Scott Woodward: Hello, Casey.

Casey Griffiths: Here we are once again. We’re cruising through the Doctrine and Covenants. It’s going by quick. And today we’ve got a meaty block, I guess you’d say here.

Scott Woodward: We got a chunk. What is it? Doctrine and Covenants 12 through 17? And a little Joseph Smith – History.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, and a chunk of Joseph Smith – History that’s not inconsiderable.

Scott Woodward: Let me just ask you this, Casey. So, let’s say you only had 50 minutes to teach this whole chunk. I know a lot of people listening to this teach Sunday school or gospel doctrine or… In some capacity, have limited time. What would you focus on?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, wonderful question. I mean, these are some great sections that introduce us to some wonderful figures that are going to be really crucial in the Restoration. However, we learn history from the scriptures, but we focus primarily on the doctrine, right, the doctrine of Christ, and then the most important history. And that means Section 13 and Section 17 are where I would focus my efforts here. Section 13 is the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood. It’s huge. The first real bestowal of priesthood authority in this dispensation. And so we don’t want to sleep on that. Even though it’s only one verse, it is rich, dense stuff, and there is a lot of stuff there. And I think primarily that’s where our controversies come from today. Would you say that’s fair?

Scott Woodward: We will spend some time on the controversies of Section 13 today for sure, yeah.

Casey Griffiths: And then Section 17 is the other one where I’d spend my time because this is where the witnesses of the Book of Mormon are given their instructions as to what they’re going to see and what they’re expected to do afterwards. And that’s another controversial aspect of the Restoration, is what happened to these witnesses of the Book of Mormon and how did their lives turn out after they had this amazing experience where they saw an angel, or if you’re one of the Eight Witnesses, saw and handled the plates that the Book of Mormon was translated from. So I’m going to spend my time on Sections 13 and 17, but acknowledging that the other sections in here, Section 12, Section 14, 15, and 16, all introduce really important figures into the story, but they are kind of similar, and that’s partly by design, right. They all answer a similar question.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, and we’ll get into that question here in just a moment. But I think that’s great. I think that’s super fair. I think I would agree with that. Casey, start us out with Section 12. We’re going to walk through our four Cs, context, content, controversies, consequences. Start us out with the context of Section 12.

Casey Griffiths: Okay, let me say something about the context of all these Sections, and then we’ll dive into Section 12, which is this is where we meet the broader group of the restoration. The first 11 sections of the Doctrine and Covenants focus on the Smiths. They’re the first family of the Restoration, the Smiths, or close associates like Oliver Cowdery, are the ones primarily addressed there. But starting in Section 12, we meet another prominent family in the Restoration. This is the Knight family. The Knights don’t pop up as much because they’re not witnesses of the Book of Mormon, but they are there through the whole story. And there are still buildings on the campus I teach at every day named after members of the Knight family. Like, they’re one of the great families of the Restoration, and we don’t want to ignore them or the contributions that they make. Then starting in Section 14, we meet the Whitmers. So, the Smiths, the Knights, and the Whitmers, and the three branches of the Church that each of them are affiliated with are the founding families of the Restoration. As we go through these sections, that’s part of the function here, too, is we’re meeting some of these really crucial allies of Joseph Smith that assist him during the Book of Mormon translation process and provide crucial support, not just while the Book of Mormon is being translated, but as witnesses of the Book of Mormon, and then as stalwart disciples and followers of the restored gospel, right up until the present day. Each one of these families still has an impact on what we do and why we do it. So let’s jump into Section 12, which introduces us to the Knight family by speaking to the patriarch of that family, Joseph Knight, Sr. And Joseph Knight, Newel Knight, Lydia Knight, Polly Knight, they all play crucial roles in the early story of the Restoration. The Knight family, just to contextualize this revelation, was a family that Joseph Smith met when he went down to Pennsylvania as part of a search for a silver mine. And Joseph Smith mentions this in his history. We dealt with it as we went through it. Joseph Smith abandoned the search for the silver mine after about two months. But back then, you didn’t travel as much, and it wasn’t as easy to. So you would often stay in the area and kind of hire yourself out as a laborer. The Knights hired Joseph Smith when he was 20 years old as a laborer on their farm. In fact, Joseph Knight, Sr. Later said that Joseph Smith, Jr. was the best hand that he ever hired. And during the time that Joseph Smith is working for the Knights, a number of crucial things are happening. He’s sort of courting Emma Smith during this time, who’s a couple of miles down the road in Harmony. The Knights live in Colesville, which is across the border in New York. In fact, Joseph Smith would borrow Joseph Knight Ser.’s sleigh and go down and see “his girl,” according to… That’s the phrasing that Joseph Knight, Sr. uses. And these families actually play a role in helping Joseph convince Emma to marry him. Like, just up the road from the Knights is Josiah Stowell, the guy that hired Joseph to come down and find the silver mine. And he plays a role in convincing Emma to marry Joseph Smith. And the Knights are some of the first people outside of Joseph’s own family that he confides to about his prophetic mission and about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. According to Newel Knight, they’re the first believers outside of Joseph Smith’s family and the first one that he confides in.

Scott Woodward: Weren’t the Knights actually there on the night that Joseph Smith obtained the plates?

Casey Griffiths: Some of them were. And, and Joseph actually takes Joseph Knight’s wagon to the Hill Cumorah with Emma. Like he borrows his wagon to go get it. I mean, it’s probably not exaggerating to say, if some of our listeners are familiar with the series, The Work and the Glory, where the author, Gerald Lund, who’s a great teacher in his own right, actually centered the story around this fictional family called the Steeds. The Steeds are the Knights, pretty much. Like, he didn’t want to use actual historical figures, but everything that the Steeds do, especially in the early phases of the story, the Knights do. They’re involved in the story. They’re close by while Joseph Smith is translating the Book of Mormon. In fact, there’s crucial times when Father Knight goes down and gives Joseph Smith just like simple things like paper so that they can continue the translation process. There are certain times when they go up to Colesville, Joseph and Oliver do, to visit with, with Father Knight and to ask for assistance. Joseph Knight in his own history, wrote this in May 1829. So this is right in the middle of the Book of Mormon translation timeline. Joseph Knight said, “Joseph and Oliver came up to see if I could help him to have some provisions, having no way to buy any. But I was gone. When I came home, I went and bought a barrel of mackerel and some lined paper for writing and some nine or ten bushels of grain and five or six bushels of taters, a pound of tea, and I went down to see him. When Joseph and Oliver found me there with provisions, they were glad for they were out. Then they went to work and had provisions enough to last till the translation was done.” And it’s probably during this visit that Section 12 is received. Joseph Smith just introduces it simply by writing, “Being very anxious to know his duty to this work, I inquired of the Lord for him and obtained as follows.” That’s the context of Section 12.

Scott Woodward: You have the core families, the Knights, the Smiths, and the Whitmers, and on their backs, the first few years of, I mean, of the Church, really, until we get to Kirtland, so I guess the first year-ish of, of the Church is really built based in those three core families.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, and the Knights, especially, Especially, you can follow all the way from Colesville to Kirtland. Some of the revelations in Kirtland concern the Knights, and then the Knights get to Missouri. They’re one of the first families to try and build the city of Zion in Sections like Section 59 of the Doctrine and Covenants deal with the Knight family. So they stay there, and they stay all the way through Joseph Smith’s ministry, and then make it to Utah, where a number of interesting and important things happen with the Knights as well.

Scott Woodward: I love it. Awesome. Great context. All right, let’s go to the second C, the content. Let’s look at the section itself. So Section 12 is only nine verses long, and yet the first six verses are actually virtually identical to the first six verses given to Oliver Cowdery in Section 6 and those given to Hyrum Smith in Section 11. So what’s going on here? Why would the Lord share the exact same words to different people who want to help in God’s work? Thoughts on that real quick, Casey?

Casey Griffiths: It feels like in these early revelations, the Lord kind of has a standard preamble that resembles a lot of Section 4, the whole, “If you have desires to serve, you are called to the work, the field is white, a marvelous work is about to come forth.” These phrases all show up a lot. And I think it helps with these sections if you think of this as kind of a mission call, where, I mean, I would guess, if we compared our mission calls, which I still have, Scott, the language was probably pretty similar in the letter we got from the prophet calling us to, I went to Fort Lauderdale, which isn’t super exotic, but you went to Bangkok, Thailand. The language in our mission calls was fairly similar, right? Other than, sort of, the, here’s what language you’re going to be studying, which for me was the English language, which I sort of knew already.

Scott Woodward: And you’ve nailed it, by the way, I’ve got to say. You…

Casey Griffiths: Thanks, thanks. I… It’s good… It’s good to hear from an articulate man like you that I talk real good. And you can speak Thai, which, again, you’re one up on me in so many ways, but that’s another one that you’re bilingual.

Scott Woodward: Oh, stop it.

Casey Griffiths: But I mean, I didn’t feel bad when my mission call was exactly the same as my best friend who lived across the street. And if you look at these early sections where the Lord is calling people to the work as a sort of standardized mission call, I don’t think there’s very much heartburn with that, that the Lord just has good phrasing. He’s drawing from numerous scriptural passages. And so, its… It is repetitious somewhat, but that’s because it is functionally a mission call.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, and I think verse seven bears out what you’re saying there. Here’s what the Lord says to Joseph Knight Sr., quote, “Behold, I speak unto you, and also to all those who have desires to bring forth and establish this work,” which in verse 6, he calls “the cause of Zion”. So, yeah, in other words, these words of the Lord are universally applicable to anyone, both then and we could say now, who have desires to assist in the Lord’s Zion-establishing work, right. So I like your framing of a mission call. It’s the same. If you have a desire to serve God, then guess what the call is? Well, let’s review what he says here. So verse one, that the Book of Mormon-based great and marvelous work was in 1829 about to come forth the children of men. Maybe today he would say, The marvelous work is well underway among the children of men, or something like that. Verse two, you would need to know, if you have desires to serve God, that God’s word, of which both the Book of Mormon and these revelations, the Doctrine and Covenants, are prime examples, is to be given heed to because, quoting Hebrews 4: 12, It’s like a quick and powerful two-edged sword, only sharper. Meaning, I think, that just as a double-edged sword can cut both ways, God’s word can at once bless and console those who give heed to it, but it can also curse and condemn those who do not. Therefore, the Lord says, If you want to help in my work, give heed to my word. Continuing, he says, All that are desiring to bring forth and establish Zion should also know that the metaphorical field of the souls of men is white already to harvest. Therefore, if you have desires to reap or to gather people in, I think is the metaphor here, then you should be allowed to thrust in your sickle with your might and reap while the day lasts. Or in other words, to use your best efforts to help gather Israel before Jesus’s second coming. Doing so not only blesses those who are gathered in, but will also bless the gatherers, he says, to treasure up for their soul, everlasting salvation in the Kingdom of God. This does sound a lot like Section 4 with Joseph Smith Sr.’s mission call, doesn’t it? And so verse 4, Whoever wants to thrust in their sickle and reap the same is called God.

