Welcome to Study Faith with AI, where we use the power of AI to help you explore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm Meg Jensen.

And I'm Paul Carter,

and we're Google AIs. Whether you're a lifelong member or just starting to learn about the Church, we're here to dive deep into its history, beliefs, and culture.

So, if you're ready to learn, you're in the right place.

That's right.

Let's get started. 

Welcome to the deep dive. Today we're diving into a question that sits at the heart of faith for many. How do we understand the consistency of God's core principles alongside the changes we see in specific commandments delivered through prophets across time? We get some uh really fascinating material here to unpack this.

Yeah, it's a question that really gets to the um the very nature of divine guidance, doesn't it? We're looking at how fundamental eternal truths endure while the way we live out Some of those truths, well, it can evolve.

Absolutely. And our deep dive today really centers around God's two great commandments to love God and to love our neighbor. You see these highlighted all of scripture, Matthew, Mark, Luke, the Doctrine and Covenants. They all point to them as encompassing all the law and the prophets. Like it says in Matthew, they're the bedrock, the unchanging foundation.

And it's so important to keep those two great commandments in mind as our anchor. You know, as we explore shifts in other areas, we can keep asking, okay, how do these changes relate back to loving God and loving our neighbor.

Exactly. So, where will our exploration take us? Specifically, we're focusing on three key areas where we've seen well pretty notable changes over time. How we think about sex, particularly the history of plural marriage, how we approach money, looking at the principle of tithing, and how we consider food and health through the lens of the Word of Wisdom.

Okay.

For each of these, we'll dig into their historical context, uh examine the theological reasons behind the shifts, and consider what these changes actually mean for individuals trying to live faithfully today. We'll even touch on the updated Strength of Youth guide near the end.

Right. And what's truly insightful, I think, is that by understanding these evolving rules, we can gain a richer perspective on God's character, the vital role of prophets as um intermediaries, the purpose of divine law in our lives and even how we might understand divine judgment. It's not just about, you know, dusty historical practices. It's about grasping the bigger picture of our relationship with the divine.

Okay, let's unpack this then. Let's start with a topic that, well it often generates a lot of questions sex and specifically the early church practice of plural marriage. Right? So in the formative years of the Church particularly in Kirtland and Nauvoo under Joseph Smith's leadership plural marriage was introduced and it's important right off the bat to recognize a distinction that was made between ceilings for time and eternity suggesting a marital relationship in this life and the next and those for eternity only. which were understood or seem to have been understood as creating eternal family linkages without a current marital union.

This is where it gets really interesting and it's definitely a topic where our modern sensibilities can sometimes well clash with historical practices.

For example, we know some of the women sealed to Joseph Smith were quite young. Helen Mar Kimball for instance, she was sealed to him for eternity alone before she even turned 15.

Right

Now, while that was actually within the legal age at the time, it certainly feels jarring when we look at it through today's ethics. It does indeed and it really underscores the critical importance of historical context when we're trying to understand past actions. What was legally permissible or uh culturally accepted in one era can be viewed very differently obviously based on the values and norms of a later time.

Another aspect that frequently comes up is the fact that Joseph Smith was sealed to some women who were already married to other men.

Yes.

The explanation often given is that many of these ceilings were for eternity. alone. One interpretation suggests this might have been an early way to create enduring family networks within the, you know, the young church.

Mhm.

Notably, in Nauvoo, the first husbands of these women typically continued to live with their wives, and the historical records we have don't really show widespread complaints specifically about these ceilings involving Joseph Smith.

That's a really important point to consider. The historical evidence we have, it paints a complex picture, one that we can't easily simplify with our modern assumptions. The precise reasons behind these eternity only ceilings to already married women are still debated among historians, but the idea of forging broader eternal kinship ties seems to be a recurring theme,

right?

It kind of speaks to a potential early emphasis on the eternal significance of relationships beyond just the nuclear family as we might understand it today.

Okay. Now, if we fast forward to our modern context, the difference is well, it's striking. Plural marriage is no longer practiced or endorsed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints. The current teachings and standards are firmly rooted in the principle of monogamy.

Yeah. And this change implicitly speaks to the role of prophetic authority. Prophets guided by God have the responsibility to introduce practices when directed and similarly to discontinue them when circumstances change or when God's will indicates.

So this doesn't invalidate past revelations.

