Scott Woodward:
Because there are no explicitly stated purposes of Joseph Smith’s Bible translation project, either by him or in any of his revelations, all explanations offered about or criticisms leveled at his Bible translation are based on assumptions and best guesses at best, but then, of course, there’s nothing wrong with educated best guesses, so long as we’re not overly dogmatic and we humbly recognize the tentativeness of our position. The current best evidence from the best scholarship on the topic proposes that the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible was intended to be and to do several things rather than just one thing. On today’s episode of Church History Matters, we’ll review these potential purposes and offer another possibility about what we believe may be the primary purpose behind Joseph’s Bible Translation, what we call the Revelatory Springboard Effect. I’m Scott Woodward, and my co-host is Casey Griffiths, and today we dive into our second episode of this series, dealing with Joseph Smith’s non-Book-of-Mormon Translations and Revelations. Now let’s get into it. Hello, Casey Griffiths.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Hello, Scott Woodward. How are you doing?

Scott Woodward:
So good.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Good.

Scott Woodward:
Let me just start with a recap, and then Casey, you jump in on what we talked about in our last episode to get everybody caught up here. So last time we talked about Joseph Smith’s Bible translation, kind of introduced this idea. It’s the next project that the Lord commanded after the Book of Mormon was translated and printed, in terms of scripture. June 1830. Like, that’s so early. That’s only months after the church was officially organized—

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
—is when Joseph began what the Lord regularly refers to in the Doctrine and Covenants as his “translation” of the Bible. But we acknowledge that this is not Bible translation in the conventional sense of conveying into English the meaning of early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Rather, for Joseph, it was a unique form of Bible revision in which he would add to, remove from, rephrase, rework, and reframe the biblical text under divine inspiration and by his prophetic authority.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Joseph viewed this as a significant “branch of my calling,” he said, in air quotes, “branch of my calling.” He saw this as a super important branch of his calling as a prophet of God, and there’s a ton of value here, but there’s also some things to be careful about when we study this. We began talking about this last time that what exactly Joseph thought he was doing, we don’t know.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
This is one of the frustrating things about the Joseph Smith Translation, right, is because Joseph never provided an overview of what the JST was supposed to be because he never got to publishing this book. We talked about last time some of the efforts that he made, and his desire was to get it published in his lifetime, but that never happened, and so Joseph was never able to frame and explain what the JST was supposed to be, how we’re supposed to read it, what assumptions we should bring to the text. And so we have the hard work of trying to work backward from the documents we do have to try to understand what he was trying to do, and I guess we should just be cautious about those assumptions that we bring to the table, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Like, I had somebody I was just texting with today, a good friend. We were talking about the Joseph Smith Translation, of all things. He was wondering if the Joseph Smith Translation is specifically God’s efforts to restore the plain and precious truths that were lost anciently as part of the Restoration project. Like are—is he trying to bring the truths back? Because that seems like what he’s trying to do. And I like that. There’s nothing about that that seems dangerous, but I said, “You know what? I don’t know, because Joseph never said.”

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
But Kent Jackson has some ideas. Do you want to walk us through some of those? We talked about some of his ideas as he’s looked at those documents probably more carefully than anyone in the church. I don’t know. Maybe him and Bob Matthews have looked at them the most carefully.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
What does he say? What are his conclusions about what the JST is?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. While you were talking, I just had brought to mind that poem, “The Blind Men of Indostan,” and maybe you remember this.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
President Uchtdorf quoted it a couple years ago, but the story is about a group of blind men. I’m not going to read the poem here, though I could Google it and pull it up.

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
A bunch of blind men approach an elephant, and one of them touches part of the elephant and says, “This is a wall.”

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And one touches part of the elephant and says, “This is a tree,” and one touches part of the elephant and says, “This is a spear,” and another person touches part of the elephant and says, “This is a snake,” and another person touches the elephant’s tail and says, “This is a rope.”

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
It’s the same thing with the Joseph Smith Translation, where we have locked in our own preconceptions that we bring to it—

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
—when really, if we just look at the manuscripts themselves, like you said, have to do forensic work.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
We have to work backwards and say, “What does it look like he’s trying to do here?” since he never provided a full explanation. So Kent Jackson and Bob Matthews are two of the world’s experts on this. Kent Jackson, in his wonderful book on the JST, broke it down into five categories. And we reviewed each of these extensively in our first episode, but we’re kind of using this as our outline as we go through this subject. So I’m going to do them real quick. According to Kent Jackson, number one: in some cases, the JST was a restoration of the original text. He’s putting back stuff that was plain and precious that the Book of Mormon said would be removed from the scriptures. He’s restoring the text.

Scott Woodward:
When you just read that first one, I remembered last time arguing with Kent Jackson in my mind. I think I even came out loud and said some things, but there’s some assumptions in there, right? It’s hard to say this is a restoration of original text when we have no example of original text to compare it to, right? I remember just as you were reading that, I thought, “Oh, geez. There that is in my mind.” It’s a barb in my brain, Casey. Like, I want to ask Kent more questions about number one, but.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. At the same time, too, anybody that has studied the transmission of the biblical text and copies of copies know that maybe the only way to actually get back to the original text is to have some sort of revelation, some prophetic calling where you can do what the ancient prophets were doing. It’s just impossible to make it back to the original text from the manuscripts we have. So—

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
—that’s the assumption we’re making.

Scott Woodward:
That’s fine.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Number two. In some ways, the JST puts back stuff that was never in the Bible, but that Joseph Smith, under the direction of the Holy Ghost, felt would augment the Bible and help make the story more clear. The example we used was, there’s a lot of good information about Melchizedek and his background.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
In the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith inserts that into the book of Genesis so that when Melchizedek shows up you know a little bit about his background.