Scott Woodward: Therefore, if you ask, you’ll receive. If you knock, it’ll be opened. Verse 5. And so what the Lord says here to Joseph Knight, Sr., when he asked, and to Oliver Cowdery and Hyrum Smith and Joseph Smith, Sr., when they asked, he will say to everyone who has the same question. If you want to help, you can. And verse 6, really important. So keep my commandments and seek to bring forth and establish the cause of Zion. So it’s the same for all of us. Same formula, right? If you have desires, you’re called. How should I prepare? Keep the commandments, and seek to establish the cause of Zion and give heed to my word, which is quick and powerful. Now, verse 8, then the Lord adds a little additional piece of universal counsel, which he didn’t quite say the same way to Oliver or Hyrum, but it’s pretty similar to what he said to Joseph Smith, Sr., and that’s this, “No one can assist in this work, except he shall be humble and full of love, having faith, hope, and charity, being temperate in all things whatsoever shall be entrusted to his care.” So again, the major takeaway here is, like, godly attributes are essential to assisting in this godly work, which again, sounds a lot like Section 4, as the Lord outlined in verses 5 and 6 there. And then he concludes this way. He just says, “Behold, I am the light and the life of the world, that speak these words, therefore, give heed with your mightnd, a then you are called. Amen.” That’s the whole of Section 12. Anything you’d add there, Casey?

Casey Griffiths: No, just… Just another plug to say the Knight family are great surrogates if you want to follow through the story of Church history. They’re just everywhere, involved in everything. And, can I add too, their home has been restored. It’s not an official Church history site, but if you go to… It’s present-day Nineveh, New York. If anybody’s doing a Church history tour this summer and you have time and you want to go to the Knight home. They actually have their own foundation. The home is, I think, about 80% original. And it’s pretty cool to just drop in and get to know this great family that was such a crucial support to Joseph Smith during these challenging early years of the Restoration. And, just up the road is Josiah Stowell’s house, too, which, again, is another crucial figure, the guy that brought Joseph Smith down to Pennsylvania, where he meets his wife, where most of the Book of Mormon translation takes place. Just good people. Any controversies that you can think of with this section?

Scott Woodward: So the major controversy of Section 12 is… I don’t know, I can’t think of any.

Casey Griffiths: I can’t think of any.

Scott Woodward: Are you aware?

Casey Griffiths: I can’t… I mean, unless we really, really stretched and went out of Section 12. There are controversies linked to the Knight family, but nothing in Section 12. And it’s partially because Joseph Knight, Sr. is not a problematic person. In fact, years later, Joseph Smith actually sits down and records this book where he basically pays tribute to all of his friends. He’s sort of in exile because he’s trying… They’re trying to extradite him to Missouri, and he sits down and expresses his gratitude. This is what he writes about Joseph Knight, Sr., the subject of Section 12. He said, “Joseph Knight, Sr. was among the number of the first to administer to my necessities while I was laboring in the commencement of bringing forth the work of the Lord and laying the foundation for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For 15 years, he has been faithful and true, and even-handed and exemplary and virtuous and kind, never deviating to the right-hand or the left. Behold, he is a righteous man, and it shall be said of him by the sons of Zion, while there is one of them remaining, that this man was a faithful man in Israel, therefore his name shall never be forgotten.” So I just want to add to what Joseph Smith was doing, to say, this is a great guy and someone who you can look up to. He’s not perfect, but he’s a stalwart, faithful saint.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, he had those attributes that the Lord talked about. He had humility. He was full of love. He was temperate. Not a perfect man, but he, I think, exemplifies the kind of people that God can work through really well to help establish and build this work. All right, let’s move over to Section 13 then, shall we?

Casey Griffiths: All right. One verse, but so much to process here in Section 13, the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood is probably the banner headline for what Section 13 is linked to. And it’s actually got a complex textual history. So, will you indulge me for just a minute here, Scott?

Scott Woodward: Please, please. We, we want you to nerd out.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, okay, okay. So I’m going to do that. I have your permission. Section 13 is a later addition to the Doctrine and Covenants. It’s not in the 1833 Book of Commandments. It’s not in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. It’s not even in the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants. The first time it shows up in the Doctrine and Covenants is 1876. And you can find it in multiple places. What it is, functionally, is an excerpt from Joseph Smith’s history that he starts writing in 1838, which you’re familiar with because that Joseph Smith – History in the Pearl of Great Price. It’s where the First Vision is. You’ll find the complete text of Section 13 in Joseph Smith – History 66 to 75, which is part of our reading block for this week, too. And and it was one of 26 sections that Orson Pratt, under the direction of Brigham Young, added to the Doctrine and Covenants.

Scott Woodward: Why wasn’t it added until 1876? Any insight there?

Casey Griffiths: Well, I mean, it seems like what Orson Pratt and Brigham Young were trying to do in 1876 was emphasize the role of the priesthood and the importance of priesthood keys as well. And, we, we could spend a couple hours on this, but I mean, part of it was there were other churches claiming that they were the true successor to Joseph Smith, like the RLDS Church, now known as Community of Christ. There were a number of these little break-off churches starting up, and so it felt like in 1876, Brigham Young and Orson Pratt wanted emphasize, you know, those churches might trace themselves back to members of the original church. So they can say they have a priesthood line of authority, but they can’t claim that they have those who hold the keys of the priesthood. So Section 13 was added along with other sections like Section 110, which emphasizes the keys given in the Kirtland Temple, and then other sections like Section 121, which emphasized the righteous and proper use of the priesthood. So this was there to kind of provide sort of a historical record of, well, when was priesthood restored? And what does priesthood mean? And what are the powers, authorities, and keys that come along with the priesthood?

Casey Griffiths: So that was kind of the meta-context of why this is in the Doctrine and Covenants. But the immediate context is found in Joseph Smith – History 66 to 75, which is, this is about a month into the translation process of the Book of Mormon. A little over a month. Great thing about the Aaronic priesthood is we know the precise date, we know the pretty precise location, and we know the circumstances that it was restored under. So Joseph and Oliver translating, and they’re cruising. Like, we think that they had probably made it to about 3rd Nephi in the text of the Book of Mormon, because they mentioned that they came across a passage where Jesus Christ talked about authority necessary to baptize, and they were wondering, where does this authority come? Here’s Oliver’s exact words: “After writing the account given of the Savior’s ministry,” so we’re in 3rd Nephi, “upon this continent, it was easy to be seen that amid the great strife and noise concerning religion, none had authority from God to administer the ordinances of the gospel.” And so this is probably 3rd Nephi 11:21-26, where the Savior explains to Nephi and the other 11 disciples that they need authority to baptize. And Joseph notes this. He says, “We went into the woods to pray to inquire of the Lord, respecting baptism for their mission of sins, as we found mentioned in the translation of the plates. While we were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light.” That’s Joseph Smith’s description. So this is Joseph Smith’s recollection of what the angel said to them. Oliver writes his own account, too. Oliver’s is actually earlier than Joseph. Joseph is written in 1838, Oliver is 1834. This is what Oliver writes. He says, “On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake to us, while the veil was parted, and the angel of God came down, clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message. What joy, what wonder, what amazement, our eyes beheld, our ears heard, as in the blaze of day, yes, more above the glitter of the May sunbeam, which then shed its brillancy over the face of nature. Then his voice, though mild, pierced to the center, and his words, ‘I am thy fellow servant’, dispelled every fear. We listened, we gazed, we admired. ‘Twas the voice of an angel from glory, ’twas the message from the Most High.” Oliver uses a lot more flowery language than Joseph Smith does. But I love him.

Scott Woodward: Joseph said, “A messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light.”

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. And Oliver is like, “What joy, what wonder, what amazement, the glitter of the May sunbeam.” We can tell one of them…

Scott Woodward: In the blaze of day.

Casey Griffiths: A little more… Yeah. I don’t know if it’s fair to say Oliver is more educated or Joseph had a better editor, but I favor simplicity, but I love them both. They’re both so different from each other. So Joseph Smith identifies the messenger as John the Baptist. John, who was known as the Baptist in the New Testament, and Joseph writes, “Having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us.” Now, we don’t know whether this means the angel laid his hands on both Joseph and Oliver simultaneously, which sometimes you see depicted an artwork that shows the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood, or if he did it separately. But Joseph is really clear to try and pin down the words that the angel said. And Oliver, too. There’s slight variations, by the way, in their two accounts, and I think we’re going to deal with that. Oliver said that the wording of the angel was, “Upon you, my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the priesthood in this authority, which shall remain upon the earth that the sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.”

Casey Griffiths: Now, if you’re looking at this Section 13, you’ll note a number of small but crucial differences in Oliver’s account. And Oliver is faithful when he writes this. He is practically the associate president of the Church, so we trust him. Joseph Smith probably also used Oliver’s account as a source when he’s putting together his history, which is about four years later, and makes slight modifications to the wording. We’re going to deal with that a little bit as we get into this section. But one verse, so much to talk about when it comes to Section 13.