No, not necessarily. It rather illustrates the ongoing and adaptable nature of divine guidance leading his people through different times and circumstances, always pointing back to those core principles of loving God and neighbor.

Okay. So for individuals today then as they look back at this history, how do they reconcile these past practices with current teachings? I imagine it can be a challenging area for some.

Oh, absolutely. For many, the key is to focus on those enduring principles we started with, the two great commandments. Specific practices may be adapted or changed, but the fundamental call to love God and love our neighbor remains constant.

Right?

In the modern church, the emphasis on temple marriage between one man and one woman as the way to form eternal families is very clear. This practice through the sealing ordinances importantly connects individuals not only to their spouse but also back to their own birth families achieving that goal of eternal family connections in a way that has well evolved from the early church's approach to ceilings.

All right, let's shift our focus now. Let's talk about money and the law of tithing. This is another area where we see some interesting developments when we look back at the historical context.

Absolutely. In the early days of the Church, there was that attempt to live the law of consecration where members dedicated their properties to the Church. But um that system presented pretty significant practical and financial challenges. It just wasn't fully sustainable on a large scale.

Then in 1838 a revelation was received Doctrine and Covenants section 119 which outlined the principle of tithing. It's interesting though. Tithing before this there was apparently consideration of a voluntary donation of just 2% of net worth to meet the Church's financial needs.

That's right. The 1838 revelation established tithing as the contribution of one tenth of interest annually. Now that phrase has been officially defined by the First Presidency in a letter from 1970 to mean income.

Okay, income.

This revelation became the foundational financial law for the Church providing a more consistent and uh universally applicable model than the earlier law of consecration.

But even with this revelation, there were nuances in how it was understood and applied early on. Right?

Like in 1847 Orson Hyde writing in the Millennial Star offered a really important clarification.

Yes, he did. He basically said that if a person's entire earnings were necessary just to provide for their family's basic needs, then paying tithing wasn't required. He stated very clearly that the celestial law does not take the mothers and children's bread.

Wow. That statement really highlights a principle of compassion, ensuring that meeting basic human needs takes precedence.

Exactly. It suggests that the intent behind tithing is. It's about proportionate giving and sacrifice, not about imposing undue hardship.

Interestingly though, just a few decades later in 1873, Orson Pratt observed that many church members were not adhering to the expectation of paying one tenth of their annual income.

Mhm.

Which indicates that even with a clear revelation, consistently living by that principle could still be a challenge for people.

It does. It's a reminder that understanding and fully embracing divine commandments often involves a process and adherence isn't always uniform even after a principle has been revealed.

Now, here's a really fascinating historical episode. It involves a collision between religious practice and, well, temporal law. In 1871, Daniel H. Wells received the telegram advising that it would be wisdom for the Latter-day Saints to omit paying tithing.

Right. That's quite something.

Yeah. The reason behind this pretty dramatic suggestion was concerns about the recently established federal income tax and the potential for government officials to seize tithing funds.

This situation arose from the, uh, the complexities of the Church's relationship with the US federal government in the 19th century. The Civil War income tax enacted back in 1862 to finance the war was still actually in effect in 1871. It was slated to expire the following year, but it applied to the gains, profits, and income of individuals and organizations.

And this new federal income tax, it necessitated a whole system for collection leading to the establishment of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in 1862, a big year for Utah with the railroad completion. John P. Tagert, the internal revenue assessor for the Utah district, assessed income tax on the Church itself.

Right. And this assessment happened during a period of heightened federal scrutiny of Utah, largely because of the ongoing practice of polygamy. Tagert himself apparently held strong negative views toward the Church and its members, even accusing them of trying to evade tax laws.

So Brigham Young understandably viewed this taxation as an infringement. on their religious freedom. He actively engaged in efforts to understand and challenge the application of the tax law to the Church. He drew a distinction though between this issue and the more direct conflict over the prohibition of polygamy.

That's an important distinction. Unlike the law specifically targeting polygamy, the income tax itself wasn't aimed at a particular religious belief. The Church's objection really centered on Tagert's interpretation and application of the law. So, this led to a period of interaction with the federal government through legal channels trying to clarify the Church's tax obligations

and ultimately

well ultimately the Civil War income tax expired in 1872 so it kind of resolved that particular point of contention but it provides a really interesting case study of how external legal and political factors can intersect with and influence the practice of religious financial principles.

