D&C 51:1-2

Section 51 brings us back to the Law of Consecration, even though we had a pretty in depth coverage in section 42, since it’s implementation there has been some specific scenarios that Bishop Edward Partridge needed guidance on. DJR gives some interesting insight saying, “Perhaps you have attended a class or heard a discussion in which the ‘united order’ or ‘law of consecration’ was said to be basically similar to communism. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we study this revelation, we will see foundational principles upon which the law of consecration is based. Among other things, we will see that the individual is the top priority (opposite of communism), allowances are made to accommodate and foster individual talents and personalities (opposite of communism), and that private ownership of property is an integral part (opposite of communism).” I want to look, in this section, as we go through and see just how the Law of consecration is designed for the benefit of the individual, as opposed to the state. The IM gives back ground information by quoting President Joseph Fielding Smith saying, “The Lord endeavored to teach these members, in part, at least, and train them in the great principle of consecration as a preparatory step before they should be permitted to journey to Zion, for it was in keeping with this law upon which the City of Zion was to be built. Thus these saints from the East were to be organized according to the law of God. This land in Ohio was in this manner to be consecrated unto them ‘for a little season,’ until the Lord should provide for them otherwise, and command them to go hence.” The IM gives an interesting experience about the reception of this revelation saying, “The experience of Orson Pratt, who was present when Joseph Smith received this revelation at Thompson, Ohio, was reported as follows: ‘No great noise or physical manifestation was made; Joseph was as calm as the morning sun. But he noticed a change in his countenance that he had never noticed before, when a revelation was given to him. Joseph’s face was exceedingly white, and seemed to shine. The speaker had been present many times when he was translating the New Testament, and wondered why he did not use the Urim and Thummim, as in translating the Book of Mormon. While this thought passed through the speaker’s mind, Joseph, as if he read his thoughts, looked up and explained that the Lord gave him the Urim and Thummim when he was inexperienced in the Spirit of inspiration. But now he had advanced so far that he understood the operations of that Spirit, and did not need the assistance of that instrument.”

51:1-2 - The Lord begins by addressing Edward Partridge and directs that “they be organized according to my laws.” Concerning these laws, the IM teaches about the concept of “laws” saying, “in an address given at commencement services at Brigham Young University, Cecil B. DeMille, producer of the movie The Ten Commandments, spoke of the modern-day attitude toward law: ‘we are too inclined to think of law as something merely restrictive- something hemming us in. We sometimes think of law as the opposite liberty. But that is a false conception. That is not the way that God’s inspired prophets and lawgivers looked upon the law. Law has a twofold purpose. It is meant to govern. It is also meant to educate.’ Elder Richard L. Evans gave further reasons for God’s giving us laws: ‘What would a loving Father want for his children? What would any father want for his children? Peace and health and happiness; learning and progress and improvement; and everlasting life, and everlasting association with those we love. What less could heaven be? What less would a Father plan or propose, for those he loves, for those whom he made ‘in his own image’? He has declared his work and his glory ‘to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.’ This is the ultimate objective. This is the whole purpose of the Gospel he has given.” It’s interesting because I’ve really become more and more aware of the benefit of rules in our happiness, which is something that I never would have imagined to be true. There are always going to be choices to make, always, in any circumstance. By taking away the choices that would harm us, the Lord is giving us the opportunity to thrive in an environment of “good, better, best,” not “good or bad” all the time. For instance, I had a friend who constantly told me that she didn’t make her 6 year old son come to church with her because she didn’t want to infringe on his agency. I told her that I don’t give my kids a choice, they go to church with me every single week, that’s not a choice for them to make. I’m sure if given the choice, every single one of us would want to do something else, but by taking away the choice of whether or not to come to church, I’m freeing my son to enjoy himself when he gets here. The rule of “we go to church” is actually freeing, by not allowing us to make a devastating choice, we are free to make other choices. Another example is murder, if we were allowed to murder other people, then we would spend our time choosing if, when, why, and how we murder others and probably will spend a significant amount of time fighting against our own murder. By taking away that choice with the commandment “thou shalt not kill” we are free to spend our time and efforts in more worthy causes.