of political demagogues and sectarian priests seeking to exterminate what they would respectively consider an undesirable element in politics and a religious rival. That both political demagogues and sectarian priests made the most of the opportunity which hostile sentiment in Missouri against abolition and abolitionists afforded, abundantly appears in the pages of the first volume of the Church History. That sentiment was appealed to from the first; indeed in the very first manifesto of the mob—known as “The Secret Constitution,” —issued against the Saints in Missouri, it was a prominent feature. This was at Independence, in July, 1833. In that “Manifesto” the following passage occurs: “More than a year since, it was ascertained that they [the Saints] had been tampering with our slaves, and endeavoring to sow dissensions and raise seditions amongst them. Of this their Mormon leaders were informed, and they said they would deal with any of their members who should again in like case offend. But how specious are appearances. In a late number of the Star, published in Independence by the leaders of the sect, there is an article inviting free negroes and mulattoes from other states to become Mormons, and remove and settle among us. This exhibits them in still more odious colors. It manifests a desire on the part of their society, to inflict on our society an injury that they know would be to us entirely insupportable, and one of the surest means of driving us from the country; for it would require none of the supernatural gifts that they pretend to, to see that the introduction of such a caste amongst us would corrupt our blacks, and instigate them to bloodshed.”

The article on “Free People of Color” referred to appeared in the Evening and Morning Star for July. The charge of sowing dissensions and inspiring seditions among the slaves, and inviting free negroes to settle in Missouri, had no foundation in truth. Concerning such people the Missouri laws provided that: If any negro or mulatto came into the state of Missouri, without a certificate from a court of record in some one of the United States, evidencing that he was a citizen of such state, on complaint before any justice of the peace, such negro or mulatto could be commanded by the justice to leave the state; and if the colored person so ordered did not leave the state within thirty days, on complaint of any citizen, such person could be again brought before the justice who might commit him to the common jail of the county, until the convening of the circuit court, when it became the duty of the judge of the circuit court to inquire into the cause of commitment; and if it was found that the negro or mulatto had remained in the state contrary to the provisions of this statute, the court was authorized to sentence such person to receive ten lashes on his or her bare back, and then order him or her to depart from the state; if the person so treated should still refuse to go, then the same proceedings were to be repeated and punishment inflicted as often as was necessary until such person departed.

And further: If any person brought into the state of Missouri a free negro or mulatto, without the aforesaid certificate of citizenship, for every such negro or mulatto the person offending was liable to a forfeit of five hundred dollars; to be recovered by action of debt in the name of the state.

The editor of the Star commenting upon this law said: “Slaves are real estate in this and other states, and wisdom would dictate great care among the branches of the Church of Christ on this subject. So long as we have no special rule in the Church as to people of color, let prudence guide; and while they, as well as we, are in the hands of a merciful God, we say: shun every appearance of evil.”

Publishing this law and the above comment was construed by the old settlers to be an invitation to free people of color to settle in Jackson county! Whereupon an extra was published to the July number of the Star on the sixteenth of the month, which said: “The intention in publishing the article, “Free People of Color,” was not only to stop free people of color from immigrating to Missouri, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the Church. * * * * * To be short, we are opposed to having free people of color admitted into the State.” 

But in the face of all this the Missourians still claimed that the article was merely published to give directions and cautions to be observed by “colored brethren,” to enable them upon their arrival in Missouri, to “claim and exercise the rights of citizenship.” “Contemporaneous with the appearance of this article”—the above article in the Star—continued the charge published in the Western Monitor—”was the expectation among the brethren, that a considerable number of this degraded caste were only waiting this information before they should set out on their journey.”  And this base falsehood was used to inflame the minds of the old settlers against the Saints.

I do not refer to this question of slavery in connection with the persecution of the Saints in Missouri in order to set it down as one of the causes of that persecution; because, as a matter of fact, the views of the Saints, and especially of the leading Elders of the Church on that question were such that they could never be truthfully charged with being a menace to that institution. The Prophet Joseph himself, at the time of the Jackson county troubles and subsequently, held very conservative views on the subject of slavery, surprisingly conservative views when his own temperament and environment are taken into account, of which fact any one may convince himself by reading his paper on the subject of abolition in Volume II of the Church History, pages 436-40.

Finally, it was given by the inspiration of God to the Prophet first to utter the most statesman-like word upon this vexed question of slavery, and had the nation and people of the United States but given heed to his recommendations it would have settled the question in harmony with the convictions of the people of the North, and without injustice to the South. Here follows his statesman-like word, published throughout the United States in 1844—eleven years before Ralph Waldo Emerson made substantially the same recommendation, and for which the philosopher received no end of praise:—

“Petition, also, ye goodly inhabitants of the slave states, your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now, and save the abolitionist from reproach and ruin, and infamy and shame. Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of the public lands, and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire him to labor like other human beings; for an hour of virtuous liberty is worth a whole eternity of bondage.” 

But now to return to the course of the Missourians in misrepresenting the views of the Saints on the subject of slavery. Notwithstanding the explicit denials through the “Evening and Morning Star,” that the article on “Free People of Color” was intended to invite such a class into the state; and the further declaration that the Saints were opposed to such persons coming into the state; as also the fact that it is doubtful if there were any free negroes who were members of the Church—notwithstanding all this, their enemies continued to misrepresent them, and their views on the subject of slavery. They saw in the fact that many of them were from New England, where abolition sentiment was rife, their opportunity to charge them with abolition sentiments and intention to interfere with slavery, with every prospect of having it quite generally believed—hence the charge was made and became a pretext if not a cause of acts of aggression upon the Saints, and as such is a factor that must be taken account of in these pages.^[6]See: History of the Church, Vol. 3, xxii-xxvii.

The Constitution

Speaking of the Constitution of the United States of American, President Ezra Taft Benson taught:

How this document accomplished all of this merits our further consideration.

The Constitution consists of seven separate articles. The first three establish the three branches of our government—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. The fourth article describes matters pertaining to states, most significantly the guarantee of a republican form of government to every state of the Union. Article 5 defines the amendment procedure of the document, a deliberately difficult process that should be clearly understood by every citizen. Article 6 covers several miscellaneous items, including a definition of the supreme law of the land, namely, the Constitution itself. Article 7, the last, explains how the Constitution is to be ratified.

The major provisions of the Constitution are as follows:

First: Sovereignty lies in the people themselves. Every governmental system has a sovereign, one or several who possess all the executive, legislative, and judicial powers. That sovereign may be an individual, a group, or the people themselves…

Second: To safeguard these rights, the Founding Fathers provided for the separation of powers among the three branches of government-the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Each was to be independent of the other, yet each was to work in a unified relationship. As the great constitutionalist President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., noted:

“It is this union of independence and dependence of these branches—legislative, executive and judicial—and of the governmental functions possessed by each of them, that constitutes the marvelous genius of this unrivalled document. … It was here that the divine inspiration came. It was truly a miracle.”

The use of checks and balances was deliberately designed, first, to make it difficult for a minority of the people to control the government, and, second, to place restraint on the government itself.

Third: The powers the people granted to the three branches of government were specifically limited. The Founding Fathers well understood human nature and its tendency to exercise unrighteous dominion when given authority. A Constitution was therefore designed to limit government to certain enumerated functions, beyond which was tyranny.

Fourth: Our Constitutional government is based on the principle of representation. The principle of representation means that we have delegated to an elected official the power to represent us. The Constitution provides for both direct representation and indirect representation. Both forms of representation provide a tempering influence on pure democracy. The intent was to protect the individual’s and the minority’s rights to life, liberty, and the fruits of their labors-property. These rights were not to be subject to majority vote.

Fifth: The Constitution was designed to work with only a moral and righteous people. “Our constitution,” said John Adams (first vice-president and second president of the United States), “was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”^[7]As quoted by John R. Howe, Jr., The Changing Political Thought of John Adams (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1966), p. 185.

This, then, is the ingenious and inspired document created by these good and wise men for the benefit and blessing of future generations.

It is now two hundred years since the Constitution was written. Have we been wise beneficiaries of the gift entrusted to us? Have we valued and protected the principles laid down by this great document?