Definitely. So shifting to the modern context, tithing is now well pretty consistently understood and practiced as the donation of 10% of an individual 's income. That's clearly outlined in the Church's general handbook based on that 1970 First Presidency letter we mentioned.

Right? Though it's interesting to consider different perspectives on what exactly constitutes income. James E. Talmage in his writings described tithing as a kind of rental based on income received. That implies a degree of flexibility and payment depending on one's financial circumstances. Leaner times might mean a lower tithing contribution.

Which aligns with that earlier sentiment from Orson Hyde about not taking the mothers and children's bread. Right. It emphasizes applying the principle with consideration for individual circumstances.

Exactly. And Joseph Fielding Smith clarified in 1947 that the current requirement is to pay one tenth of one's income. Contrasting this with the earlier practice under the law of consecration where members were expected to dedicate all their surplus property.

Right? The surplus property aspect. David O. McKay also pointed out this historical shift, noting that early tithing involved the contribution of surplus goods before for the establishment of the fixed law of one-thenth of annual interest.

And going even further back, Bishop Edward Partridge way back in 1838 apparently understood interest to mean the interest derived from one's net worth, not necessarily gross income.

Oh, interesting. So, yet another historical lens on that foundational term.

Yeah. This historical overview really underscores how the understanding and application of the law of tithing have evolved. The potential for a strict interpretation of gross income to sometimes feel like an overpayment can be contrasted with the underlying principles of personal sacrifice and proportionate giving that seem to have been central from the beginning.

So that shift from the law of consecration to the law of tithing seems to reflect a move towards a financial model that's more maybe universally applicable and sustainable for the Church and its members long term.

I think that's a fair assessment. Yeah. For the ongoing needs of a growing worldwide church.

So the practical implications for members today, it really comes down to that personal decision of what constitutes an honest tithe based on their understanding of interest or income while prayerfully considering their own financial situation and striving to live by that principle of sacrifice.

Exactly. It becomes a matter of individual conscience and seeking to live this commandment in a way that is both faithful to the principle and responsible in their personal circumstances.

All right. Our final deep dive into the evolution of commandments takes us to the realm of food and drink, specifically the Word of Wisdom.

Ah, yes. The Word of Wisdom revealed relatively early in the Church's history. This provides a really compelling example of how the interpretation and application of a revealed principle can evolve quite significantly over time.

The historical backdrop here is so important, isn't it? The early 1800s in the US were a time of significant public discussion and uh growing concern around alcohol abuse. It gave rise to a strong temperance movement.

Definitely. And it's crucial to remember that At that time, the regular consumption of alcoholic beverages was actually quite common in many households. It wasn't seen the same way it often is today.

And this temperance movement wasn't solely focused on alcohol either. Some reformers also advocated against tobacco use and even suggested coffee as a potentially healthier alternative to alcohol, partly due to concerns about like the purity of drinking water back then.

Right. Which is fascinating given later interpretations.

Exactly. Now, this is a point that sometimes surprises people. Early church leaders and members, including Joseph Smith himself, did not consistently adhere to all aspects of what would later become the strict requirements of the Word of Wisdom.

Mhm.

We even have that account of Joseph Smith drinking wine on the evening before his martyrdom.

That's a really significant detail. It challenges any notion of immediate universal strict obedience right from the very beginning. Furthermore, historical records, including criticisms published in the Deseret News in the late 1800s, reveal that even some church leaders were involved in the liquor trade through entities like ZCMI.

ZCMI, the Church's mercantile institution,

right? Which raises questions about the consistency of their public temperance stance at the time.

We even have documented testimony from the Reed Smoot hearings in the early 20th century, confirming that Joseph F. Smith served as the president of ZCMI while the company was still selling alcoholic beverages.

Yeah, it really underscores the gradual nature of the Word of Wisdom's adoption as a strict behavioral standard.

It's vital to remember, too, that the word Word of Wisdom was initially presented as not by way of commandment or constraint, but rather as a principle offering promises, health, and wisdom to those who would follow it.

Exactly. It wasn't until much later, really, in the 1920s, that adherence to the Word of Wisdom became a requirement for receiving a temple recommend. That shift indicates a really significant change in how the principle was viewed and applied within the Church.

So, let's contrast that with a modern context. Today, strict adherence to the Word of Wisdom of abstaining from alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea is a firm, non-negotiable prerequisite for temple attendance and full participation in church life.

