046 Consecration and the Beginning of Church Finances

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Scott Woodward (00:05):
In the last few years the finances of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintshave been in the media spotlight,
and not always in positive ways.
It's no secret that the Church today hasamassed an impressive financial reserve to
ensure the accomplishment of its purposes.
But it was not always so.
There have been some narrow straitsthrough which the church has had to pass

(00:28):
to get where it is financially today.
It's quite compelling history,actually, which is why we wanted to
dedicate a whole series to exploringthis fascinating and important topic.
In today's episode of Church HistoryMatters, Casey and I go back to
the beginning of church finances toexplore the undergirding principles
in the original revelations thathave gotten us to where we are today.

(00:51):
And among them all, there is oneparticular principle that looms larger
and is more responsible for the church'sfinancial success than any of the
others, and that is consecration, a lawshrouded with some degree of mystery
and confusion in the minds of some.
So in this episode, we want toat least begin dissecting what

(01:12):
this law is and what it isn't.
So thanks for joining us.
I'm Scott Woodward, a managing director atScripture Central, and my co-host is Casey
Griffiths, also a managing director atScripture Central, and today, Casey and I
dive into our first episode in this seriesabout consecration and church finance.
Now let's get into it.

Casey Paul Griffiths (01:35):
Hello, Scott.

Hi, Casey.
What's going on, my friend?

Not much, just general excitement
to talk about our subject.
We're starting a new series today.

Yeah.
You always seem pretty excited forwhatever we're going to talk about.
I get the sense that you're afan of church history, Casey.

And you as well, Scott, hence this podcast that we
invest so much time and effort into.
I don't think we'd be doing this if wedidn't think this stuff was kind of fun or
interesting or neat or anything like that.

I think we think it's neat, and we also think it's important.

Yeah.

So, yeah, this is fun.

But I'm up on a new level today because this is
something I've wanted to talk aboutsince we started doing the podcast.

Oh, a new level of excitement.

Casey Paul Griffiths: Oh, if that's possible. (02:18):
undefined
You know, I'm already super excited, but
. . . Scott Woodward: Yes.

What we're going to start our new series on—the tentative
title of the series is consecration andchurch finance, which I like to talk
about, and in my classes, you know—maybeit's because the university I teach at
has big accounting and finance programs,but they're excited to talk about it when
it comes up, and I think it's also—isit fair to say that church finance has

(02:48):
become kind of controversial in the lastfew years, that there's been a few things?

Yeah.
This has become kind of a hot topic.
You're hearing more and more aboutchurch finance, and I've noticed
more and more members of the churchhaving more and more questions about
this, and so I think this is timely.
I think this is a great time todo a series on church finance.
Absolutely.

Yeah.
And the reason why we titled itConsecration and Church Finance is
because it's really difficult tounderstand the current finances of
the church and the way the churchoperates without understanding the
history behind how the church developed.

Yeah.

The church was always a frontier church.
The church was always more than a “goto church on Sunday” kind of church.
They were involved in a lot of thingsand a lot of financial ventures.

Yeah.

And in order to understand why the church is so involved
in those things, we kind of have tounderstand the law of consecration
and how it's been practiced throughoutthe history of the church as well.

Yeah.
So it sounds like maybewe should start there.
Let's start with the Law ofConsecration, because that was the
very first financial commandmentever given to the church, correct?

Yeah, I mean, outside of general “remember the poor,
and look after them” kind of commandmentsfrom the Lord, which are found
through all the scriptures, you know?
That's one of the reasons why Christianityappeals to me is there's this thread
throughout the scriptures that theLord was always kind of looking out for
people that were on the fringes, peoplethat were struggling, the widows and

(04:17):
the fatherless in the Old Testament.
And since the church is very, very muchcentered around the Bible and early
church members are very involved in theBible, we would be surprised if they
didn't pick up on some of these threads.

Yeah.
So maybe we can call this the first reallyclear financial commandment to members
of the church, like, to live as a whole.

Yeah.

Specifically given to the church outside the general
principles of common Christiangoodness and helping out the poor.
But this is like, here's howwe raise money for church needs
and to take care of the poor.

That's fair to say.
That's fair to say.

But Casey, do we still live the law of consecration today?
I mean, is this even somethingthat members of the church today
need to be concerned about?
Because didn't that, like, goaway, like, a long time ago?
What's the deal with consecration?
Why is it relevant?

What's the deal with consecration?
Well, Scott, I suspect youknow the answer to that.
You're just
. . . Scott Woodward: Stirring the pot a little bit.
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths: Stirring the pot a little bit. (05:17):
undefined
And, yeah, I mean, when it comes to dowe still live the law of consecration,
I mean, the obvious thing to point outis that if a person goes to the temple
and goes through the endowment, oneof the five covenants a person commits
to live is the law of consecration.
And so it drives me crazy when peoplesay, “Well, we used to live the
law of consecration, but it was toohard, so the Lord gave us a lesser

(05:39):
law, but someday we'll live it.”Because another covenant we make in
the temple is the law of chastity.
What if somebody said, “We used to livethe law of chastity, but it was too
hard, so the Lord gave us a lesser law.
But someday, you know, we'll get there.
But it's just not realistic rightnow for us to do that.” I don't
think there's ever been a period inthe history of the church when we've
really backed off on consecration.

(06:01):
It's a thread that goes all the waythrough from the very early periods
of the Restoration right down tothe present, and like we said, it's
something that has to be understoodin order to understand church finance.

So the law of consecration isn't just something in our church
history, in the past, nor somethingto look forward to in the future maybe
when we can get our act together andJesus comes again, but this is something
that from the very beginning has beenthere, never gone away, we're still
commanded to live it, and we expect tocontinue to live it for forever, right?

Yeah.

But that confuses people, because we don't always—I mean, some
of the ways that church history storiesare told about how consecration worked,
like, doesn't look anything like whatwe do today, so how could this be true?
How could we still have tolive the law of consecration?
Are we going to talk about that?

I think so.
And part of the misunderstanding is weobviously don't live consecration the
way they did in the early Restoration,but we don't really do anything the
way they did in the early Restorationexcept read the scriptures and pray.
I mean, missionary workis totally different.
The temple ceremonies—when the endowmentwas originally introduced in Nauvoo it was

(07:15):
eight hours long, according to one source.
Now we've got it down to two.
And one thing to understand aboutthe way the church operates is
that practice is different thanthe principles that it's based on.
So how they lived consecration andthe early Restoration is not the same.
I mean, they didn't have printed money.
The government minted coins in the 1830s,but it didn't print actual dollar bills,

(07:39):
so obviously they're on a different kindof financial system than us, and so we
would expect that today we do thingsa little bit differently than they do.
So I would argue that the doctrinesand the principles of consecration
have never been rescinded.