At this bicentennial celebration we must, with sadness, say that we have not been wise in keeping the trust of our Founding Fathers. For the past two centuries, those who do not prize freedom have chipped away at our Constitution until today we face a crisis of great dimensions. We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said:

“Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction.”^[8]19 July 1840, as recorded by Martha Jane Knowlton Coray, MS, Historical Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Will we be prepared? Will we be among those who will “bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction?” If we desire to be numbered among those who will, here are some things we must do:

1. We must be righteous and moral. We must live the gospel principles—all of them. We have no right to expect a higher degree of morality from those who represent us than what we ourselves exhibit. To live a higher law means we will not seek to receive what we have not earned by our own labor. It means we will remember that government owes us nothing. It means we will keep the laws of the land. It means we will look to God as our Lawgiver and the Source of our liberty.
2. We must learn the principles of the Constitution and then abide by its precepts. Have we read the Constitution and pondered it? Are we aware of its principles? Could we defend it? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound?

I quote Abraham Lincoln:

“Let [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling-books, and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation.”^[9]Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. John G. Nicolay and John Hay, 12 vols. (New York: Francis D. Tandy Co., 1905), 1:43.

3. We must become involved in civic affairs. As citizens of this republic, we cannot do our duty and be idle spectators. It is vital that we follow this counsel from the Lord: “Honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.” (D&C 98:10.)^[10]Ezra Taft Benson, “The Constitution-A Glorious Standard,” Ensign, Sept. 1987, 9-10.

Rights and Responsibilities – A Balanced Approach

In this podcast, Bryce talked about the importance of balancing rights with responsibilities. He referenced a quote by William Faulkner:

Years ago our fathers founded this country, this nation, on the premise of the rights of man. As they expressed it, “the inalienable right of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In those days, they knew what those words meant, not only the ones who expressed them, but the ones who heard and believed and accepted and subscribed to them. Because until that time, men did not always have those rights. At least, until that time, no nation had ever been founded on the idea that those rights were possible, let alone inalienable.

So not only the ones who said the words, but the ones who merely heard them, knew what they meant…because we didn’t have these things. And, since we didn’t have them, we knew their worth. We knew that they were worth suffering and enduring and, if necessary, even dying to gain and preserve. We were willing to accept even the risk of death for them, since even if we lost them ourselves in relinquishing life to preserve them, we would still be able to bequeath them intact and inalienable to our children. Which is exactly what we did, in those old days. We left our homes, the land and graves of our fathers and all familiar things. We voluntarily gave up, turned our backs on, a security which we already had and which we could have continued to have, as long as we were willing to pay the price for it, which price was our freedom and liberty of thought and independence of action, and the right of responsibility. That is, by remaining in the old world, we could have been not only secure, but even free of the need to be responsible. Instead, we chose the freedom, the liberty, the independence and the inalienable right to responsibility; almost without charts, in frail wooden ships with nothing but sails and our desire and will to be free to move them, we crossed an ocean which did not even match the charts we did have; we conquered a wilderness in order to establish a place, not to be secure in because we did not want that, we had just repudiated that, just crossed three thousand miles of dark and unknown sea to get away from that; but a place to be free in, to be independent in, to be responsible in. And we did it. Even while we were still battling the wilderness with one hand, with the other we fended and beat off the power which would have followed us even into the wilderness we had conquered, to compel and hold us to the old way. But we did it. We founded a land, and founded in it not just our right to be free and independent and responsible, but the inalienable duty of man to be free and independent and responsible.

That’s what I am talking about: responsibility. Not just the right, but the duty of man to be responsible, the necessity of man to be responsible if he wishes to remain free; not just responsible to and for his fellow man, but to himself; the duty of a man, the individual, each individual, every individual, to be responsible for the consequences of his own acts, to pay his own score, owing nothing to any man. We knew it once, had it once. Because why? Because we wanted it above all else, we fought for it, endured, suffered, died when necessary, but gained it, established it, to endure for us and then to be bequeathed to our children. Only, something happened to us…A new generation came along, a new era, a new age, a new century. The times were easier; the life and future of our nation as a nation no longer hung in balance; another generation, and we no longer had enemies…But we still remembered responsibility, even though, with easier times, we didn’t need to keep the responsibility quite so active, or at least not so constantly so. Besides, it was not only our heritage, it was too recent yet for us to forget it, the graves were still green of them who had bequeathed it to us, and even of them who had died in order that it might be bequeathed. So we still remembered it, even if a good deal of the remembering was just lip-service. Then more generations; we covered at last the whole face of the western earth…we were the whole world’s golden envy; never had the amazed sun itself seen such a land of opportunity, in which all a man needed were two legs to move to a new place on, and two hands to grasp and hold with, in order to amass to himself enough material substance to last him the rest of his days…And still he paid lip-service to the old words “freedom” and “liberty” and “independence.” …[But] somewhere, at some moment, something had happened to him, to us, to all the descendants of the old tough, durable, uncompromising men…Somewhere, at some point, we…lost or forgot or voluntarily rid ourselves of that one other thing, lacking which, freedom and liberty and independence cannot even exist. That thing is the responsibility, not only the desire and the will to be responsible, but the remembrance from the old fathers of the need to be responsible. Either we lost it, forgot it, or we deliberately discarded it. Either we decided that freedom was not worth the responsibility of being free, or we forgot that, to be free, a man must assume and maintain and defend his right to be responsible for his freedom. Maybe we were even robbed of responsibility, since for years now the very air itself-radio, newspapers, pamphlets, tracts, the voices of politicians-has been loud with talk about the rights of man, not the duties and obligations and responsibilities of man, but only the “rights” of man; so loud and so constant that apparently we have come to… believe…that man has nothing else but rights.^[11]William Faulkner, Address to the Delta Council, Cleveland, Mississippi, 15 May 1952.

All things wherewith you have been afflicted shall work together for your good – D&C 98.3

We came to the earth to be tested. This does not occur so that God will know how to judge us, for his knowledge of all things—past, present, and future—is perfect, but so that we can gain the strength and faith that comes from the test. Chief among those things that will rise with us in the resurrection will be the wisdom and strength gained in affliction. Well might it be said that affliction is a master teacher. It was Paul who said, “Tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope” (Romans 5:3-4).^[12]Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and other Modern Revelations, Deseret Book, 2000 McConkie and Ostler, p. … Continue reading

Laws of the land – D&C 98.4-7

McConkie and Ostler wrote:

As Latter- day Saints, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Article of Faith 12). The “law” to which reference is made in this verse is that law established by the Constitution of the United States. The question may well be asked, What is the duty of a Latter- day Saint when the law of the land is in conflict with the law of God? To which we would respond: To have saving power, the authority and doctrines of the Church must stand independent of the laws of men; until that millennial day when Christ himself will rule and reign, there must be a strict separation of church and state. We need no other reminder of the importance of this principle than the rebellion of Lucifer in the councils of heaven when he sought to control the hearts and minds of all of the hosts of heaven by using the authority of the priesthood to force compliance with his designs and desires. The moment compulsion begins, true religion ends.^[13]Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and other Modern Revelations, Deseret Book, 2000, p. 708.

Concerning the association between the Church and the State, over the years I have had many students ask questions regarding their personal responsibility in times of division and crisis. What is a Latter-day Saint to do when they witness a conflict between their religious conviction and a law that they perceive as unjust or a violation of true principles? What about Latter-day Saints that live in countries that have oppressive regimes or laws that are contrary to the ideals of the Constitution?

Elder James E. Talmage had something to say about this. He stated:

“In the case of a conflict between the requirements made by the revealed word of God, and those imposed by the secular law, which of these authorities would the members of the Church be bound to obey? In answer, the words of Christ may be applied—it is the duty of the people to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. At the present time the kingdom of heaven as an earthly power, with a reigning King exercising direct and personal authority in temporal matters, has not been established upon the earth. The branches of the Church as such, and the members composing the same, are subjects of the several governments within whose separate realms the Church organizations exist. In this day of comparative enlightenment and freedom there is small cause for expecting any direct interference with the rights of private worship and individual devotion; in all civilized nations the people are accorded the right to pray, and this right is assured by what may be properly called a common law of humankind. No earnest soul is cut off from communion with his God; and with such an open channel of communication, relief from burdensome laws and redress for grievances may be sought from the power that holds control of nations.

