Question re D&C 85: 2-5

[askandanswer]

Could people please share their thoughts/knowledge/opinion on whether, or to what extent, they think the church might or might not have kept the instruction the Lord gave to the church, as recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 85: 2-5.

2  And also their manner of life, their faith, and works; and also of the apostates who apostatize after receiving their inheritances.

3  It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their inheritance by consecration, agreeable to his law, which he has given, that he may tithe his people, to prepare them against the day of vengeance and burning, should have their names enrolled with the people of God.

4  Neither is their genealogy to be kept, or to be had where it may be found on any of the records or history of the church.

5  Their names shall not be found, neither the names of the fathers, nor the names of the children written in the book of the law of God, saith the Lord of Hosts.

If the church has kept this instruction, it would suggest that the names of the children of those who apostasized after receiving their inheritance are not held in the genealogical records of the church. This would seem to be quite inconsistent with the church’s emphasis on genealogy and gathering up the names of the dead and would lessen the opportunity for those children to receive the saving ordinances. It would also seem to be inconsistent with the second Article of Faith which suggests that we are each individually accountable for our own sins and we are not penalised for the sins of others. On the other hand, if the church has not done this, it would also seem to be an odd situation if the church had ignored an instruction from the Lord.

[zil]

I read the entire section, and the verses in Ezra that it links to at the end (and I'm familiar with the story there, so I didn't read any more than those verses, which were enough to remind me).  And given all that, I think the records and history to which the section and Ezra are referring are membership, priesthood, and similar formal records and histories.  I'm not entirely certain whether genealogical records constitute a part of those records.

A membership record links a person to their parents, spouse, and children (and indirectly to all the people they are related to).  This might be the "their genealogy" referred to in verse 4.

In addition, what if a parent apostatized, but a child (old enough to choose for themselves) did not?  We would keep the child's record (but perhaps not a record of his parent - as far as membership records go).  Perhaps a membership clerk with a lot of experience can provide more info.

I'm also not sure what the church genealogical department does with the genealogy of those who have apostatized.  Especially given that for any one apostate, there could be lots of relatives (in all directions) who did not apostatize (or ever have the chance to be members in the first place).  So how far-reaching did the verses intend the rules to be?  I'm not entirely certain, and I suspect it would have been determined on a case by case basis.

Anywho, the short of it is that I suspect these verses are referring to a specific type of record.  (They're also clearly tied to the law of consecration being practiced at the time, and I don't know how relevant that is to the rules laid out in this section.)

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

written in the book of the law of God

 

I would assume it's not talking about geneology, but Heavenly records. "Angels above us are silent notes taking". 

[Vort]

That is not what the verse means.

[mordorbund]

The Book of the Law of God is an actual, tangible, earthly book. For whatever reason, Joseph had his scribes keep it in a record called The Book of the Law of the Lord. It is the record of the Church (really a library of records) on the general level. For an idea of what this book is intended to capture, you can review your own local ward records and scale them up to the general level. An introduction to the keeping of Church records (complete with links if you want to dig deeper) can be found here.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

4 Neither is their genealogy to be kept, or to be had where it may be found on any of the records or history of the church.
5 Their names shall not be found, neither the names of the fathers, ...
5a ...nor the names of the children written in the book of the law of God, ... (Separated for reference).

A) If the church has kept this instruction, it would suggest that the names of the children of those who apostasized after receiving their inheritance are not held in the genealogical records of the church.

B) This would seem to be quite inconsistent with the church’s emphasis on genealogy and gathering up the names of the dead and would lessen the opportunity for those children to receive the saving ordinances.

C) It would also seem to be inconsistent with the second Article of Faith which suggests that we are each individually accountable for our own sins and we are not penalised for the sins of others.

D) On the other hand, if the church has not done this, it would also seem to be an odd situation if the church had ignored an instruction from the Lord.

(Bold) added for reference.

1) I'm assuming that you understand that 4 & 5 have been kept.  If not, we can discuss that later.  Your line of questions seems to be about 5a.