Scott Woodward: Okay. Should we get in the content itself?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, let’s get into it. Lead the way. All right.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, as we think about the differences, let me just point out a few. Notice in Oliver’s 1834 account, he says that the messenger said, “I confer this priesthood and this authority,” whereas Section 13 now says, “I confer the priesthood of Aaron.” That seems to track, like in 1829, they weren’t calling priesthoods Aaronic or Melchizedek. They were saying, lower and higher. That’s going to go on till 1832. Oliver writes this in 1834 when they had just started talking Aaronic/Melchizedek. But it’s really 1835, a year later, where, like, Section 107 really pens down the language of Aaronic priesthood, Melchizedek priesthood. And so by 1838, as Joseph is, I don’t know if he’s the lead editor with this, with those who are writing the history, but I think his input is definitely clear here. He’s saying, let’s call it the priesthood of Aaron, right. Let’s say that what John the Baptist was essentially saying is, I confer the priesthood of Aaron upon you. So you can kind of see that interesting priesthood language kind of developing here. And then one discrepancy is that Oliver’s account says that “it will remain upon the earth so that the sons of Levi may yet offer an offering.” And Joseph’s account says, “Until the sons of Levi offer an offering.” So we’re going to get into what that means here in a minute. But the biggest thing is that in Joseph’s account, in the Section 13 account, there’s a big chunk in the middle that Oliver doesn’t mention. It’s the part that begins with “Which holds the keys of the ministering of angels and of the gospel of repentance and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins.” None of that language is in Oliver’s early account, but it is very prominent in this Section 13. So what’s going on here? Why is this middle portion added? And I think what happened here, here’s my two cents, Casey. I think what happened is that Joseph Smith has since received Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Verses 26 and 27, actually explain the lower priesthood. They explain, in fact, here’s the language. It says, Section 84, verses 26, 27, “And the lesser priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels, and the gospel of repentance, and baptism, and the remission of sins.” Like that’s almost verbatim, right, what’s in Section 13. So what appears to have happened is that Joseph plucks that material out of Section 84 and puts it as a clarifying explanation of what the Aaronic priesthood is. And so, it’s almost like Joseph Smith’s parenthetical, if you will, on what John the Baptist said. That what he said was something like this, “Upon you, my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the priesthood of Aaron.” Pause. Joseph Smith jumps in and says, “Which holds the keys of the ministering of angels.” This is kind of Joseph pausing and explaining, drawing from Section 84, and then play, “and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again.” That’s how I read it. I read it as a parenthetical drawn from Section 84, which came three years after John the Baptist came to explain what in the world this priesthood even is and was and does. That’s… That was super textually nerdy. I apologize. Anything you say to push back on that, or you feel good about that?

Casey Griffiths: I think that’s part of why the meta-textual commentary matters here a little bit, that you understand that this was an excerpt from Joseph Smith’s history, that he’s writing when he’s received additional revelations. Now, I’m also open to the idea, too, that Joseph Smith isn’t commenting, that he’s saying exactly what the angel said to them, but he does have a greater understanding of it now. But Joseph Smith didn’t really say, This is my commentary, or this is exactly what the angel said. And the way that they wrote history back then, they didn’t always clarify, like, when somebody was speaking in this exact precise sentence and when they were sort of doing a recall. Like, most people today, might be surprised to realize that a lot of exact quotations from history are sometimes paraphrased, sometimes their attitude, especially during this time when we didn’t have, like, tape recorders and stuff like that. So I think Section 13 does exactly what it’s supposed to do, which is explain that, A, the Aaronic priesthood was restored by the ministering of an angel, and B, here’s what the Aaronic priesthood is supposed to do. Like, every person that receives power linked to the Aaronic priesthood should be familiar with this content.

Scott Woodward: Very good. So the first line here, “Upon you, my fellow servants.” Can we just pause there and just think about how remarkable it would be if you were Joseph and Oliver to be called a fellow servant by this dazzling messenger of God. So cool. And then he says, “In the name of Messiah, I confer the priesthood of Aaron.” In the name of Messiah. It’s cool that he uses the Hebrew word here, Messiah, the anointed one, which typically was used of ancient priests and kings. I’m coming to you on the errand of the king, king Messiah, king Jehovah. Then he confers upon them, he says, the, “The priesthood of Aaron.” Now, let’s just pause and talk about the priesthood of Aaron, because this actually has a really rich backstory.

Casey Griffiths: I love that you pointed that out. I never quite realized this kind of has an Old Testament flavor to it, doesn’t it? If we were in the New Testament, the word they used for Messiah in Greek is Christ. But I mean, Jesus the Christ, Jesus the Messiah. So, in using an Old Testament term here, John kind of is sort of harkening back to the Old Testament model of priesthood, which is what this is all linked to and what I think you were about to start talking about. So go ahead.

Scott Woodward: It’s like Old Testament priesthood with a twist, and that’s what is so interesting that we got to talk about. So, okay, so this priesthood of Aaron dates back to the Old Testament with Moses’s brother Aaron, you’ll remember, and his sons, and they’re from the tribe of Levi. So sometimes they’re known as the sons of Levi. And therefore, this priesthood they belong to is sometimes known as the Levite-ical or Levitical priesthood. Now, they’re set apart as priests in the Old Testament tabernacle and temple to officiate in the ordinances there and thereby to offer offerings to the Lord in righteousness. That’s this language. So can we just let that sink in for one moment here, Casey? The original Aaronic priesthood was a group of temple workers in Moses’s tabernacle. Temple workers.

Casey Griffiths: You’re making this a temple text, Scott. You’re, you’re…

Scott Woodward: I don’t think I’m making it that way. I think it is.

Casey Griffiths: Oh, okay. I’m not disagreeing. I’m just saying this is a different angle. You know, usually, we’re sitting down with an 11-year-old or 12-year-old and saying, Hey. But you’re angling towards the temple, which I find fascinating.

Scott Woodward: Yes. Let’s keep… Let’s dig deeper then. In fact, did you know that the very first time the word priesthood is used in the King James Bible? The very first time, comes up in the Lord’s instructions to Moses about setting up Aaron and his sons as the very first temple workers in the very first temple ever mentioned in scripture. In fact, I will now read you the text. It’s in Exodus 40, where the Lord instructs Moses. This is a familiar passage to some. It says to Moses, “Thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.” That’s the tabernacle of the temple. “And wash them with water, and thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office. And thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats. And thou shalt anoint them as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office.” Listen to this part. “For their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.” Close quote. Whoa. That’s the first time priesthood is mentioned. And the meaning of that last phrase, “Their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations,” is made even more plain in some other translations. For instance, the NRSV says, “And their anointing shall admit them to a perpetual priesthood throughout all generations.” Or the International Standard Version says, “Their anointing is to qualify them to belong to a perpetual priesthood from generation to generation.” In other words, the anointing of of Aaron’s sons as, like, temple priests would admit them into and qualify them to belong to this really important group called the priesthood, this hood of priests that officiate in the temple. Now, this is a foundational moment in our scriptural history. It’s the formation of the very first temple priesthood, which was to consist of Aaron’s descendants from generation to generation. And that’s why it’s called the Aaronic priesthood. And again, Levitical priesthood is sometimes used because Aaron from the tribe of Levi. Now, those belonging to the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood were responsible in the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament for administering the temple sacrifices of the Law of Moses. Now, hang with me here because this is all relevant to where this is going. Or in other words, they were responsible to offer up unto the Lord righteous sacrificial offerings. In fact, John the Baptist’s own father, Zacharias, was just such a Levitical priest who was officiating in the temple of Herod at the beginning of the New Testament. We meet him in Luke chapter 1, right? But something happens with his son. In the person of Zacharias’s son, John the Baptist, we see the duties of the Aaronic priest shifting away from officiating over animal sacrifices in Law of Moses-style temples and toward a ministry of preaching repentance and baptizing people for the remission of sins. What’s going on here? What’s going on here? So let me, let me say that this is just one of the key shifts of moving from the old covenant, which is the Law of Moses-based covenant that Israel had been beholden to for 1,500 years, to a new covenant. Jesus calls it a new covenant with Israel. That’s why we get the phrase New Testament. The New Testament is the record of the institution of the new covenant Jesus is bringing with the house of Israel. Now, hang with me on this part because this is where, this is a really important shift from Old Testament priests sacrificing animals to John the Baptist-style priests that are preaching repentance and baptizing people for remission of sins. We get the best insight probably right there in 3 Nephi, where Joseph and Oliver had just been translating, actually. In chapter 9, the Law of Moses is fulfilled, Jesus announced, after his death, to an astonished group of Lehi’s seed right there in the Americas. And therefore, he said, “Ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood. Yea, your sacrifices and your burn offerings shall be done away,” he said. But then he explained that from that moment on, he required only one type of sacrifice. “Ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me,” he said, “a broken heart and a contrite spirit.” Boom. Ah. So this is what the law of sacrifice is to look like in this new era of the new covenant. And so the Aaronic priest’s role in this new era, instead of officiating over animal sacrifices like they used to, was to participate in this, like, broken heart and contrite spirit system of sacrifice by, number one, preaching repentance. And number two, baptizing people for the remission of their sins. That would help prepare people to receive Christ and receive his kingdom. And since John the Baptist was the first of this new kind of Aaronic priest in the new covenant, how fitting is this, Casey, that he is the one that returns on this fateful 15th of May, 1829, to confer, as a glorified, resurrected man, the authority of this priesthood upon Joseph and Oliver. Wow. So, let’s just let that sink in. Did that make any sense at all, or was that way too nerdy? Be honest with me.

Casey Griffiths: It was a little nerdy, but you, you, you make a great point, which is that the Book of Mormon is crucial in our understanding of this shift from the old covenant, or the Law of Moses, to the new covenant, the law of Christ, which Joseph Smith is going to have revealed to him later on, actually is a shift back to what was original, that the Law of Moses was kind of the deviation from the original covenant, which was given to Adam and Eve, but was necessary, as the Book of Mormon explains in numerous places to act as a schoolmaster to bring people back to and prepare them for the full covenant, which is what we live in. So I, I thought it was great, actually. And the thought that was going through my head was, well, the Aaronic priesthood today does still do more of those ritualized things, like passing the sacrament, like participating in ceremonies like baptism, that Aaronic priests anciently did. But the ritual then was animal sacrifice and that intense set of ordinances that are set up in Leviticus, which the Book of Mormon also does a beautiful job explaining is no longer necessary. We don’t have to do that anymore. This is what priests were always meant to do. They were meant to minister. They were meant to help. They were meant to go out and do the work of God as his authorized representatives.