“Pending the overruling by Providence in favor of religious liberty, it is the duty of the saints to submit themselves to the laws of their country.^[14]Elder Dallin H. Oaks has noted an exception to this. He said, “There are exceptions. The command of loyalty to laws and rulers does not compel a citizen to participate in or submit to a government … Continue reading Nevertheless, they should use every proper method, as citizens or subjects of their several governments, to secure for themselves and for all men the boon of freedom in religious service. It is not required of them to suffer without protest imposition by lawless persecutors, or through the operation of unjust laws; but their protests should be offered in legal and proper order. The saints have practically demonstrated their acceptance of the doctrine that it is better to suffer evil than to do wrong by purely human opposition to unjust authority. And if by thus submitting themselves to the laws of the land, in the event of such laws being unjust and subversive of human freedom, the people be prevented from doing the work appointed them of God, they are not to be held accountable for the failure to act under the higher law.”^[15]James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, eleventh edition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1919, p. 434-435.

Elder Talmage continues, giving Joseph Smith’s summary of the duties of man and government, in what is now Doctrine and Covenants 134.

While imprisoned at Liberty Jail, the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote: “The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner; it is to all those who are privileged with the sweets of liberty, like the cooling shades and refreshing waters of a great rock in a thirsty and weary land. It is like a great tree under whose branches men from every clime can be shielded from the burning rays of the sun.”^[16]Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 147.

I, the Lord God, make you free – D&C 98.8

Without freedom there can be no salvation. To compel choice is to deny choice. Agency, which is the power to act on choices that have been freely made, was the gift of God to each of his spirit children at the time of their spirit birth (Moses 4:3) and is the God-given right of every soul born into this world (2 Nephi 2:26-27). It can be set down as an eternal principle that that which enhances the freedom of choice comes from God and that which enslaves and limits the power of action comes from the prince of darkness.^[17]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 709-710.

When the wicked rule the people mourn – D&C 98.9

As a book cannot exceed the wisdom and spirit of its writer, so will the system of government given a particular people never rise above the character of those chosen to lead. This principal was emphasized by King Mosiah when he related that monarchy is a good form of government if the king is righteous: “Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you” (Mosiah 29:13). On the other hand, he also emphasized the power of a wicked king: “He enacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people, yea, laws after the manner of his own wickedness; and whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed; and whosoever doth rebel against him he will send his armies against them to war, and if he can he will destroy them; and thus an unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness” (Mosiah 29:23).

In an official statement of the First Presidency, issued January 1928, President Heber J. Grant and his counselors proclaimed: “Laws which are enacted for the protection of society have no value except when they are administered in righteousness and justice, and they cannot be so administrated if dishonest men occupy administrative offices.

“The Lord says: ‘When the wicked rule, the people mourn.’ Wise men, good men, patriotic men are to be found in all communities, in all political parties, among all creeds. None but such men should be chosen.

“Without beneficent laws, righteously administered, the foundations of civilization crumble, anarchy reigns, decay and dissolution follow.

“We call upon all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world to honor the laws of God, and obey and uphold the law of the land; and we appeal to good men and women everywhere, regardless of creed, party affiliation, race or condition, to join with us in an effort to put into operation the words of Lincoln, the great emancipator, that our country may continue to be a light to the world, a loyal, law-abiding, God- fearing Nation.” ^[18]Clark, Messages, 5:258.

Honest and wise men – D&C 98.10

Ezra Taft Benson taught:

Now that is a commandment to his Church and to his Saints. To me it means that we have a responsibility as Latter-day Saints to use our influence so honest men and wise men and good men will be elected to public office in the community, in the county, in the state, and in the nation, To me this commandment of God is just as binding upon the Latter-day Saints as is the law of tithing, or the Word of Wisdom, or any other commandment which the God of heaven has given us.^[19]Conference Report, October 1954.See also: Donald Q. Cannon, Latter-day Prophets and the United States Constitution, Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1991, p. 163-210.

Line upon line, precept upon precept… (to) try you and prove you – D&C 98.12

Another way of examining this verse is given as follows:

These phrases may be understood in two opposing senses, both of which are true. They are most often understood to mean that God will continue to reveal things to the faithful in an unceasing stream of revelations until finally they know the truth of all things. We know that this is true by such revelations as Doctrine and Covenants 42:61 or 76:7.

The other sense of “line upon line, precept upon precept” is that the Lord will give the faithful only a little bit of revelation at a time. Then he will wait and test the reaction of the Saints to what has been given. If they prove faithful, he will then add another little bit, another line or precept, then wait and test or try them again, and so on.

In verse 12, two things argue strongly for the second meaning in its original context. First, “line upon line, precept upon precept” would appear to be an allusion to Isaiah 28:9–13, where it is used for speech given bit by bit to stubborn children who are being drilled and tested. Second, the Lord explicitly states in the end of this verse his intention of testing and trying the Saints with the very lines and precepts he is revealing to them. So, in this instance, “line upon line, precept upon precept” means that the Lord will give his Saints a little bit of revelation and then test them. If they prove faithful, he will then give them a little bit more and test them again, and so on.^[20]Garrett and Robinson, volume 3.

Layeth down his life in my cause – D&C 98.13

This had also been the Savior’s assurance to his Saints in former days (see Matthew 10:39; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24). Now, sadly, for some of the Latter-day Saints living in Missouri, their own time of dying was about to begin.^[21]17 died at Haun’s Mill. See: Gospel Topics, Hawn’s Mill Massacre.

I speak to you concerning your families – D&C 98.23

Garrett and Robinson’s commentary is valuable:

The topic of verses 23–37 does not actually concern family interrelationships but, rather, discusses family defense. Since these verses are similar to verses 39–48, it should be noted that the English pronoun ye, used here frequently, is plural and is not found at all in verses 39–48. This would seem to indicate that the instructions in verses 23–37 are to be understood as directed primarily, though not exclusively, to families collectively or to heads of families collectively, while the instructions in verses 39–48 are directed specifically to individuals. Also this section deals with principles of retaliation, while the latter verses, though similar in structure, deal with principles of forgiveness.

Since the Saints are going to be afflicted by their enemies and persecuted contrary to the law, at what point are they justified in taking the law into their own hands and resorting to violence in retaliation against their enemies? The law of Moses in the Old Testament seemed to allow appropriate retaliation after being injured the first time (see Leviticus 24:19–20; Deuteronomy 19:20–21). Because the law of retaliation, the lex talionis, or “an eye for an eye” (Matthew 5:38), is both fair and biblical, it could be argued that it was a good standard for the Latter-day Saints. The Old Testament law of retribution, although strictly just, was part of the preparatory gospel given to ancient Israel, fulfilled with the resurrection of Christ, and was an inadequate law for living the gospel or establishing Zion in the latter days.

First time, second time, third time… these three testimonies – D&C 98.23-27

The three attacks, or afflictions, of one’s enemies stand as three witnesses under the law of witnesses that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established” (Matthew 18:16; see Deuteronomy 19:15). On the third occurrence, the evil intent of our adversary may be deemed a matter of record. The third time we are injured, his or her behavior cannot be misunderstood as a mistake, or a coincidence, or a misinterpretation. There is a clear pattern of aggression, and we are justified in assuming that this is so and in taking appropriate defensive measures. In such a case, even an ambush might be self-defense.^[22]Garrett and Robinson, volume 3.

Rules governing defense… this is the law I gave… (to) Nephi… and all mine ancient prophets – D&C 98.23-32

Those standing for the truth will always be countered by those who oppose it. In every age and dispensation the Saints have been called on to suffer for their faith (D&C 138:12-13). This revelation restores to us the revealed principles by which they were to govern their response to the actions of their enemies. Of the Nephites Mormon recorded: “Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power. . . . And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies. . . . Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion” (Alma 43:46-47).

Bryce mentioned the rules of war and the importance of having the right attitude, motives, and not being guilty of the first or second strike. You can listen to the podcast covering this here (episode 64), as well as read the notes covering much of what Bryce covered regarding these things here in the show notes section.

It was not intended that the Saints in Missouri allow their enemies to destroy them. They were to defend their lives against mob-armies that came against them. Like the Nephites, they were “to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives” (Alma 48:14).^[23]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 716.

Justified warfare – D&C 98.33-38

During World War II, President David O. McKay reminded the Saints that they were to renounce war and proclaim peace.

“There are, however, two conditions which may justify a truly Christian man to enter—mind you, I say enter, not begin— a war: (1) An attempt to dominate and to deprive another of his free agency, and, (2) Loyalty to his country. Possibly there is a third, viz., Defense of a weak nation that is being unjustly crushed by a strong, ruthless one.

“Paramount among these reasons, of course, is the defense of man’s freedom. An attempt to rob man of his free agency caused dissension even in heaven. Scriptures tell us: ‘Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him . . .’

