Casey Griffiths: Hello, Scott.

Scott Woodward: Hello, Casey.

Casey Griffiths: Here we are. Here we are in D&C 10 and 11. And this is kind of the lost manuscript part 2, correct?

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: It’s weird how it works because the flow of things is D&C 3, which is sort of the earliest revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, deals with this. And then you take a break and you run around with Joseph Smith, Sr. and Oliver Cowdery for a couple sections, and then you return back to this, which is the other major section. In fact, a lot of times when I taught this, I would teach D&C 3 and D&C 10 right next to each other because they, they, they deal with the same thing, basically.

Scott Woodward: Why is there a gap between D&C 3 and D&C 10? Or a better way to ask it might be, what happened so that D&C 10 came about? What question was on the mind? Where was Joseph in the timeline of translating the Book of Mormon when this came about?

Casey Griffiths: We’ve emphasized this over the last couple of episodes, but the, the big picture on Book of Mormon translation is really that there’s sort of two major phases of Book of Mormon translation. And phase one is the winter of 1828, where Martin Harris and Joseph Smith are working together. That one kind of goes up until June of 1828. That’s when Martin leaves with the manuscript, and, as everybody knows, loses the manuscript. And after that, there’s nearly a year where Joseph Smith doesn’t appear to have done very much. He might have had a crisis of confidence. He might have been struggling a little bit, but Oliver Cowdery shows up in the spring of 1829. And as we’ve mentioned, they’re off to the races again. They, they start translating, and the entire Book of Mormon, as we know it, is completed in April, May, and June of 1829, about a three-month period. We just had our, our good friend Jack Welsh explain how fast that was doing all the math, and that’s pretty remarkable. And…

Scott Woodward: Lightning fast.

Casey Griffiths: Lightning fast. Lightning fast. Now, D&C 10 is kind of in this awkward place because on the one hand, when it first appeared in the Doctrine and Covenants, in almost every section of the Doctrine and Covenants, it’s been dated to May 1829, which is during the second phase of translation with Oliver Cowdery. However, parts of the, parts of the revelation really closely mirror what’s said in Doctrine and Covenants 3. And so, there’s a couple of possibilities scholars have proposed. One is it was just received in May 1829, and that’s that. The Lord’s using similar languages. It’s only about a year between. It’s not a big deal. Another possibility, and this one’s a little bit more creative, is that part of the revelation was received around the time the manuscript was lost. This would be summer 1828. And then another part was received in May 1829, and they just combined them together to create Section 10, which, we’ve noted on the podcast before, it wasn’t that uncommon when they were assembling the Doctrine and Covenants to sometimes combine similar revelations into one so that everything was kind of a little bit more neat and tidy as go.

Scott Woodward: That’s possible, yeah.

Casey Griffiths: That’s possible. So since it’s dealing with the lost manuscript, it’s possible it was received around the time the lost manuscript episode happened. The other possibility, and this is the one I kind of lean towards a little bit, is that Joseph and Oliver, when they started translating, didn’t start over. They started with the Book of Mosiah and went all the way to the end of Moroni. And it’s possible that the reason why Section 10 was received is they were asking, do we need to go back and translate the portion that was lost, the so-called Book of Lehi.

Scott Woodward: Now, last week, Jack Welch taught us that the Joseph and Oliver pick up the translation in April, right where the Book of Lehi would have left off, right. So that’s our Book of Mosiah in the Book of Mormon.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: Contrary to how we might intuitively think that they must have started in 1 Nephi. Not true. They started Mosiah, they go all the way to Moroni. Then the question is, should we go back and retranslate the lost manuscript, or is there some alternate plan here?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, because the Book of Mormon would be strange, right, if it just picked up in Mosiah, there’s no introduction to who the Nephites or the Lamanites are, how they got to America, or why they’re writing on plates. The first part of the Book of Mormon is essential to kind of set up the story, so. That’s, that’s kind of where I lean, is the Joseph and Oliver were asking, Well, we’ve finished the manuscript, but there’s this huge chunk missing. Are we supposed to go back and retranslate what was already translated? Joseph Smith, I’m going to note, I’ve got an 1830 copy of the Book of Mormon here, and the reason why we use the term Book of Lehi and even figures like 116 pages. In the preface to the 1830 Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith wrote, “I would inform you that I have translated by the gift of power of God and caused to be written 116 pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi by the hand of Mormon, which said accounts some person or persons have stolen and kept from me, notwithstanding my utmost exertions to recover it again. And being commanded of the Lord that I should not translate the same over again, for Satan had put it into the hearts to tempt the Lord their God by altering the words, and they did read contrary, contrary from that which I translated and caused to be written, I should bring forth the same words again, or in other words, if I should translate the same over again, they would publish that which they had stolen, and Satan would stir up the hearts of this generation that they might not receive this work.” So that’s part of the context, too, is what they translated was called the Book of Lehi. It was an abridgment. So ,it would have been closer to something like Mosiah and Alma, where you’ve got an omniscient third-person narrator, Mormon, basically explaining and “And thus we see,” and stuff like that. And so it’s natural that they would have said, do we retranslate this? And how do we put back this material? And Section 10 is what Joseph Smith is referring back to there when he says, The Lord commanded me to not translate that again. And here’s the reason why.

Scott Woodward: That’s perfect. I can’t think what else their question would be given the answer that the Lord gives here, because his answer is no. Do not go back and retranslate it. I actually have a way to foil the snare that has been laid for your demise. And so I think you’re dead on, Casey. I think that’s the question. We don’t have it written down in the history that this is exactly our question. I think we can intuit that question. Should we go back and retranslate this lost manuscript? And the answer Section 10 gives, in short, is no.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: So that’s the short answer. Now, let’s get into the long answer.

Casey Griffiths: Okay.

Scott Woodward: Because it actually drops a ton of really interesting insights and gets into some deep, I think, some deep stuff here, Casey, some things we want to talk about, about what the Lord thinks of about other churches that are not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There’s some deep philosophical stuff about open theism and closed theism we’re going to get into. I mean, he, he answers things in a way here that really, I think, can, can stimulate some pretty great thinking, so.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, and I know you I love philosophical controversies. That is your bread and butter.

Scott Woodward: Wow. Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: That, I mean, yeah. You’re just…

Scott Woodward: Well

Casey Griffiths: You’re, you’re excited for this, right?

Scott Woodward: I, I am though…

Casey Griffiths: Because you get to use words like theism, which I know just kind of, kind of, it makes your day, doesn’t it?

Scott Woodward: It does. It does. It does. I wish I was smarter. Like, I, I hear philosophers, like talking like, dang, I wish I was that smart, but I, I like it. I just don’t know if I can play very well in that sandbox, but we’re going to do a little bit of playing today here, Casey, between the two of us, see if we can do some damage.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, yeah.