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Number three is the JST appears to have at times consisted of editing to make the Bible more understandable to modern readers. So Joseph Smith modernized a lot of the language. He took out a lot of the archaic words in the King James translation that we don’t really use anymore to make it a little bit more palatable. The example there is Exodus 32:1, “we wot not what has become of him” (not very many of us say that anymore) to, “We know not what has become of him.” So that doesn’t seem to be anything that really impacts things doctrinally, but it does make the Bible easier to read.

Scott Woodward:
Just for flow and for ease of reading, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. Make it a more accessible version of the Bible.

Scott Woodward:
Perfect.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Fourth: Alterations made in the JST were there to bring biblical wording into harmony with truths found in other parts of the Bible or modern revelation. So anybody that’s read the Bible can see that there are some things in there that don’t quite match up with later parts of the Bible. Joseph Smith is bringing those disparate passages and harmonizing them. He’s making them connect and make sense.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
The example we cited was John 1, “No man hath seen God,” when it’s clear several people have seen God. So Joseph Smith changes that passage so that it harmonizes with the rest of the Bible.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Finally, the JST includes changes helpful to modern readers that were not written by the original authors. In that sense, it’s almost like a commentary. A prominent example would be Romans 13 interjects into the text and explains what the apostle was saying. It’s like he’s commenting on the text. So it’s all those things, and it’s like the elephant in “The Blind Men of Indostan.” Everybody wants the Joseph Smith Translation to be one thing, and when it does something different, when it swerves, it throws them off track. But the truth is we’re the blind men in the story, and we’re trying to bring our own presuppositions when we explore a specific part of the translation, and we’re not looking at the whole work, as to exactly what Joseph Smith was trying to do. And these are educated guesses. They come from really good scholars that have studied the manuscripts extensively.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But we shouldn’t be pigeonholed into one thing that the Joseph Smith Translation is. It’s many things.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But I think the thing that we’re going to focus on today is how the Joseph Smith Translation was one more thing.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. We’re going to add one, if we can, to the mix. We want to throw one in there.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
We’re no Kent Jackson.

Scott Woodward:
We’re no Kent Jackson.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
We’re just two random guys. But one more thing I would add to the mix is the Joseph Smith Translation was an avenue for revelation.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
It was the Lord’s way of getting Joseph to engage with the text and receive revelation, and a good case can be made that the Joseph Smith Translation leads to some of the most crucial revelations now found in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. So I’m going to call this the Springboard Theory of Joseph Smith Translation, or the springboard element: that the Bible text acts as a springboard for additional revelation. Like you said, these are no small revelations, either.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
These are significant theological, doctrinal, historical, eschatological revelations. Crucial.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Exactly. This was an avenue to revelation for Joseph Smith. It’s how the Lord opened his mind, got him to ask questions as he engaged with the text, and then gave him some pretty astounding answers that have resonance in what Latter-day Saints teach and believe today in the cosmology of the universe and just the way things are generally. So it’s a wonderful way for Joseph to experience further revelation.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
His revelations have always been tied to the scriptures, way back to when he read James 1:5 before the First Vision. This is no exception to that rule, where the Lord’s going to use the Bible to teach Joseph Smith what he needs to know.

Scott Woodward:
And I personally feel, deep in my bones, like, this is the most important one. And again, this is just me saying it. I’m just a guy. I’m just some guy on a podcast, but as I look at the Doctrine and Covenants, and I think about the impact that the Doctrine and Covenants—and particularly some of the revelations we’ll talk about today—have had on the church, both, like, in real historical time as well as theologically, like, if we’re weighing in terms of impact, like, this has to be up there. I’m putting it at number one, that the purpose of the Joseph Translation primarily was to get additional revelations to us, and then secondarily we get an improved Bible. You know, that’s my own personal feeling, but I’m sure people do and can totally differ.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
You’re just one man, but as they say, now we’re two, because I believe the same thing as well, that the most important thing the JST does is bring us the Doctrine and Covenants.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And the Doctrine and Covenants is part of our standard works. It’s scriptural canon. It’s what you and I teach.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And it is profound, good stuff. I tell my students the Doctrine and Covenants is the AP course. It’s where they’re assuming you know the basics.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And now we’re going to jump into the deep end of the pool and do some serious scriptural exploration.

Scott Woodward:
I love that. Consider this, listeners: the period when the primary phase of Joseph Smith’s Translation was received, OK? This is just to try to bolster the point Casey and I are trying to make here. Roughly—what is this? June 1830 to July 1833. OK, so that time period: three years.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
That just so happens to coincide with the time when a large part of the revelations that now constitute the Doctrine and Covenants was received. About half the Doctrine and Covenants was received during this time period when Joseph Smith is also working on the Bible translation. These are among some of the, like we just said, most important doctrinal texts for Latter-day Saints.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
So today’s big question, Casey, let’s dive into this: How does the new translation of the Bible affect the Doctrine and Covenants? Do you want to take us in for a journey?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Well, like you said, the biggest tie between the two is this temporal overlay where Joseph Smith starts the Bible translation in the summer of 1829, and then he finishes.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
In the manuscript it does say, “Finished this day, July 3rd, 1833.”

Scott Woodward:
He finished one pass, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
We just would say he’s finished a pass.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
He finishes his first pass, and this is a period of relative calm. Now, relative calm for Joseph Smith still means that you get tarred and feathered and you have all kinds of amazing things happen, but in the summer of 1833, that’s when things go sideways in Missouri, and Joseph Smith is on a sprint from there on.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
He does have these three years to kind of work intensely on the Bible, and some of our most important revelations are found there.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And so if you line them up, you’ve got this temporal connection, and this is something scholars have pointed out. For instance, Robert Matthews, one of the first Latter-day Saints to get in, look at the manuscripts, start lining up the dates with when the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants are received, said this: “Doing this,” he said, “gave me a whole new view of the historicity of the Doctrine and Covenants and its relationship to the JST. They are not two entirely separate books. They’re interwoven. They’re not just two books with similar roots. They have the same root: revelation.” And all these revelations, which probably the earliest one we could tie to the JST is Doctrine and Covenants 29.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And basically the rest run all the way up to—where would you say, Scott? About . . .