Scott Woodward: And what a powerful image to think of the sacrament, and you think of Aaronic priests up there administering these symbols of our repentance, our broken heart and contrite spirit, our willingness and commitment, ritual commitment to keep God’s commandments this week, to take upon ourselves his name, to remember him. If you think about that as the ritual moment of offering to God a broken heart and contrite spirit, I think that can enhance our sacrament meeting immensely, honestly.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, yeah. And again, all valuable context. I would add one more point. We emphasize, and the restoration proclamation emphasizes, that this is the restoration of Christ’s New Testament church. But you’ve done a great job right now, reminding us that this is also a restoration of his Old Testament people, that the idea of a house of Israel and of a group of priests or establishing a priesthood that can carry out God’s work is rooted in the Old Testament. This is a restoration of the Old Testament, too.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, with that little twist, right, with that New Testament twist. It’s, it’s John the Baptist style, Aaronic priesthood, not Zacharias style, where they’re doing animal sacrifices. It’s John the Baptist style, where we’re out inviting people to repent and bring their broken heart and contrite spirit to God and manifest that by entering the waters of baptism. Like that’s such a really cool and essential pivot in the whole history of the house of Israel. Because then Jesus is going to announce that, and especially Paul the Apostle will announce throughout the New Testament that what’s changed, what’s dramatically shifted in the new covenant, is that anybody can now become part of the house of Israel by baptism. It’s not just for lineal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Now, whoever wants to, any Gentiles can join this movement, this, this, this kingdom movement, which which is still about the house of Israel, only an expanded house of Israel where Gentiles can join it, accept Christ, offer to him your broken heart, contrite spirit, get baptized, and now you’re part of the family. You are in the house of Israel. And that’s a super major shift that the New Testament is like shouting from the rooftops, right?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. It’s a royal family that anybody can join, which is how you reconcile those two things. A royal family, but everybody is a child of God? Well, it’s a royal family that people choose to be part of, not that they’re necessarily just born into.

Scott Woodward: So yes, it’s like a restoration of some Old Testament stuff, but it still has that New Testament twist is all I’d say. This isn’t a one-for-one restoration of the Old Testament church. It’s a restoration of the Old Testament Aaronic priesthood, given that New Testament twist when John the Baptist now models what it’s like to be a priest the new covenant. Very, very, very cool. So.

Casey Griffiths: Beautifully explained. Let’s, let’s talk about some controversies because there are a few here in Section 13. And, and a couple that I in particular want to deal with.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. Where should we start?

Casey Griffiths: Where should we start? Well, I mean, the text itself lists the powers of the Aaronic priesthood, “which holds the keys of the ministering of angels.” First thing that’s listed in association with the priesthood of Aaron is the keys of the ministering of angels. And boy, there’s been a lot of discussion back and forth among the leaders of the Church about what exactly this means.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, let’s start there. So where do you come down on that, Casey? What does this mean? And I guess, how are we to know what this means? Do we have any good sources that, that ever interpret this? Does Joseph ever interpret this? Have subsequent leaders ever weighed in on the meaning of the keys of the ministering of angels?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, Joseph Smith did have a lot to say about the keys of the ministering of angels, right? Later sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, in particular, Section 129, talk about the keys of the ministering of angels. But it’s also a text that has been interpreted again and again by modern leaders of the Church in different ways as well. So, there’s a number of meanings that we could associate with the keys of the ministering of angels, and we maybe don’t want to be too dogmatic to say this is the correct one or this is the correct one because it can be both.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. So, and maybe herein is the, is the controversy, if there is one here, is there’s been different interpretations by different leaders on this. And so maybe we just walk through them real quick. For instance, let me start with Joseph Smith. When Joseph Smith explained the ministering of angels, he always, I can’t think of an exception, maybe you can help me, but he always associated the ministering of angels and the keys of the ministering of angels with detecting true messengers from false messengers, true angels from false angels. True ministering angels from God, from those who would want to deceive us into thinking that they were a true angel from God. For instance, in Doctrine and Covenants 128, Joseph briefly recollected an experience that occurred around this time, actually, when the devil appeared to him as an angel of light on the banks of the Susquehanna River. But he said that Michael helped him detect the devil. And, I mean, this is talking about a whole different league of experience, Casey, than I’m familiar with where, you know, I’ve never had to use this knowledge of how do I detect a true angel from a false angel? I mean, they’re coming to my room like every night. I just don’t know which ones are the good ones, which ones are the bad ones. I’ve never had to use this. But Joseph says that shortly after John the Baptist came on the very banks of the Susquehanna River, that, that, you know, we’re probably in the same spot, we don’t know for sure, but the devil actually appeared to him on those same banks, and he had to learn how to detect that it was the devil. Like, so, so Joseph seems to connect the keys of the ministering of angels always to detecting angels, not summoning them. I was kind of taught growing up that this was about summoning angels. Like, if you ever need some help, you can call on angels to like help you. And I never knew if that was true or not. And that was kind of just colloquial, cultural kind of teaching. But as I looked into what Joseph said, he continues to say, like in Nauvoo, for instance, he said that when we build the Nauvoo temple, I will explain more about the keys of detection once that temple is complete. And so, in his understanding, it appears that the key of the ministering of angels is about detecting true ministering angels from false ones. And he said he’ll explain more about that when the Nauvoo temple is built. And anyone who’s been endowed might recognize there are places in the endowment ceremony where we actually learn more about that. So, that’s probably all we should say about that here. That’s one interpretation That’s kind of the Joseph Smith early interpretation. What happens after that, Casey?

Casey Griffiths: I mean, today, I don’t think anybody would ever give that interpretation, right? Partially, because it’s an interpretation that gains deeper meaning once you’ve been to the temple. But on a practical level, we have the people that serve and are called the Aaronic priests in the church, and we see what they do. And so I’m going to go to Dallin H. Oaks who gave a great talk in 1998, where he takes the phrase, “The keys of the ministering of angels,” but he connects it to the following phrases, which it also says, “and the gospel of repentance and baptism by immersion for the remission of sins.” And this is the connection as President Oaks explains it, okay. So he said, “What does it mean that the Aaronic priesthood holds the key of the ministering of angels and of the gospel of repentance and baptism and the remission of sins? The meaning is found in the ordinance of baptism and in the sacrament, both ordinances that can be administered by members of the Aaronic priesthood.” You go to church, the person blessing the sacrament is an Aaronic priest. Baptisms performed, can be performed by an Aaronic priest. That’s where that authority is first bestowed. So President Oaks goes on and says, “Baptism is for the remission of sins, and the sacrament is a renewal of the covenants and blessings of baptism. Both should be preceded by repentance. When we keep the covenants made in these ordinances, we are promised that we will always have his Spirit to be with us. The ministering of angels is one of the manifestations of that Spirit.” So he ties these three ideas together. And I would also add, too, that when a person receives the Aaronic priesthood, that’s when they take the first steps towards being a ministering brother, basically, where they start to learn to step outside themselves and instead of the Church taking care of them, they start to take care of the Church. And I like this because it’s very practical.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, super practical.

Casey Griffiths: You can see it happening in the average ward or branch every single Sunday. It’s clear and straightforward, where I think what you were talking about with Joseph Smith and the keys of the ministering of angels is a little bit more maybe esoteric. That might be the right word.

Scott Woodward: For sure.

Casey Griffiths: It doesn’t have as much of a practical application. It’s cool. It’s cool, and it was obviously meaningful to Joseph Smith.

Scott Woodward: To Joseph, yeah.

Casey Griffiths: I like President Oaks because often, you know, President Oaks just cuts through the noise and says: this. And, and you can see it happen on a regular basis in the Church that these are employed practically every Sunday and throughout the week as we minister and work to bless the lives of others.

Scott Woodward: It’s clear, it’s clean, it’s practical. Yeah. I, I remember hearing that talk. I was 18 years old and I thought, Finally, I get it. Finally. Nobody’s ever been able to explain it. And then President Oaks nailed it. It wasn’t until later that I realized that Joseph Smith explained it very differently than that. And I guess that’s, that’s the controversy. Is it one? Is it the other? Could it be both? I’m open to both interpretations, personally, but.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, in my mind, it’s not a huge controversy because, I mean, they’re both prophets. They both have been given the position and authority. And so President Oaks is in our time and in our context and probably is better able to speak to the concerns we have. Joseph Smith is another time in another context. They can both be valid, but they might not necessarily… They might be talking about different angles when it comes to it because the keys of the ministering of angels is a pretty broad idea that can mean a number of different things. We could have an argument over what the word angel means, because, I mean, essentially, it’s a Hebrew word that means minister, messenger.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. I guess what I like about both Joseph Smith and Elder Oaks is that it us understand how this applies both to men and women. Like Joseph Smith told a group of women that when we build that temple, the Nauvoo temple, you’re going to be given the keys to be able to discern good from bad there. He’s talking about these keys associated with Aaronic priesthood. And President Oaks says that the way this applies both to men and women is that it’s through the ordinances of sacrament and baptism that we gain access to the Holy Ghost. Both men and women gain access to the Holy Ghost, and it’s through the Holy Ghost that we would also receive the ministering of angels because he quotes that 2 Nephi 31 passage that says, “Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, wherefore they speak the words of Christ.” 2 Nephi 32, excuse me. And, and so. Both of them show the broad applicability, both to men and women. And I think there’s value there for both of us, so.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, and I would point out that a recent, sort of, wording change uses the term ministering for both men and women now, too. And so. Is a ministering angel a ministering brother or sister? It could be, based on the way that the word angel actually is used in the scriptures, or it can refer to spiritual beings like Section 129 and a couple of others mentioned, so. All right, that’s one controversy.

Scott Woodward: So is that the Casey Griffith’s third option, that under the keys of the bishop, we have ministering brothers and sisters who are ministering angels. And so there you go. In a ward, you have ministering happening with men and women under the direction of the man in the ward who holds those keys. Is that, is that the third option you’re introducing here, Casey?

Casey Griffiths: I don’t want to label it the Casey Griffiths interpretation. But yeah, I mean, I think that that seems apparent, that the power to minister, the authority to minister is given to men and women, usually, you know, starting around the age of 14 or so. Second controversy I want to talk about, because this is the one that people bring up again and again and again. The wording at the end of Section 13 seems to sort of be opening us up to certain things. For instance, I quote, Section 13 says, “This shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.” Now, you could go a lot of different directions with that, but one that often comes up is that what the Levites did was animal sacrifice. So does this mean that the Aaronic priesthood’s going to be taken away once the sons of Levi get their act together, that it won’t be universal to people that aren’t Levites? Does this mean that animal sacrifice is going to make a comeback? Which, again, would be a huge change in the Church, right? We show up and there’s a goat up front, and now the priest is, you know, doing something very different than breaking bread and blessing water. So, so what’s your take? Is the Aaronic priesthood going to be taken away? And is animal sacrifice going to come back once the Levites get on board with things?

Scott Woodward: I think those are two questions, right? So Oliver Cowdery’s version says that John the Baptist said, “That the sons of Levi may offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.” And Joseph Smith version tweaks that and says, “until.” Right, and so, in Joseph’s version, it sounds like the Aaronic priesthood will one day at some point become irrelevant, right. It will no longer be needful. It will have fulfilled its, its purpose. Whereas in Oliver Cowdery’s version, it doesn’t quite say that, so. I’m going to go ambiguous on that one, on that first question. Although we might prefer the canonized text over Oliver Cowdery’s text, right?