“So fundamental in man’s eternal progress is his inherent right to choose, that the Lord would defend it even at the price of war. Without freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of action within lawful bounds, man cannot progress. . . .

“As a Church: ‘We believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to laws, and relief afforded’ (D&C 134:11).

“Even though we sense the hellish origin of war, even though we feel confident that war will never end war, yet under existing conditions we find ourselves as a body committed to combat this evil thing. With other loyal citizens we serve our country as bearers of arms, rather than to stand aloof to enjoy a freedom for which others have fought and died.”^[24]David O. McKay, Conference Report, April 1942, 72-73.

Children… (and) the children’s children… D&C 98.46-47

Children are responsible for their own transgressions and not the sins of their fathers.^[25]This does go against the text of Exodus 34 which states: …the Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. And … Continue reading

However, wounds from wrongs of previous generations may be passed from one generation to another. To heal these wounds, it is often necessary that the children acknowledge and make reparation for the wrongs of their parents. This principle is illustrated in the course followed by the Lamanites converted by the sons of Mosiah. Their king declared the necessity of reconciliation between his people and the Nephites after generations of hatred and wars. “We will go down unto our brethren,” he said, “and we will be their slaves until we repair unto them the many murders and sins which we have committed against them” (Alma 27:8).^[26]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 718.

While I agree with much of this sentiment, I see this as nuanced, and, through a close reading of the passages that deal with this topic, find conflicting statements, many of which can be explained through a critical analysis of the text, its origins, and the questions each text is trying to solve at the time it was written.^[27]For over two millennia, Jewish and Christian theologians have grappled with the biblical notion that God punishes children for the “sins of [their] parents” (Exod. 20:5). This doctrine, found in … Continue reading I would also add that it is not right that current generations pay for the wrongs of ancestors long dead. A Japanese child is no more responsible for the atrocities that were put upon the Chinese in the 20^th century any more than a German child for acts committed in the same century. Yet we live in a world where many choose to be victims of crimes committed long ago. If we go back far enough, most of us have had ancestors who were victimized, whether through slavery, war, or other injustices. For us, we must move forward with an eye of faith and anticipation of the future. I can choose today to be free of the past addictions and trials of my parents and their parents. I can choose freedom and happiness. This message of peace and hope is a must, especially in this world of cancel culture and victim card validation.

D&C 99 A revelation to John Murdock

Historical Background

Doctrine and Covenants 99 is a mission call given to one of the great men of the early Church, Elder John Murdock. Brother Murdock, like Lehi of old, was “a visionary man” (1 Nephi 2:11), joining the Church just seven months after its organization as the missionaries to the Lamanites preached in Kirtland on their way to Missouri. Between November 1830 and March 1831, Brother Murdock preached the gospel of the Restoration and baptized between sixty and seventy persons.^[28]Murdock, Journal, Church Archives, 1–2; Deseret News, 10 Feb. 1858, 384. A month later, on 30 April 1831, John’s beloved wife, Julia, died just six hours after giving birth to twins. On that same terrible night, Emma Smith also gave birth to twins. Emma lived, but her twins died. Being widowed and with five children to care for, John Murdock agreed to having Joseph and Emma adopt the two babies. This they gladly did, naming the girl Julia after her mother and the boy Joseph after his adoptive father. Julia lived to adulthood, but little Joseph died ten months later as a result of exposure during a mob attack directed at the Prophet on the John Johnson farm.

John Murdock was first mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants 52:8 when he received his first mission call to Missouri, just five weeks after the death of his wife. On his return to Kirtland from Missouri, he learned of the death of his young son, Joseph. Nevertheless, he accepted this additional mission call, recorded as Doctrine and Covenants 99, leaving a month later with Zebedee Coltrin on 27 September 1832, after providing for his children as advised in verse 6. In view of his steadfast obedience and faithfulness, it is not surprising that Elder Murdock’s private journal contains the following notation of a vision he received after a promise made to him by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the School of the Prophets the next spring: “I saw the form of a man [the Savior], most lovely, the visage of his face was sound and fair as the sun. His hair a bright silver grey, curled in most majestic form, His eyes a keen penetrating blue, and the skin of his neck a most beautiful white and he was covered from the neck to the feet with a loose garment, pure white, whiter than any garment I have ever before seen. His countenance was most penetrating, and yet most lovely.”^[29]John Murdock Journal, as cited in Black, Who’s Who in the Doctrine and Covenants, 202.Brother Murdock remarried and moved to Missouri in the summer of 1836. After serving faithfully on the mission mentioned in this revelation and on many others, including Zion’s Camp, and serving as a bishop of the Nauvoo fifth ward and later a stake presidency post, and a mission to Australia, Brother Murdock moved with the Church to the valleys of the West. Eventually, he was ordained a patriarch in 1854, giving patriarchal blessings for the next 13 years to many living in Utah County. While visiting his son John in Beaver County, he became ill and died on 23 December 1871, at the age of seventy-nine.^[30]Susan Easton Black, Who’s who in the Doctrine and Covenants, Deseret Book, 1997, p. 201-204. See also: Garrett and Robinson, volume 3.

Your children are provided for – D&C 99.6

John and Julia Clapp Murdock had five children together, including the twins she died giving birth to that Joseph and Emma Smith adopted in Ohio. With the twins in the care of Joseph and Emma, Brother Murdock arranged for his three older children to be taken to Missouri by Caleb Baldwin and arranged for their support there by Bishop Partridge until he could join them. “Previous to this I had provided for my children and sent them up to the Bishop in Zion according to the revelation by Br. Caleb Baldwin and paid him thirty dollars for carrying them and [other] things. And after making proper preparations according to the revelation I journeyed forth. Sept. 27, 1832. Br. Zebedee Coltrin and myself started on a mission.”^[31]Murdock, Journal, Church Archives, 25.

John Murdock was commanded to leave his three young motherless children in the care of Bishop Partridge. The children also sacrificed that their father might faithfully fulfill his mission. They were among those driven out of Jackson County by the Missouri mobs. When the Lord called for an army to march to Missouri to aid the Saints who had been driven from their homes and property (D&C 103:22, 29-30), John Murdock quickly volunteered, hoping to reunite with his children, whom he had not seen in more than a year. When those enlisted in Zion’s Camp were discharged, John wrote the following: “On the 30th [of June, 1834] word came to me that my daughter Phebe was sick nigh unto Death, of Cholera, and Bro. [Brother] A. [Algernon] S. [Sidney] Gilbert with whom she lived was dead. I immediately went and took care of her till July 6th when the Spirit left the body just at the break of day, being 6 years 3 months 27 days old” (Murdock, “Journal,” 25). She is worthy of the Lord’s promise: “Whoso layeth down his life in my cause, for my name’s sake, shall find it again, even life eternal” (D&C 98:13). The two older boys lived to adulthood and served faithfully in the Church. His youngest, John Jr., served as a stake president in Beaver, Utah. He was the last surviving member of the Church to have actually lived in Jackson County during the initial settlement of Zion.^[32]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 721.

D&C 100

Historical Background: The Mission to Canada Oct.-Nov. 1833

Garrett and Robinson give this background information:

Joseph Smith had first learned details concerning the mob activities in Missouri in mid-August 1833 and had almost immediately dispatched Brothers Orson Hyde and John Gould to Independence with advice and support for the Saints in Zion.^[33]Smith, History of the Church, 1:407. Then, about six weeks later, on 5 October 1833, Joseph and Sidney Rigdon, in company with Freeman Nickerson, who provided a team and transportation, began a month-long mission to upstate New York and Canada. By 12 October the missionaries had reached the home of Brother Nickerson in Perrysburg, New York, which had been an intermediate destination.

It cannot have been easy for the Prophet to have undertaken a mission at this particular time. He was concerned about the persecutions in Missouri and the fate of Zion. He was concerned for Elders Hyde and Gould whom he had sent there, and he was concerned for the safety of his own family in Kirtland, where there were many enemies. Joseph kept a private journal during much of his adult life, and on the day he arrived at the Nickerson home in Perrysburg, he wrote in it, “Saturday the 12th [October 1833 to] the house of father Nicke[r]son I feel very well in my mind the Lord is with us but have much anxiety about my family &c.”^[34]Jessee, Personal Writings, 18. Perhaps in response to these many anxieties weighing upon the heart of the Prophet, Joseph received that same day at the Nickerson home the consoling and comforting revelation now recorded as Doctrine and Covenants 100. The Prophet later wrote in his History of the Church, “On the 12th, arrived at Father Nickerson’s, at Perrysburg, New York, where I received the following revelation—Doctrine and Covenants 100.”^[35] Smith, History of the Church, 1:419–20.