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, so I’d go section 29 through explicitly about 93, with the exception of 132, which is in some ways—received, what? 1831, but not recorded, with some expanded material relative to the immediate context in 1843.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
Something like that, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Correct. Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
So 12 years after the fact. So that’s why it’s so late in our Doctrine and Covenants, but the revelation it’s based on, yeah. This is early during this JST time period.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Right in that sweet spot of 1830 to 1833.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. And I’d also point out that Joseph’s kind of explorations surrounding the Book of Genesis especially are going to start to have huge impact because that’s where temple ordinances and temple theology starts to be revealed. So you could make the case that the ordinances of the temple are also tied to the JST as well, and they’re part of this process, too: that he’s looking intently at the Bible, and he’s getting all kinds of revelations about what he’s supposed to do.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. There’s been many people who’ve looked in the Book of Moses chapters 1–7, and noticed there’s a lot of stuff there that’s also in our temple liturgy, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
There’s a lot of stuff there that’s in the endowment. Adam and Eve. The Fall. The doctrine’s explained really well in the Book of Mormon, but the story, their journey as explained in Moses 4 and 5 and 6, relate to our journey of discipleship and coming into the kingdom of God. It’s remarkable there in Moses.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
The concept of Melchizedek. Like, Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 14 is going to lead to the restoration of what Joseph will call the Holy Order of Priesthood, later the Melchizedek priesthood, which is tied to temple and helping shepherd mankind back into the presence of God. And that then becomes married with the temple liturgy, right? D&C 84 starts tying all these pieces together.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
So the Joseph Smith Translation—this time period, my goodness. Like, we’re getting the bedrock elements of the Restoration here, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
Eventually eternal marriage with D&C 132. Priesthood organization. I mean, the JST, the Doctrine and Covenants, and then the liturgy and everything that flows out from that, like, it’s all interconnected. These aren’t, as Robert Matthews was saying, two separate books. They’re interwoven.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. So you’ve actually put together a nice chart here, and maybe we’ll put this up on the show notes, that just shows where Joseph was working in the Bible and the subsequent revelations received around the same time that he’s working his way through these biblical texts and receiving revelation. Do you want to walk us through a couple of these chief examples in your chart here?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, you bet. OK, so Genesis 2–4, this is where Joseph, he’s reworking those texts from June to October of 1830. This is, like, the very first stuff, as you would guess: It’s the beginning of the Bible, and this corresponds to Moses chapter 3, 4, and 5. And it’s in the midst of him doing that where we’re going to get, as you mentioned, Doctrine and Covenants 29. This is our very first kind of Joseph-Smith-Translation-influenced revelation that’s in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And the backstory to D&C 29—this is where kind of two scripture arguments are happening between elders at a general conference of the church, one of the first general conferences of the church. They’re disagreeing on a Book of Mormon prophecy that Jesus gave about the establishment of Zion in 3 Nephi. And they’re also arguing about what Joseph Smith had just revised in the Bible regarding the Fall of Adam and everything related to the Fall.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And what we get in response to their questions, as they then began to ask Joseph about these things, is Section 29, where this is kind of, like, the Lord’s commentary, both on the prophecy in the Book of Mormon about the gathering of Israel and about how everything’s going to shake down in the latter days, like the millennial reign and what kind of calamities are going to come prior to the millennial reign.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And then the second half of it is this response to this second question about the Fall of Adam, about the spiritual creation, temporal creation. Spiritual creation, again, of Adam. And what God was doing with Adam is what he’s trying to do with us. So the first parts, like verses 1 through, like, 29, roughly, are about the redemption of Israel in the latter days, and then from, like, roughly verse 30 to the end is, like, the redemption of mankind, Adam’s family, ultimately, when the earth is renewed and is in its paradisaical or enhanced state, its sanctified state. So this is the first, like, really rich theological, historical, and it’s our first eschatological, revelation, and that’s a fancy word.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Eschatology is this branch of theology that deals with the end of time, the end of the world, the end of days, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And so this is our very first revelation that is just really rich with eschatology and rich theology about the Fall and about the gathering of Israel, the millennial day, et cetera.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
So you compare section 29 with, like, the ones that have come before that. Not all of them, but several of them are very practical, right? Where there are people that are asking about “How can I assist in the work?” And the Lord’s saying, “If you have desires to serve, then jump in the field is white already to harvest.” I mean, how many revelations like that do you have in the beginning of the Doctrine and Covenants? Some are almost identical, right? The Whitmer brothers, almost identical revelations.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Because they’re asking really simple, basic questions. “How can I help? What can I do?” A few of those revelations are about Oliver Cowdery wrestling with, trying to figure out how he can help in the translation of the Book of Mormon. And so it’s very practical, immediate stuff. So when Joseph Smith’s questions change, when his questions get bigger and juicier because of what he’s reading in the Bible and what church members are now asking him about those things, there’s an immediate correspondence to how juicy and rich and beautiful and big the revelations get in response.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
So Joseph asks better questions. He gets better revelations.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Section 29’s awesome.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Section 29’s great. And the next place we probably see a major influence is Doctrine and Covenants 37–38 and 42.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
This is where Joseph Smith is making one of the biggest contributions. That is the story of Enoch.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
We’ve mentioned this before, but the Book of Genesis has six verses about Enoch and practically no information about him.