Casey Griffiths: I think that the canonized text is ambiguous on this point. That’s why I would say, you bring in Oliver Cowdery, and Oliver Cowdery really makes it sound like the Lord is giving us the Aaronic priesthood until the sons of Levi get their act together, that he’s doing it so that they can. I think if you meld those together, that seems like the more reasonable interpretation because it doesn’t make sense to me that the Lord would give this authority to so many people and then take it away and give it back to the sons of Levi. That feels regressive in my mind.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. The phrase “sons of Levi” is just, we’re no longer tribal, as we mentioned in the, in the new covenant, anybody from any tribe, right, once you get baptized, you are now in the house of Israel. Anybody can be ordained into the Aaronic priesthood, even though you’re not from the tribe of Levi. So I think the phrase “sons of Levi” here is just hearkening to that Old Testament language, but it’s in the context of the John the Baptist style new covenant, you know, gospel of repentance and baptism. So, I wouldn’t read this text literally to mean that only those from the tribe of Levi will one day come together and offer this offering. And I’ll tell you why I think that, because it has everything to do with the second question that you asked, like, is animal sacrifice at some point going to come back? Well, this is controversial because as silly as that might sound, there was a time when Joseph Smith actually thought so. He even taught that interpretation in a sermon that he gave in October of 1840. You can find it on Joseph Smith Papers where he actually says that that’s what he thinks it means. Note, note the date, October 1840. But two years later, two years later, once the doctrines undergirding the Nauvoo temple were becoming clear in his mind, particularly the doctrine of vicarious work for the dead, Joseph seems to have updated his view the meaning of this passage. And here’s the evidence. In a letter that he wrote to the Saints, which is now canonized as Doctrine and Covenants 128, we have his most mature understanding on this point, I believe. After mentioning the sons of Levi prophecy directly, Joseph wrote this in verse 24. He said, “Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness, and let us present in his holy temple… A book, a book containing the records of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation.” So I think what we’re seeing here is that by 1842 in Nauvoo, Joseph’s understanding was that the Aaronic priesthood would not be taken again from the earth until we, as a people, as a Church, collectively, offer unto the Lord in his temple an acceptable book. Maybe today we’d say a database containing the records of our dead. Yeah. The record of, of, of all the ordinances we have done for the dead. We have completed their work. In other words, we’ve given them the opportunity to explicitly make that covenant with Christ of baptism, to begin with, that’s what Section 128 is all about, is baptisms for the dead. That Aaronic priesthood level, you know, broken heart, contrite spirit, officially showing that and demonstrating that by my willingness to repent and be baptized. Like, we’ve done that on behalf of the entire human family, vicariously here. And here is our offering, Lord. I think there’s something elegantly beautiful about that, that the Aaronic priesthood began anciently as a holy order of temple workers, and that it’s going to one day end once we’ve completed for all of our dead their ordinances and presented a finished record of that fact to the Lord in his temple. In other words, the Aaronic priesthood begins and ends at the temple. I think that’s pretty cool.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. And I want to just… I know I’m always sounding like the compromiser here, but I, I want to, I want to go on record as saying, I agree with your interpretation. The sacrifice that the Lord is asking is this record, this, this, this collection of names of people that we’ve done the work for. But Joseph Fielding Smith did sort of leave the door open. And, and you correctly pointed out in our pre-discussion here that he was quoting Joseph Smith’s 1840 sermon, too, that there might be a temporary restoration of animal sacrifice. And, just as, just like Joseph Fielding Smith said, this would be temporary. It would be part of the restoration of all things, which was really, really important to the early members of the Church. That’s just a thread through a lot of their discourse. And it would probably happen at the temple in Jerusalem. And as further evidence, I would put that the instructions in the Old Testament for the Jerusalem temple that’s supposed to be rebuilt, the one in the Book of Ezekiel, do talk about facilities for sacrifice. So I’m going to leave that door open just a little bit, but say that I’m leaning heavily towards agreeing with your interpretation that the sacrifice is, is this, this record, these names, that the Lord wants us to present. But I’m philosophically open to the idea that temporarily animal sacrifice might come back. And if that offends anybody that is worried about cruelty to animals, like PETA, I would point out this is in the millennium, the animals will get resurrected right after their sacrifice. It’s all good. It’s all good. So, so it might happen as part of the restoration of all things, but, but I’m agnostic.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, and I appreciate that because we do have Joseph Fielding Smith weighing in on this, and he does draw from Joseph’s October 1840 sermon to make his case. And so I guess, yeah, it’s just how do you want to interpret Joseph’s 1840 sermon in light of his September 1842 letter that’s now in the Doctrine and Covenants? And in my mind, this is Joseph updating his understanding once he understands the Nauvoo temple and understands the ordinances and the work for the dead, which he did not know. We don’t have any evidence that he understood that in 1840. In fact, the Lord had not even commanded the Nauvoo temple to be built yet. So I think we have Joseph trying to work out his understanding of what that might mean, that the sons of Levi would offer again, an offering unto the Lord in righteousness. In 1840, that’s where he was at. In 1842, he was at a different place because he understood it differently. That’s my take. But I think that you are representing a reasonable position as well. That he could mean both things. Both things could be true. There could be a momentary, temporary restoration of animal sacrifice to round out the restoration of all things. I see the logic there, and I’m good with that way. I just lean the first way instead of the second. Is that okay?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. Again, I, I lean your direction, too. I’m just leaving that door open a little bit. It seems like an important text here is one that you quoted, which is 3 Nephi 9, where the Lord says, The sacrifice is a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And that seems to be in line with this idea of we go to the temple, we, we, we submit our wills by creating this record more than the idea of shedding of blood. But again, we can’t ignore all the discourse the early Saints had about the restoration of all things. And so we got to leave that door open just a little bit as we go. Okay, so that was one verse, Section 13 of the Doctrine and Covenants. We’re going to have to speed up.

Scott Woodward: Consequences of Section 13 Casey, real quick, anything we want to say about the long shadow, the long-term impact of this section?

Casey Griffiths: Oh, man, how do you even start to measure this? Just the idea that priesthood or authority that there was going to be a priesthood associated with the Church. Starts to flip on its head a lot of the ideas that were prevalent in Joseph Smith’s time, that instead of priesthood of all believers, instead of, like, you go to school and you get a degree, and that’s how you enter into the priesthood, that the priesthood is bestowed by those with authority, and that a person enters into the priesthood that way is radically different, and it’s still a huge difference between us and most Christian religions. So it’s tough to overestimate how important this one is.

Scott Woodward: And when you think about how many people will be affected by this revelation, both the living and the dead, we find out later in Nauvoo, the dead are going to be baptized as well. Wow, how many, how many people will be impacted by the Aaronic priesthood? And if we understand the story correctly, everybody, everybody who’s ever lived will be given that opportunity to receive baptism in the temple, either whether you’re alive or whether you’re dead, it’s eventually coming for you. And so I think it’s probably impossible to overestimate the importance of Section 13. Is that, is that overstating it?

Casey Griffiths: No, it’s not. It’s accurate.

Scott Woodward: Okay, well, let’s head over to Doctrine and Covenants, Sections 14, 15, and 16. Maybe we’ll do these all together because they’re the same context, and they’re really short, and I think we can do them rather quickly. Casey, do you want to drop us into the context?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. So this is our introduction to the Whitmer family, the last of those three great families associated with the early Restoration. And it also is, is part of, if you’re, if you’re keeping track in your mind of when and where the Book of Mormon is translated, represents a crucial transition during the translation process, which is this. About April, most of April and most of May of 1829, Joseph Smith and Oliver are in Harmony, Pennsylvania. They’re at Joseph Smith’s home, which is right next door to Isaac Hale’s family. They’re staying with Emma’s family, basically. Apparently, the spirit of persecution began to be manifest in Harmony. They started to have problems there, and it became clear that they might need to relocate to finish the translation. So Oliver is friends with the Whitmer family. And you might even make the case that Oliver is a Whitmer because he’s eventually going to marry one of the Whitmer daughters. He’s going to be a Whitmer brother-in-law, and he contacts the Whitmers and asks if they can come and complete the translation there. This is the way Joseph writes it. He said, “There was a spirit of persecution which had already manifest itself in the neighborhood,” meaning Harmony, “we had been threatened with being mobbed from time to time, and this too by professors of religion. And their intentions of mobbing us were only counteracted by the influence of my wife’s father’s family (under Divine providence) who had very friendly to me and… were willing that I should be allowed to continue the work of translation without interruption.” So Joseph is saying, Yeah, the Hales were running interference for us, but people were not keen to this idea of a new book of scripture, and persecution started to rear up. So Joseph Smith and Oliver start looking for a place where they can complete translation. And in late May, Joseph is prompted by the Lord to leave Harmony and travel to another location. Specifically, this is according to Joseph Smith’s mother, she said, “As he was attempting to translate by looking into the Urim and Thummim, instead of the words of the book being given him, he was commanded to write a letter to one David Whitmer,” who is the subject of Section 14, “and was instructed to request that he come with this team immediately in order to convey Joseph and Oliver Cowdery back to his house, which was 135 miles away,” this is in Fayette, New York, “and that they might remain there until the translation should be completed. This was to be done,” she wrote, “because an evil-designing people were seeking to take away Joseph’s life in order to prevent the work of God from going forth in the world.” So Oliver writes to David Whitmer. And David Whitmer, who’s, who’s living in Fayette, New York, it’s about 135 miles away from where they’re at, agrees to help. In fact, David Whitmer has some spiritual experiences that, that convince him he’s supposed to help. And he travels all the way down to Harmony, and he picks up Joseph and Oliver and conveys them back. And credit to the Whitmer family. The Whitmer family agrees to give Joseph Smith and Oliver food, lodging. They stay in the Whitmer home during the last month of translation, and the Whitmers also agree to assist in other ways. You’ll notice if you look at the list of witnesses of the Book of Mormon, David Whitmer is one of the Three Witnesses, and the Eight Witnesses, every person is either a Smith or Whitmer, with the exception of Hiram Page, who’s a Whitmer brother-in-law. He’s married to Catherine Whitmer. So at this point, the Whitmers’ home basically becomes Church headquarters. There’s not a church yet, but it’s Joseph’s home base, where he’s doing the translation. And Joseph writes, “Upon our arrival, we found Mr. Whitmer’s family very anxious concerning the work and very friendly towards ourselves.” He even says, “John Whitmer,” who’s the subject of Section 15, “in particular, assisted us very much in writing as scribe during the remainder of translation.” So John Whitmer actually acts as scribe. Joseph Smith later on singles out David, John, and Peter Whitmer, Jr., “becoming our zealous friends and assistants in the work.” And that lines up with ages, too. David Whitmer is 24. He’s the same age as, as Joseph Smith. John is 26. Peter is 19. So these are the three Whitmers that they’re most closely working with. And it makes sense that at a certain point, they want what others, like Joseph Smith, Sr., and Hyrum Smith and Joseph Knight, which is to know their place in the work. Joseph Smith introduces these revelations by saying, “Being anxious to know their respective duties and having desired with much earnestness that I should inquire of the Lord concerning them, I did so through means of the Urim and Thummim, and obtained for them in succession the following revelations.” So Section 14, 15, 16 to the Whitmer family.