Yeah.

The practice, though, has changed quite a bit.

Yeah.

And if you trace it through the entire history of the
Church, you could see that every era ofchurch history has had some iteration
of consecration, some more intensethan others, but it's something that
we've never entirely given up on.

Yeah.

The best way to think of consecration, instead
of thinking of the practice the waythat the saints practiced it in 1831,
is to think of it as this series ofdoctrines and principles that guide
what our actions are supposed to be.
But the way consecration was practicedin Kirtland in 1831 or in 1838 in
Missouri, or in the 1870s in Utah,doesn't necessarily represent the

(08:35):
way it's going to be practicedtoday, where we're a global church
operating with a whole differentsystem of finance, if that makes sense.

I think that's super important and helpful to point out, right?
It's—there's these undergirdingprinciples of consecration, undergirding
doctrine about consecration, thatare not going away, never gone away,
but the way that it looks, the forms,the systems, those have changed quite
a bit since Joseph Smith's day, andwe may continue to see them change.

Yeah.
And I expect there to be majorchanges in the future, moving
forward, because circumstances change.
And, I mean, the way that the churchoperates has always been kind of
nimble when it comes to embracingnew technology or new methodology.
We've kind of always embracedchange, and that's part of it, too.
This is a quote from Boyd K.
Packer I share in my classes.

(09:27):
He said, “Changes in organizationor procedures are a testimony
that revelation is ongoing.
The doctrines will remain fixed, eternal.
The organizations, programs,and procedures will be altered
by Him whose church this is.”So the doctrines remain fixed.

Organizations, programs, procedures, those are changeable.

Yeah, so so long, Boy Scouts, and here
comes our new youth program.

Yeah.

We would expect the same kind of dynamic approach to
the way the church does its financeswith the understanding that there are
some laws, principles, and doctrinesthat are fixed, that don't change.

Yeah.

But our understanding of those
can alter and evolve as well.
So let's dive into thehistory a little bit.
Like we said, Joseph Smith andthe early members of the church

(10:27):
are all familiar with the Bible.
They know that the Lord wants them totake care of the poor and look after the
needy, and “inasmuch as you've done itunto the least of these, my brethren,
you've done it unto me,” but the thingthat they're also searching for is kind
of a system, a systematized approachto this, a guideline way to do it.
And what kind of leads them downthis road towards wanting to

(10:48):
live in a consecrated manner?

Yeah.
I think we need to start way back in1830, same year the church is organized.
In the aftermath of the Lamanite missionin Ohio on their way to the Native
Americans out on the outskirts of theUnited States and across the border
there, they stopped in Kirtland, Ohio.
There was massive conversions there.
Maybe we need to do a whole series onjust the Lamanite mission or missionary

(11:11):
work in the church at some point,because there's so much history here,
but the upshot is there was this reallyimportant convert named Sidney Rigdon
that joins the church in Kirtland.
The church in Kirtlandbegins to swell and grow.
Meanwhile, Sidney wants to meet JosephSmith, and so he travels to New York,
meets Joseph Smith, and shortly afterthey meet Doctrine and Covenants 35

(11:32):
is given, where the Lord basicallyconnects Joseph and Sidney at the hip.
He tells Sidney, among other things,that he should become Joseph's scribe
for the Bible translation projectthat Joseph was then beginning, kind
of in the early stages of the JST.
And so Sidney Rigdon becomes his scribe,stays in New York with Joseph for a few
months, and shortly after they begin worktogether the Enoch revelation is given.

Ooh.
The Enoch revelation.
That sounds eitherinspirational or ominous.
I can't decide, but tell us a little bitabout the Enoch revelation, what that was.

The Enoch revelation.
Yes.
It's actually so significant andfoundational to the Restoration.
It doesn't get enough love, honestly.
It sets things in motion in sucha way as to really get us to where
we're at today in so many ways.
So the Enoch revelation's reallyMoses chapter 6 and 7 today in our
Pearl of Great Price, and it adds 116verses of detail to the Enoch story.

(12:30):
It's where we learn about the cityof Enoch, that he established a city
of holiness that was called Zion.
It's where we get the famous verse inchapter 7, verse 18, where the Lord called
his people Zion because of four markers.

Here they are (12:41):
number one, they were of one heart.
Number two, one mind.
Number three, they dwelt in righteousness.
Number four, there was no poor among them.
And those four cornerstones of the Zioncommunity are super significant, and they
become very impactful moving forward here.
The people of the city become sorighteous, we learn, that they

(13:04):
eventually walk with God, God comesand dwells in the midst of Zion,
and then eventually God receives theentire city of Zion up unto himself.
They're literally taken upinto heaven, the account says.
They are preserved to return tothis earth together with the Lord
during the Second Coming at thebeginning of his millennial reign.
So, like, big business here.

Right.

And the way this impacts church history is that right after, okay,
right after the Enoch revelation is given,the Lord tells Joseph and Sidney in D&C
37, okay, stop the translation project.
Tell the New York Saintsto gather to the Ohio.
When Joseph makes that announcement,January 1831, the New York Saints—I
can imagine them kind of blinkinga little bit, looking at each other

(13:44):
side-eyed, and then some brave soulraises their hand and says, Brother
Joseph, could you tell us why we need touproot from New York and move to Ohio?
And Joseph says somethinglike, I'm actually not sure.
And then he actually prays rightthere in that conference, and John
Whitmer gives us the account here, andhe says that Joseph, right in front

(14:06):
of everybody, asked the Lord, whydo you want us to move to the Ohio?
And that's how we get Doctrine andCovenants 38 received right in front
of the congregation there, whereinthe Lord explains that he, and he
calls himself the God of Enoch.
The God of Enoch is asking you to moveto the Ohio for a few reasons, among
which, he outlines, are to help youincrease in righteousness, help you

(14:27):
become one, and help you to learn howto eliminate poverty from among you.
It's like, okay, I see whathe's doing here, right?

Right.