Scott Woodward:
Not a major player.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
“Enoch walked with God and was not, for God took him.” It’s pretty much all it says. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, has a whopping 116 verses revealed him about Enoch, and you find out that, “Hey, Enoch has a similar backstory to Moses. He doesn’t talk well, he doesn’t want to be the prophet. He’s in a time of intense wickedness. But Enoch goes on to not only become one of the most impressive prophets discussed in the scriptures, but to found a holy city.

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And this ties perfectly into what the Saints are interested in, because section 28 and a couple other revelations talk about a holy city that’s going to be built on the American continent. The Early Saints really latched on to this idea that there was going to be a new Jerusalem.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Built on the American continent.

Scott Woodward:
That’s the prophecy in the Book of Mormon, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Right.

Scott Woodward:
That’s the 3 Nephi prophecy of Jesus that they were discussing before Section 29. Yeah, same thing again.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Right. And this kind of fills in the backstory of that new city by explaining that Enoch built a holy city.

Scott Woodward:
He actually pulled off a holy city.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
He did it. It’s possible. It can be done.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. And so Joseph Smith, when he has this revelation given to him through the JST, at the same time is receiving section 37, section 38, and section 42, which start the process of the Saints gathering. They’re going to gather first to the Ohio, then they’re going to find the location of where the new Zion is going to be built, the New Jerusalem on the American continent, and that’s going to occupy a lot of their time in the early Restoration: just this idea of, “Hey, let’s do what Enoch did. Let’s carry out what Enoch did anciently and in the last days bring back a place of refuge, peace, and safety so that when the last days become like the time of Noah, just like in Enoch’s time there will be a place for people to flee to to receive protection.”

Scott Woodward:
Mm. And I think what’s so powerful about this is this is not just theological, right? This isn’t just like, “Hey, cool, new doctrinal insights revealed.” No. This one actually moves the people, like, physically. The New York Saints, right after this is received, the Lord commands them to move to the Ohio.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Where he will, he says, “endow them with power from on high” and give unto them his law. And in that context, he talks about Enoch. Like, if you look at how the beginning of section 38 starts, he introduces himself as “the same which have taken the Zion of Enoch into my own bosom.” And then he proceeds to say, “I want you guys to gather so that you can become one. And if you’re not one, you’re not mine. And the way you’re going to do that is through an endowment of power and by me giving unto you my law. It’s the law that’s going to unify you.” And then we find out, subsequently, in section 42, which is received in Ohio, that’s all about building a covenant community built on principles of consecration, purity, all the fundamentals that the people in the city of Enoch were practicing.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
It’s all the fundamentals of Zion.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
So the Lord’s basically trying to do again with this people in the modern era what he had just shown Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon in the JST, and then when that’s printed, we all get to see it. In fact, I think Moses 7 is the very first Joseph Smith Translation to be printed, if I’m not mistaken.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Because of its prophecy about the gathering to the New Jerusalem and the prototype of the city of Enoch and how that’s all relevant immediately to the saints there. And in 1831 about how they are to do a similar thing in the New Jerusalem. And so it’s not just theological. It’s not just interesting insight. It’s actually going to physically move the saints from New York to Ohio and then, as you said, that’s going to be the way place to Missouri, which is going to be where the New Jerusalem, the Lord reveals in section 57, will be built.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And so that’s practical built on top of theological, which actually moves the whole history of the church. Like, the history of the church is not the same as it would have been because of these revelations, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
This is what begins the movement west.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. Gathering, I mean, like you said, is a game changer for the saints. It drives their history even down to this day.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Where the president of the church is saying, “We’ve got to gather Israel.” That is something that is very fleshed out by the Joseph Smith Translation.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. That’s the backbone of the restoration, right? Like, what are we trying to restore? A doctrine? No, not—that’s not primary. We’re trying to restore God’s people under Messiah’s reign so that we can rule and reign with him on this sanctified earth.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Like, that’s what the Restoration is all about.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And the doctrine, as we’re seeing here, helps to drive actions that move in the direction of fulfilling God’s purposes with Israel and with his people, and with this earth.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Absolutely. All right, so let’s talk about another one: Doctrine and Covenants 68:25.

Scott Woodward:
Hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Most people are familiar with this because it’s the age of accountability. It’s the age that we baptize children at.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And temporally, there’s a tie to Genesis 17:11. April 1831 is when Joseph is studying this. Genesis 17:11 talks about being circumcised, which you wouldn’t immediately tie to baptism.

Scott Woodward:
No, not immediately.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. But the Joseph Smith translation of Genesis 17:11 says, “Thy children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old.” So the passage in Genesis says circumcise them when they’re eight days old, and then the JST adds this is a reminder—what a reminder, by the way—that they’re supposed to be baptized when they’re eight years old, because that’s when they begin to become accountable for their sins. Section 68 confirms this as well, and also gives a pretty direct admonition to parents about their role to teach and prepare children, or otherwise they’re accountable for what their kids will do, which is a good reminder, a major point of practice in the church, too, about the age at which we consider a child starting to be accountable for their actions.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. That’s a small one, but again, awesome practical application game changer in the church, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yep.

Scott Woodward:
We baptize at eight. Why do we do that? Because the Joseph Smith Translation first pointed that out.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
All right. Let’s do another one. How about—let’s do D&C 132.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
This is a big one.