Scott Woodward: Okay, bam. So in succession, 14, 15, 16, come. And Casey, these have a lot in common with some of those other revelations that we have seen already. Section 4, Section 6, Section 11, Section 12 that we just did with Joseph Knight, Sr. And it’s because they’re asking a very similar question, isn’t it? So they want to know how they can assist in the work and if you’ve caught the rhythm so far, you would probably be able to anticipate the Lord’s answer. He’s probably going to talk about how there’s a marvelous work and a wonder that’s about to come forth, right? He’s probably going to talk about how the field is white already to harvest. He’s probably going to talk about how the word of God is to be given heed to because it’s sharper than a two-edged sword. And sure enough, as you look into these revelations, you see that same kind of preamble, like you said, the mission call language that’s the same for each individual who has desires to serve God. Maybe something unique in Section 14 that we ought to point out with David Whitmer is verses seven and eight. These have some important foreshadowing. So verse eight promises David that the Holy Ghost will help him, quote, “stand as a witness of the things of which you shall both hear and see.” Which is probably a foreshadowing of the fact that he is soon going to become one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who will both see the plates and the angel, and he’ll hear the voice of God testifying of the truthfulness of the record. And then verse 7 even just drops this, it ensures David Whitmer eternal life if he will keep the commandments of the Lord and endure to the end. Now, this is the very first time in the Doctrine and Covenants, by the way, that the phrase “endure to the end” appears. And it’s very interesting that he drops that with David Whitmer, isn’t it?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. We know David’s going to eventually be excommunicated from the Church in 1838, and he will never come back to the Church. And yet he will maintain and continue to declare his very powerful testimony of the Book of Mormon until his death, like 50 years later. When B.H. Roberts interviewed David Whitmer back in 1884, four years before he dies, according to Roberts, David said that after the angel showed the plates to the witnesses, Moroni looked directly at David Whitmer and said, “David, blessed is he that endureth to the end.” Now, thankfully, whether or not David did, in fact, endure to the end in keeping God’s commandments is between him and the Lord. They’ll, they’ll get to determine that. But he definitely was true, and he did endure to the end on the one point of defending his testimony of the Book of Mormon, which I think needs to be said as well.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. And, and it’s dangerous for us to make final judgments about anybody’s eternal fate. On the one hand, David doesn’t endure to the end in the sense that he leaves the Church and never comes back. On the other hand, he’s the most interviewed of the Three Witnesses. There’s a book about this thick, just of David Whitmer’s interviews, where people from all different walks of life came and sat down and said, like, Did you really see an angel? So in that sense, he does endure to the end. And I’m gonna, like, I know we’re not supposed to do this, but I’m going to go on a limb and say, I think he’s probably okay, but it’s not my, my place to say. That’s between David Whitmer and God, whether or not he actually did endure to the end. But that is really interesting, especially in light of what’s said in this section.

Scott Woodward: I just smile when I read that where the Lord, very first time he says, endure to the end, he says it to David, and that the angel singled him out and said, David, blessed are those who endure to the end, wink, right? Or whatever, like. So yeah. That’s between him and, him and Jesus, whether that actually played out. But that’s what we want to say about Section 14. Anything else you wanted to say? That’s, that’s what I got.

Casey Griffiths: Just that David is a great witness. He’s kind of a contrary kid. Like when you go through the records of the Church, it seems like David Whitmer is the one always going, Well, I don’t know about this, and I don’t know how I feel about it. But I’ll, I’ll add in one thing parenthetically, too. Joseph Smith liked and loved David Whitmer deeply. In fact, he gives David Whitmer a blessing that David Whitmer, if he stays faithful, will be his successor as the leader of the Church like, he designates. David Whitmer, unfortunately, is excommunicated before the whole question comes up, so the, the issue is kind of moot. But David Whitmer is someone that we should hold in high esteem.

Scott Woodward: He was the President of the Church, they called him, over in the Missouri area, while Joseph Smith was presiding in the Kirtland area at the same time, and so. Yeah, he was very trusted so long as he was faithful in the Church. It was the first eight years, but then until, what, 1838, his excommunication. He’s kind of a tragedy of the Kirtland apostasy, which we’ll talk about later. Okay, well, let’s go to Section 15 and 16, then. These sections are exactly the same, Casey, right?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, they are.

Scott Woodward: The wording is exactly the same, with the exception that verse 1 of Section 15 says John, while verse 1 of Section 16 says Peter. Also, I should, I should point out in fairness that verse 5 of Section 16 adds the word “unto.”

Casey Griffiths: You have covered all the changes in both sections in under 30 seconds. So, yeah.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. And, man, this, I think this, this is a controversy in some people’s minds. Like, what, what is happening here? Why would the Lord give two identical revelations to brothers in succession? Like, John got his, and then Peter got his, and they said the exact same thing. You’ve already told us some of your thoughts on this, Casey, that this is a mission call. And so, of course, it’s going to be very similar language. But I don’t know. Anything else that you want to add to that controversy?

Casey Griffiths: Both of them are significant. They both become Eight… Two of the Eight Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. And John leaves the Church when the entire family leaves. Peter dies before the Whitmer family leaves, and so he dies in the faith. But I mean, yeah, the controversy here is just primarily the two revelations are exactly the same. Why were they both included in the Doctrine and Covenants? And I don’t have a solid reason from Joseph Smith or the committee that put together the Doctrine and Covenants, why they made that decision. I do like this quote from John A. Widtsoe. Can I share this? This is from a 1951 book called Joseph Smith: Seeker After Truth, Prophet of God. John A. Widtsoe, who’s a 20th century apostle, and an expert on the Doctrine and Covenants, says this. He says, “The Doctrine and Covenants is a compilation of the revelations received by Joseph Smith to individuals for the guidance of the Church. From the first years of the work, the prophet kept every scrap of paper pertaining to the progress of the work. In fact, this care of things that must have seemed trivial is one of the evidences of the sincerity of the man. For example, when John and Peter Whitmer asked for help, he received for each of them a revelation substantially the same.” We just pointed out it’s not even just substantially, it’s identically the same. “The simple revelation is directed to the individual, and at first sight has no permanent value for the church. Yet, as a revelation from God, it was preserved and published. An insincere man could have eliminated this and other similar revelations as of little consequence. Not so with Joseph: the Lord had spoken. The words were part of the building of the Kingdom of God, and the same advice would be useful to many men then and now.” So John A. Widtsoe’s argument is including two identical revelations speaks to the sincerity of Joseph Smith,

Scott Woodward: That every revelation mattered.

Casey Griffiths: Every revelation matters, even though, you know, later on, there are some revelations that aren’t included in the Doctrine and Covenants. The other thing I would point out, too, is the committee that puts together the Book of Commandments, which becomes the Doctrine and Covenants, includes John Whitmer. He’s the one that actually takes the revelations from Kirtland to Missouri to be printed. And it’s not likely that John Whitmer is going to leave out a revelation to him, right? That’s deeply significant. And Peter is John’s brother. And so even if the revelations are identical, I’m guessing that this is a recognition of the importance of John and Peter to this early work. And Joseph Smith, by the way, notes that in his history, that David and John and Peter were the three members of the Whitmer family that he was most closely associated with. It might be an identical revelation, but take it as Joseph Smith and John Whitmer’s way of probably saying, These are important people that played a huge role in bringing us this sacred record. And the Lord spoke to them, and it might be exactly the same, but let’s keep it. Let’s leave it in. I, I probably would have done the same thing, to be honest with you.

Scott Woodward: I just add that, again, they’re asking the exact same question. The answer is identical both for them and for any of us. I think that if we have desires to serve God, then we’re called. That’s true for everybody. In fact, I just want to read some of the beautiful language of these two sections. I’ll let you guess which one I’m quoting from, Section 15 or 16.

Casey Griffiths: It doesn’t matter, it doesn’t.

Scott Woodward: But it’s actually beautiful. And to think about this, for anyone who’s interested to know how God wants to use them, listen to this. He says, “I will tell you that which no man knoweth save me and thee alone. For many times you have desired of me to know that which would be of the most worth unto you.” That’s their question. What’s the most worth unto you? “Behold, blessed are you for this thing and for speaking my words which I have given you according to my commandments.” And then verse 6, “Now, behold, I say unto you that the thing which will be of the most worth unto you will be to declare repentance unto this people, that you may bring souls unto me, that you may rest with them in the Kingdom of my Father. Amen.” That’s really actually beautiful, right? That if you want to know the best thing you could do that would, like, have the most long term impact, like think about that. What if you help people come to Christ? What’s going to have greater impact than that? I think, you know, on the list of long lasting impact, like I don’t know if you can stack up anything that will endure longer than people who actually choose Christ because of your influence and spend eternity in his kingdom with him, right. Like what could be longer lasting and what could be more soul-satisfying than to know that that’s what you’ve done? I think if anyone’s asking that question, they’re probably going to get that answer. What do you think?