An effectual door shall be opened – D&C 100.3

Even though Joseph and Sidney spent only one month on this particular mission, they preached to many large and receptive congregations, they were impressed that the Holy Spirit was planting seeds in many honest hearts, and they baptized at least eighteen individuals.^[36]Smith, History of the Church, 1:421–23. However, the real fruits of their labors would come two years later when Parley P. Pratt would return to the same area in Canada through the “effectual door” that had been opened by Joseph and Sidney. What they had sowed, Brother Pratt harvested, preaching to thousands and baptizing hundreds. Among those converts were John Taylor, a future president of the Church, and Mary Fielding, the mother of President Joseph F. Smith and grandmother of President Joseph Fielding Smith. The month-long mission of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon to New York and Canada indeed opened an “effectual door” through which passed hundreds of Saints and three future Church presidents.^[37]Garrett and Robinson, volume 3.

Zion shall be redeemed, although she is chastened for a little season – D&C 100.13

Though the early Saints of our day failed to redeem Zion, they yet retained the gospel with all its hopes and promises. Although we have grown in understanding and stability over the ensuing years, we still fall short of the faith and devotion necessary to lay claim to those promises. Thus we remain, as did ancient Israel, under a schoolmaster. We labor to find the faith to redeem families and wards. The day may come when we can redeem stakes and regions and thus gain rightful claim to the inheritance promised our great-grandfathers.^[38]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 727.

“Thus, on February 24, 1834, after the Saints had been scattered and driven from their lands in Jackson County, the Lord gave these words of comfort and counsel to his people: ‘I will give unto you a revelation and commandment . . . concerning the salvation and redemption of your brethren, who have been scattered on the land of Zion; being driven and smitten by the hands of mine enemies, on whom I will pour out my wrath without measure in mine own time.’ Those who persecute the Saints and oppose the cause in which they are engaged are the enemies of God. Whether their opposition is directed against the Lord or against his servants, it is the same. And when the great and dreadful day arrives and the Lord returns to take vengeance upon the ungodly, then his wrath will be poured out upon them without measure.”^[39]Bruce R. McConkie, New Witness to the Articles of Faith, p. 610-12.

“I cannot learn from any communication by the Spirit to me,” Joseph Smith said, “that Zion has forfeited her claim to a celestial crown, notwithstanding the Lord has caused her to be thus afflicted, except it may be some individuals, who have walked in disobedience, and forsaken the new covenant; all such will be made manifest by their works in due time. I have always expected that Zion would suffer some affliction, from what I could learn from the commandments which have been given. But I would remind you of a certain clause in one which says, that after much tribulation cometh the blessing. By this, and also others, and also one received of late, I know that Zion, in the due time of the Lord, will be redeemed; but how many will be the days of her purification, tribulation, and affliction, the Lord has kept hid from my eyes; and when I inquire concerning this subject, the voice of the Lord is: Be still, and know that I am God; all those who suffer for my name shall reign with me, and he that layeth down his life for my sake shall find it again.”^[40]Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 34.

Orson Hyde and John Gould – D&C 100.14

Soon after Oliver Cowdery arrived from Missouri in late August or early September with news of mob action in Independence, “arrangements were made to dispatch Elders Orson Hyde and John Gould to Jackson county, Missouri, with advice to the Saints in their unfortunate situation, through the late outrage of the mob.”^[41]Smith, History of the Church, 1:407. Joseph Smith must’ve been concerned for their safety while journeying to the heart of the territory where so many enemies lay. The Lord promises that they are in his hands while traveling in such a circumstance (D&C 100.14). After arriving, “Elders W. W. Phelps and Orson Hyde were dispatched to the Governor of Missouri, residing at Jefferson City, the capital of the state,” with a petition for aid from Governor Daniel Dunklin. ^[42]Smith, History of the Church, 1:410. Hyde and Gould did make it back to Ohio safe and sound on 25 November, and Elder Hyde brought the first accounts of the eviction of the Saints from Jackson County and of their wretched circumstances, deprived of essentially everything they owned and confronting the coming of winter in the unsettled and uncultivated wild lands north of the Missouri River.

D&C 101

Historical Background

In late August 1833, in response to the report of Oliver Cowdery who had just arrived in Kirtland from Missouri bearing news of the mob activities of 20–23 July, Joseph Smith dispatched Elders Orson Hyde and John Gould to Jackson County with advice for the Saints there. Joseph Smith advised the Missouri Saints to exhaust every legal appeal, including a petition to the governor of Missouri, Daniel Dunklin. The Missouri Saints did petition the governor, reviewing for him the breakdown of law and order in Jackson County and requesting “a sufficient number of troops, who, with us, may be empowered to defend our rights, that we may sue for damages for the loss of property . . . that the law of the land may not be defiled . . . but peace be restored.”^[43]Smith, History of the Church, 1:415. The governor’s response was one of bureaucratic evasion. He refused to send any troops; rather, he encouraged the Saints to apply to their local officials, many of whom were members of the mob, for justice: “I would advise you to make a trial of the efficacy of the laws. The judge of your circuit is a conservator of the peace. . . . [O]btain a warrant, let it be placed in the hands of the proper officer. . . . [T]he law is open to redress; I cannot permit myself to doubt that the courts will be open to you, nor [believe] that you will find difficulty in procuring legal advocates to sue for damages therein.”^[44]Smith, History of the Church, 1:424. Accordingly, on 30 October 1833, the Saints in Independence retained the firm of Wood, Reese, Doniphan and Atchison to pursue their case in the local courts. Within hours the mob was aware of this action and interpreted it as a repudiation by the Saints of their illegally coerced promise to leave Jackson County by January 1 and as a decision to remain and pursue their civil rights instead. The very next day—fittingly enough, Halloween, 31 October 1833—the infuriated mobbers descended again upon the Missouri Saints.

For the next two weeks, mobs attacked the Saints’ homes and farms between Independence and the Indian Territory and especially along the Big Blue River, west of Independence, virtually unhindered by any civil authority. On 5 November Lieutenant Governor Lilburn Boggs did call out a militia with the stated purpose of disarming both sides in the fighting, but since Colonel Thomas Pitcher and most of this militia favored the mob, the guns of only the Mormons were actually collected. This left the Saints defenseless and with no recourse but to flee for their lives from an armed enemy unopposed by any state or local authority. By mid-November twelve hundred Saints were scattered on the prairies or across the Missouri River in Clay, Van Buren, and other counties. More than two hundred homes were burned and an estimated $175,000 in damages inflicted upon the Missouri Saints. There were dead and wounded on both sides during the first days of the fighting, but more Saints died during the hard winter that followed when they huddled dispossessed in northern Missouri.^[45]Smith, History of the Church, 1:426–57; Backman, Heavens Resound, 167-69. Backman reports the following: Elder Hyde vividly described some of the tragic events that led to the … Continue reading

Joseph Smith and the Kirtland Saints received several incomplete accounts of the expulsion of the Saints from Jackson County between 25 November, when Elders Hyde and Gould returned to Kirtland, and 10 December, when the full story reached them from Bishop Partridge and the brethren in Clay County, Missouri. Joseph grieved, “Oh my brethren! my brethren. . . . [W]ould that I had been with you, to have shared your fate. Oh my God, what shall I do in such a trial as this!”4 During that time, many Kirtland Saints agonized over the unknown fates of friends and loved ones. Oliver Cowdery, for example, did not know whether his wife, Elizabeth, whom he had left behind in Jackson County, was dead or alive or to where she might have fled. In addition, those Saints who had fled Jackson County south to Van Buren County in November were driven out by the residents of that county again in December.^[46]Heavens Resound 167-169.