Scott Woodward: Just wrestling with these verses, but. So let’s do it. Let’s get into the content now. That was good context. Here’s our second C, the content. So in the first nine verses, I’ll summarize a little. This is probably the portion that was received back in 1828, if there was any. These first nine verses is where the Lord reminds Joseph of the excruciating loss and the darkness that he experienced the previous summer when he foolishly entrusted Martin Harris with the Book of Lehi manuscript, who then “recklessly and wickedly,” the Lord says, allowed other wicked men to steal them from him. And at the same time, the Lord reminds Joseph of how his gift was restored, mercifully, and how he offered him precious counsel as to how to diligently pace himself in finishing the work of translation. Don’t run faster than you have strength, the Lord said, but be diligent in, in finishing this work. And how important prayer is in verse 5 in conquering the adversary who’s trying to oppose this work. So the first nine verses are, are a great kind of summary and kind of set-up. And then we get into the answer in verses 10 through 33. This is where the Lord exposes what he twice calls the devil’s “cunning plan” relative to the stolen Book of Lehi manuscript. He says, The plan was calculated to destroy this work of God. And he lays it out, and it’s actually simple, diabolically simple, Casey. But it’s, to them, to those who hatched the plan, it was seemingly fail-proof. Here’s what Satan had put into their hearts, the Lord says. Starting in verse 11, he said that they would alter the words of Joseph’s original translation on the manuscript. Step one. Step two, verses 15 through 19, explain. If Joseph ever retranslated the manuscript and got the same words again, they would then spring the trap. They would publicly compare Joseph’s translation to the original that they had altered. And by highlighting the inconsistencies and contradictions between the two manuscripts side by side, boom, they could show that Joseph is a lying fraud who actually has no gift and no power. He’s just a deceiver who’s pretending to translate. “Therefore,” they reason, “we will destroy him and also the work.” Close quote. So why would they want to do that? Why would they want to destroy Joseph? What do they have to gain by doing that? The Lord explains. He says that they would say, “We will do this that we might not be ashamed in the end, that we may get glory of the world.” Why would they be ashamed if Joseph is a prophet of God? Why would they be ashamed if he actually has a gift to translate? That’s an interesting mindset, isn’t it? And, and, and I think the Lord shines a nice little light here in the next few verses. He says, This is why they would be ashamed. He says, Because “their hearts are corrupt,” they’re “full of wickedness and abominations, and they love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.” So you can see why they would want to defy someone who’s claiming to be a prophet, who’s speaking for God, or he’s doing God’s work. See, for them, if Joseph is telling the truth about God and Christ’s work in the latter days, then that would mean bad news for them, right. This would be a very unwelcome prospect for these guys because it would mean that to avoid shame and to get glory, they would need to repent, and they would need to change their current way of living into a lifestyle of light. But they think the easier way, is my reading of what the Lord’s saying here, the easier way in their mind is if they can simply convince themselves and other people that Joseph Smith is lying, then they can avoid shame and still get the glory of the world, all while continuing in their lifestyles of darkness, which they love, the Lord says. I don’t know. What’s your take on that?

Casey Griffiths: You know, well, first of all, I want to point out we’ve done an interview with Don Bradley, who’s kind of the world’s expert on the lost manuscript of the Book of Mormon.

Scott Woodward: He’s got a full book.

Casey Griffiths: He wrote a really good book. It’s called The Lost 116 Pages: Reconstructing the Book of Mormon’s Missing Stories.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: And we did an interview. You’ll, you’ll find it on YouTube. It’s a Restoration Revealed episode where we just interviewed Don, and he goes through the, the likely suspects of who stole the manuscript and what their motivations are. And we don’t know everything about them that we want to know, and we don’t know everything about this episode that we want to know. But I do think that based on Don’s research, the Lord is right on, right here, about what their motives are and what they’re trying to do. They had just predetermined that Joseph Smith was a fraud, and they were doing everything they could to try and disprove him rather than waiting for the book to come out and then drawing their conclusions once they could read it. The other thing I want to point out is that I remember the first time I read this thinking, this sounds like a convoluted plan, but it’s not actually. And it’s sort of the standard game plan that a lot of people that have tried to discredit Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon have used. We’ve, we’ve done a whole podcast series on this, but probably the most common alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon in the 19th century was that Joseph Smith had plagiarized it, that he had stolen it from Solomon Spaulding.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: That theory fell apart when Spaulding’s manuscript was discovered, and it doesn’t bear a lot of resemblance to the Book of Mormon.

Scott Woodward: Right. Yeah, that was a lot more potent of an accusation against Joseph Smith when Solomon Spaulding’s manuscript was lost.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: But once they found it, it was like, Oh, there’s not actually a lot of similarities here with the Book of Mormon.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, they both talk about New World civilizations that move from the Old World. But after that, there’s, there’s not a lot in common. And, and when people come and ask me about the Spaulding manuscript, I usually say, Hey, it’s available. BYU actually publishes it. Just go read it, and you should come to your conclusion. But that plagiarism argument has jumped from the Spaulding manuscript to Ethan Smith’s The View of the Hebrews, to today, people even talk about The Great War, which is a history of the War of 1812 written in King James-style language. But people make these accusations without reading the, the, the things that they’re saying the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from. When you read them, it’s clear that there’s not much of a connection there, or at least you’ve got to account for a lot of things if you’re saying Joseph Smith plagiarized them. Now, with this idea that, that they were going to take his words and then alter them. I also would point towards an example where that specifically happened, too. In the 1980s, a man named Mark Hofmann basically took a number of early documents in the history of the Church, things like Joseph Knight’s history, and took those and subtly altered details. He published, for instance, a supposed history written by Martin Harris, where when Joseph Smith lifted up the stone on the Hill Cumorah, there was a white salamander there that burst into flames and became the angel Moroni. This is the famous Salamander letter.

Scott Woodward: The Salamander letter.

Casey Griffiths: But I mean, that’s the playbook the Lord’s describing in D&C 10. Take what Joseph Smith has translated, alter it, publish it, and then accuse him of plagiarism and alteration, which is essentially what Mark Hofmann did. In fact, because of the lost manuscript episode, Joseph Smith becomes very, very cautious and protective.