Scott Woodward:
This is a whopper. We did an entire series, Casey, on plural marriage.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And I think we touched on the backstory here. This is—we’re in the first months of 1831. Joseph is—so he’s gone to the Ohio, as the Lord had commanded. Now, he’s recently moved from Kirtland up to Hiram, we believe is where this took place. And Hiram’s just a little town just outside of Kirtland about 30 miles, something like that. And this would be the time when Joseph is learning about the ancient patriarchs, who happened to be polygamist patriarchs, right? Like Abraham, Jacob, right? Who’s got four wives, right? He wants to marry Rachel, but instead he gets Leah, and then he works seven more years for Rachel. And then Rachel can’t have babies, and so she gives him a handmaid, and then Leah does the same, right? He gets Bilhah and Zilpah. Now he’s got four wives, and from those four wives come the House of Israel. And Joseph’s reading this stuff, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
Also, further on in the story, we get King David and Solomon. Even Moses has more than one wife. And so Joseph is led during this time to ask a question about the propriety of these ancient patriarchs marrying more than one wife. That’s a natural, good, curious question.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
I’m not sure he was fully ready for the implications, though. Here’s how verse one begins: “Joseph, inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David, and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines”—see, like, right there, it’s really clear what Joseph was asking about, and the JST tells us why he was asking about it, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And then verse 2, the Lord says, “Behold and lo, I am the Lord thy God and will answer thee as touching this matter.” Verse 3: “Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I’m about to give unto you, for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.” At that point, a lesser man—like, me, I would’ve been like, “You know what? I’m actually—I’m good.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
You know? “How about—let’s talk about Kolob. Like, tell me more about Kolob.”

Casey Paul Griffiths:
“I’m going to back out of this passage” or something like that.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But Joseph Smith is fearless, so he engages.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. He’s like, OK. Give it to me. Hit me. What do you got? Right? And then we get the rest of section 132, so—which, by the way, the first, like, 20 or so verses of this section really just flesh out the doctrine of eternal marriage.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
Which is primarily monogamous, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yep.

Scott Woodward:
And then built on that foundation, the Lord then explains how polygamy is one application under certain circumstances when I command it, where others can be married in the new and everlasting covenant polygamously. And so really, again, our understanding of eternal marriage, I mean, how fundamental is this doctrine, right? Eternal marriage in the New and Everlasting Covenant. That’s going to grow out of Joseph Smith’s curious question about the marriage practices of the ancient patriarchs while he’s going through the Book of Genesis in 1831 through his Joseph Smith Translation, so.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
As uncomfortable as we are with our polygamous past, none of us can deny that changes our history fundamentally. But even more, like, I think, important in terms of how it impacts us day to day is the preceding 20 verses before the Lord gets into polygamy. It’s the fundamental doctrines about eternal marriage. And that impacts us regularly. That impacts our practice, our dreams, and our hopes. That impacts why we build temples today.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And so this isn’t just theological. The Lord’s not just satisfying doctrinal curiosities here. All of this stuff is going to drive the church forward. It’s going to move things toward the accomplishment of God’s purposes.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm. And this isn’t us just doing speculative detective work, either.

Scott Woodward:
Mm-mm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Joseph Smith directly says that the revelation was linked to this. Joseph Noble, who was one of Joseph’s close associates in Nauvoo, in 1883 said, “The prophet Joseph Smith told him that the doctrine of celestial marriage was revealed to him while he was engaged on his work of translation of the scriptures, meaning the Joseph Smith Translation. But when the communication was first made, the Lord stated that the time for the practice of that principle had not yet arrived.”

Scott Woodward:
That’s a “booyah” quote.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. So if you look in the section heading of section 132, it actually says, “The principles may have been known as early as 1831. Joseph Smith doesn’t start practicing until later on, but the early saints, and I think this is still the best way to approach plural marriage, sincerely believed that the practice of plural marriage was given to them as part of a renewal of all things, that it was biblical and everything that was in the Bible they had to take seriously.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And so I’ve heard one scholar, Terryl Givens, say it seems like plural marriage was inevitable, just the way they approached the scriptures and the way they looked at it and the way they had this originalist approach towards the Bible. I mean, they don’t bring back everything. They don’t bring back blood sacrifice because the Book of Mormon has got them covered there. There’s no need to shed blood after the Savior’s death.

Scott Woodward:
Right.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But every other thing that’s in the Bible, from the temple—

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
—to plural marriage, they look at seriously.

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And it seems like Joseph inquires about it. And again, almost all of the figures cited in Section 132 are Old Testament figures that the Lord is using to basically say, “Yes, I’m commanding you to do this just like I commanded them.” That’s still, like, I think, one of the most productive ways to approach plural marriage when you’re discussing it with someone, whether they’re a church member or not, is to just say, “Hey, they took the Bible really seriously.”

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
“And you have to deal with this if you’re taking the Bible seriously.”

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, absolutely. Let’s do another one.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Let’s do another one.

Scott Woodward:
Matthew 6:10. A really famous passage. Everybody knows it. It’s the Lord’s Prayer. The very end, where the phrase is, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven,” yeah?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
We don’t have a ton of the backstory here, but essentially Joseph is struck by that phrase, and it spurred some questions. We don’t have recorded what his questions were, so we can speculate, but maybe they were something like, “What does that mean, to pray for God’s kingdom to come?” Or “When will God’s kingdom come?” or “How will God’s kingdom come?” Whatever his question was, section 65 of the Doctrine and Covenants is a fantastic answer. It’s just six little verses, but it is packed with biblical phrases from Isaiah, from Matthew, from Daniel, from the Book of Revelation, from Psalms, from Hebrews. It’s so biblical.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And the answer that it gives is so fantastic. It’s all connected to that original vision about, OK, building Zion, building a new Jerusalem, or in other words, building the kingdom of God on earth in preparation for the kingdom of Heaven to come down and meet the kingdom of God that’s built up below. What does that mean, and what does it mean to pray for that? And section 65 is a fantastic response to that. It especially focuses on the keys of the kingdom, that the kingdom of God on Earth is going to be built up in a systematic way under the direction of the keys of the kingdom of God that have been committed to man.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
Again, very practical, ultimately. So it’s doctrinally rich, but it’s practical in the sense of that’s how the kingdom of God is directed on Earth today is under the direction of keys. So this is a clarifying section to talk about the importance of priesthood keys that are held by the prophet of God, from which the kingdom of God on Earth will be built up, so that, or in preparation for, the kingdom of heaven to come.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And that’s one of the earliest mentions of priesthood keys, isn’t it?