And yet, although he apparently had not expected so complete and so sudden a disaster, these things were not a total surprise to the Prophet Joseph because, collectively speaking, the Saints in Jackson County had not been obeying the commandments the Lord had given them. Many of the Saints in Missouri had gone there in violation of the strict commandments of God concerning consecration and stewardship.^[47]Dean Jessee, Personal Writings, 284. Many of the Missouri Saints were not keeping the special covenant of sacredness entered into when the land of Zion was dedicated in 1831. On 27 November 1832, a year before the expulsion, Joseph again warned the leaders in Zion that the principles of consecration were not being properly implemented there and that those Saints who had moved to Zion contrary to commandment and who were seeking an inheritance without consecration should not be enrolled on Church records there.^[48] Jessee, Personal Writings, 285; Smith, History of the Church, 1:298. On 11 January 1833, ten months before the expulsion, Joseph wrote again to W. W. Phelps, “[I]f Zion will not purify herself, so as to be approved of in all things, in His sight, He will seek another people . . . and they who will not hear His voice, must expect to feel His wrath. Let me say to you, seek to purify yourselves, and also all the inhabitants of Zion, lest the Lord’s anger be kindled to fierceness. Repent, repent, is the voice of God to Zion; . . . hear the warning voice of God, lest Zion fall, and the Lord sware in His wrath the inhabitants of Zion shall not enter into His rest. . . . This from your brother who trembles for Zion and for the wrath of heaven, which awaits her if she repent not.”^[49]Smith, History of the Church, 1:316, 317. See also: Dean Jessee, Personal Writings, 292–93. In addition, many individuals in Zion, including Church leaders, had to be reproved for their hard feelings and disobedience in the years before the expulsion.^[50]Smith, History of the Church, 1:316–21.

Finally, in August 1833, the Lord had warned Zion directly and specifically one more time: “But if she observe not to do whatsoever I have commanded her, I will visit her according to all her works, with sore affliction, with pestilence, with plague, with sword, with vengeance, and with devouring fire” (D&C 97:26). In a letter written on 10 December 1833, shortly after their expulsion from Zion, Joseph spoke to the Missouri Saints: “I have always expected that Zion would suffer some affliction, from what I could learn from the commandments which have been given. . . . [B]ut how many will be the days of her purification, tribulation, and affliction, the Lord has kept hid from my eyes. . . . Now, there are two things of which I am ignorant. . . . Why God has suffered so great a calamity to come upon Zion . . . and . . . by what means He will return her back to her inheritance.”^[51]Smith, History of the Church, 1:453, 454. Thus, while Joseph had been expecting some kind of affliction to befall Zion for its imperfections, the sudden and complete loss of all LDS holdings in Independence and Jackson County left Joseph and the Church desolated and with many unanswered questions about the future of Zion and the suffering of her people. On 16 December 1833, many of those questions were answered for the Prophet in a revelation received in Kirtland and now known as Doctrine and Covenants 101.^[52]Garrett and Robinson, volume 3. See also: Woodford, “Historical Development,” 2:1292. 

When I come to make up my jewels – D&C 101.3

Speaking of this theme, Margaret Barker has made some interesting connections. She wrote the following;

The angel guardians of the calendar explain the choice of precious stones. The foundations are adorned with jasper, sapphire, agate, emerald, onyx, carnelian, chrysolite, beryl, topaz, chrysoprase, jacinth and amethyst (21.19-20). A list of twelve precious stones immediately calls to mind the twelve stones set in the high priest’s breastplate, engraved with the names of the twelve tribes (Exod. 28.17-21, 39.10-14). The list in 21.19-20 is very similar to the LXX list of the high priest’s jewels; the names of eight of the stones are identical and the differences in the other four are probably due to the translator’s guesswork. The first renders the Hebrew nopek a red stone, which the LXX gives as anthrax, a dark red stone, and Revelation as chalkedon, a word not known elsewhere but clearly meaning chalcedony, which can be red. The second is Hebrew pitedah, a yellow stone which the LXX gives as topazion, topaz and Revelation as sardonux, a striped agate. The third is the Hebrew lesem, a word whose meaning is unknown which the LXX renders ligurion, another word of unknown meaning, and Revelation gives as chrusoprasos, possibly a green-gold stone. The fourth is the Hebrew sebo, a word of unknown meaning, which the LXX gives as achates, agate, and Revelation as huakinthos, a blue stone. Josephus, a priest, says that the twelve stones represented the twelve months, the twelve signs of the zodiac (Ant. 3.186), linking the twelve stones to Enoch’s twelve calendar angels. Tobit’s prayer spoke of this jewelled city:

Let Jerusalem be built with sapphires and emeralds

her walls with precious stones

and her towers and battlements with pure gold.

The streets of Jerusalem will be inlaid

with beryl and ruby and stones of Ophir. (Tobit 13.16-17)

The New Jerusalem Text describes the streets paved with white stone, marble and jasper, and the walls built of basmal, sapphire and ruby, with laths of gold (4Q554). The hasmal is the ‘bronze’ which Ezekiel saw in the midst of the fire of the chariot throne (Ezek. 1.4) and surrounding the fiery Man (Ezek. 1.27; 8.2). This is probably the wall of fire which Zechariah prophesied for Jerusalem: ‘I will be to her a wall of fire round about, says the LORD, and I will be the glory within her’ (Zech. 2.5).

Other texts confirm that the stones of the city were its people. Zechariah had spoken of the Day of the LORD, when he would save his flock and they would shine like jewels on his land (Zech. 9.16). The names of the apostles on the foundation stones (21.14) and the faithful priests as pillars (3.12) are but details of a wider picture. The community of saints were living stones built into a spiritual house (1 Pet. 2.5) whose foundation was the apostles and the prophets (Eph. 2.20-22). The Qumran Community described themselves in the same way: ‘May the LORD bless you … and set you as a splendid jewel in the midst of the congregation of the saints … may you be as an angel of the presence’ was the blessing for the sons of Zadok (IQSb IV). Ezekiel’s fallen high priest was expelled from Eden, the garden of God where he had ‘walked among the stones of fire’ (Ezek. 28.14). Isaiah’s jewelled city was interpreted as a description of the community: the sapphire foundations were the congregation of the elect and ‘the ruby pinnacles the twelve [high priests] who gave judgement by Urim and Thummim’. The jewelled gates were the chiefs of the tribes of Israel (4Q164). Most remarkable of all are the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, fragmented texts in which the holy of holies seems to be alive, literally a living temple. The pillars of the holy of holies sing praises (4Q403 I), the engraved tiles are the ‘elohim and holy angels of the innermost chamber (4Q405 19) and the doors and gates proclaim the glory of the King (4Q405 23).^[53]Margaret Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 2000, p. 324-325.

Tried even as Abraham – D&C 101.4

“Those who cannot endure persecution,” stated the Prophet Joseph Smith, “and stand in the day of affliction, cannot stand in the day when the Son of God shall burst the veil, and appear in all the glory of His Father, with all the holy angels.”^[54]Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 42.

Jarrings… contentions, and envyings, and strifes – D&C 101.6

George A. Smith said:

There were… at that period, professed Latter-day Saints, who did not see proper to abide by [the] law of consecration; they thought it was their privilege to look after “number one,” and some of them, believing that Zion was to become a very great city, and that being the Center Stake of it, they purchased tracts of land in the vicinity with the intention of keeping them until Zion became the beauty and joy of the whole earth, when they thought they could sell their lands and make themselves very rich. It was probably owing to this, in part, that the Lord suffered the enemies of Zion to rise against her.^[55]Journal of Discourses, 17:59.

Richard Bushman (historian) explains:

The revelation calling for gathering to Missouri used the word “enemies” to describe the current residents, and indeed they were becoming so. The Mormons spoke of the land being redeemed by its rightful inheritors. The Evening and Morning Star wrote matter-of-factly about “tak[ing] possession of this country.” Josiah Gregg, a merchant living in Independence, said the Mormons grew bolder in their predictions as their numbers increased. “At last they became so emboldened by impunity, as openly to boast of their determination to be the sole proprietors of the ‘Land of Zion.’ ” By summer 1833, the Saints held over 2,400 acres of land in and around Independence and threatened a complete takeover.”

Opposition burst into the open in July 1833. William Phelps published an article in the Evening and Morning Star about the legal requirements for bringing free Negroes into the state, and locals interpreted the description as an invitation. Phelps quickly disavowed any such intention, insisting he was actually warning future immigrants against importing free blacks, but the damage had been done. On July 15, the local citizens posted a manifesto, with a copy presented to the Saints. Signed by about three hundred residents, it called for a mass meeting on July 20.^[56]Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 222-223.

I believe that seeing both sides of the 1833 Jackson County conflict can be beneficial for Saints living in the 21st century. If we explain that both sides had faults, that both sides experienced miscommunication, we can better apply the lessons of this tragedy. This reminds me of the following experience where we read of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his helping an individual gain wisdom regarding seeing both sides of an issue. This story comes from Jesse W. Crosby (1820-1895), a friend of Joseph Smith while both of them lived in Nauvoo. Crosby would cross the plains and move to Utah, where he was buried in Panguitch in 1893.^[57]You can read Jesse Crosby’s obituary here.