The God of Enoch, in the immediate aftermath of the Enoch
revelation, seeing a picture of the kindof ideal society, one heart, one mind,
dwelling in righteousness, no poor amongthem, the Lord immediately pumps the
brakes on the JST and says, all right.
Okay, team, you had the vision?
All right, now move to the Ohio, wherewe're going to teach you how to do this.
His exact words were, “If you willgo to the Ohio, there I will give

(14:58):
unto you my law, and I will endow youwith power from on high.” That's the

promise that he gives them (15:03):
I will give unto you my law, and there you shall
be endowed with power from on high.
This law, we find out later, haseverything to do with learning
how to become a Zion people.
So what Joseph and Sidney first learnabout there in the Enoch revelation
about how God, through Enoch, gathereda people out from among the wicked to
one city, where the Lord eventuallycame and dwelt among them because of

(15:26):
how they lived, we start to see thatGod wants to bring that pattern back
and implement it in the latter days.
The God of Enoch, he announces in D&C38, is now calling this little group of
saints to gather out from among theirenemies, he says, to learn how to live
his law so that they can qualify for theKing of Zion to come and dwell among them.

(15:47):
Like, history is repeatingitself here, right?
And that's the impetus for why thesaints in New York gather to the Ohio.
And then once they get to the Ohio,the Lord is very quick in fulfilling
His promise to give them the law.
And that's where we findthe law of consecration.

Nice setup.
You teed us up here.
The Law of Consecration issort of spread throughout the
entire Doctrine and Covenants.
However, if you wanted, like, aquick primer on it, section 42
is where you're going to go to.

Yeah.

And that—section 38, you laid it out perfectly.
Section 37 is so short.

Yeah.

It's just a couple verses that says, gather to the Ohio.

No explanation.

Yeah.
No explanation.
Just do it.
Then section 38 is much longer, and itkind of has these two things: if you go
to the Ohio, you'll receive my law, andI will give you an endowment with power,
which, again, shows that this idea of atemple and consecration are linked to each
other intrinsically from the beginning.

Yeah, and I always ask my students to look in D&C 42, which
is the law that was received, look inD&C 42 through the lens of Moses 7:18.
One heart, one mind, dwelling inrighteousness and eliminating poverty.
See if you look through thoselenses, what do you see in D&C 42?

(17:07):
And it's remarkable how much ofthis pops, what the Lord is trying
to do is all of those things.

Yeah.

Right?
He teaches them the laws of moralityin verses, like, 18 to 29, and then he
teaches them the laws of consecrationof property in verses 30 to 39.
Like, how do you eliminate poverty?
Let me tell you, right?
Other laws of personal conduct relatedto consecration in the subsequent verses.
But D&C 42, when seen in light of theEnoch revelation, takes on whole new life.

(17:33):
And it's actually pretty powerful to seewhat these laws are calculated to do.
But we want to focus in on the law ofconsecration specifically, but I just
wanted to paint that bigger context of,like, God's trying to help create a new,
like, type of Enoch community that isready, a group of people ready for the
Messiah to come and rule and reign intheir midst in the Millennium, right?

Right.
And this plays into larger concepts likethe city of Zion, which is also very, very
linked to the law of consecration, too.
Let me paint a littlemore context as well.

Yeah.

The missionaries are so successful in Kirtland,
Ohio, that after about two monthsthere's more members of the church
there than there is back in all thebranches in New York and Pennsylvania.
So this is also a smart move.
Let's get everybody together.

Isn't it, like, three to one?

Yeah.
Something like that.

Yeah.
It's, like, 300 in Kirtland to 100in New York or something like that.

Yeah, so this is a smart move generally, just
to bring the strength together.
The other thing is the membersof the church in Kirtland also
have some great resources.
The main store in Kirtland, Ohio,which is still there today, it's a
church historic site, is the Newell K.
Whitney store.
Newell K.
and Ann Whitney, ElizabethAnn Whitney, his wife, were
early converts to the church.

(18:41):
And Joseph Smith immediately obeysthe commandment, starts preparing
to move his family to Kirtland.
There's this classic story where Newell K.
Whitney's working in his store.
He said that a sleigh pulledup and a man jumped out and
walked in and said, “Newell K.
Whitney, thou art the man.” And Newell K.
Whitney—this is all accordingto Ann Whitney, she's the one
that tells the story—said, “Sir,you have the advantage of me.

(19:03):
I could not call you by nameas you have me.” And the man
says, “I am Joseph the prophet.
You prayed me here.
Now, what would you have with me?”

So great.

In the Kirtland community already, there's a group of
committed Christians who are alreadytrying to live the law of consecration.
Mark Staker's done some great workthat show that as early as 1829 there
were already efforts in Kirtlandto live some form of consecration.
These people obviously weren'tinspired by the Restoration,

(19:45):
they're reading the Bible.
They're reading passages like Acts5, where it said the disciples
had all things in common.
And when the missionaries come and bringthe Book of Mormon, you've got passages
like 4 Nephi, which says the discipleshad all things in common, and they
believe that this is the right way to go.
But it seems like there wasa ton of good intentions—

Yeah.

—and not a lot of good structure
among the way they were living.
In fact, a lot of the efforts tolive consecration are linked to
a man named Isaac Morley, one ofthe great men of the early church.
Isaac and Lucy Morley, who—Isaacis this veteran of the War of 1812.
He has a prosperous farm onthe outskirts of Kirtland.
And this is the way one non-Latter-daySaint history from the time describes it:

(20:25):
they wrote, “Isaac Morley had contendedthat in order to restore the ancient
order of things in the Church of Christ,it was necessary that there should be a
community of goods among the brethren.
And accordingly, a number of them removedto his house and farm and built houses
and worked and lived together and composedwhat is here called the big family—”

The big family.

“—which at that time consisted of fifty or sixty
old and young.” So the big family.
And that seems to describe theextent that they tend to organize.
Isaac Morley and Lucy Morley are justreal generous, like, hey, come and live
on our farm, and we'll act as a family.
But this sort of unstructured form ofconsecration causes major struggles.

And they're not the only ones trying to do a communal living
type of a thing during this time, right?
Like, there's other groups that areout there, other—typically Christians.
There's a group of Shakers, there'sgroups of people who, some of them are
called the Owenites, following thisguy named Robert Owen and his efforts
to reform and to live communally inpreparation for a millennial era.

(21:26):
I mean, like, this stuff is kind ofin the air, and Isaac Morley thinks
it's beautiful, and they're tryingto live it on his farm when the Book
of Mormon shows up in Kirtland, Ohio.

Just down the road in Shaker Heights are the Shakers,
who are living a form of communalism.

Yeah.

And so it's a thing that's happening, but like we
said, it seems like it was troubled.
For instance, when the New Yorkmembers of the church start to show
up, they're not too keen on this idea.
John Whitmer, who later is appointedas the church historian, described it

this way in his history (21:57):
he said, “The disciples had all things in common
and were going to destruction veryfast as to temporal things, therefore
they would take each other's clothesand other property and use it without
leave, which brought on confusion.
And so it's not structured, right?
And
. . . Scott Woodward: Yeah, there's that story of Levi Hancock in the winter of 1831.