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm. Yeah, I think so.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Which is going to be a concept that becomes so important to us in the way that we manage and govern the kingdom in our time.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Let’s do another one. Section 76.

Scott Woodward:
Oh, shoot.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Another big one, and I’m being selfish by taking the lead on this one.

Scott Woodward:
Take it, Casey. Take it.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But I love it. Probably the most significant revelation in my mind, that—long-lasting, impactful—that comes from the Joseph Smith Translation, is section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants. The vision.

Scott Woodward:
Mm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
I have friends who are scholars who call this the First Vision, partially because this is recorded in February 1832. That’s before Joseph Smith writes down the earliest account of the First Vision.

Scott Woodward:
Mm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And this vision is—whoa. It’s panoptic. It’s overwhelming. It’s a game changer.

Scott Woodward:
So this is not the First Vision chronologically, but this is the First Vision written down. Is that the. . .

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. This is the first big vision that Joseph Smith writes down and sends out to the church.

Scott Woodward:
Mm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
The earliest, yeah. The earliest written vision of Joseph Smith, as maybe you’d call it, but it was such a big deal that early church members just called it the vision.

Scott Woodward:
Mm. The vision.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. So Joseph Smith says, “I resumed translation of the scriptures.” This is in his 1838 history. “And from sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible or lost before it was compiled. It appeared self-evident for what truths were left, that if God rewarded everyone according to the deeds done in the body, the term ‘heaven,’ as intended for the saints’ eternal home, must include more kingdoms than one.” And so he says, “Yeah, this scripture sparked me to think about it.” If you go to section 76, he actually tells you the scripture in verse 15. “While we were doing the work of translation which the Lord had appointed unto us, we came to the 29th verse of the fifth chapter of John, which was given to us as follows: ‘Speaking of the resurrection of the dead, concerning those who shall hear the voice of the Son of man, they shall come forth, they that have done good in the resurrection of the just, and they who have done evil in the resurrection of the unjust.’ Now this caused us to marvel, for it was given unto us in the Spirit, and while we meditated on those things, the Lord touched the eyes of our understandings. They were opened, and the glory of the Lord shone roundabout, and we beheld the glory of the Son on the right hand of the Father and received his fulness.” So bam, they’re reading a scripture.

Scott Woodward:
One verse. One verse.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
One verse.

Scott Woodward:
John 5:29.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
But what a verse.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
I’m telling everybody out there: If you can only do one verse every day, hey, that could lead to major revelation. Get in there.

Scott Woodward:
Out of small things, great things can come to pass.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Right, right. This leads to the most famous testimony of Joseph Smith, the one that gets quoted all the time: “After the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: that he lives. For we saw him, even on the right hand of God.”

Scott Woodward:
Hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
The vision is actually six different visions.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
It’s a vision of the father and the son. You switch from the best of the best to the worst—there’s a vision of Satan. It’s a vision of the sons of perdition, the fallen. And then it goes to the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdom. Then it mixes them all up at the end and gives a final coda on it. But there is no doubt in my mind that this hugely shapes how we see the afterlife, but maybe even more importantly, how we see God.

Scott Woodward:
For sure.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
I hosted a—we had 40 Evangelical people come to my work today.

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And we were doing a little Q&A, “Hey, here’s what we do. Here’s what Latter-day Saints believe.” And one of them raised their hand and said, “Do you guys believe there’s a hell?” And the way she phrased it was “a fiery hell.”

Scott Woodward:
A fiery hell.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
A fiery hell, which got my imagination working. And I basically had to say, “Not really. We believe God is merciful, that even the worst of his children is going to go to a place of glory and be resurrected.” And that other than perdition, and I had to explain perdition means ruin beyond all repair.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Could we say perdition is like a fiery hell? What do you want to say about that?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
I don’t know. It feels like our theology is not heat when it comes to punishment, it’s coldness. It’s darkness. Outer darkness is the term we use for perdition the most.

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But I just like the idea of perdition. Perdition‘s a Latin word that means ruined.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Beyond all repair. That God can fix them, but they refuse to be fixed, basically.

Scott Woodward:
The junkyard.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. That only people that are just hell-bent, no pun intended, actually pun totally intended, on not receiving some degree of glory are going to be perdition. And to me, that’s a huge thing that it’s just a weight off my mind to know that God isn’t out to punish people. God is out to reward people.

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
People can choose to deny that because God respects their freedom of choice, but he’s got a good place prepared for almost every person to go to. I mean, I look at my students sometimes and say, “Hey, what of the three degrees of glory is closest to the world we live in?” and they’ll say, “Telestial.” And I’ll say, “OK, the Telestial Kingdom is our world with no war, famine, hunger, poverty, disease, or death. That’s where a murderer goes to. That’s a pretty good deal. And that tells us a lot about God and his character and how he thinks of us. He’s not out to get us. He’s trying to help us.” And that’s a huge switch to throw in a person’s mind when it comes to how they think about God and how they have faith in God.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. The mercy of God is on full display in section 76, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
That he’s not this petty, vindictive God who’s got a very small group of people that he saves and everyone else is damned.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
I would say, though—I’m just still thinking about the fiery hell question—I would say that section 76 acknowledges the reality of heaven and hell, but then it, like, radically reorients our conceptions of both. Can we say it like that?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm.