I went one day to the Prophet with a sister. She had a charge to make against one of the brethren for scandal. When her complaint had been heard the Prophet asked her if she was quite sure that what the brother had said of her was utterly untrue. She was quite sure that it was. He then told her to think no more about it, for it could not harm her. If untrue it could not live, but the truth will survive. Still she felt that she should have some redress. Then he offered her his method of dealing with such cases for himself. When an enemy had told a scandalous story about him, which had often been done, before he rendered judgment he paused and let his mind run back to the time and place and setting of the story to see if he had not by some unguarded word or act laid the block on which the story was built. If he found that he had done so, he said that in his heart he then forgave his enemy, and felt thankful that he had received warning of a weakness that he had not known he possessed. Then he said to the sister that he would have her to do the same: search her memory thoroughly and see if she had not herself unconsciously laid the foundation for the scandal that annoyed her. The sister thought deeply for a few moments and then confessed that she believed that she had. Then the Prophet told her that in her heart she should forgive that brother who had risked his own good name and her friendship to give her this clearer view of herself. The sister thanked her advisor and went away in peace.^[58]Jesse W. Crosby, in Hyrum Andrus, They Knew the Prophet, 162-163.

Be still and know that I am God – D&C 101.16

Things will work out. Keep trying. Be believing. Be happy. Don’t get discouraged. Things will work out.^[59]“President Gordon B. Hinckley: Stalwart and Brave He Stands,” Ensign, June 1995, 12.

Zion and her stakes will be established – D&C 101.16-21

The place of Zion remains the same, and in some future day the Saints of the Almighty will possess it. Lands of inheritance are an everlasting possession and as such will be the rightful possession of the “pure in heart” in the eternal world… The kingdom of God has continued to grow and be organized throughout the earth. Wherever sufficient numbers of Saints have gathered together, geographical areas have been appointed as stakes of Zion, and presiding officers have been designated and set apart. ^[60]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 732-733.

Unlike Joseph and the Saints, God was not surprised by the loss of Jackson County. Neither did the immediate loss of Zion cause God to change his plans. Though he continually gives his Saints opportunities to succeed or fail, according to their faithfulness, his own plans and designs are never disappointed, for he knows the end from the beginning, and he is never surprised or caught unprepared. The loss of Zion was not a failure on God’s part, but the failure of his people to keep their covenants. The disappointed Saints must now take refuge in the knowledge that God is still in charge, that he has prepared all things from the beginning, and that his plans have not been thwarted—though the Saints have lost their opportunity for a season… Regardless of the short-term or intermediate events of history, or to where the body of the Saints may eventually be driven, the center stake of Zion is, was, and ever shall be, Independence, Missouri. Though her stakes may spread abroad and even fill the entire American continent, there is no other center place.^[61]Garrett and Robinson, volume 3.

I have other places – D&C 101.21

Arnold K. Garr^[62]Arnold K. Garr, “Growing with a Living Church,” Ensign, Oct. 1996. explained:

“Thousands of Saints started gathering to Missouri—site of the new geographic Zion. Within a few short years, however, they were driven from the state. Still, they maintained the hope that they would return sometime in the future and redeem, or reclaim, the latter-day Zion. Yet even before the Saints were expelled from Missouri, the Lord provided through the Prophet Joseph Smith an even broader vision of Zion. In 1832 the Prophet was told, ‘Zion must increase in beauty, and in holiness; her borders must be enlarged’ (D&C 82:14; emphasis added). Then in 1844, while the Saints were living in Illinois, the Prophet Joseph Smith boldly declared: ‘You know there has been great discussion in relation to Zion-where it is, and where the gathering of the dispensation is, and which I am now going to tell you. … The whole of America is Zion itself from north to south.'^[63]History of the Church, 6:318–19; emphasis in original.

“When the Prophet announced this remarkable view, it must have been stirring to the Saints. It foreshadowed the most expansive concept of Zion: many stakes spreading over the earth as multiple gathering places for faithful Church members. In 1833, during the time that the Saints were being expelled from Jackson County, Missouri, the Lord offered a glimpse of this broad vision of Zion. He revealed to the Prophet Joseph that the day would come when there would be ‘no more room’ for the Saints in Missouri; ‘and then I have other places which I will appoint unto them, and they shall be called stakes, for the curtains or the strength of Zion’ (D&C 101:21; emphasis added). In the dedicatory prayer on the Kirtland Temple in 1836, there was a plea that new converts to the Church ‘may come forth to Zion, or to her stakes’ (D&C 109:39; emphasis added). Two years later, another revelation taught that ‘the gathering together upon the land of Zion, and upon her stakes, may be for a defense, and for a refuge from the storm, and from wrath when it shall be poured out without mixture upon the whole earth’ (D&C 115:6; emphasis added).

“More recently, President Spencer W. Kimball underscored this important doctrine: ‘The First Presidency and the Twelve see great wisdom in the multiple Zions, many gathering places where the Saints within their own culture and nation can act as a leaven in the building of the kingdom.'^[64]Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 440.

“What, then, do we know relative to the future of Zion? Elder McConkie taught: ‘Let Israel gather to the stakes of Zion in all nations. Let every land be a Zion to those appointed to dwell there. … But still there is a center place, a place where the chief temple shall stand. … And that center place is what men now call Independence in Jackson County, Missouri.’ On another occasion he wrote: ‘The return to Jackson County will be by delegates, as it were. Those whose services are needed there will assemble as appointed. The rest of Israel will remain in their appointed places.'”^[65]The Millennial Messiah (1982), 294.

All flesh shall see me together – D&C 101.23

The language here is difficult but seems to mean the veil that shields the earth from the full glory of the resurrected body of Christ (his temple) within the universe he has created (his tabernacle) and which contains all things both human and divine—thus creating the need for a separating veil between them. As things now stand, there is a veil which separates and protects the realm of the human from the realm of the divine within the universe and presently shields the earth from the full glory of the resurrected Son of God. At his second coming that shield, or veil, shall be removed and all humanity, prepared or not, will be exposed to the full brightness of his glory (see D&C 88:95; Revelation 6:14; Acts 1:9–11). While God and his angels have often passed through the veil in their great redeeming work, on rare occasions and with great faith this protecting veil has also been approached and even pierced by faithful seers from the human side (see, for example, Ether 3:6, 19–20).^[66]Garrett and Robinson, volume 3.

The enmity of man, the enmity of beasts… the enmity of all flesh – D&C 101.26

From Bruce R. McConkie we read:

“Isaiah gives us these poetically phrased particulars about animal life during the Millennium. ‘The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,’ he says, ‘and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock.’ Implicit in this pronouncement is the fact that man and all forms of life will be vegetarians in the coming day; the eating of meat will cease, because, for one thing, death as we know it ceases. There will be no shedding of blood, because man and beast are changed (quickened) and blood no longer flows in their veins. ‘And dust shall be the serpent’s meat,’ meaning, as we suppose, that they shall no longer eat mice and vermin and animal life. ‘They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord’ (Isaiah 65:25). And further: ‘The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the suckling child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ [adders’] den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain’ (Isaiah 11:6-9).”^[67]Millennial Messiah, 658.

I like to read these verses as a symbol for the end of war among the nations. Large and powerful nations (the wolves) will stop devouring the smaller, weaker ones (the lambs). To me, it is not a matter of importance whether or not the diet of wolves and lions will change, rather, that mankind will learn to live peaceable one with another. I will leave the diet preferences of the animal kingdom to others more suited to answering these kinds of questions.

Satan shall not have power to tempt any man – D&C 101.28

Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

It will make a great difference when Satan will have his power taken away during that period, but the inhabitants of the earth will still have their agency. We are taught that during this thousand years, men will not be compelled to believe and that there will be many, at least in the beginning, who will belong to the Protestant and Catholic churches. The Lord will not take away from them their right to believe as they will. However, if they persist in their unbelief under the conditions which will prevail, they will be condemned. Before that period is over all will have received the truth. We read again from Isaiah: They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 11: 9.)^[68]Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. Deseret Book, 1957-1966, 5: 144.