Scott Woodward: And what I don’t like about this approach, Casey? There’s a lot of things, but the number one thing here is that it seems like the opposite of what a real truth seeker would do, right. Rather than humbly and sincerely examining all available evidence…

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: Including the translated manuscript itself to try to help them come to an honest conclusion about whether Joseph’s a true prophet. They don’t even go there. Instead, they just, they just begin with the predetermined conclusion that Joseph is a fraudster. Without examining the fruits of this man. They just say he’s a fraudster. Then they work backwards from that conclusion to fabricate evidence in support of their predetermined conclusion. That’s just, that’s, that’s not what sincere seekers do. It says right here in verse 25 that Satan says to them, “Deceive, lie and wait to catch, that ye may destroy; behold, this is no harm. And thus he flattereth them and telleth them that it’s no sin to lie that they may catch a man in a lie, that they may destroy him.” So they start with a preconceived conclusion that he’s lying. Therefore, it’s okay if we lie to catch him in his lie. It’s just, it’s just not what you do when you’re seeking truth, man.

Casey Griffiths: I feel your frustration here a little bit, too. Maybe from my missionary days where, you know, people wouldn’t even open the text of the Book of Mormon. Some people would act like the Book of Mormon was radioactive, you know. And in the case of these people, they don’t know the content of the book. They don’t know what it’s going to say, but they’ve already formulated this plan to discredit Joseph Smith. I’d love it if there was a story about someone who stole the manuscript and then came to Joseph Smith and said, Oh, I know the book is true, or something like that.

Scott Woodward: I actually read it and I like it, and…

Casey Griffiths: But it doesn’t seem like they approach this with an open mind. They only approach it with intent to destroy Joseph Smith and his work.

Scott Woodward: If someone says, I don’t like the Book of Mormon, you know, it’s question number one, have you read it?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: Which parts? Which parts are the parts that, you know, are, are so bad? I mean, they did this experiment in New York City where they, they chopped the Book of Mormon up into individual pages. It’s just a page of the Book of Mormon, set up a booth, and they just asked passers-by to read a page. They said, Do you have time to read a page of this book? And here’s a highlighter where you just highlight stuff that you like in this. They had people from all different religions, Muslims, Jews, other Christians, people of no particular religion at all, reading pages from the Book of Mormon, just one page. Then you highlight stuff that stood out to you. What do you like about this page? Awesome. Thank you. And then they posted those pages up on the board. And they did this for every page of the Book of Mormon, 500, and was it, 31 passers-by, they were, they would have gotten. Like, if you take it page by page, you’ll like it. Nobody had anything bad to say about any particular the page of the Book of Mormon. If you actually examine the text of the book, you know, you’ll find good things. If you take away all the bias and the preconceived conclusions that Joseph is a fraudster, a huckster, he’s just pawning this scheme upon mankind and that book is evidence of his evil plan. Take all that out and just take it a page at a time and see what you think. And chances are you’re going to find stuff on every page that is good, and you won’t find any devil in it. Satan’s “cunning plan, the Lord calls it, the “evil designs.” And he thinks that by flattering wicked men to frame Joseph as a deceiving fraudster, that, that he’ll be able to harden the hearts of the people of the day, stir them up to anger against Joseph, so they will not believe the Lord’s words in the Book of Mormon. And “Thus,” he says, quote, “overpower [Joseph’s] testimony that the work may not come forth in this generation.” There you go. There’s the plan to take Joseph down, to nip this work in the bud before it even begins. But the Lord says, I have a counter plan.

Casey Griffiths: All right, so here’s the counter plan. So, instead of having Joseph Smith just walk right into the trap that the adversary had laid for him by having him again translate the Book of Lehi, in verses 38 to 45, the Lord directs Joseph towards a solution which he says, “will show that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.” And the Lord explains that the translated account of the Book of Lehi, which Joseph, that’s what Joseph lost. That’s the lost manuscript, was engraven upon a record called the Plates of Nephi. And he reminds Joseph that the Book of Lehi mentioned a more particular account of the things covered in that book, which was given upon another set of plates, also called the Plates of Nephi, but which are usually referred to as the Small Plates of Nephi, to, to kind of avoid confusion. And the Lord says this account, which “is more particular,” the Lord in his wisdom had designed to bring knowledge to the people of our day. So that’s where we get the Book of Mormon as we’re familiar with it. There’s this broader record of Nephi that describes kind of the politics, the kings, the judgments. And then there’s this smaller record, which is more like a personal journal. And I don’t know what’s on the lost manuscript, maybe it’s dynamite stuff, but I know what’s in 1 Nephi to Omni, and it’s really good stuff, too. So the Lord instructs Joseph Smith to translate the small plates, which lead up to the narrative of the reign of King Benjamin, which kind of bring us full circle to where he started after the loss of the Book of Lehi manuscript. And this replacement account is going to be called the record of Nephi. And like we mentioned, it includes everything from 1 Nephi to the Words of Mormon. Now, most people, this is the part of the Book of Mormon everybody’s read, right? “I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents.” Yeah. But again, this isn’t a one for one. It’s not an exact replacement. There’s a lot of things that were probably in the lost manuscript that I would love to know today about the political situation of the Nephites and their wars and complexities and so on and so forth. But the small plates of Nephi, the Lord points out here, the way he says it is that it “throw[s] greater views upon my gospel.” In other words, it appears that 1 Nephi through the Words of Mormon, actually, one of the benefits is that they contain more clarity on the gospel of Jesus Christ than did the Book of Lehi. So, in one sense, we probably got back more than, than what we lost. And again, Don Bradley goes into great lengths to explain, well, was it 116 pages or was that an estimate? I don’t know when it comes to content, what we lost, but I know what we got is really, really good.

Scott Woodward: And Don Bradley says that the reason that we say 116 pages of manuscript was lost is because guess how many pages 1 Nephi through Omni is?

Casey Griffiths: 116.

Scott Woodward: And Words of Mormon. It’s 116 pages. And so Don speculates that it might have been actually much more than 116 pages that was lost. But what the, what that record was replaced by was 116 pages of, of new manuscript from 1 Nephi through Words of Mormon. And so that’s an interesting tidbit as well. That…

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: Maybe that’s why Joseph came up with that number is because that’s how many pages it was to replace it, what was lost.