Scott Woodward:
So hell—it is mentioned. I was just looking because you piqued my curiosity again. Verse 84, speaking of Telestial people, “These are they who are thrust down to hell.” And then he says, “These are they who will not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection, until the lamb has finished his work.” So section 76 acknowledges there is such a thing, but then says that it’s not a permanent place.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
It’s a temporary place of suffering until Christ has finished his work with the other kingdoms and then he redeems them from hell. It’s where those go who don’t accept Christ and who don’t repent of their sins. They get to suffer, “even as I,” to use section 19‘s phrase, “which suffering caused [himself] . . . to bleed from every pore.” So everyone will be redeemed from hell, right? The sons of perdition are never described as going to hell here, but to even, like, a more dire condition of everlasting punishment. And so do Latter-day Saints believe in hell? A fiery hell? Yeah, I don’t know about the fiery, but, like, a temporary place of suffering. Absolutely.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Right, right. Over the course of our discussion, you know, I did say, “The Book of Mormon does use the phrase ‘lake of fire and brimstone.’”

Scott Woodward:
That’s true.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Several times.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
They lit up when I said that. They were super excited. But I also had to add exactly what you said, “But the idea of a permanent, everlasting hell, no. That’s not something we believe in.”

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And to me, it’s not something that fits with the character of God. I don’t think God is interested in everlasting punishment. Section 19 deals with that.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But I love section 76, and like I said, I think it’s the single most important thing to come out of the Joseph Smith translation. It just radically reshaped our view of salvation, and then it radically reshapes the rest of the Doctrine and Covenants, too, where multiple sections make reference back to these different degrees of glory.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And how God has a place prepared for everybody.

Scott Woodward:
And I really like what you said about how it radically reshapes our view of God. Like, this unmistakably paints God and Christ as so merciful. Like, they’re trying to save everybody that they can to the maximum degree of heaven that each person is capable of, to the extent that they will turn to Christ and accept him. Or even if they don’t, he’s going to try to save them at least to the maximum level that he can save people like that.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And so that’s a remarkable view of God. Very big heaven, very small hell, temporary hell, and a very small everlasting punishment for sons of perdition. That’s a game changer. That changes the equation.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Now, there’s still one more revelation that’s tied to the JST that’s also a big deal. And boy, Scott, I’m thinking, you know, we need to do a series on each one of these.

Scott Woodward:
Yes.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
We could probably spend six episodes talking about just section 76.

Scott Woodward:
I think we should give it a try.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
I’d love to do it, but that’s not the focus today. So what’s the last big one that we’ve got to focus on?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Another major kind of doctrinal watershed revelation that comes out of the JST work is Doctrine and Covenants 93.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
This one has a very frustratingly skimpy backstory. Something was going on that was causing certain questions to come up relative to the Father and the Son. That’s some of the language that’s written on—

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
—the earliest manuscript of this revelation. It says “relative to the Father and the Son.” And then also to the First Presidency later on, rebuking them and inviting them to be better dads. So this seems to, right, we’re just—we’re doing our detective work, our forensic work here. It seems to be flowing from questions that Joseph has or reflections that he’s been having on John chapter 1.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Because he actually quotes verses from John chapter 1 extensively at the beginning of this.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. A lot of the text parallels John chapter 1.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. That’s right. Yeah. And it’s very descriptive of how Christ received the fulness of the Father, and he advanced from grace to grace and received grace for grace as he advanced until he received the fulness of light and truth until he knew all things.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
And it’s a marvelous description of Christ.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And then he says, “The reason I’m revealing this to you is so that you’ll know what you worship and so that you’ll know how to worship.” And then the biggest, like, mind-blowing thing about section 93 in my mind is he says, “The differences between Jesus Christ and us are in degree rather than in kind.” This is mind-boggling, right? He says things like, “I was in the beginning with the Father,” and then he looks at the camera, as it were, and says, “You were also in the beginning with the Father.” He says, “I am the spirit of truth.” Then he looks at the camera: “You are the spirit of truth, too. I was obedient, and I received grace for grace” until he received the fulness of the Father. Then he says, “If you’re obedient, you shall receive of his fulness, too. You will receive grace for grace.” He says, “I’m in the father, and the father’s in me,” and then he says, “You could be glorified in me as I am in the Father.” He says, “I receive the fulness of the truth, yea, of all truth,” and then he says, “through obedience, you, too, will receive truth and light until you’re glorified in truth and know all things.” So this comparison between Christ and us, that we’re both beings of eternal light and truth, and that the same fulness that Christ obtained grace by grace, we can obtain also.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
So John talks about this language, hints around this in John chapter 1. In fact, verse 12, John says this: he says, “but as many as received him,” referring to Christ, “to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” Whoa. What does that mean? What exactly does that look like? Becoming the sons of God. Section 93 has a really good answer to that.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
I call section 93, like, doctrinal restoration in action. Like, you get to see doctrine restored, like, right in front of you as you read section 93, and by the time you’re done with that section, it’s overwhelming. Not only do you see the comparisons with you and Christ, but also with your children. He switches seamlessly from the heavenly and the sublime down to the really practical. He says, like, “Therefore, you need to raise your kids better, First Presidency.”

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
“You need to help bring your kids up in light and truth. That’s the kind of beings they are. And when you teach them light and truth, you drive away darkness. You’ll reduce Satan’s power in their life.” And so parents are to create traditions of light and truth in their families that on the one hand will protect their children from the influence of the devil, and on the other hand will assist them to worship the Father in the Christ way, grace by grace, until they, too, receive his fulness. It’s, like, so beautiful. So beautiful.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah, and we don’t want to glance over that. One of the interesting things about Section 93 is most sections Joseph Smith gives a lot of context to.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Like section 76, we just read a bunch of his context. Section 83 just shows up.

Scott Woodward:
Boom.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And my personal theory is that Joseph Smith was so involved in his work, and so was the rest of the First Presidency, that the Lord spent the second half of the revelation talking about their family and the first half saying, “and here’s what having a child actually means.”

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
You’re molding an eternal, immortal—something that is primal as the universe itself.