Satan will be bound and deprived of power in several ways: (1) The righteous who remain upon the earth after the second coming of the Savior will not give him attention. (2) Satan will actually be bound by the authority of God so as to limit his ability to operate in our sphere. (3) The abyss will hold him, at least for some time. Examine Doctrine and Covenants 88:110–15 (Satan shall be bound) and 84:100 (Satan is bound) and compare them with Revelation 20:2–3 (Satan is cast into a bottomless pit by an angel, the text reads: καὶ ἔβαλεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον, “and he threw him into the abyss”); 1 Nephi 22:26 (Satan has no power due to the righteousness of the people of God). The ideas associated in these texts communicate a matrix of ideas that associate the binding of Satan to several things: heavenly powers, the correct use of the agency of man, and a place whereby Satan cannot (at least for a while) escape (the abyss ἄβυσσον).

The twinkling of an eye – D&C 101.31

During the Millennium there will be no death. Children will not die. Disease will be banished. This is part of the restoration. But that child, when it has reached a certain age, the age of a tree, a hundred years we read in Isaiah, will be changed like that. It will die when it is old. It will pass from the mortal to the immortal state, suddenly and so they will not need to make graves, and that is bringing us back again to that original condition just as near as we can. Of course, the Lord could not at that time do away with mortality. We have got to have mortals upon the earth. All during the Millennium we have got to have mortals here to do the work for those who have passed on because they cannot do the work for themselves in the Temple. All these ordinances pertain to the mortal life.^[69]Joseph Fielding Smith, Signs of the Times, Deseret Book, 1952, p. 37.

“In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord has revealed… important truths about the resurrection of mankind. First, those who live during the Millennium will not die as we know death now; they will be changed from mortality to immortality in the “twinkling of an eye.” (See: D&C 43:32; D&C 63:49–51; D&C 101:30–31.) This transformation is millennial or paradisiacal life followed by an instantaneous resurrection. They will not spend even a moment in a grave.”^[70]Robert J. Woodford, “The Remarkable Doctrine and Covenants,” Ensign, Jan. 1997.

McConkie and Ostler wrote:

Those changed “in the twinkling of an eye” will not remain on the earth. The Prophet Joseph Smith recorded: “Christ and the resurrected Saints will reign over the earth during the thousand years. They will not probably dwell upon the earth, but will visit it when they please, or when it is necessary to govern it.”^[71]Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 268. Some people will not be caught up after their death. Joseph taught, “There will be wicked men on the earth during the thousand years. The heathen nations who will not come up to worship will be visited with the judgments of God, and must eventually be destroyed from the earth.”^[72]Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 268-69. The wicked will not be caught up to a glorious rest. Isaiah prophesied that during the Millennium “there shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed” (Isaiah 65:20).^[73]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 735.

Millennial rewards – D&C 101.32-42

During the Millennium the mysteries of creation will be revealed. It is apparent from these verses that men will not know the answers to questions concerning creation before that time. In large measure such questions will answer themselves. When we live in a terrestrial or paradisiacal world— a world in which there is no death, aging, decay, or disease— we will, by mere observation, be able to deduce much relative to the true nature of creation. This will be a world much like that known to Adam and Eve before the Fall. Whereas our earth now abides a telestial law, millennial earth will abide a much higher order. It is possible that many scientific conclusions based on our telestial order will have no meaning or relevance there.

Until the day comes when “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (Isaiah 11:9), it would be wise for us to hearken to the counsel of Elder Harold B. Lee: “I appeal to you again as teachers, let’s use those three precious words that ought to be used more often by teachers of religion, ‘I don’t know.’ And we don’t know very much because the Lord has not told us. We have these speculations, these theories that if you want to have them in your mind as something to ponder, and something that you never can find a full answer to, go ahead and think about them, but label them for what they are, and do not teach them as facts until the Lord tells us about the details, which presently must be considered in the realm of theory.”^[74]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 736. See also: Teachings of Harold B. Lee, 456.

The Parable of the Nobleman and the Vineyard – D&C 101.43-62

In this parable the Lord is the nobleman and his vineyard is Zion, or Jackson County, Missouri. The servants are the Saints who have settled in Zion, and their settlements are the olive trees. Had they built the tower—or temple— as directed, it would have been a spiritual watchtower. From it Church leaders could have seen by revelation the movements of the enemy from afar and gained foreknowledge that would have saved Zion when the enemy attacked. But because the Saints had a spirit of discord, they were unable to build either the temple or Zion.

While the Saints in Missouri procrastinated, the enemy came and drove them from the land of their inheritance. The Lord rebuked the Saints but commanded one of his servants, Joseph Smith (v. 55; D&C 103:21), to gather the “strength of mine house” and rescue the lands and possessions of those driven from Jackson.

Two months later the Lord revealed further instruction concerning these verses. “Let my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., say unto the strength of my house, my young men and the middle aged— Gather yourselves together unto the land of Zion, upon the land which I have bought with money that has been consecrated unto me” (D&C 103:22). An assembly of brethren known as Zion’s Camp was instructed to try to obtain land in Missouri without using force. Zion’s Camp, if necessary, was to be the power of the priesthood.

The parable states that all things will be fulfilled “after many days” (v. 62), indicating that a long period of time will pass before the redemption of Zion. Though Zion was not redeemed at the time of Zion’s Camp, we may look for its redemption in the due time of the Lord (D&C 136:18).^[75]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 737-738.

The Command to continue gathering, but not in haste – D&C 101.63-75

During the few years immediately following this revelation, failure to abide the Lord’s counsel in these verses led to many Saints gathering far too quickly in Kirtland, Ohio. The large numbers gathering to Kirtland led to rising real estate prices as the demand for property increased. The possibility of becoming rich tempted the Saints with speculative land ventures. Covetousness entered the Church and infected members of even the presiding quorums with its debilitating spirit. A similar scenario occurred in northern Missouri, resulting in the Saints’ being sorely tried by opportunities to seek riches in real estate. John Whitmer and W. W. Phelps, members of the presidency of the Church at Far West, embezzled Church funds to purchase lands, hoping to make a profit selling the land to the gathering Saints. Their covetous desires took them out of the Church; both were excommunicated.^[76]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 738-739.

The Lord established the Constitution of the United States – D&C 101.76-80

Without freedom of religion, there is no salvation. The war in heaven raged over the principle of free choice (Moses 4:1-3). Governments that restrict their citizens’ freedom of choice do so under satanic influence. The Lord foreordained the establishment of a nation that granted freedom of religion in the latter days. He fired the heart of Columbus to set out to sea in a quest that brought knowledge of the ancient promised land to Europeans. He inspired men and women to seek religious liberty and planted in their breasts the desire to seek that freedom in the Americas. He sent to mortality choice spirits who craved freedom of conscience for all mankind so they could exert their influence in establishing laws guaranteeing freedom to all citizens. President Ezra Taft Benson explained: “Before the gospel could again shine forth its resplendent light, religious and political freedom first had to be restored. This land had been preserved as a continent apart from the religious oppression, tyranny, and intolerance of Europe. In time, emigrants came to the new land and established colonies. By and large, they were a God-fearing people. A war was fought for their independence, and by God’s intervention, victory was achieved. (See 1 Nephi 13:16-19.) By that same omnipotent power the Constitution was born (see D&C 101:80), which guaranteed religious and political liberty (see D&C 98:5-8). Only then was the time propitious for the kingdom of God—that ‘stone cut out without hands’ to be restored (see Daniel 2:34).”^[77]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 739. See also: Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 109.

The Saints are commanded to seek reparation for their damages – D&C 101.81-101

The Prophet Joseph Smith wrote to the Saints in Missouri: “It is better in the eyes of God that you should die, than that you should give up the land of Zion, the inheritances which you have purchased with your moneys; for every man that giveth not up his inheritance, though he should die, yet, when the Lord shall come, he shall stand upon it, and with Job, in his flesh he shall see God. Therefore, this is my counsel, that ye retain your lands, even unto the uttermost, and employ every lawful means to seek redress of your enemies; and pray to God, day and night, to return you in peace and in safety to the lands of your inheritance: and when the judge fail you, appeal unto the executive; and when the executive fail you, appeal unto the president; and when the president fail you, and all laws fail you, and the humanity of the people fail you, and all things else fail you but God alone, and you continue to weary Him with your importunings, as the poor woman did the unjust judge, He will not fail to execute judgment upon your enemies, and to avenge His own elect that cry unto Him day and night.”^[78]See Joseph Smith’s letter to Edward Partridge, 10 December, 1833, as found in The Joseph Smith Papers. See also: Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 35-36.

---