Casey Griffiths: And when you look at what’s in those, those, well, those, those replacement pages, I guess you’d say. We’re talking stuff like the vision of the Tree of Life. We’re talking about Nephite’s apocalypse, which kind of overviews the entire Book of Mormon. 2 Nephite 2, Lehi’s discourse on the nature of free agency in the Fall of Adam and Eve. 2 Nephi 9, which is probably the best discourse ever recorded on the Atonement. I don’t know what we lost, but again, if we got all that stuff back, it was pretty good. Right, like a lot of my favorite passages, “Adam fell that men might be and men are that they might have joy,” are on these pages that we got back. So I think we got the better end of the deal.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. Yeah, hopefully. I mean, we don’t know what we lost, but what we got was pretty good.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: What we got is really good. And…

Casey Griffiths: And, and the other thing is it appears from what said in Doctrine and Covenants 10, that the Lord knew this was going to happen, which again brings up one of those philosophical controversies that, Scott, I know you are so fond of. It’s a question that, well, pretty much everybody that believes in God has to answer. It’s kind of the, If God knows everything already, then do we really have personal freedom? So did God know that Joseph Smith was going to go against his counsel and lose the manuscript and had prepared this backup? It really sounds like from D&C 10, he did. And he had done this as a way to sort of frustrate the aims of the adversary. A long time before Joseph Smith was even born on Earth, this plan was set in motion.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, the way that the Lord explains it here, it sounds like, you know, he’s saying, I was playing chess while Satan was playing checkers. Like, I am so far ahead of this guy. I have thought so many moves ahead of this little dinky plan that Satan has hatched to try to take this work down. Like 1,500 years in advance. I have… Even earlier, actually, if you go to, you know, what is it? 1 Nephi, is it six the first time that Nephi, or is it nine?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: Where in Nephi, he says, I already wrote this entire account out once, and now the Lord asked me to write it again, and I don’t know why I’m putting this in here, “for a wise purpose.” The spirit whispers that I should put this in here. Then you get to Words of Mormon. That’s like, fast forward almost a thousand years, and Mormon says, I don’t know why I’m putting these small plates in here because they’re duplicates of what’s already here, but thus it whispereth me according to the Spirit.” And so the Lord is thinking many, many, many moves ahead, and Satan can’t keep up, right. And so it does very much sound like God knew the future. The philosophical argument here. This is one of the controversies I think that D&C 10 weighs in on. Okay, let me define some terms. So open theism is this theological view that God is all-knowing in terms of available knowledge. But since the future and our choices haven’t happened yet, they’re still open to multiple outcomes, therefore they are unknowable. That’s kind of the idea behind open theism. That’s, that’s, that’s the crux. Now, the challenge with this view is that some people feel like it diminishes God to say he doesn’t know perfectly what’s going to happen in the future. So open theism, God doesn’t know what choices we’re going to make.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. And again, I mean, when we’re talking about people that have tackled this, I’m going to throw Bruce R. McConkie into the mix.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: Bruce R. McConkie, this was one of his seven deadly heresies, right?

Scott Woodward: It was, yeah.

Casey Griffiths: Where God doesn’t know everything. Bruce R. McConkie’s argument was, If he doesn’t know everything, is he going to discover something that unravels the universe and the plan someday?

Scott Woodward: Yeah. Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: So I, I don’t know. I lean away from this one, I guess I’d say.

Scott Woodward: Okay, so the alternate to open theism is something called closed theism. And closed theism refers to the view that God has complete knowledge of the future, including every detail of all human actions ever, essentially meaning that the future is closed or predetermined. And of course, the challenge with this view is that people feel like it leaves no room for genuine human free will, right?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: So those are the two kind of thoughts. You have open theism saying that the future is still open to multiple outcomes that not even God knows which one we’re going to choose. And closed theism says the future is closed, God already knows it all, which may compromise human free will. So is D&C 10 weighing in on this controversy, or, or does it offer any evidence one way or the other, Casey?

Casey Griffiths: You know, my read of D&C 10 is that it makes us lean towards close theism. But…

Scott Woodward: Oh shoot.

Casey Griffiths: If God’s playing this 2,400-year chess game with the adversary, and he’s able to know, you know, thousands of years before the mistake is made, how to counteract it. It sounds like he does know everything, and that leans towards close theism. But I’m going to say I’m not super comfortable with the idea that we don’t have free will either. And I, I think there is a way to make God knowing everything and us having free will still work in my mind.

Scott Woodward: Okay.

Casey Griffiths: What do you think?

Scott Woodward: Yeah, well, I’m curious in your theory about that. I’m, I’m thinking, how could an open theist explain D&C 10? What the Lord’s saying here. I’m wondering if they would say, Well, the small plates were a backup plan to the possibility that the manuscript could be lost, right. This was a contingency set in place just in case. And you and I don’t know all the contingencies God put in place because he hasn’t needed to trigger them. But in this particular case, it triggered the need for one of his contingencies to come into play, and therefore, Satan was not able to win on this particular move. But I don’t know. I’m trying to get in the head of an open theist, what they might say about that.

Casey Griffiths: And I’m, I, can I push, can I push back against that argument just a little bit? God, God didn’t create a backup for the entire Book of Mormon.

Scott Woodward: How do you know that?

Casey Griffiths: I mean, I guess I don’t, but he doesn’t mention anything here. Like maybe there are backup…

Scott Woodward: Because he didn’t need to. Because that contingency was never needed.

Casey Griffiths: But that’s leading you back to close theism…

Scott Woodward: Oh, shoot.

Casey Griffiths: That God knew exactly what was going to happen, which is that this part of the Book of Mormon was going to be lost, so he needed a backup plan. But I mean, I, I do think that God knowing everything doesn’t mean that God causes everything. Does that make sense? I’m going to pull Neal A. Maxwell into this argument, okay. Neal A. Maxwell, beloved apostle, one of our best thinkers.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. He’s great.

Casey Griffiths: This is an excerpt from one of his books, okay. He wrote, “Prophecies foreshadow events without determining the outcome because of a divine foreseeing of outcomes. God foresaw but did not cause Martin Harris’s loss of certain pages of the translated Book of Mormon. God made plans to cope with failure over 1,500 years before it was to occur.” He’s referring to the words of Mormon, where Mormon is talking here. So Elder Maxwell was of the opinion that God foresaw that the manuscript was going to be lost, but that doesn’t mean that he caused it to happen. And, and I would argue that you can know the future, but that doesn’t impede a person’s free agency. The example I use in my classes is, you know, I’ll go down the front row and say, well, if God knows everything, then why send us to Earth? Like what if I, what if he lined everybody up in premortality and said, you’re going to be, you’re celestial material and you’re, you’re celestial material and you’re terrestrial and you’re going t outer darkness, buddy. And he just said, I know everything, so you’re going to do this. How would we feel? We would feel like he’s right, but part of the journey to becoming celestial or terrestrial or whatever is experiencing it. It’s making those choices. So God doesn’t give us the knowledge, and therefore we do have free will because we don’t know the outcome. Let me, let me finish Elder Maxwell’s quote. He said, he said this, “It should not surprise us that the Lord, who notices the fall of each sparrow and the hair from every head, would know centuries before how much money Judas would receive—30 pieces of silver—at the time he betrayed the Savior,” which is referenced several places in the New Testament, Matthew 26:15, Matthew 27:3, Zechariah 11:12. Then Elder Maxwell adds, “Quite understandably, the manner in which things unfold, seems to us mortals to be so natural. Our not knowing what is to come in the perfect way that God knows it, thus preserves our free agency completely.” So Elder Maxwell is arguing, just because God has foreknowledge doesn’t mean that it takes away our right to choose unless God tells us, then that interferes with it. Sometimes God intervenes and sometimes he doesn’t. But the fact that we don’t know means that we’re actively making choices and have agency, even if God does know what the outcome is going to be.