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And so your church calling’s important.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But your family is way more important. Get your priorities straight, guys, basically.

Scott Woodward:
Set your house in order.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. So I guess the JST even made Joseph Smith a better dad, right?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Gave him the proper focus, which is something that continues on in the church today. The most important work a person can do are within the walls of their own home.

Scott Woodward:
See, he keeps doing that, right? The JST keeps doing that, has, like, this awesome doctrine, but the Lord’s like, “I’m not just telling you this so you have, like, interesting, like, theological stuff to discuss. Like, this should play out practically.”

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Whether it’s moving from New York to Ohio so you can become more of a Zion people or whether it’s becoming a better mom and dad.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
The reason he was revealing that about Jesus Christ’s own personal development ultimately was so that we could see how both we and our children can and ought to develop in our worship of the Father and being filled with light and truth. Super practical. Ultimately all theology, it seems like, in the Doctrine and Covenants, ultimately comes down to some practical to-dos about that.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
But they’re to-dos which are incredibly motivational because of the doctrine. It’s the why behind the what.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Amen. And I want to emphasize, we’re doing the highlights here.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. There’s more. There’s more than that.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
These are the sections that have an obvious connection to the Joseph Smith Translation. The language of the Doctrine and Covenants is drenched in the language of the Bible.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
One of my colleagues, Nick Frederick, has done a great study on Intertextuality.

Scott Woodward:
Mm-hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And how, I mean, just biblical phrases are found throughout the Doctrine and Covenants, and I think it has to do with the headspace Joseph was in, which is he’s studying the Bible, he’s looking at it, and he’s receiving revelation.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But I also want to emphasize that Joseph Smith did not see the Bible as this untouchable relic.

Scott Woodward:
I love that. You said in our notes here. Am I quoting you? I’m going to quote you, I think.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Oh, well.

Scott Woodward:
“Joseph Smith didn’t see the scriptures as a sacred mausoleum to be cautiously walked by from a distance. He saw them as divine temples to be explored and searched.” is that you? Did you write that?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
That is me. Thank you very much.

Scott Woodward:
Casey, I love that. I love it. Yeah, that’s true.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. I mean, if you look at the Bible he’s using, there’s notes all over the page.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
They’re taking the text, and they’re recasting it.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
These revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants show that it’s, like you said, the springboard to revelation, and I think part of the lesson that we’d like our listeners to take home today is that exact thing: If you want revelation, go to the scriptures. Read the scriptures, and pay attention to how you feel. And sometimes the revelations I get when I’m reading the scriptures have nothing to do with the passage I’m reading. It’s just that act of devotion of putting your eyes on the scriptures opens the door for the Lord to speak to us.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Revelation begets revelation, right? Ancient scripture begets modern scripture.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And maybe on a personal level, personal scripture, personal guidance, personal expansion.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Engage with the scriptures deeply, and in a sense translate them on our own.

Scott Woodward:
Mm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
There’s this lovely quote from Adam Miller. I’m a big fan of Adam Miller. I think he’s a great writer.

Scott Woodward:
He’s awesome.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
“Joseph produced, as God required, the first public translation of the scriptures we now share. But that work, open-ended all along, is unfinished. Now the task is ours. When you read the scriptures, don’t just lay your eyes like stones on the pages: Roll up your sleeves and translate them again. With a prayer in hand, finish what Joseph started. You and I must translate these books again, word by word, line by line, verse by verse, chapter by chapter. God wants the whole thing translated once more. And this time he wants it translated into your native tongue, inflected by your native concerns and written in your native flesh.” So I would feel comfortable using the term “translation” when I was talking to one of my students or one of my kids to say, “Hey, you’re not just reading this to get through it. You’re translating the text into your own medium, into your own life.”

Scott Woodward:
Hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
You’re taking the words and making them have new meaning in a new language, which is the modern cultural language that you exist in. Joseph Smith wasn’t afraid. He didn’t find the scriptures too precious to not seriously engage with them. He didn’t worship the scriptures, and because of that, he was able to connect with the real object of worship, which is the author of the scriptures, Jesus Christ, as he speaks through his prophets.

Scott Woodward:
Thank you for listening to this episode of Church History Matters. Next week we continue this series by discussing a recent controversy about Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation stirred up by the research of Thomas Wayment and Haley Wilson Lemmón, who, in a series of articles and interviews, claim that during his Bible translation work Joseph Smith consulted the Bible commentary of a renowned British scholar named Adam Clark, and even added some of Clark’s wording into the JST without attribution. If true, how would we need to modify our understanding of the JST, and would this cast suspicion on Joseph Smith’s claims to a revelatory translation process? We’re also excited to announce that Dr. Kent Jackson, a scholar of all things related to Joseph Smith’s Bible translation, will be our special guest in two weeks on the episode airing September 12, 2023. This will be a special mid-series Q&R episode where Dr. Jackson will graciously respond to your questions. So please submit all of your questions related to the JST by September 6, 2023 to podcasts@scripturecentral.org. If you are enjoying Church History Matters, we’d appreciate it if you could take a moment to subscribe, rate, review, and comment on the podcast. That makes us easier to find. Today’s episode was produced by Scott Woodward and edited by Nick Galieti and Scott Woodward, with show notes and transcript by Gabe Davis. Church History Matters is a podcast of Scripture Central, a nonprofit which exists to help build enduring faith in Jesus Christ by making Latter-day Saint scripture and church history accessible, comprehensible, and defensible to people everywhere. For more resources to enhance your gospel study, go to scripturecentral.org, where everything is available for free because of the generous donations of people like you. And by the way, while we try very hard to be historically and doctrinally accurate in what we say on this podcast, please remember that all views expressed in this and every episode are our views alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Scripture Central or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thank you so much for being a part of this with us.