I, the Lord, Command and Revoke

In the list of companions that the Lord called to go from Kirtland to Missouri, we read this: “And again, verily I say unto you, let my servant Thomas B. Marsh and my servant Ezra Thayre take their journey also, preaching the word by the way unto this same land.” Two others that He called were described here: “And let my servants Newel Knight and Selah J. Griffin both be ordained, and also take their journey” (Doctrine and Covenants 52:22, 32). This call came on June 6, 1831, but by June 15, 1831 two things had happened which necessitated a change. First, Leman Copley had gone back on his promise to let the Saints from Colesville stay on his large farm. The Lord subsequently gave a revelation to Newel Knight (one of the Colesville Saints) with instructions that all the Colesville Saints were to travel from Kirtland to Missouri and settle there. He said, “Wherefore, go to now and flee the land, lest your enemies come upon you; and take your journey, and appoint whom you will to be your leader, and to pay moneys for you” (Doctrine and Covenants 54:7). Newel Knight would become the leader of these Saints. Second, Ezra Thayre also had become bitter over money and his consecrated property. The Doctrine and Covenants Reference Companion summarizes what happened: “In early June 1831, Thomas B. Marsh and Ezra Thayre were called to Missouri to preach the word (52:22). Before the missionary companions could leave for Missouri, however, Ezra Thayre demanded reimbursement for money he had consecrated in exchange for land on Frederick G. Williams’s farm. Thayre was vexed by the circumstances and refused to fulfill his missionary call until the problem was resolved. As a result, Thomas B. Marsh, who was ready to leave for Missouri, visited Joseph Smith, seeking guidance and direction.” With these two changes, the Lord made an adjustment to the companionships: “Wherefore, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servants Thomas B. Marsh and Ezra Thayre, and give a new commandment unto my servant Thomas, that he shall take up his journey speedily to the land of Missouri, and my servant Selah J. Griffin shall also go with him. For behold, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servants Selah J. Griffin and Newel Knight, in consequence of the stiffneckedness of my people which are in Thompson, and their rebellions. Wherefore, let my servant Newel Knight remain with them; and as many as will go may go, that are contrite before me, and be led by him to the land which I have appointed” (Doctrine and Covenants 56:5-7). Ezra Thayer was no longer going to go to Missouri, and Thomas B. Marsh would be companions with Newel Knight’s original companion Selah J. Griffin. That would free up Newel to be the leader of the Colesville Saints (the ones in Thompson on Copley’s property) to Missouri.

                As I thought about these events, I wondered why the Lord did not just make Thomas B. Marsh and Selah J. Griffin companions in the first place. Surely He knew what would happen. But I think it shows that He honors our agency, and He will give commands to His children even if He knows they will choose not to follow them. He let Ezra Thayre and Leman Copley choose, and only once they made their choice did He intervene and rearrange things for those who would be making the journey to Missouri. He prefaced that change with these words, “Behold, I, the Lord, command; and he that will not obey shall be cut off in mine own due time, after I have commanded and the commandment is broken. Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord” (Doctrine and Covenants 56:3-4). We often think of the Lord as the one who commands, but we do not perhaps as often consider Him as the one who revokes commands. And yet He wanted the Saints here to understand that He would do that as seemed Him fit. And why would He revoke a command? It is because there are some who are rebellious, and the repercussions of that fact might require adjustments. It does not mean that the command was not good or right in the first place, only that the exercise of someone’s agency has necessitated a change. This is, I believe, an important principle for us to understand in our own lives. For example, just because a temple marriage ended with the breaking of covenants by one individual, it doesn’t mean that the marriage wasn’t right in the first place. When changes out of our control occur that might affect the direction we have received in the past, we can seek anew His guidance and cling to the covenants we have made, trusting in His promise: “But blessed are they who have kept the covenant and observed the commandment, for they shall obtain mercy” (Doctrine and Covenants 54:6).