Scott Woodward: Okay. Okay.

Casey Griffiths: Okay.

Scott Woodward: That’s, that’s interesting food for thought there. I, okay, let me try to make what you’re saying. Let me try to fold what you’re saying into my understanding here of a closed theism that is not determinism. Is that possible? And I think from what I’m hearing you say, we could say it like this. Tell me if this resonates. That there’s maybe three things to think about. Number one, okay, let’s say God knows everything. Okay, that we’ll start on that premise. He knows the future perfectly. Number two, we are completely free to make whatever decisions we want. So in this case, Joseph and Martin were completely free to make the mistakes that they made. They were not unknowingly acting out a predetermined script. How can those two go together? Maybe because three, the third thing is that God has freedom, too. That God can make choices, that he’s free to act in whatever way he pleases to make sure that his plans aren’t frustrated. And this one would have frustrated his plans, and therefore he chose to act. He chose to intervene as a free agent himself. So he knows stuff, he knows everything. We can choose whatever we want. It’s not predetermined. But God knows every choice that’s going to be made anyway. He’s not causing it, but he knows it. And whenever he wants to, he can intervene to make sure that no choices are made that frustrate his plan, something like that. What do you think?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, I, I, I, I like that a lot because that is essentially what we believe about God, right, that he has agency as well, that he’s not running a preset script.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: But I mean it does kind… I, I’m sorry, but we just kind of stepped beyond the realm of mortal comprehension.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: Where, where, you know, Joseph Smith just flat out said, God knows the past, the present, and the future. Like, he sees everything. And we exist in the moment. So I do think that, you know, when you start arguing about this, eventually it becomes a blind man trying to describe a rainbow. That we, we don’t have the, the proper equipment to perceive even the past fully, but definitely not the future. And so I just trust God when he says, You are agents unto yourselves, and when he says, Yeah, I know all things like he does here in Section 10.

Scott Woodward: Both of those are somehow true.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: Wow. Okay. Well, that was our brief foray into a philosophical controversy that I know I’m not fully equipped to engage in, but that was fun. And we’ll be back right after this. All right. So the Lord goes on to tell Joseph in verses 46 through 52, that he has promised his ancient prophets and disciples on this continent, on the American continent, that his gospel, as contained in the Book of Mormon, would one day come forth to the living descendants of the Lamanites and to those of other nations who would come to possess this free land that they might have eternal life. So this is part of God’s purposes that must be fulfilled. So if anything stands in the way of this being fulfilled, then God will intervene. As we just talked about, God did intervene in this case to make sure Satan’s plan could not frustrate those promises that this book would come forth. He made those promises anciently. He’s going to fulfill them in this time period. It’s because of those promises made anciently, he goes on to say, that he was then bringing forth the Book of Mormon to the people of Joseph Smith’s generation in the United States, a people who were already largely Christian. This is important for what we’re about to read. This is a people who are very much Christian and whom the Lord refers to tenderly here in this section as “my church.” The Lord is careful. The Lord is very careful to explain to his church that he is emphatically not bringing forth the Book of Mormon to destroy that which Christians have received, meaning the, the Bible-based gospel truths they already believe and act upon in their efforts to sincerely worship the Lord. No, the Lord is bringing forth the Book of Mormon, he says, to build up what they’ve received. He says, I’m in about verse 53 here, “If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.” And again, he emphasizes here, I’m not doing this to destroy my church. That is the faithful Christ-seeking Christians of the day, but to build them up so they can receive more. I think about this, Casey. This is 1829. Right, at latest, this is May of 1829. This is a full, almost a full year before the Church is going to be officially organized. There is no Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at this time. And yet the Lord is tenderly speaking to broader Christianity, and he’s calling them my church. And he’s saying, You don’t need to be concerned about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. It is not a threat to what you believe in the Bible. In fact, it’s coming to build up what you believe here. And so that is pretty, I think, sweet to ponder and rife with really interesting implications, you know.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. And I, I know you really love this verse. I love it, too. I’m going to read verse 67 and 68. “Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.” And like you pointed out, Scott, this is summer 1829 at the latest. TAnd I, his is a year before the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is organized, and yet the Lord is making reference to his church. I do believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s true church. But I also like verses like this where the Lord occasionally says, well, let’s look at a broader lens here of what makes a person part of my church. And it seems like the metric he’s sharing just in this verse is a person that repents and comes unto Christ, that’s the church.

Scott Woodward: And there’s a lot of those kinds of people in a lot of different congregations that are not, you know, just one particular Christian congregation. There are a lot of those. And this is, I think this is helpful. You know Casey, I teach world religions. That’s one of the things I like to teach. And just to try to get God’s view on other religions, we’ve got some of our own Church leaders who have talked really, really kindly about other churches, even saying things like President Kimball and his first presidency back in the 1970s, saying that God actually inspired some of the great religious leaders of the world, like Muhammad, Confucius, the reformers, even Plato and Socrates, the philosophers, that God actually revealed moral truths to them from heaven to be able to elevate a whole people. And that’s a beautiful view of God that I love. He’s not a tribal God. Sometimes as humans, we like to be very our group, in-group, out-group, my tribe, those tribes. And sometimes that gets in the way of flourishing human relationships. And here, here I see that same, that same benevolent, beautiful, broad-minded God that is tenderly calling other Christians my church.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: Other Christians are not the enemy. They’re, these are, these are fellow players. And other Christians should know, I hear the Lord saying, that Joseph Smith and the, and the Church that he is, is building up is also not the enemy. The Book of Mormon is not the enemy. We’re on the same team, and we’re here to build up the same thing. And when we, when we pit each other against each other because we’re different versions of Christianity, that only lends into Satan’s purposes. That only builds his cause. And it’s not what the Lord intended here.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. So, let me, let me ask you a question. When, when, when he refers to “my church,” do you think that that refers to broader Christianity, or would you go even broader than Christians, like to other religions that might not necessarily believe in Christ?