(22:17):
He comes to Kirtland with the saints,and he says, “While I was in the
room at Father Morley's, as we calledhim, Herman Bassett came to me and
took my watch out of my pocket, andhe walked off as though it was his.
I thought he would bring it back soon,but I was disappointed, as he sold it.
I asked him what he meantby selling my watch.
‘Oh,’ said he, ‘I thought itwas all in the family.’ I told

(22:39):
him I did not like such familydoings, and I would not bear it.”

Man, and it's on point that years later he's naming
the person by name and saying, thisguy, Heman Bassett, he's the worst.

The worst.

I mean, the example I use is when my roommates and
I first came to BYU in the fall of 1996.
We tried to live the Law of Consecration.
We were like, hey, we're all good people.
So, you, if you want todrink my milk, drink my milk.
If you want to eat my ramen, eat my ramen.

Mi ramen es su ramen.

Yeah, that broke down after about a week.
Because, you know, you have that oneroommate that stays home and never goes to
class, and they're eating all the ramen.
And you have another roommate who neverpitches in when you're buying food.
And I remember after just a coupledays, someone had labeled their milk,
and thinking, man, we couldn't evenmake it two weeks living the Law of

(23:32):
Consecration, but it was because wemisunderstood what consecration was to
begin with, and we had no structure.

Yeah.

So when Joseph arrives in Kirtland, he
receives Section 42, which providesstructure to the Law of Consecration.
So let's take your good intentions,and now let's come up with a system to
sort of channel those good intentionsin a way that's fair and equitable
for everybody that's involved.
And so Joseph gets Section 42, whichthe early saints called the Law.

(23:59):
And at the heart of the lawis the law of consecration.

And Joseph says in his history, “The plan of common stock, which
had existed in what was called the family,whose members generally had embraced the
everlasting gospel, was readily abandonedfor the more perfect law of the Lord.”
Like you're saying, the structure of D&C42, particularly as it has to do with
consecration of property, super helpful.

Yeah.

And they readily abandoned their non-structural mess on
the Morley farm for this “more perfectlaw of the Lord,” as Joseph says.

And the law in section 42 really is a series of laws.
The earliest manuscripts of the Revelationshow that they were asking questions.
So they're asking questions like, hey,should we all gather here right now?
Or what should we teach?
Or what are the laws of the church?
And then they do ask about consecration.
So the law of consecrationin section 42 is basically

(24:52):
verses . . . Start around verse 30,and it goes up to about verse 42.
And this is, again, kind ofthe basics of consecration.
They're going to have more principlesput upon them, but you can argue
that in these twelve verses the basicprinciples of consecration that we still

(25:13):
follow today are contained therein.

Yeah.

And if that's the law, then the heart of the law is

verse 30, which says this (25:19):
it says, “Behold, thou shalt consecrate all thy
properties, that which thou hast, untome, with a covenant and a deed which
cannot be broken, and they shall belaid before the bishop of the church.”

That's not what my verse 30 says.

I'm reading the early, earliest version of the revelation.
So, let me—let me actually—I wasabout—I was about to talk about this.
Scott thought I was revisingthe Doctrine and Covenants.

I was like, Casey, what are you—what version do you have?
Okay.
I was trying to follow along.

Well, and you are great at, like, picking
out little words and things, too,and so let me explain, all right?
The earliest manuscripts of section 42,the wording is, “Thou shalt consecrate
all thy properties, that which thouhast, unto me with a covenant deed which
cannot be broken,” and the inclusionof the word “all” sort of leads you

(26:12):
to believe that every single item ofproperty possessed by an individual would
be submitted to priests and leaders.
Now, in 1835, when the Doctrineand Covenants was published, they
clarified this so that instead of“consecrate all thy properties,”
it's “consecrate of thy properties.”

Oh.
Okay.
So now it says—let meread what it says now.
Now it says, “Behold, thou wilt rememberthe poor and consecrate of thy properties
for their support, that which thou hastto impart unto them with a covenant
and a deed which cannot be broken.”Okay, so yeah, “of thy properties”
rather than “all thy property.”

Yeah.
Big difference between the two, right?
And I think you could argue thatthey both say the same thing.

Sure.

But there's a little bit more flexibility.
And this just kind of shows, I mean,this is how the sausage is made, right?
They go through and publish thisversion, this is what the earliest
revelation says and what the Book ofCommandments says also, but then in
1835 they clarify “of,” which allowsa little bit more mental flexibility.

Yeah.

The connotation here is that consecration denotes a sacrifice
of resources to benefit the poor.

Yeah.

But leads away from a completely communal interpretation
of the law, which would require allproperty to be given to the church.

Which would be very easy for them to misinterpret
given the spirit of the times withcommunal living happening, you know,
in various places throughout the U.
S.
and then even right there in Ohio.

Yeah.
So this isn't kind of a, “Hey, we'rejust going to throw everything into
a common collection and anybody cantake anything they want,” but it's
also more intense than just a, “Hey,generally be kind to the poor and
share with them when you can.” It saysthat there's going to be a covenant
and a deed that a person enters into.
It's going to be structured.

And that covenant and a deed is, like, really strong.
It's a legally binding deed, right?
You're actually legally givingyour property to the church.

Mm-hmm.

They would write these out, right?
There's examples we can seeof—there's, like, forms they would
fill out to consecrate, right?
Kind of fill-in-the-blank forms, youknow, “Be it known that I,” fill in your
name, “hereby consecrate of my propertythe following items to the bishop of the
church,” da da da da, and then they wouldlist their items, and this was, like, a
legal deed that basically made it so thatthey no longer owned that property, righT?

Yeah.
And that's—well, it's complicated.
Let me offer a couple of clarifications.

Yeah.

The next verse says, “Inasmuch as ye impart of your
substance unto the poor, ye will do itunto me, and they shall be laid before the
bishop of my church and his counselors.
Two of the elders are high priests, suchas ye shall appoint, or has appointed,
or set apart for that purpose.” Soyou did go to the bishop, and on these
early forms that we can see you wouldconsecrate what you had to the bishop.
So the way these forms look is, I'vegot Levi Jackman, so you just brought

(29:00):
him up, but I've got Levi Jackman'sform of consecration before me.

Yeah.

And the form has certain parts that are—

You actually have his form in front of you, right there?

I'm looking at it right now.

Holy smoke.