Casey Griffiths: I agree. Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, these two not only witnesses the Book of Mormon, John Whitmer becomes basically the first Church historian. Peter Whitmer is among the earliest missionaries called to go to the frontier, to take the Book of Mormon to the Native Americans. I mean, they’re just good people. And even though the Whitmer family has some controversy surrounding them, at this point, they’re some of Joseph Smith’s most stalwart supporters, so. I’m glad, I’m glad the revelations are to note that the Lord was concerned about these brothers.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. Despite any of the future controversies, I think it’s very safe to say that over the next several months and years from this revelation, all three of these brothers are going to sacrifice a ton. And they’re going to put forth a lot of great personal efforts to effectively bring souls to Jesus Christ. Like, I think they lean into these revelations a lot.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, if we’re talking about consequences, because let’s move on to consequences here, just the, the function these revelations play in acknowledging the Whitmer family to the Restoration. Like they, they are coming into this with almost no context, right, but they make this leap of faith and agree to support and house Joseph and Oliver. And then as the years progress, they play a huge role. And we’re not just talking about the three Whitmers mentioned here. Christian Whitmer plays a huge role. Hiram Page, the Whitmer sisters, Catherine and Elizabeth. A lot of our understanding of Book of Mormon translation comes from the Whitmer family as well, where in their later years, a lot of them were willing to open up and say, Well, here’s what I saw while Joseph Smith was staying in my home. Even people like Elizabeth Whitmer gives accounts of seeing Joseph Smith translate and, and what she witnessed. And I’m, I’m grateful for that. It makes our understanding much richer.

Scott Woodward: All right. Section 17, Casey, you said that this is one of the key sections that you would want to make sure you had time in a class to cover. Drop us into this.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, it’s key because one of the primary evidences that the Book of Mormon really is what it says it is. Like, everybody comes forward and says, Well, where’s the plates? You know, or, Why didn’t the angel appear to anybody besides Joseph Smith? He did. And this is the call of those witnesses that specifically are going to be asked to put their names in the book. And they have appeared in every printed edition of the book since 1830. Three and Eight Witnesses, but Section 17 tends to hone in on the Three Witnesses, specifically.

Scott Woodward: Is it fair to say that this is the closest that God gets in this dispensation with providing intentional empirical evidence for the Book of Mormon? I mean…

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. Yeah.

Scott Woodward: He’s like, I’m going to call witnesses. I’m going to let them see an angel. I’m going to let them hear my voice, and then I’m going to ask them to declare that to the world. Like, God seems to support this idea of, like, we do need some evidence to bolster our faith in the reality of the claims that Joseph Smith is making and of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, especially.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. And I mean, anybody that deals with the Book of Mormon seriously has to go through the witnesses. You have to deal with the fact that there are 11 people, 12 if you count Joseph Smith, which that’s a nice round number, right? Thirteen, if you add Mary Whitmer, who also saw the plates of the angel, that said they saw the plates or that they saw the angel and the plates. That’s the Three Witnesses. And I mean, a lot of criticism of Joseph Smith saying, Well, the Book of Mormon’s a fraud and everything like that just don’t address this. And the fact that not all the witnesses stayed in the Church, too, is a major thing. That they don’t have motive at any point to uphold their testimony, and yet they do to the end of their life is one of those major things that you have to deal with. So let’s talk about this process of witnesses, which is kind of inculcating during the entire time that the Book of Mormon is being translated. In fact, first time that witnesses comes up, it’s actually in Section 5 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Again, just to briefly recontextualize this revelation, Martin Harris is having major struggles with his wife. His wife is even threatening a lawsuit because he spent so much time away from home assisting Joseph Smith with translation. And Martin asked for a revelation. This is when he’s really struggling with his witness. This is after he’s lost the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon. And in the revelation, the Lord specifies and says, “The testimony of three of my servants… Unto whom I will show these things… And they shall know of a surety that these things are true, for from heaven will I declare it unto them.” And at that time, Martin Harris is told that if he will repent and be humbled, that he can be one of the Three Witnesses mentioned there. Then, sometime probably in late May or early June, when Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery translating the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon text mentions that there’s going to be witnesses as well. This is Ether 5:2-3, which is Moroni stepping out of the narrative to speak directly to the translator of the work itself, to speak to Joseph Smith, mentions that he might be privileged, “To show the plates unto those who shall assist to bring forth this work. And unto three, they shall be shown by the power of God, and therefore, they shall know of a surety that these things are true.” So three witnesses mentioned again there. Oliver Cowdery is told in Section 6 that he’s going to assist in bringing forth the work. David Whitmer is told in Section 14, he’s called to assist. Those are our Three Witnesses. And they’re promised, David Whitmer’s promised, that if he would ask in faith, he would “stand as a witness of the things of which you shall both hear and see.” So there’s hints to all three of these men, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery, that they’re going to be the Three Witnesses. And then another passage. Again, you got to remember, when they’re translating the Book of Mormon in our timeline, they go from Mosiah to Moroni and then circle back, and we think primarily while they’re with the Whitmers, translate 1 Nephi to Omni. There’s one more place in 2 Nephi 27, where the Lord, speaking about the record, says, “The eyes of none shall behold save it be that three witnesses shall behold it, by the power of God… they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein.”

Scott Woodward: So that was probably translated in the Whitmer home.

Casey Griffiths: In the Whitmer home, right? And the Whitmers are helping with this. John Whitmer is acting as one of the scribes. David Whitmer is closely associated with Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith just introduces this revelation by saying, “It occurred to Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris, who had come to inquire after our progress in the work, that they would have me inquire of the Lord to know if they might not obtain of him to be these three special witnesses.” So these three are volunteering to be the witnesses. And that’s what spurs Joseph to receive the revelation. Joseph Smith puts them off for a little bit, but then he says, “Finally, they became so very solicitous and urged me so much that at length I complied, and through the Urim and Thummim I obtained of the Lord for them the following revelation.” So they know, they’ve been hinted at that they’re going to be the witnesses, and now they’re just asking directly who are the witnesses going to be? And that’s Section 17. So this is our witnesses section of the Book of Mormon.

Scott Woodward: Okay, so Oliver Cowdery is obviously scribing for the Book of Mormon. David Whitmer lives in that house. But Martin Harris is up in Palmyra, and Joseph said he had just come down from Palmyra, just happened to and wanted to inquire after our progress in the work. It just so happens that while he’s there, the three of them approach Joseph and say, We’d like to be the three if that’s possible.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, yeah, the Whitmer Farm is a lot closer to Martin’s home than Harmony is, where most of the translation was taking place. So it makes sense that when Martin finds out that they’ve relocated to Fayette, he would come because it’s a lot easier to get there. It’s a day’s journey as opposed to week or two that it would take to get to Harmony. So you got these three together, and then the revelation is given. So let’s get into the content of the revelation.

Scott Woodward: All right. So here’s the message to these three would-be witnesses. The Lord opens this revelation with a promise that if they will “rely upon [his] word… with full purpose of heart, [then] you shall have a view of the plates.” That must have thrilled them, right? But he goes on. He says, not just the plates. He says it would also include the “breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim,” which were given to the brother of Jared when he talked with the Lord face to face, “the miraculous directors,” which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, like the Liahona, on the borders of the Red Sea. So that’s super interesting, right? Like why, we might ask, if they were only requesting to see the plates, would the Lord allow them to see these other artifacts, too? And I think that’s a great question, which the Lord does not explain here, does not answer. But one thought I’ve had on that, Casey, is that I wonder if he did this to more firmly establish the historicity of the plates themselves, right. Meaning that that is that rather than simply letting these men see the plates to prove that they’re real. Like, it seems like the Lord is going one step further here, and he wants to let them view some actual sacred artifacts mentioned within the record itself to sort of underscore the fact that this text is about real historical people who lived in real historical times and places and with whom God did in reality interact. Like maybe that’s why. That’s my working theory right now. What do you think?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. I mean, again, he’s not talking about this like they’re symbols. He’s talking about them like they’re actual artifacts, right? And again, like you said, that just highlights that they’re not thinking of the Book of Mormon as a nice fable or inspired fiction. This is like showing somebody the Declaration of Independence or, you know, George Washington’s sword and, and saying that this is emblematic of the history. These are sacred artifacts, and the Lord does use artifacts from time to time as proof of the truth of the stories that are told in the scriptures.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It’s just, it’s just curious. And I think that this idea directly counters maybe a subculture in the Church. Maybe it’s a small subculture, but I have seen from time to time the idea promoted by some people within the Church that the Book of Mormon might be inspired fiction. Right, that it’s a book that actually has divine truths that genuinely help people come closer to God, but whose people and civilizations maybe didn’t really actually exist at any point in real history. And I think this pushes hard against that. Right, like, here’s actual artifacts from these people’s actual civilization over various points of time throughout the Book of Mormon, and you’re going to have to deal with that. And so, and it’s a little serendipitous, right? These three men were not asking to see this extra stuff, but the Lord says, While I’m showing you the plates, you should also have a look at these artifacts because it’s really going to validate the story.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. And I mean, if, if a person believes the Book of Mormon is the word of God, that’s positive. But I also would to that, like you said, small group that says the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction say, What do you think of this? Like, I mean, and I’d also point towards Section 10, where the Lord speaks of the groups in the Book of Mormon as real people, too. Like, you got to do a few mental gymnastics to get that view to work, to be honest with you.

Scott Woodward: Okay, well, let’s keep going. So, in verse 2, the Lord says that these three men will obtain a view of these things by having faith like the prophets of old, which is high bar. Joseph himself was only able to see them, the Lord says in verse 5, “because he had faith.” Thus, when they see them, they will, quote, “Have received the same power, and the same faith, and the same gift,” as Joseph Smith had received. Wow. And then the Lord admonishes them that, “after… you have seen them with your eyes, you shall testify of them, by the power of God, and ye shall testify that you have seen them.” So that’s their obligation, right? This is the, the sacred exchange the Lord requires for the blessing they seek. If I show them to you, you are obligated now to testify to the world of what you have seen. “And this shall you do that my servant Joseph Smith, Jr. may not be destroyed,” the Lord says in verse 4, “that I may bring about my righteous purposes unto the children of men in this work.” The Lord then certifies that Joseph has translated the book that is central to these righteous purposes. “And as your Lord and your God liveth it is true.” And then he makes them this promise. He says, If you three men will do what I’m commanding you to do here, then I promise that, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against you; for my grace is sufficient for you, and you shall be lifted up at the last day.” So there it is, Casey. There’s, there’s the Lord’s assent to the request with an obligation and a pretty powerful promise. And, and all, I love verse 4, all so that Joseph Smith may not be destroyed. He’s not the lone voice here. He’s now… We’re now getting a “cloud of witnesses,” to borrow Paul’s phrase. We’re going to start to have people who, independent of Joseph Smith, can testify that he is telling the truth, which is pretty powerful.