Scott Woodward: Yeah, I think in the original 1829 context, I think most of those original audiences who are going to receive the Book of Mormon that might be threatened by it are Christians in that day, especially that verse you read in 67, where he says, “Those who repent and come unto me, the same is my church.” But I do think more broadly, you know, the Book of Mormon refers to the Church of the Lamb of God in 1 Nephi 14. Maybe that’s bigger than just Christianity. I’m, I’m comfortable with that. That, you know, anyone who’s doing the best they can to live according to the light they’ve received is part of the Church of the Lamb of God, I believe. President Oaks once made a statement like that. He said, Yeah, those who believe in God and seek to serve him according to their best understanding are those who are of the Church of the Lamb of God. Casey, that’s a lot of people, even more than just Christians, right? That’s wonderful Muslims, that’s some great Sikhs, Jews, on and on and on.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, I’m going to plug my own work here. But one of the first papers I wrote was an exploration of what is the Church of the Lamb described in Nephi’s apocalypse, that, that panoptic vision he has that runs from about 1 Nephi 11 up to 1 Nephi 14. And, you know, I, I looked at it really closely and kind of came to the conclusion that there are places where the Church of the Lamb refers specifically to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Like he says some very specific things, that they’re small, that they’re scattered upon waters, that they’re armed with the power of the priesthood. But then there’s other passages where I think he’s using that broader definition that I think he’s using here. And we see in other places like Doctrine and Covenants 97:21, where the Lord says, “Zion is the pure in heart.” So if the metrics are someone that repents and someone that comes unto me, and then I’ll add in Doctrine and Covenants 97 to say someone that’s pure in heart, I’ve met people of all faiths. You know, not, I haven’t met somebody from all faiths, but I’ve met people that were not Christian, that I thought were pure in heart and that were devoted and that were trying to do the best they can, which is repentance. And so I, I sort of love this. Like I, I know the Church hadn’t been organized yet, and maybe that’s the way we, we get around it a little bit. But I also think this verse could stand on its own as the Savior’s way of saying, My church, my people, are everybody that’s repenting, that’s coming unto me, and that’s pure in heart.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. In fact, let’s, let’s read a few verses from that perspective. Imagine you’re not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You love the Bible. You’re a little suspicious about this, this Joseph Smith character in this new book that’s come forth. And, and then you read these words from Jesus. Okay, so I’ll pick it up in verse 57. He says, “Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I came unto my own, and my own received me not.” Why is he bringing that up, by the way? That’s an interesting thing to put in this context. Remember when I came to the Jews, when I came to the house of Israel and they didn’t even receive me? Like I, I was the God of Israel and they rejected me. Is it possible for people to miss the message when it’s standing right in front of them? I think that’s why he’s bringing this up. He says, “I am the light which shined in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.” Is it possible for the, for the light of the world to stand in someone’s presence and they, they miss him. But they did. Back in his mortal ministry, they missed him. They crucified him. And so he says, “I am he who said—Other sheep I have which are not of this fold—unto my disciples, and many there were that understood me not. And I will show unto this people,” modern people in America at this time, “that I had other sheep, and that they were a branch of the house of Jacob. And I will bring to light their marvelous works, which they did in my name. Yea, and I will also bring to light my gospel which was ministered unto them.” He’s explaining what the Book of Mormon is here. “And behold, they,” meaning the teachings of the Book of Mormon, “shall not deny that which you have received,” meaning the Bible, I believe. “But they shall build it up. And shall bring to light the true points of my doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me. And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention. Yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine. And in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.” People are out there twisting, distorting biblical passages. He’s saying, I’m bringing forth the Book of Mormon to help, not to hurt the church. I want, I want to help. Just imagine hearing those words as someone who, you know, loves the Bible deeply. You might be suspicious of this second book, this second testament of Christ. And with those words from Jesus, you can see how he’s trying to help, right. This book is coming forth to help, not to hurt. And remember, I’m the one that was rejected by the Jews. It is possible for something so pure and beautiful and right and from God to be rejected by the people who should recognize it. I think he’s comparing the Book of Mormon to that, to that moment of where he was rejected anciently. And please don’t make that same mistake again with the Book of Mormon, I hear him saying.

Casey Griffiths: Well said. Well said. So let’s, let’s go consequences of Section 10.

Scott Woodward: Okay.

Casey Griffiths: What? I don’t think we solved it today. But one of the consequences is God knows everything, and he’s got plans upon plans of plans. I remember a talk by a general authority, God knows the details of the details of the details of our lives. It seems like, yeah, not only can his work not be stopped, but he’s already got things in motion to help us recover from the mistakes that we’ve made.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, that’s really clear, right, like. That screams from Section 10 that, that Satan’s plans to destroy God’s work can never succeed, right. God’s already thought so far in advance that it’s almost futile to try to stop God’s work. But Satan’s going to keep trying, so whatever.

Casey Griffiths: Okay, and second, he offers Joseph Smith a wise way forward to avoid the trap and still do the work that he’s supposed to do. And that, again, goes back to the question of foreknowledge, that God using his foreknowledge to ensure mankind’s mistakes do not frustrate his work nor stop him from fulfilling his promises. So he’s got that covered. Finally, this section reassures the Bible-believing world that to bring forth the Book of Mormon and establishing his church is not to be seen as a threat. It, it’s going to play a vital role in the Lord’s plan to redeem Christianity and to bring about his purposes in the last days to the world, so.

Scott Woodward: Boom.

Casey Griffiths: Big ideas in this section.

Scott Woodward: Big ideas. All right, so let’s dive into Doctrine and Covenants 11.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah

Scott Woodward: Do you want to set us into this one, Casey?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. After the big sweeping theological consequences story of D&C 10, Doctrine and Covenants 11 is kind of a smaller, sweeter story, and I, I really like it. In fact, these first 10 sections illustrate that Joseph Smith came from a great family that was really supportive. Doctrine and Covenants 4 is received on behalf of his father. We mentioned this in a previous episode, but when Oliver Cowdery comes down to visit Joseph, he doesn’t come by himself. Joseph’s little brother, Samuel, comes with Oliver and is there for around a month while they’re translating. In fact, a lot of people feel like Samuel was one of the very first people baptized because he’s there right after they, they get the Aaronic priesthood from John, which happens during this…

Scott Woodward: Yeah/

Casey Griffiths: This time frame, too. But the most famous brother of Joseph Smith is Hyrum Smith.

Scott Woodward: Yes.

Casey Griffiths: And, and Hyrum does come and visits Joseph. The, the challenge with dating this section is there’s a really tight time frame here, so. They’re in Harmony, and they translate up until about the end of May, and then they go to Fayette. Some people have wondered, you know, when would Hyrum have fitted in a visit there, and so. Given the time frame here and how everything works, it’s probably likely that Doctrine and Covenants 11 is a little out of order. It was probably received after Doctrine and Covenants 12, which was given to Joseph Knight, who lives around the area where they’re at while they’re translating, and Doctrine and Covenants 13, which we have a precise date for, May 15th, which is the blessing that John the Baptist gives to Joseph and Oliver when he bestows the Aaronic priesthood upon them, so. See the dates here approximations of where he was.

Scott Woodward: Sometime in late May, is that fair? Something like that?