“Be it known that I, Levi Jackman of Jackson County,
State of Missouri, having become amember of the Church of Christ organized
according to the law established by therevelations of the Lord, on the sixth
day of April 1830 do, of my own freewill and accord, having first paid my
just debts, grant and hereby give untoEdward Partridge,” Edward Partridge
is the first bishop of the church.

(29:31):
He's actually called in section 41, therevelation right before the law is given.
“Said church the following describedproperty,” and then it's not going to
take long to read Levi Jackman's property.

Why is that?

Because he wrote—this is where the printed form

ends, and then Levi's own writing: “Sundry articles of furniture valued (29:45):
undefined
at 37 dollars, and also two beds,bedding and feathers valued at 44
dollars and 50 cents, and also threeaxes and other tools valued at 11
dollars and 25 cents,” and that isthe end of the list for Levi Jackman.

(30:05):
So this guy doesn't havea ton of stuff, right?

Not much.

But to his credit, he consecrates
all that he has to the church.
And at that point, once the bishophad basically made a catalog of
what you were consecrating, theywould be given a stewardship.
So now go down, in section 42, toverse 32, and he says, “Every man
shall be made accountable unto me, asteward over his own property, or that

(30:31):
which he has received by consecrationas much as is sufficient for himself
and family.” And so there was privateproperty under the law of consecration.
It wasn't like the big family,where Heman Bassett comes in and
takes Levi's watch and walks out.
Once a person had been given astewardship, they owned that stewardship.
Person couldn't come into your houseand take your goods or materials,

(30:54):
because it was your stewardship.
You owned it, essentially.

But wasn't it more like a legal deed of lease rather than ownership?
Because I think the churchstill owned the property.

Yeah.

And leased it back to you.
It was, like, a legal deed of lease.
As we look at those leases that we have,that we still have in our possession—I
have Titus Billings's here, for instance.

This is the deed back (31:14):
it says, “Be it known that I, Edward Partridge of
Jackson County, State of Missouri,Bishop of the Church, organized according
to the law, have leased and by thesepresents do lease unto Titus Billings
of Jackson County and State of Missouri,a member of said church, the following
described piece or parcel of land,”and then various sundry articles of

(31:36):
personal property that Titus Billingshad just consecrated to the church.
The language of the deed back is thathe has leased it and that he has loaned
the following described property.
So actually the church continues toown the property, but it has been
given to you as—the language of therevelation is, as a stewardship, which

(31:57):
we would say today in legalese, alease or a loan of land and property.
So this is a pretty faith-demandingexercise, to legally deed all of your
property to the church and then receiveit back through a lease or a loan.
In addition to more property, typicallyspeaking—like, Titus Billings here

(32:19):
deeds a bunch of property to the church,and then he receives all that property
back as a loan, plus 32 acres of land.
So he actually comes out on topon this deal because he gets
27 acres of land back, that hedid not consecrate, as a lease.
And so that spells a very strongfaith-based exchange between church

(32:39):
member and the bishop in termsof consecrating your property.
So you're actually relinquishing yourlegal right to the property, which
might sound like holy cow, but todaythe same thing happens as we pay tithing
or give anything else to the church.
Like, once you give it, once youdonate it, it's no longer yours.
You can't get it back.
You know, you can't say, “Uh,actually, I changed my mind.” You know.

(33:01):
Like, you are legallygiving your property away.
When you understand it in that light,like, this requires real faith.
It would actually purify the heart deeply.

At the same time, too, I would emphasize it
wasn't as loosey goosey as thebig family appears to have been.

Not at all, yeah.
It was very legal and structured.

A stewardship was treated as private property, even if it
was an official lease from the church.
You couldn't have someone come upand just take your horse, if it was
part of your stewardship, becauseyou were the steward over that.

Yeah.

And it was your job to work it out.
And the text of the revelationactually does basically say that
there was a little give and take.

For instance, go down to verse 33 (33:41):
“If there shall be properties in the hands
of the church, or any individuals of it,more than is necessary for their support,
after their first consecration, whichis a residue to be consecrated unto the
bishop, it shall be kept to administerto those who have not, from time to
time, that every man who has need may beamply supplied and receive according to
his wants.” And so this seems to suggestthat the basic aim of the consecration

(34:06):
was to meet needs, that you wouldtake care of a person's basic needs.
Let's make sure everybody'sgot food, clothing, shelter.
Let's make sure thatnobody's starving to death.
But at the end of that, he also says,if there's residue left over, we can
take care of a person's wants, whichseems to suggest that it's not just

about bare-level subsistence either: that if everybody's taken care of, (34:25):
undefined
then we can reassess, and sort ofsay, hey, we have all your needs
taken care of, now what do you want?
And from that, we could deal with that.

I like the phrase there in verse 33, “that every man
who has need may be amply supplied.”

Yeah.

Right?
This is a law of abundance,not a law of scarcity.

Yeah.

Right?
This isn't people standing in long lines,waiting for watered down soup, right?
This is, if everyone lives this andconsecrates, then everyone's needs are
going to be amply supplied and will alsobe able to receive according to his wants,
which may mean things that you want.
It could also mean things that you lack,depending on how that word is used,
but the point is amply supplied, notbarely supplied, not scarcely supplied.

(35:11):
Like, this is a law of abundance.

Correct.
Correct.
And the documents we have suggestthere was a high degree of
sensitivity as to a person's needs.
For instance, this is a letter JosephSmith wrote to Bishop Partridge.
Edward Partridge, the first bishop, isgoing to administer this in Kirtland.
Joseph wrote, “The matter of consecrationmust be done by the mutual consent of both
parties.” So it wasn't the bishop saying,this is how it's going to be, buddy.

(35:35):
The bishop worked toachieve mutual consent.
He says, “For to give the bishoppower to say how much every man shall
have, and he be obliged to comply withthe bishop's judgment, is giving the
bishop more power than a king has.
And upon the other hand, to let everyman say how much he needs, and the
bishop be obliged to comply withhis judgment, is to throw Zion into
confusion and make a slave of the bishop.

(35:57):
The fact is there must be a balanceor equilibrium of power between
the bishop and the people, and thusharmony and goodwill may be preserved
among you.” So his advice to BishopPartridge is to say mutual consent,
balance or equilibrium of power.

Yeah.

It wasn't a one size fits all, “you have a
family of four, so you get thismuch stuff” kind of situation.
Bishop Partridge had to put in a ton ofwork to find out what the different needs
and wants were of each family and thenfigure out how to move forward from there.

Yeah, that's huge.
Agency must prevail on both sides.
And if we pick it up in verse 34,we start to see a nice summary of

(36:48):
the principles of consecration here.
I see three or four principles here.