Yes, this modern interpretation, often emphasized by church leaders like Boyd K. Packer, views the Word of Wisdom as more than just a health guideline. It's seen as being directly linked to spiritual receptivity and worthiness to enter the temple, a sacred space.

It's interesting though, reflecting on the fact that while it now strictly prohibits coffee and tea substances whose you know, potential health effects weren't well understood scientifically back in the 1830s, and some modern studies even suggest certain benefits. It doesn't explicitly address other significant health factors we now know can be detrimental, like excessive refined sugars or saturated fats.

That apparent discrepancy does raise questions about the evolving emphasis of the Word of Wisdom. While it was initially presented with a clear focus on physical health, its modern application seems to have taken on a much stronger dimension as a kind of law of obedience and a marker of spiritual worthiness.

So that shift highlights how prophetic interpretation and emphasis can evolve over time even within the context of a single revelation.

I think so. Yes. And the practical implications for members today involve navigating these very specific prohibitions in their daily lives and understanding the direct connection between their adherence and their eligibility for temple ordinances which are of course central to their faith. This whole evolution really underscores the idea of ongoing revelation and the dynamic nature of how God guides his children. The understanding and application of revealed principles can be adapted and clarified by prophets across different eras to meet the specific needs and um evolving understanding of subsequent generations always with the overarching goal presumably of helping us draw closer to him and live according to his will.

This brings us nicely to our conclusion and the updated For the Strength of Youth guide. This recent version represents a really significant shift, doesn't it? In how the Church approaches guiding its youth.

It really does.

Instead of providing those long lists of specific dos and don'ts, it focuses more on foundational eternal truths, principles, and doctrine. It encourages young people to make their own righteous choices based on this deeper understanding.

Right? And this change in approach has led some people to believe that the standards have somehow been relaxed because the detailed prohibitions found in previous versions are, well, less prominent.

But let's consider that example sometimes used of a father and son discussing tattoos. The guide doesn't just say no tattoos. Instead, it encourages youth to consider the principle of honoring the sacredness of their bodies. The father uses thoughtful questions to help his son seek his own spiritual understanding and consider the underlying values rather than just pointing to a rule in a book.

Exactly. And President Russell M. Nelson has made it clear that this For the Strength of Youth booklet should be the standard encouraging young people to embrace being different from the world. world by living in accordance with these core principles. The emphasis is clearly on internalizing these truths, not just checking boxes on a list of rules.

So, the crucial role now really falls on parents and leaders, doesn't it? To ask those insightful guiding questions that prompt youth to seek their own spiritual answers and to cultivate their personal connection with Heavenly Father

and helping them learn to recognize the promptings of the spirit becomes absolutely paramount in this model. How do you know when the spirit is giving you an answer? That's a key skill. Yeah, this approach in the updated Strength of Youth guide really ties back nicely to our central theme today. Enduring commandments and evolving practices. The fundamental principles of loving God, living righteously, they remain constant. But the way we apply those principles in our specific behaviors requires prayerful consideration and personal revelation. All within the framework of prophetic guidance.

It's about internalizing the spirit of the law, not just the letter. It trusts the individual more in a way guided by the spirit. So, as we've explored these changing rules and areas of emphasis over time in sex, money, and food, what overarching lessons can we take away about God, prophets, law, and judgment?

It seems pretty clear that God's love and foundational principles are indeed unwavering,

right?

Prophets serve as vital guides, leading us according to the needs and understanding of their particular time. Laws act as guideposts, tools for our spiritual growth, and their specific forms can adapt across different dispensations, and ultimately divine judgment. Well, it will likely take into account the desires of our hearts and our sincere efforts to live according to the light and understanding we have been given.

This journey through these evolving commandments really highlights the dynamic nature of God's interaction with humanity. It's not some rigid unchanging system of rules frozen in time, but a living, evolving relationship guided by eternal principles and adapted through the inspired leadership of prophets.

That's a really powerful and insightful way to summarize it. So for you, our listener, maybe the final thought is this. How does understanding this evolution of commandments influence your personal relationship with God and your understanding of his will in your life? And what does it truly mean to strive to live by eternal principles in a world where specific practices can and sometimes do change over time? It's certainly something to give some deep thought to. Thanks for taking this deep dive with us.

If you find value in this exploration, please like, share, follow, and consider becoming a subscriber. Your contributions help keep these conversations going and allows us to maintain the highest quality production. You can find all the details at studyfaithwithai.com. Thank you for being part of this journey.