Casey Griffiths: So you’ve done a great job covering the content. I’m going to mention the controversies. There, there is no shortage of controversies surrounding the Book of Mormon witnesses. And I want to mention right now, we are doing a bonus podcast where we’re going to bring one of the world’s experts on the witnesses, Dr. Daniel Peterson, to talk to us about the controversy. So, let’s just really quickly say the controversy is, Were the witnesses sincere? Why did some of the witnesses leave the Church and then come back? Why did some of the witnesses leave the Church and never come back? We’re going to let Daniel Peterson explain that. In fact, we’re going to spend a whole podcast just on those controversies.

Scott Woodward: And that’ll be our next episode, right, with the Voices of the Restoration, dealing directly with these, the Three Witnesses, particularly. So, yeah. That, and that should come out two days after this one airs, and you’ll be able to see that interview with Daniel Peterson. Yeah, there are, there are so many controversies with this. One of the ones that is always a bur under my saddle, Casey, is the, Was this just a spiritual experience and therefore not real? Did they only see with spiritual eyes? What about Martin Harris and some of the things that he purportedly said to that effect? And, and boy, those all deserve a lot of time. And so we’re going to give it that time with Dr. Daniel Peterson. So look for our next episode where we’re going to dig into those. A little bit of a cliffhanger, but we want to deliver this and we want to deliver it well.

Casey Griffiths: But like a whole hour with one of the, one of the world’s experts. Like, I’m, I’m super excited about this, too. But that’s why we’re going to skim past the controversy right now and just say, yeah, the controversy is: Are the witnesses the real deal? Let’s go to the consequences, then, of this section. So, the immediate consequence is that now these three know they’re the Three Witnesses. And it’s only a few days later that somewhere near the Whitmer farm, the way they describe it is they “went into the woods near the Whitmer home in Fayette.” This is the way Joseph Smith describes it, “to try to obtain by fervent and humble prayer the fulfillment of the promises given in this revelation,” Section 17. “And having dealt down, we began to pray in much faith to Almighty God to bestow upon us a realization of those promises.” So according to the way all three of the witnesses describe the experience, they all take turns praying, but initially nothing happens. There’s no answer given. There’s no manifestation. At which point, Martin Harris turns to them and says, I think I’m the problem. The way Joseph describes it was, he said, “His presence was the cause of our not obtaining what we wished for.” And so Martin Harris excuses himself, and he leaves.

Scott Woodward: What I find super interesting about this that Martin excuses himself, says, I think I’m the problem, is that just earlier that morning, according to Joseph’s mother, after a group prayer, Joseph got up and approached Martin Harris. Here’s how Lucy says it: “He approached Martin with a solemnity which thrills through my veins to this day whenever it comes to my recollection. ‘Martin Harris,’ Joseph said, ‘You have got to humble yourself before your God this day and obtain, if possible, a forgiveness of your sins. If you will do this, it is God’s will that you and Oliver and David should look upon the plates.’” Then a few minutes after that, she says, “they went into the grove a short distance from the house.” And so, it seems like this was on Joseph’s mind, too. And it turns out that Martin’s lack of repentance had actually hindered God’s blessing of the group. So that’s a fun little detail that I think adds some interesting backstory there.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah and I’ll, I’ll, I’ll add. I don’t think this should make Martin Harris look bad. Martin Harris had the humility to basically say, I think I’m the problem. It’s me. So I’m going to withdraw. And it does change things.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. Kudos, kudos to Martin.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. Kudos to him. This is a good thing for him, and he’s going to have a happy end of the story, but hang on. Joseph writes that he, Oliver, and David, quote, “Knelt down again and had not been many minutes engaged in prayer when presently we beheld the light above us in the air of exceeding brightness, and behold, an angel stood before us.” Now, all three of these men are going to leave behind multiple accounts of what happens next. And so we’re going to try and rely on their words, specifically. So you’re hearing it directly from them, okay? David Whitmer said that this bright light, quote, “was not like the light of the sun, nor like the light of a fire, but more glorious and beautiful. It extended away around us. I cannot tell how far, and the angel stood before us. In the midst of this light, there appeared, as it were, a table with many records or plates upon it, besides the plates of the Book of Mormon, also the sword of Laban, the directors, i.e. the ball which Lehi had, and the interpreters.” Joseph said the angel then “held the plates.” So Joseph Smith, we’re switching back to his account, said “the angel held the plates and turned over the leaves one by one so that we could see them and discern the engravings thereon distinctly.” And then, like we mentioned earlier, the angel said directly to David Whitmer, “David, blessed is the Lord, and he that keeps his commandments.” Joseph Smith then says, “Immediately afterwards, we heard a voice out of the bright light above us say, ‘These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.’” And David Whitmer, later on, is going to say, “I heard the voice of the Lord as distinctly as I heard anything in my life, declaring that the records of the plates of the Book of Mormon were translated by the gift and power of God.” Oliver Cowdery is later on going to say this: “My eyes saw, my ears heard, and my understanding was touched. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mind. It was real.” So he’s pushing against that idea of people saying, Well, it was just like a peyote-inspired vision or something like that, that they were using hallucinatory drugs or anything. Joseph then notes what, what happens next. So, so David and Oliver have this experience. Joseph said, “I now left David and Oliver and went in pursuit of Martin Harris, who I found at a considerable distance, fervently engaged in prayer.” Upon seeing Joseph, “Martin earnestly requested me to join him in prayer.” Joseph said, “that he might also realize the same blessings which we have just received, we accordingly joined in prayer, and before we had finished, the same vision opened to our view.”

Scott Woodward: So now this is just Joseph and Martin.

Casey Griffiths: This is just Joseph and Martin. So there’s actually two different experiences among the Three Witnesses. Joseph describes it by saying, “Martin cried out in an ecstasy of joy, ’tis enough, tis enough, mine eyes have beheld, mine eyes have beheld.’ And jumping up, he shouted, ‘Hosanna,’ blessing God, and otherwise rejoiced exceedingly.” So there’s the three witnesses and Joseph Smith. Now, you mentioned this was, I guess, a big occasion. Like, Joseph Smith’s family came down from Palmyra, and they were waiting in the cabin, like you mentioned earlier, Joseph’s mother witnesses that speech. This is what she describes after they come back to the cabin. So again, if this is all fake, Academy Awards all around for everybody involved. She writes, her and her husband, her and Joseph Smith, Sr., were sitting in a bedroom at the time, and on coming in, “Joseph threw himself down beside me and exclaimed, ‘Father, mother, you do not know how happy I am. The Lord has now caused the plates to be shown to three more besides myself. They have seen an angel who has testified to them, and they will have to bear witness to the truth of what I have said, for now they know for themselves that I do not go about to deceive the people. And I feel as if I was relieved of a burden which is almost too heavy for me to bear, and it rejoices my heart that I am not any longer to be entirely alone in the world.’” Then she said, “Martin came in, he seemed almost overcome with joy, and he testified boldly to what he had both seen and heard, so did David and Oliver, they adding that no tongue could express the joy of their hearts, neither the greatness of the things which they had both seen and heard.” And so, I mean, there’s more we could say. Like I said, there’s a whole book of David Whitmer’s experiences, Oliver Cowdery. There’s, there’s an amazing book I’m going to recommend that Larry Morris put together called The Documentary History of the Book of Mormon, where he basically collects every document that anybody writes. But it’s just clear that if you go to the original words of these witnesses, that they are saying, A concrete thing happened. We saw it. It wasn’t a dream. It was something that we saw and that we remember clearly. And they were insistent about this until the last day of their life.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, they are absolutely adamant. And I love that picture that you just read from Joseph’s mom saying how relieved Joseph Smith felt that he was no longer alone. There are now three others who know for sure that he’s not going around trying to deceive people. You just feel the relief in that expression. And I’ve always loved that. I love it deeply. And now we see that in terms of long-term consequences, that the written statement of these Three Witnesses is going to be in every copy of the Book of Mormon ever printed from this very first printing going forward. And so every reader of the Book of Mormon is confronted, like you said earlier, with these Three Witnesses and have to decide what to do with them. What will you do with these three men who said, in all soberness, that they saw in the light of day an angel of God, that they saw the plates, that he showed them the plates, and that they actually heard with their, their actual ears the voice of God testifying to them that it was true and commanding them to bear a record of it. Like, what do you do with those three? Everyone has to answer that question as they confront the Book of Mormon, like you said, and take it seriously. If you want to read it carefully, you’re going to have to decide what to do with these three men. And I love it, Casey. I love that we have to wrestle with this. And it reminds me of that Austin Farrar quote about, about C. S. Lewis, when he’s talking about C. S. Lewis making all these great arguments for Christianity. Here’s what Farrar said. He said, “Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced, but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned.” And he says, “Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.” And, and I would just say that the witnesses seem to have this same effect, right. We could just tweak that quote a little bit and say, Though the witnesses of the Book of Mormon don’t create conviction, lack of any witnesses might destroy belief in the book, right. And, and now we have the sure witness of three men. While that might not create belief, it is going to maintain a climate in which belief may flourish. They’re going to kind of be this bulwark that needs to be dealt with in terms of the authenticity claims of the Book of Mormon. And, and so that’s in place. It’s been in place ever since the first printing of the Book of Mormon, and every reader still today, must confront their witness and decide what they will do with it.

Casey Griffiths: Let me just add, and we’ll probably deal with this when we talk with Daniel Peterson in our next episode. The Eight Witnesses have an experience just a few days later, probably at the Smith Farm, that’s where Mother Smith locates it, where they also see the plates. They see the plates. They don’t have a supernatural experience. It’s different. It’s its a, it’s a physical experience where they get to hold the plates and have the plates and turn the pages and everything like that. And anybody that takes Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon seriously has to reckon with this. The fact that there are 11, 3 plus 8, add Joseph Smith: 12. Mary Whitmer, who we’ll probably talk about it in our next episode, makes a baker’s dozen, like you said. There are these witnesses of the Book of Mormon that to their dying day bear record that, of the experiences they have here. So major consequences here, especially about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, whether or not there are plates, and whether or not there was an angel that delivered the record to Joseph Smith, too. It’s one of those rare instances where the Lord wanted empirical proof that these things were real.

Scott Woodward: Well, we’ll, we’ll land it right there today and encourage everyone listening to please join us with our interview with Dr. Daniel Peterson, where we’re going to do a really deep dive into the Three Witnesses, especially the controversy surrounding them. So stay tuned and we’ll see you then.

Casey Griffiths: I’m so looking forward to it. Thanks, Scott. We’ll see you then.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. Thanks, Casey.