Verse 34 says this (36:52):
“Therefore the residue,” or, you know, what's left
over of your surplus, “shall bekept in my storehouse to administer
to the poor and the needy.” Okay?
There's point number one, principlenumber one of the law of consecration, to
administer to the poor and the needy, “asshall be appointed by the high council
of the church and the bishop and hiscouncil.” Verse 35: “And for the purpose

(37:15):
of purchasing lands for the public benefitof the church,” that'd be purpose number
two, “and building houses of worship,”number three, “and building up the new
Jerusalem, which is hereafter to berevealed,” number four, “that my covenant
people may be gathered in one in that daywhen I shall come to my temple, and this
I do for the salvation of my people.” Wow.

(37:38):
So there you go.
A few purposes, right?
Maybe we could consolidate onnumber two and three, but to say the
purpose number one was to take careof the poor and eliminate poverty.
Number two, purchase lands, build housesof worship, and to build up the new
Jerusalem for God's people to gather.
And then another one we could gograb in verses 71-73 talks about

(38:00):
that these funds can also be used tosupport full-time general authorities
and their families as needed.
So Bishop Partridge would be a goodexample of a full-time general authority.
Section 41 calls him to be a bishopfull time and even explicitly asks
him to leave his employ, to leave hiscareer and become fully dedicated.

(38:20):
Full-time general authority, right?
How's he supposed to take care ofhis family in full-time employ?
So verses 71 through 73 alsomake allowance for general
authorities of the church to besupported from that if need be.
Those are kind of some principlesand purposes behind the law of
consecration of property here.
Right?
We need to take care of the physicalneeds of the poor, eliminate poverty.

(38:42):
We also want to purchase property andgrow the church and get houses of worship
and land and eventually build up the NewJerusalem because the Enoch prophecy says,
now we're back to the Enoch prophecy,the Enoch prophecy says that the New
Jerusalem will be built and the saintswill be gathered to it, the elect will be
gathered to the New Jerusalem, and thenChrist will come down in their midst.

(39:02):
And so that's always onthe back of mind now.
Going forward, the Enoch prophecyis going to motivate a lot of what
happens going forward, and the Lord issaying, yes, let's bring that about.
And these are some of thepractical principles by which
that prophecy will come to pass.

Yeah.

I need you to consecrate.
We need your property,and we need your heart.

Yeah.

And this is going to work if we can do it.
One heart, one mind, workingtogether, we can make this happen.

And let me point out a couple more principles that
are found in the revelation here.

Yeah, please.

Verse 34, “the residue shall be kept in my
storehouse.” So from the beginningthere was going to be some kind of
way to share goods to help people.
This is still something we do, right?

Yeah, we still have a bishop's storehouse, don't we?

We still have a bishop's storehouse.
Wherever we can build one, wherever wehave sufficient membership and resources,
we try and put a bishop's storehouseso that if a member's in trouble,
they go to the Bishop's storehouse.
Now, again, how this hasworked has evolved over time.
Today an integral part of the processis a Relief Society President.

Yeah.

Generally the Relief Society president visits the individual
or family and says, hey, what do you need?
And if they're in need, the ReliefSociety president fills out a form, it's
electronic now, sends it to the bishop,the bishop approves it, then the family
goes to the storehouse and gets food.
Another storehouse that we have isDeseret Industries, which you might not

(40:19):
think of it that way, but a lot of thereason why the DI exists is so a family
can go in and get a bed or a couch.
Go shop.
Get clothes if they need to.

Yeah.

Just to cite an example, a family moved into my ward.
Relief Society president and Iwent over to see them, and they
had a mattress and an Xbox.

The essentials.

Casey Paul Griffiths: That was what they had. (40:41):
undefined
They were going through a divorce.
There was some legal entanglements,but six kids, mattress, Xbox.

Wow.

Within a couple days, we had beds for all the kids.
We had a kitchen table.
We had sofas.
All that stuff came from the DI, andthen their cupboards were full of food
that came from the Bishop's storehouse.

Wow.
That's awesome.

Yeah.
Yeah.

Love that.

So a couple other principles
“Thou shalt not be proud in thy heart.
Let all thy garments be plainand their beauty the beauty of
the work of thine own hands.
Let all things be donein cleanliness before me.
Now this is, again, a placewhere there's a principle.
The practice is different.
I'm not wearing a shirt thatI made myself right now.

Yeah.

It's from Costco.
But he's basically—he seems tobe emphasizing here, you might
not all be able to be rich.
And that might be a provision, too, thatyou're going to sacrifice financially
for the greater good of the whole.
You're going to put the needs of themany ahead of the needs of the one, to

quote Star Trek II (41:42):
The Wrath of Khan.
And then he also says, verse42, “Thou shalt not be idle.
He that is idle shall not eat thebread nor wear the garments of the
laborer.” And so, an integral part ofthe program, too, is going to be work.
If a person wants to receive welfare,we may ask for volunteer service.
We may ask for them to help if they're notlaboring and they're capable of doing so.

(42:07):
There might be restrictionsplaced on how the laws live.

So these are guiding principles which, as we began talking
about at the beginning of this episode,continue to guide our efforts to eliminate
poverty today, to help out the poor,also to buy property, to buy houses
of worship, to build Zion, to supportfull-time general authorities or mission
presidents or any full-time service thatsomebody is called out of their career—

Yeah.

—to accept a calling like that.
If they need a stipend from thechurch, then these funds can also
be accessed to help them out.
Like, these principlesstill are exactly in place.

Yeah.

The system looks different.
Like, you continue to talkabout the welfare, right?
You keep saying welfare.
Now, that wasn't a term thatJoseph Smith ever used, welfare.

No.

Not in that sense, right?
So the systems are going to shiftand change, as we mentioned.
And yet the principles undergirdingit all continue to abide, continue to
be what drives every system that anypresident of the church has endorsed.

Yeah.
The practice is different, but theprinciples can be applied widely.
For instance, take a lookat this quote from Thomas S.
Monson.
And boy, if there's somebody thatknows about church welfare and
consecration, it was Thomas S.
Monson, right?
We'll maybe get into his story alittle bit, but he's made a bishop
when he's 22 over a ward of athousand people, a hundred widows.

Wow.

President Monson took the principle of a

storehouse, and he said this (43:31):
he said, “The Lord's storehouse includes the
time, talents, skills, compassion,consecrated material, and financial
means of faithful church members.
These resources are available to thebishop in assisting those in need.
Our bishops have the responsibilityto learn how to properly use these
resources.” So President Monson issaying, hey, that building where we

(43:53):
keep the food is the tip of the iceberg.
The real storehouse is the resourcesthat belong to church members
who still consecrate what theyhave to God and can be called
upon to help at any given moment.