Scott Woodward: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, unless Hyrum came down and it was like, boom, boom, a really fast visit, this probably was received a little bit later when they had a little bit more time with, with Hyrum. And, and speaking of Hyrum, a little bit more about him. He’s six years older than Joseph Smith. After Alvin passes away, Hyrum kind of becomes the big brother in the family and, and takes care of everybody. So Hyrum probably approached Joseph Smith for this revelation because his father had already received a revelation that was Doctrine and Covenants 4. This is kind of one of those sections that’s sort of an early version of a patriarchal blessing where people are approaching Joseph and asking, What’s the Lord’s will for me? But surprisingly, even though Hyrum eventually becomes a really powerful Church leader, like co-martyr of the Restoration along with Joseph Smith, the language here is a little bit more tentative. Joseph’s father is told to go and proclaim the gospel and, you know, dive in, essentially. Though the writing here is a little bit more tentative to him. So the way Joseph contextualizes this, he just says, “Not many days after Samuel’s visit, my brother Hyrum came to us to inquire concerning these things. When at his earnest request, I inquired of the Lord through the Urim and Thummim , and I received for him the following.” So maybe I’ve made the, the context more convoluted than it needs to be, but Joseph’s big brother came to visit him and wanted to know what the Lord wanted him to do, and Doctrine and Covenants 11 was received.

Scott Woodward: Great. Yeah, so his dad’s already received a revelation, D&C 4. And then Samuel just got baptized. I remember in the history, it says he went back home to Palmyra, “greatly glorifying and praising God, being filled with the Holy Spirit”.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: So both his dad and his brother, Samuel, are saying good things are happening down there in Harmony. And so Hyrum wants to go.

Casey Griffiths: Hyrum wants to get in on this, right?

Scott Woodward: Yeah. Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: He wants to be part of this, which you can’t blame him.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, so. That’s great. So okay, let’s get into the actual words of the Lord here. Soo the first 10 verses of Section 11 are, are nearly identical, actually, to the first 10 verses in Section 6 that the Lord gave to Oliver Cowdery. So in the, in both sections, the first five verses contain the biblically drenched, like marvelous work preamble, which was characteristic of revelations received on behalf of individuals during this 1829 season. We’re talking Section 4, Section 6, Section 11 here, 12, 14, 15, 16. And I think one of the ways to account for that, Casey, is they’re all asking the same question. They’re all asking, How can I assist in the work. And the answer turns out to be pretty similar for all of them. And so, that’s, in my mind why there’s such a, such a similar answer that’s given to each of them. Although the, the rest of Section 11 is pretty unique in particular to Hyrum. Verses 6 through 10 contain personal instruction concerning commandment keeping and bringing forth and establishing the cause of Zion. Also a phrase used in D&C 6. There’s also an admonition to prioritize wisdom over riches, an assurance that Hyrum will be a means of doing much good in this generation if he desires, and the command to say nothing but repentance to this generation. And then the counsel to keep the Lord’s commandments and assist to bring forth his work, and finally, an assurance that he has a spiritual gift. Again, this sounds very similar to what the Lord said to Oliver Cowdery. Or, the Lord says, You will have a gift if you desire it of the Lord in faith and honesty and a belief in the power of revelation from Christ, the very power that was then giving these words to Hyrum Smith, actually. And so those are the first 11 or so verses. Then in verses 12 through 14, the Lord teaches Hyrum how to recognize the Spirit in his life. And if I was a teacher in any class, seminary or Sunday school, whatever, family study, I would probably hone in on these verses in terms of application. They’re just like packaged, for application here. All of us have asked the question, Casey, How do I know if it’s the Spirit? I still ask this question all the time. I haven’t got it down yet, but the Lord is teaching Hyrum here exactly like what to look for. And so let’s think about these words. Here’s what he said, quote, “Put your trust in that Spirit which leadeth to do good,” there you go, “yea, to do justly, to walk humbly, to judge righteously.” And he says, “This is my spirit.” Sometimes maybe we overthink it, Casey. I know maybe that’s my problem. Do you feel like you want to be more humble, more wise and fair in your judgment? That’s probably from the Spirit of God. He then says that the Spirit will enlighten your mind and will, quote, “Fill your soul with joy.” Joy is the fruit of the Spirit. In this way, the Lord says to Hyrum, You will know all things that you desire to know of the Lord, which pertain to things of righteousness and which he believes he will receive of the Lord. And so those are sweet little verses there that I’ve come back to again and again as I think about whether or not the Spirit of God is in reality operating upon me.

Casey Griffiths: It’s unique because of Joseph’s brothers, Hyrum kind of becomes arguably the most significant leader. He’s essentially co-president of the Church at the time Joseph and he are killed.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: But the Lord, we’ll look in verse 15, actually like, slow down. The Lord cautions Hyrum and says, to “not suppose you are called to preach until you are called.” It seems like Hyrum was really raring to go.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: And the Lord tells him, “Wait a little longer until you shall have my word, my rock, my church, and my gospel, so that you may know of a surety my doctrine.” And I remember this was quoted a lot when I was in the MTC, you know. You get your mission call and you’re raring to go, and they would often, often go to verse 21, which says, “Seek not to declare my word, but first seek to obtain my word, and then shall your tongue be loosed; then, if you desire, you shall have my Spirit and my word, yea the power of God, unto the convincing of men.” It’s become the universal, Hey, slow down there…

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: And make sure you know what you’re talking about before you, before you dive in. And I’m guessing that the idea here, too, that Hyrum is going to be told he’s going to play a significant role, probably has reference to the fact that Hyrum is not going to be a scribe for translation. It seems like he does help write the printer’s manuscript a little bit, which is copying work, not translation work. But Hyrum is going to be one of the Eight Witnesses of the plates. He’s listed the first of every copy of the Book of Mormon. The Eight Witnesses, we’ve noted before, had this unique experience where they actually get to handle the plates and examine the plates and turn the leaves on the plates and everything like that. This seems to be the most direct way the fulfillment of the phrase here the Lord uses, which, that Hyrum will assist in bringing it to light, referring to the Book of Mormon, becomes fulfilled.