2) (5a) is not as dire as your interpretation (A&B) would indicated. This verse simply means that if parents turn to apostasy, their minor children are also removed from the records of the Church.  The reasoning for this has been discussed in other threads.  And it is really the compassionate, merciful thing to do.  Should such children, upon reaching adulthood, choose to return to the fold, they are free to do so.

3) (B) not at all.  Geneology work by others who come  across them in post-mortem records are not necessarily barred from entering submitting their names to the temple.  If the child was too young to remember/understand the gospel as it was taught to them, then they may have the opportunity in the Spirit World.

4) (C) Not at all.  Any time anyone sins (like the parents in question) negative consequences affect those around them.  This is true of ANY sin.  The second AoF is about Eternal consequences because of the actions of others.  And by virtue of my responses 2 &3 above, I hope I've addressed that.

5) (D) It would indeed.  Good thing we don't.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

2 hours ago, mordorbund said:

The Book of the Law of God is an actual, tangible, earthly book. For whatever reason, Joseph had his scribes keep it in a record called The Book of the Law of the Lord. It is the record of the Church (really a library of records) on the general level. For an idea of what this book is intended to capture, you can review your own local ward records and scale them up to the general level. An introduction to the keeping of Church records (complete with links if you want to dig deeper) can be found here.

 

Thank you for the polite and informative correction.

[Blackmarch]

4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Could people please share their thoughts/knowledge/opinion on whether, or to what extent, they think the church might or might not have kept the instruction the Lord gave to the church, as recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 85: 2-5.

 

2  And also their manner of life, their faith, and works; and also of the apostates who apostatize after receiving their inheritances.

 

3  It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their inheritance by consecration, agreeable to his law, which he has given, that he may tithe his people, to prepare them against the day of vengeance and burning, should have their names enrolled with the people of God.

 

4  Neither is their genealogy to be kept, or to be had where it may be found on any of the records or history of the church.

 

5  Their names shall not be found, neither the names of the fathers, nor the names of the children written in the book of the law of God, saith the Lord of Hosts.

 

If the church has kept this instruction, it would suggest that the names of the children of those who apostasized after receiving their inheritance are not held in the genealogical records of the church. This would seem to be quite inconsistent with the church’s emphasis on genealogy and gathering up the names of the dead and would lessen the opportunity for those children to receive the saving ordinances. It would also seem to be inconsistent with the second Article of Faith which suggests that we are each individually accountable for our own sins and we are not penalised for the sins of others. On the other hand, if the church has not done this, it would also seem to be an odd situation if the church had ignored an instruction from the Lord.

A key here is "the book of law" the genological records kept and encouraged are not the book of law. Or the record of what is both bound on earth and in heaven.

[askandanswer]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

That is not what the verse means.

Could you elaborate please Vort?

[askandanswer]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

1) I'm assuming that you understand that 4 & 5 have been kept.  If not, we can discuss that later.  Your line of questions seems to be about 5a.

2) (5a) is not as dire as your interpretation (A&B) would indicated. This verse simply means that if parents turn to apostasy, their minor children are also removed from the records of the Church.  The reasoning for this has been discussed in other threads.  And it is really the compassionate, merciful thing to do.  Should such children, upon reaching adulthood, choose to return to the fold, they are free to do so.

3) (B) not at all.  Geneology work by others who come  across them in post-mortem records are not necessarily barred from entering submitting their names to the temple.  If the child was too young to remember/understand the gospel as it was taught to them, then they may have the opportunity in the Spirit World.

4) (C) Not at all.  Any time anyone sins (like the parents in question) negative consequences affect those around them.  This is true of ANY sin.  The second AoF is about Eternal consequences because of the actions of others.  And by virtue of my responses 2 &3 above, I hope I've addressed that.

5) (D) It would indeed.  Good thing we don't.

I understand from several of the responses that have been provided, for which I am thankful, that the names of a certain category of apostates, and the names of their fathers and children will not be written in the book of the law of God. However I'm still uncertain about whether the church holds their genealogical records. The Lord said, in verse 4, "Neither is their genealogy to be kept, or to be had where it may be found on any of the records or history of the church."  If the church does hold their genealogical records, for example, if they were submitted by the righteous posterity of the apostate, then would not that constitute a violation of the direction that the church not hold their genealogical records?

[Guest]

A&A,

Consider this:  You're really trying to condemn on both sides.  The Lord is trying to uplift from both sides.  I personally don't see this as a violation of that direction.  Although I can see how you might come to that conclusion.  But remember that is a personal interpretation.  I don't subscribe to it.  And apparently neither does the Church.

[zil]

The real answer is that I have no doubt that the church is currently handling membership, church history, and genealogical records in the way the Lord wishes - living prophets and apostles, on-going revelation, doctrine vs principle vs program, and all that jazz...

And when all the books are opened, there will be no confusion about who is or is not worthy of what inheritance in Zion (which seems to be the real point in this section).

Edited March 6, 2016 by zil

[Vort]

5 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Could you elaborate please Vort?

I think others have done a better job of it than I would. The section was given regarding a particular impllementation of a "united order", an effort to live more fully the law of consecration. We live the law of consecration today, of course, but in general we don't live any sort of united order outside of our families. The "genealogies" spoken of here don't refer to keeping our ancestral lines, as the Church does in the Ancestral File and such. They seem to me to refer to inheritances and places within the united order being spoken of.

[askandanswer]

20 hours ago, Carborendum said:

A&A,

Consider this:  You're really trying to condemn on both sides.  The Lord is trying to uplift from both sides.  I personally don't see this as a violation of that direction.  Although I can see how you might come to that conclusion.  But remember that is a personal interpretation.  I don't subscribe to it.  And apparently neither does the Church.

My question was intended to be a question, not a condemnation. 

[askandanswer]

19 hours ago, zil said:

The real answer is that I have no doubt that the church is currently handling membership, church history, and genealogical records in the way the Lord wishes - living prophets and apostles, on-going revelation, doctrine vs principle vs program, and all that jazz...

And when all the books are opened, there will be no confusion about who is or is not worthy of what inheritance in Zion (which seems to be the real point in this section).

I completely agree. I'm sure that church's genealogical and record keeping practices are entirely consistent with the Lord's will. I just don't understand how the practice reconciles with the direction contained in these verses. I can speculate on a range of possibilities, but some of those would just open up more questions. For example, perhaps God just changed His mind at some point, and gave a new direction in revelation not contained within the Doctrine and Covenants. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, askandanswer said:

My question was intended to be a question, not a condemnation. 

My apologies.  Poor choice of words.  But the point was that the mindset you're using (whether it's your mindset, or just playing devil's advocate is another issue) to generate the question is the position of "what is wrong with this?" rather than "what is good about this?"  What is good is that even though a punishment is decreed, the Lord always wishes to extend his hand in forgiveness as long as we are willing to humble ourselves enough to accept it.  There is a way as long as we have a broken heart and contrite spirit.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Guest

[estradling75]

4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I completely agree. I'm sure that church's genealogical and record keeping practices are entirely consistent with the Lord's will. I just don't understand how the practice reconciles with the direction contained in these verses. I can speculate on a range of possibilities, but some of those would just open up more questions. For example, perhaps God just changed His mind at some point, and gave a new direction in revelation not contained within the Doctrine and Covenants. 

Or you could understand that Context matters when revelations are given...  A change in context can bring a change in how the Lord wants us to handle things.  In this case as for Vort mentioned the United Order was action.  Faithful members were given inheritances... inheritances that would pass down the family line.

If someone was faithful and gained an inheritance... then lost it because of faithlessness... then their inheritance would be given to another.  However  kids or grandkids of faithful members would be getting their inheritance because of their ability to prove their "genealogy" in the church records.  You wouldn't want them getting into fight saying this inheritance "Rightfully" belongs to them, because their ancestor had it first.

Now a days the church doesn't hand out inheritances.  So it has no real reason to restrict genealogy.  It is however trying very hard to offer salvation to every soul... That mission is greatly benefited by knowing every soul possible