Love that.

And so you're assigned to minister to a family.
One of my ministering families had asick baby, and everybody else was sick.
They called and said, can you getus some Pedialyte for the baby?
I went to the store.
I bought some Pedialyte.
I dropped it off at their house.
I didn't ask for financial remuneration.
I wouldn't have accepted anyif they'd given it to me.
I'm the Lord's storehouse right now,and that's what they needed, and so

(44:29):
I helped and took care of it, and Ithink most ministering brothers and
sisters would have done the same.

I love that.
I have this from Wilford Woodruff, 1834.
It's in his handwriting, so I'mgoing to try to read this out.
It says at the very top, “ClayCounty, Missouri, December 31st, 1834.

(44:58):
Be it known that I, Wilford Woodruff,freely covenant with my God that I freely
consecrate and dedicate myself, togetherwith all my property and effects, unto
the Lord, for the purpose of assistingin building up his kingdom, even Zion,
on the earth, that I may keep his lawand lay all things before the bishop

(45:19):
of his church, that I may be a lawfulheir to the kingdom of God, even the
celestial kingdom.” That was WilfordWoodruff doing exactly, in 1834, what

I just heard you tell me, Casey (45:31):
that all that I have, all my property,
anything that is needed, like, I freelyconsecrate it to building up the kingdom.
Somebody needs me, you know, if thebishop has need of something from me, I
hope he can know that he can count on me.
I'd be happy to step up and help out, andthat's the undergirding principle here.

And the fact that that's given in 1834, several
years after the Law of Consecrationwas given, shows that this wasn't a
quick, flash-in-the-pan experimentthat they abandoned really quickly.
They were sincerely trying to livethis during the entire Kirtland period,
although there are bumps and ups anddowns and problems along the way.

Yeah, which we're going to talk about.
We'll get there.

Yeah.

We'll get there.

Yeah.
And so as these bumps and ups and downscome along the way, a couple other
provisions are kind of put into place.
For instance, person consecrates allthat they have to the church, and then
they're given their stewardship back.
What if a person no longer wants toparticipate in the law of consecration?

D&C 51:5 (46:28):
“If he shall transgress and is not accounted worthy to belong
to the church, he shall not havepower to claim the portion which he
has consecrated unto the bishop forthe poor and needy of the church.
Therefore, he shall not retain the gift,but only have claim on that portion which
is deeded unto him.” So in practice,if a person chose to withdraw from
consecration, church would hang on towhat they consecrated, but the stewardship

(46:52):
that was deeded to them, according tothis verse, did remain in their hands.

And that was your point earlier, right?
That even though this is a leaseand a loan, they could ultimately
claim it as personal property—

Yeah.

—in this scenario.

Yeah.

That's important.

The example that gets used a lot to describe this is
Leman Copley, and Leman's a complicatedguy, and I'm willing to go a little
bit easier on Leman than I used to be—

Okay.

—just because I went to Kirtland, and I talked to this
dear man named Carl Ricks Anderson, whohas done a lot of work on Leman Copley,
and Carl and I had a big talk, and hesaid, hey, Leman's not such a bad guy.
Go easy on the guy.
But the story is kind of dealtwith in Doctrine and Covenants 54.
So if you want to look in Doctrineand Covenants 54, I'll give
you the basics of the story.

(47:41):
Church members had beencommanded to gather to Ohio,
and they gathered in groups.
Branches traveled together.
The Palmyra branch of the churchwas led by Lucy Mack Smith.
The Fayette branch wasled by David Whitmer.
And then there's the Colesvillebranch, which consists of the
Knight family, some of Joseph'searliest and most faithful friends.
They're led by Newell Knight, whobrings his group to Kirtland, and

(48:05):
when they get there, they're assigned,under the law of consecration, to
live on the property of Leman Copley.
Leman Copley is this more well-offmember of the church, but he also
has a complex history where he wasa shaker, so he was familiar with
communalism, and Leman actually askedfor a revelation about the Shakers.
He and Sidney Rigdon and Parley P.

(48:25):
Pratt, this is section 49,are asked to go and visit the
Shakers and read the revelation.
The Shakers completely reject it.
The leader of the Shakers apparentlyreally tore into Leman, and
this kind of shook his faith.

Ashbel Kitchell.

Ashbel Kit—what a great name, right?

What a great name.

If I have another son, his name will certainly
be Ashbel Kitchell Griffiths, but—

Nice.

—the bottom line is that Leman Copley starts to
waffle a little bit, and the ColesvilleSaints, led by Newell Knight, are
already living on his propertyand already making improvements,
and Leman sort of starts to waver.

Yeah.
It seemed like Ashbel Kitchell'sreally lighting into Parley P.
Pratt, and Leman watching that happen, andthen when Ashbel turns on Leman himself
and says, you should know better, right?
And he really kind oflays into Leman, too.
Then, at that point, you know, it seemslike his faith is shaken to some degree
in the whole Restoration project.
And that's when, yeah, he'sgoing to—I think you were about

(49:27):
to say, but he's going to kickthese people off his farm, right?

Yeah.
And the Colesville branch, quiteunderstandably, are not happy about this.
I mean, they've already traveledall the way from New York.
They're really, really working hardto try and take care of the land
and make sure that it's improved.
This is the way Joseph Knight, Jr.

later said (49:49):
“We had to leave Copley's farm and pay 60 dollars damage for
fitting up his houses and plantinghis ground.” So they're mad.
Newell K.
Whitney says, “We commenced work inall good faith, thinking to obtain
a living by the sweat of the brow.
We had not lingered long before theabove-named Copley broke the engagement
which he made with us at this time Iwent to Kirtland to see Brother Joseph.”

(50:10):
And that's when they receive section54 of the Doctrine and Covenants,
which is kind of this case study ofhow you deal with a person who refuses
to live consecration any longer.
Now, the Lord has some pretty sternthings to say to Leman Copley here.
Verse 4, “The covenant which theyhave made unto me has been broken.
It has become void and of none effect.

(50:31):
And woe to him by whom this offensecometh, for it had been better for him
that he had been drowned in the depth ofthe sea, but blessed are they who've kept
the covenant and observed the commandment,for they shall obtain mercy.” And then he
assigns the Colesville branch, says thatthey're going to move on to Missouri.
They're going to move on toMissouri and help build the
city of Zion, which they do.
They run into more trouble there.
The Colesville branch is amazing.