Scott Woodward: So lesson number one, Hyrum, learn how to appeal to the Spirit. Cleave unto the Lord with your whole heart, and then seek ways to help bring forth the Book of Mormon. And the way he does that, mostly what you’re saying is by bearing witness of it as one of the Eight Witnesses.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. And I mean, it’s just good advice for everybody to basically say, you know, before you want to share, you’ve got to have something to share. And the Lord gives Hyrum this instruction, which has become instruction to almost every missionary in the Church, every young person, which is obtain the word before you share the word. Hyrum’s zeal to preach needs to be matched with the proper knowledge of what he’s supposed to preach, and that takes a little time.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: But the Lord also encourages Hyrum to seek the Kingdom of God and build upon my rock which is my gospel, deny not the spirit of revelation nor of prophecy, and treasure up God’s word in your heart until such a time as the Lord sees wisdom for Hyrum to go forth. So a lot of what’s being said to Oliver Cowdery is encompassed here, too, that you’re going to get revelations. You need to stay close and connected to Christ. There’s just sort of a lot of fundamental principles. And then finally, in verse 27, the Lord says, “I speak unto all who have good desires, and have thrust in their sickle to reap.” You’ll eventually get the chance to go out and, and do your thing. But first, obtain the word.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, I like that. And that explains in some ways why the Lord’s answers are so repetitive to the same question, is everyone keeps asking the same question, How can I help? How can I help? He says, “I speak unto all who have good desires.” This is my counsel. What I’m telling Hyrum, I’m telling everybody. A lot of you have these questions. Now, more people are going to keep asking that same question, as we’re going to see, Joseph Knight and some of the Whitmer brothers are going to ask the same question, and his answers will be very similar. He’s patient with people who ask the same question. But if, if any of you out there who are listening or wondering, right? How do I help? I have good desires. I want to, I want to assist the Lord. I can’t think of a better section to say, Here’s, here’s where you start. Lesson one right here. Learn how to discern the Spirit. Start to obtain God’s word in preparation to be able to share it more effectively so you can do your part in bringing this to light, to others who don’t know about it yet. Like, that’s a pretty fundamental, great place to start.

Casey Griffiths: And again, I mean, any controversies here that we need to deal with?

Scott Woodward: I don’t know about any controversies with Section 11, do you? So…

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. It, it, it, I mean, this is like…

Scott Woodward: It’s just a nice, soft, beautiful little revelation that’s helpful for someone who wants to assist in God’s work.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, it’s exactly the, the section I would give to, let’s say, a student who’s eager to go on a mission, who wants to get out there and preach the word. But nothing really controversial about it. I will note, a collector in Provo has Hyrum Smith’s personal copy of this, and he’s let me look at it, which is kind of cool. It’s kind of sweet to know that Hyrum copied this down in his own handwriting, too, and that’s the earliest version of this revelation, which is kind of neat. But let’s talk, let’s talk consequences for a minute here.

Scott Woodward: Does Hyrum Smith ever end up making a difference in the, in the Church, Casey?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, his name pops up all over the history of the Church, most prominently in Carthage Jail, where he’s martyred alongside Joseph Smith. In fact, he, he, he dies before Joseph Smith does. But let me note a couple of things. We already mentioned he is one of the Eight Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. And…

Scott Woodward: Yeah. Probably the earliest major contribution.

Casey Griffiths: We’ll talk about the witnesses. Yeah, that’s a major, major thing. Hyrum, interestingly, is never a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. One of Joseph’s brothers, William Smith is, but Hyrum isn’t, and we don’t know the exact reason why. That doesn’t mean that Hyrum isn’t a significant figure. Hyrum, for instance, is referred to in several sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. He’s one of the first missionaries called to go to Missouri when they identify the city of Zion. And maybe most importantly, in Section 124 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which is received after they get to Nauvoo, Hyrum is told that the same keys and powers and blessings that were once upon Oliver Cowdery would be placed upon him. And early revelations refer to Joseph as the first elder and Oliver’s the second elder. Section 124 essentially makes Joseph Smith the first elder, and then Hyrum Smith taking the place of Oliver Cowdery as the second elder.

Scott Woodward: Kind of like the assistant president of the Church or co-president of the Church, really.

Casey Griffiths: That’s sometimes the title that’s been used for Hyrum. And we noted when we talked about succession in a previous series that there were several times in Nauvoo when Joseph Smith noted how important Hyrum was to him, that he leaned upon Hyrum. There’s even a, a conference held in 1843 where Joseph Smith pretty much says Hyrum will be his successor or take his place.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: And Brigham Young actually affirms that. After Joseph and Hyrum are both killed, Brigham says a statement equivalent to, Yeah, Joseph ordained somebody to take his place. It was Hyrum. But Hyrum died before Joseph did, so we have to go to another plan. I, I, I can’t think of a better kind of tribute to Hyrum Smith than what’s written in Section 135 of the Doctrine and Covenants. We don’t know who wrote this, and we’ll get to this in due time. But the writer of Section 135 writes of his brother Hyrum. In life, they were not divided, meaning Joseph and Hyrum, in death, they were not separated. And then later on writes, “Hyrum Smith was 44 years old in February 1844. Joseph Smith was 38 in December 1843, and henceforward, their names will be classed among the martyrs of religion. And the reader in every nation will be reminded that the Book of Mormon and this Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church cost the best blood of the 19th century to bring them forth for the salvation of a ruined world. They lived for glory, they died for glory, and glory is their eternal reward. From age to age, their names shall go down to posterity as gems of the sanctified.” So that’s in our scriptures, you know, to say that Hyrum was among the best blood of the 19th century is really a tribute to him, to his faithfulness, to his integrity, and to his utmost support that he gave to his brother in all the things that he did.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, well said.

Casey Griffiths: Another thing about Hyrum was his honesty and integrity. There’s a book called The Law of the Lord that Joseph Smith recorded things in while he was in hiding in Nauvoo. They were trying to extradite him. This is what he wrote about Hyrum. He wrote, “Blessed is my servant Hyrum Smith, for I the Lord loveth him because of the integrity of his heart, and because he loveth that which is right before me, sayeth the Lord.”

Scott Woodward: That’s in Section 124:15, isn’t it?

Casey Griffiths: I think so. Yeah, it mentions his integrity there, too. But shows how the Lord felt about him, it shows how Joseph felt about him. Section 11 introduces us to one of the great heroes of the Restoration who’s going to play a big role in the story moving forward.

Scott Woodward: His son is Joseph F. Smith, and he’s going to make a splash in our Church’s history. He’ll have a son named Joseph Fielding Smith and so on and so on. There’s… Hyrum’s posterity is a very powerful player in shaping the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: He was a good, steady man. Other people in our Church’s history we’re going to watch go up and down, even some in Joseph’s own family. You mentioned William Smith will be up and down and all over the place. But Hyrum is just steady.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: Just good, supportive, strong. Yeah, incredible.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, and his descendants go right up into the recently passed away, Elder Ballard, who was also descendant of Hyrum Smith, too, so. His family has been consequential in the Church, I’d say. That’s a big consequence, too.

Scott Woodward: Well, very good.

Casey Griffiths: Very good.

Scott Woodward: Okay, well thank you, Casey.

Casey Griffiths: Thank you, Scott. It’s always fun to talk through these things with you, and I appreciate your philosophical mind, and I think you got a pretty good one, too.

Scott Woodward: Wow. Wow. That means a lot coming from you, Casey. Thank you so much.

Casey Griffiths: All right. Well, until next time.

Scott Woodward: Until next week.