Doctrine and Covenants 85: 3=4

[askandanswer]

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.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 85:3 - 4)

If we can find anywhere on familysearch.org or in the family history vaults of the church the names of the descendants of those who received “not their inheritance by consecration, agreeable to his law” would that constitute an example of the church violating an injunction the Lord has given to His church?

[laronius]

This section was a revelation that apparently never was able to be fully implemented because the Saints were unable to live the law of consecration. So I don't think we can reasonably enforce the consequences of violating a commandment that is currently not even in force. Though it is interesting to note the different records mentioned in this section: the records and history of the church, the book of the law of God, and book of remembrance. I'm curious to know the exact definition of each.

[Just_A_Guy]

Migration to Missouri (“Zion”) during this period was supposed to be carefully controlled—you got a recommend from a bishop (usually at Kirtland) before you left, or you weren't supposed to go at all.  And when you arrived, you were expected to consecrate your goods to the bishop in Missouri, who would give you a plot of church-owned land which was then deeded to you.  This was supposed to keep the Church in Missouri on a solid economic foundation, keep them living together in very close and easily-defensible settlements, and also alleviate concerns from non-Mormon neighbors about the settlement growing too large too quickly.  

But what happened in practice was that many Church members went down there whenever they darn well felt like it, obtaining land directly from local speculators and/or the government.  Still others went down there utterly destitute, with nothing to consecrate, and simply expecting that the Church in Missouri would take care of them.

In the opening of D&C 85, the Lord is here reiterating that moving to Missouri while flouting the laws the Lord had established for the settlement of Missouri was a big deal, and potentially grounds for excommunication.  However . . . we know from other scriptures that the bishop/clerk can’t arbitrarily expunge someone’s name from the church rolls; there’s still a process of councils that has to be followed and a member enjoys the privileges of membership unless/until that process is complete.  In practice, it seems very few people were actually excommunicated for moving to Missouri prematurely (William McLellin got made an apostle, for Pete’s sake!).

And as for keeping genealogies . . . this revelation came before the Church was doing proxy temple work of any kind, let alone keeping the sort of genealogical database it now keeps. 

Edited August 9, 2021 by Just_A_Guy