Scripture Roundtable 18: D&C Gospel Doctrine Lesson 14, “The Law of Consecration”

(Originally published on 16 March 2013.)

This is Scripture Roundtable 18 from The Interpreter Foundation, in which we discuss Doctrine & Covenants Gospel Doctrine Lesson #14, “The Law of Consecration,” covering scriptures in Doctrine & Covenants sections 42, 51, 78, 82, and 104, bringing in various insights to help us better understand the scriptures. These roundtables will generally follow the 2013 Gospel Doctrine schedule of scriptures, a few weeks ahead of time.

Panelists for this roundtable include Brant Gardner, Robert Boylan, Martin Tanner, and Shon Hopkin.

This roundtable is also available as an audio podcast, and will be included in the podcast feed. You can listen by pressing the play button or download the podcast below:


7 thoughts on “Scripture Roundtable 18: D&C Gospel Doctrine Lesson 14, “The Law of Consecration”

  1. I am a little surprised that no one mentioned the promise of consecration made by those members of the Church who have received the temple endowment. Without going into too much detail, the terms of that promise encompass not just our fiscal stewardships, but also our unique talents and abilities and perhaps the most precious resource we have to give: our time on earth. I’m still trying to determine the best way to hold to that promise in everyday life.

  2. Amen to remembering part of our CURRENT covenant made in the temple.

    Card essay was first delivered in 1990 at the “Building Zion Conference” at which Gordon Wagner, Gordon Thomasson, and I also presented papers on Consecration and Stewardship (on which topic we have been writing for more than 35 years).

    If I knew how I would post our latest paper (given at Claremont Graduate University a year ago) on this site. Until I learn how, you can email me for a copy (which includes 10+ pages of C&S references and scriptures) at

    Allen Lambert

  3. Unfortunately your discussion of the Law of Consecration contains fundamental historical inaccuracies. For example, there was no functioning United Order during Joseph’s lifetime. Rather, there was an entity named the United Firm, which was a sort of consecrated business holding company. The term United Order was later inserted into the relevant sections of the D&C to obscure the United Firm’s business operations from the Church’s enemies. The consequent misunderstanding of these sections by members today results in incorrect interpretations of the Law of Consecration as practiced during Joseph’s lifetime. There are scholarly and non-academic discussions of this topic, which are easy to find by googling the terms United Firm United Order.

  4. Christians are committed to the grammatical method. The word beget is not difficult. But CS Lewis evacuates it of all meaning! (“Like one book leaning on another.” To lean is not the same as to beget!)Matt. 1:18., 20, Luke 1:35, with I Jn 5:18 designate the place where and the time when the Son is begotten. “What is begotten, brought into existence, fathered in her is from holy spirit” (Matt. 1:20).It is ludicrous to refuse the word “beget”! On that basis God could not reveal anything for certain. One could just say, “God does not operate within our rules.”In this way we would never know what He meant! Adam could never have come into existence as Son of God (Lk 3:38).I hope that the biblical unitarian position is now completely clarified by reaction to Norelli’s remarks. The issue is childishly easy. If “beget” is allowed its actual meaning as a semantic unit (verifiable in any dictionary), then the Trinitarians lose out! If the Son was brought into existence (begotten) in time and in Mary, the notion of an eternal begetting is nonsense, as some honest Trinitarians admit! (McCleod, The Person of Christ, 131) remarks as a Trinitarian that “it is far from clear what content, if any, we can impart to the concept of eternal begetting.” Meaningless ideas are useless and should be banished.At least the positions are utterly clear now. I myself believe that words, especially the words of Holy Scripture, have definable meanings and cannot be twisted out of meaning in support of a strange philosophy. Norelli’s method would spell the end of revelation since no one would know what God means.Luke 1:35 speaks of time and place and explains that “Son of God” for Jesus is the designation appropriate for him because of the Father’s begetting miracle in Mary.What a lot of wasted, waffly words would be spared if people chose to believe Scripture! Anthony.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated to ensure respectful discourse. It is assumed that it is possible to disagree agreeably and intelligently and comments that intend to increase overall understanding are particularly encouraged.