(50:51):
We need to do a whole series just on them.

Yeah.
They're so good.

Yeah.
Leman goes back and forth in churchmembership over the next couple years.
Again, I'm going to stick up for theguy and say he was a new convert.
To have his former spiritual leader,Ashbel Kitchell, lay into him like
that, shook him up, and it seems likehe does repent to a certain degree,
though he does end up outside the church.
So it's going to be a bumpy roadto live consecration, right?

(51:17):
The ideals of consecration, which arevery, very much idyllic—they're looking
towards the best in people—are going torun into the fear and greed and sometimes
selfishness that people can exhibit, too.

Yeah.
Leman Copley's story shows us rightthere that when you're not of one
heart and one mind, that it's hardto dwell together in righteousness
and to not have any poor among you.

Yeah.

Right?
Like it starts with that unity,peace, united in following
the Lord and his prophet.
And when that's not in place, thenthe whole thing breaks down, right?

Yeah.

That's what this story shows us.
It's, like, crazy how allthose cornerstones of Zion work
together, and you can't reallydo one without the others.

Yeah.
And honestly, I mean, it does kindof show, if I'm being frank here, a
weakness of the Law of Consecration.

Uh-oh.
What do you mean?

Well, it depends on the goodness of people.
Like, it depends on a person honoringtheir covenants, and everything in
the church does, to a certain degree,assume that a person's going to make
covenants and honor their covenants.

Is that a weakness, or is that a strength?

I
. . . Scott Woodward: Ooh.

Casey Paul Griffiths: I called it a weakness. (52:25):
undefined
Maybe I was wrong.
Make your case . Why is it a strength?
What do you think?

Well, because it's without compulsory means was the only thought.

Yeah.

Like, that seems to be a strength.
If it's not with compulsory means,then there's that harmony of feeling.
There's a good spirit about it.
There's a power that comes into a groupof people willing to work together, to
sacrifice together, to help each other,and anytime it becomes compulsory, you
know, it seems to lose that power andlose that feeling of unity and harmony

(52:53):
that comes only from a willing sacrifice.

Yeah.

When one of my kids does something nice, it fills my
heart with, like, this sweet glow.
When they're forced to do somethingnice, that glow is not there.
It is but darkness in my soul.
Yeah, I could see how itcould be seen as a weakness.
Like, this only works if thepeople are willing to work it.
On the other hand, that seemsto be the strength of this.
In the Lord's way, the non-compulsorymeans that the Lord is all about,

(53:18):
like, that's the only way this canwork, and maybe that's a strength.
I don't know.
I'm still thinking about that.
What do you think?

I think you might have saved this story for me.
Well done, Scott.

I wasn't trying to do that.

Because I guess the story of Leman Copley does
illustrate exactly what you said, thatconsecration was never compulsory.

Yeah.

It was something that the Lord expected
people to do out of righteousness.
And, again, Leman had his ups and downsand his good days and his bad days,
like we all do, but ultimately thestory does illustrate that, like you
said, consecration works when it issomething that is freely entered into.

Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths: And freely carried out. (53:55):
undefined
And I still see that today, you know?
In my own ward, in the places thatI've served, so much goodness.

Yeah.

And so much willingness to sacrifice.
And that's one of the things thatreally does kind of make this still a
vital living principle in the church,is that there's people out there
that are doing good things and tryingto make the world a better place.
Consecration is a covenant that providesa framework for them to do that.

Yeah.
I love that.

But I would also emphasize that we're still talking about
consecration in the early Restoration.
What is revealed here is the beginningof the story, not the end of it.
And as we've emphasized, one of thethings that you'll see throughout
the Doctrine and Covenants is howflexible consecration was as well.

That's right.

By a conservative estimate, I believe about twenty-four
revelations in the Doctrine and Covenantsdeal directly with consecration and
how it works, and we've basically donethree—four, if we count section 41,
which we just barely touched upon, so
. . . Scott Woodward: So 41, 42, 51, and 54 are the ones we've highlighted today.

(54:59):
Yeah.
So even just dealing with the 14 yearsthat Joseph Smith is president of the
church, you're going to see a lot ofchanges as to how consecration works
because the saints are going through a lotof changes, some of their own choice, the
church is growing, and some not of theirown choice, the church is persecuted, and
they have to sometimes adjust consecrationto kind of meet those needs, if you will.

Yeah.
So next time we're going tocontinue the story, right?
We're going to look at the businessside of the law of consecration,
something called the United Firm,which we have several revelations
about in the Doctrine and Covenants,which was codenamed the United Order.
So a cool story there—

Yeah.

—that we'll get into
which does have a lot of modernparallels to the church today.
Some of the business practices of thechurch will be, I think, illuminated
as we understand how this began in theearly revelations, how it was implemented
then, really helps us see how thechurch runs things today on the business
side of things, which I think has beenthe point of much controversy, as we

(56:04):
opened this episode up with, right?
Some of the business successof the church, actually, has
been a point of controversy.
So we want to get into all of that.
Today we outlined those basic principlesof consecration, how it began.
Next time, business side.

I'm looking forward to that next time.
Yeah.
And we'll see you next time.

Thank you for listening to this episode of Church History Matters.
Next week Casey and I explore the historyof the very first consecration-based
business ventures of the church—theliterary firm, and the United Firm,
or United Order—and how the principlesunderlying these first ventures laid
the foundation for the church's verysuccessful business ventures today.

(56:48):
If you're enjoying Church HistoryMatters, we'd appreciate it if you
could take a moment to subscribe, rate,review, and comment on the podcast.
That makes us easier to find.
Today's episode was produced byScott Woodward and edited by Nick
Galieti and Scott Woodward, with shownotes and transcript by Gabe Davis.
Church History Matters is a podcastof Scripture Central, a nonprofit

(57:10):
which exists to help build enduringfaith in Jesus Christ by making
Latter-day Saint scripture and churchhistory accessible, comprehensible,
and defensible to people everywhere.
For more resources to enhance yourgospel study, go to scripturecentral.org,
where everything is availablefor free because of the generous
donations of people like you.
And while we try very hard to behistorically and doctrinally accurate

(57:33):
in what we say on this podcast, pleaseremember that all views expressed in
this and every episode are our viewsalone and do not necessarily reflect the
views of Scripture Central or The Churchof Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Thank you so much for beinga part of this with us.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

1. Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

2. The Joe Rogan Experience

3. Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}046 Consecration and the Beginning of Church Finances

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}1. Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

2. The Joe Rogan Experience

3. Dateline NBC

All Episodes

046 Consecration and the Beginning of Church Finances

1. Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang