Scott Woodward:
That’s heat coming off of Sidney’s pen here. That’s… Woo!

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, I’m not afraid of finding out anything about the Church. The truth is the truth. I accept it and take it as we go. It doesn’t change the foundational parts of my testimony to find out that this person said this or this person did that.

Scott Woodward:
That’s why we started Church History Matters, the podcast, to try to help people understand that there’s nothing you need to be afraid of. A God has died for you. You were worth it. It doesn’t matter your level of sinfulness. In fact, it was because we are sinners that he was willing to do what he did for us, already recognizing our worth.

Casey Griffiths:
Anybody listening, don’t ever take worthiness to mean flawlessness. Your worthiness in the sight of God is he loves you no matter what you do.

Scott Woodward:
Hello, Casey.

Casey Griffiths:
Hello, Scott.

Scott Woodward:
Welcome back.

Casey Griffiths:
Good to be back. And we are working our way through the Doctrine and Covenants. We’ve reached the 70s. Usually the halfway mark is, when you’re teaching the Doctrine and Covenants, is Section 76. So we are getting close to being halfway through the Doctrine and Covenants. It has been a fun ride so far.

Scott Woodward:
Just mentioning Section 76, Casey gives me the tingles. Like, that’s next week. So buckle up Section 76, the vision. But before we do that, this week we get to cover some really interesting sections. I think 71 and 73, we’re going to be talking about how to deal with anti-LDS propaganda. Today, we get to deal with our very first anti who’s published stuff, right. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon are called to deal with that. And then 72, 74, and 75 are going to deal with some internal issues in the Church about stewardships. So this should be pretty fun. So how to deal with some outside antagonism and how to deal with some internal stewardship issues. So that’s this week. Sounds like a party to me.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, it should be great. Let’s jump in and start with, I think we’re going to do a little bit differently here because 71 and 73 are really part one and part two of the same story. We’re going to group those together, and then 72, 74, and 75 with these internal questions as to how you run the Church and how you deal with family within the Church and a few of those things. So why don’t we group 71, 73 together? That’ll be part one, and then we’ll do the others as part two. So let’s dive into Section 71.

Scott Woodward:
Section 71 initiates, and then Section 73 concludes a very specific mission that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon are given here, to go out and preach in response to some negative publicity that’s been caused by several recently-published letters by our friend and recent apostate, Ezra Booth. And so, Casey, tell us the backstory of what’s going on here with Ezra. He’s gone from bad to worse, it seems like.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, it feels like we’ve been talking about Ezra Booth a lot. And I don’t feel great giving a lot of attention to someone like Ezra. But just to catch you up in case you’ve missed the previous couple of episodes, Ezra Booth was a gifted 39-year-old Methodist minister. He joins the Church in April or May, having previously witnessed Joseph Smith heal Elsa Johnson’s arm. We talked about this a little bit in Section 63. So he joins in April or May. In June, there’s a mission call that is given. This is Section 52 that instructs Ezra and a number of other elders from the Church to travel to Missouri to identify the place of the land of Zion. And while Ezra is on this trip as he goes to Zion, his faith is deeply shaken time and again when he either had expectations that something miraculous would happen, whether it was witnessing more healings or manifesting spiritual gifts or more powerful and abundant conversions. And he also, on the trip, said he became familiar with the shortcomings, the human failings of Joseph Smith and other Church leaders. So shortly after his arrival home to Ohio on the 6th of September, a conference of elders, including Joseph Smith, voted that Ezra be silenced from preaching as an elder in the Church.

Casey Griffiths:
And shortly afterwards, Joseph’s history states, Ezra Booth came out as an apostate. He is silenced, which I think was kind of a mild form of disfellowshipment, or excommunication back then, even though we don’t really use those words anymore. And afterwards, he starts publicly denouncing the Church. In fact, he writes a series of letters where he denounces Joseph Smith and the Church, which a local newspaper, The Ohio Star, began publishing the next month. So seven of these letters had already been published by the time Section 71 was received, and two additional letters would be published shortly after it’s received. And in these letters, Booth kind of is the first angry internet poster, I guess, about the Church. Kind of a steady stream of accusations against what he called Joseph Smith, these his words, “Joseph Smith’s system of delusion, almost unparalleled in the annals of the world.” He also calls it “a system of darkness, fraught with glaring absurdity, and as deceptive as falsehood itself.” And he depicts himself as someone who’s working to expose Joseph Smith’s, his words, “Deeply-laid plan of craft and deception in order to prevent the spread of a delusion pernicious in its influence and destructive in its consequences to the body and soul.”

Casey Griffiths:
So his primary mode of attack, which, you know, the more things change, the more they stay the same, is to attack Joseph Smith. He paints him as ignorant, power-hungry, a fraud, someone who knowingly deceives people by fabricating revelations and miracles. And these are Ezra’s words again, “Pretense to hold converse with the inhabitants of the celestial world, and who, with the authority of a commandment, can easily untie the purse strings of those whose consciences are under his control.” He’s open about saying he was drawn into, again, he calls it “a vortex of delusion,” and how he traveled to Missouri, where he saw firsthand that Joseph Smith’s prophecies about Zion had failed. He also goes after Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon and Martin Harris saying that they were in collusion with Joseph in this grand deception. In fact, by the time we get to his seventh letter, which was the most recently published when Section 71 is received, Booth included a copy of a letter he had recently written to Bishop Edward Partridge, where he appealed to Edward Partridge to leave the Church as well, urging him to, in Ezra’s words, “No longer suffer these strangers to blind your eyes with their discordant revelations, false visions and lying prophecies. Place yourself from under the influence of the men who have deceived you,” he wrote, “burst asunder the bands of delusion. Fly for your life. Fly from the habitations haunted by impostors.”

Casey Griffiths:
So this guy is pretty aggressively attacking the Church at this point. And is it fair to say, is he the first kind of anti-Latter-day Saint, anti-Mormon writer that we have record of? I can’t think of anybody earlier than him.

Scott Woodward:
I think he’s the earliest to publish, right, to make it really public. This is late 1831. I think in 1833, we’re going to get our next, kind of most famous publication called Mormonism Unvailed. Is that ’33 or ’34 by Ebert D. Howe and Philastus Hurlbut?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, Philastus Hurlbut, which amazing name, by the way.

Scott Woodward:
Fantastic anti name. Yeah. Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
His full name is Doctor Philastus Hurlbut. And Doctor is his first name. Our friend, Gerrit Dirkmaat, likes to point that out.

Scott Woodward:
His parents named him Doctor. That’s so funny.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, which I wish my parents had just done that. That would have saved me a lot of time and tuition. So yeah, these anti-Mormons are starting out. But Ezra is kind of the pioneer, right? He’s sort of the first one.

Scott Woodward:
The proto-antagonist of the Church who’s publicly trying to kick up dirt and turn people’s public opinion against Joseph Smith and the Church. And he’s claiming firsthand witness, which he was. He was a firsthand witness in Missouri. And he’s using that to say, I’ve got the insider scoop on Joseph Smith and his pretended revelations, and it’s a bunch of crock. And the thing is, Casey, it seems like it was actually working, right? What Booth is doing to create negative publicity against Joseph and the Church is actually working. And so that’s a problem.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, Booth is an effective communicator. You can tell from his letters, and he is persuading some Church members to leave. Another one, a prominent one, is Symonds Ryder, who we hear a lot about. Symonds had joined the Church the previous June after hearing about Ezra Booth seeing Joseph Smith heal Elsa Johnson’s rheumatic arm. But it seems like the deeper reason for his anger against Joseph Smith stemmed from his discovery of a manuscript of Section 42 after Joseph Smith had left in June to travel to Missouri. So Section 42 introduces the law of consecration, and it hadn’t been published yet because there’s no Doctrine and Covenants, though, it’s received and it’s circulating among the Church, and they’re doing things to start the law of consecration. But it seemed like Symonds Ryder misunderstood what he was reading about the law of consecration of property in Section 42, claiming in a letter to a friend that that he had discovered, this is his words, “The horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it under the control of Joseph Smith, the Prophet.” So he sees consecration as kind of this conspiracy to take away his property and place it under Joseph Smith, that it’s a get-rich-quick kind of scheme, sort of thing.

Casey Griffiths:
And let me just add really quick. The thing about Symonds Ryder is the story that’s always shared about him in the Church is that his name was spelled wrong on his ordination certificate, and that’s why he left the Church. That is a story that’s told about him, but it’s not told until his funeral, which is decades later. It doesn’t come directly from him. And the other thing is, I talked to Mark Staker about this. Mark is kind of the expert on the Kirtland period in the Church. Symonds Ryder actually spelled his name differently in several different documents that we have. And so it doesn’t seem like he was settled on the spelling of his name. The other grand irony is I have visited Symonds Ryder’s grave. It’s in Hiram, Ohio. And if his name was spelled wrong on his certificate, it’s still spelled differently in the Doctrine and Covenants than it is on his grave. So I totally wish that that was the reason why Symonds left the Church, but it just seems like the documentary record doesn’t quite support it. The documents that we do have say that he was concerned about consecration and saw it as a scheme to get his property removed from him.

Casey Griffiths:
And also, Mark would say, that he was worried that his wife was getting ready to move to Zion, to move to Missouri, and he didn’t want to do that. So about the same time that Ezra Booth is silenced and comes out as an apostate, Symonds Ryder does too, and he joins Booth in fomenting hatred against the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon. Now, in the introduction to Section 71 in his history, Joseph Smith doesn’t add all this context. He just says simply that he was “working on the translation of the scriptures with Elder Sidney Rigdon as my scribe until the first day of December when I received the following.” But the content of the revelation makes it clear that all of this stuff that’s in motion influences what the Lord is going to say to them in Section 71.

Scott Woodward:
Okay, so into the content we go. The Lord opens Doctrine and Covenants 71 here by telling Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, quote, “That the time has verily come that it is necessary and expedient in me that you should open your mouths in proclaiming my gospel, the things of the kingdom, expounding the mysteries thereof out of the scriptures, in the regions round about, and in the church also, for the space of a season,” he says. They are to “call upon the inhabitants of the earth, and bear a record, and prepare the way for the commandments and revelations which are to come.” So the Lord seems here to be saying that this mission that he’s calling them on will somehow pave the way for people to receive the revelations which were soon to be published in the Book of Commandments. That’s what’s in the background of the sections we’ve recently talked about, is this book is about to come forth. It’s about to be published. And so your mission, going out and teaching, will be somehow helpful in preparing people to receive those revelations. And to those who do receive them, the Lord promises, “shall be given more abundantly, even power.”

Scott Woodward:
“Wherefore,” verse seven says, Joseph and Sidney are to go out and, quote, “confound your enemies.” Clearly a reference to Ezra Booth and Symonds Ryder, and, quote, “Call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.” And then the Lord even throws out a challenge in verse 8. He says, “Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.” And then follows it up with a promise in verse 9 that, quote, “Thus sayeth the Lord unto you – there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; and if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time. Wherefore, keep my commandments; they are true and faithful. Even so. Amen.” So that’s the whole revelation right there. An invitation for Joseph and Sidney to stop translating the Bible, to go out on a preaching mission, and particularly to call out their enemies, Ezra and Symonds, to, in public and private, ask them to bring forth their strong reasons against the work, against the Book of Mormon, and against Joseph Smith being a prophet. Let’s deal with it.

Scott Woodward:
And the Lord promises they will not be confounded. What’s awesome about this is what happens next, Casey, that the consequences of that flow out of Section 71 are awesome.

Casey Griffiths:
So what happens? Well, they get this commandment, basically, to go and speak out against it. So in obedience this commandment, on December 15th, Sidney posted a public notice in The Ohio Star, the very paper in which Ezra Booth is publishing his attacks on the Church. And Sidney uses this paper to announce that he’s going to deliver deliver a lecture on Christmas Day, December 25th, at the brick schoolhouse in Ravenna, Ohio. He also said, “I give notice to Ezra Booth that his attendance is desired, as I shall review the letters written by him, as those letters are an unfair and false representation of the subjects on which they treat.” And he also calls out Symonds Ryder, too. He says, “As you have publicly declared the Book of Mormon to be an imposition, and I, believing it to be otherwise, do hereby present a request to you to meet me in the Township of Hiram, Portage County, at such time and place as may be agreed upon hereafter to investigate this subject before the public, that if I am deluded in receiving this book as a revelation from God, I may be corrected and the public relieved from its anxiety.”

Casey Griffiths:
So it’s a smack down, right? He’s calling him out like, Bring it, you guys. I’m challenging you to a public debate, essentially.

Scott Woodward:
In fact, what I love is that Ebert D. Howe, the editor of the Painesville Telegraph, sensing a battle was coming, he actually published in his own paper five days later this. I love this. He says, quote, “Sidney Rigdon, the vice-regent and champion of Joe Smith, has thrown out a challenge in The Ohio Star to Ezra Booth and Symonds Ryder, who have renounced the Mormon faith to meet him in mortal combat of words on the subject of the Gold Bible.” Close quote. “Mortal combat of words.”

Casey Griffiths:
Mortal combat. Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
That’s so funny. Anyway, continue.

Casey Griffiths:
Okay. So Joseph and Sidney seem like they feel pretty confident that if they can just meet with these people, that they’ll be able to reason with them, that they’ll be able to overwhelm their enemies and kind of fix the situation since the Lord had said, “Let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord” and promised them that “no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper” and that their enemies would be confounded in their own due time. Following this revelation, Joseph writes this in his history, “Knowing now the mind of the Lord, that the time had come, that the gospel should be claimed in power and demonstration to the world from the scriptures, reasoning with man as in days of old, I took a journey to Kirtland in company with Elder Sidney Rigdon, on the 3rd day of December, to fulfill this revelation.” The Lord basically tells them, Take a pause in your translation of the Bible to answer these critics’ concerns, and that’s what they go out and do. In fact, Scott, tell us the next part of the story.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, so for the next nearly six weeks, Joseph says in his history that they, quote, “Continued to preach in Shalersville, Ravenna, and other places, setting forth the truth, vindicating the cause of our Redeemer, showing that the day of vengeance was coming upon this generation like a thief in the night, that prejudice, blindness, and darkness filled the minds of many and caused them to persecute the true church and reject the true light, by which means we did much towards allaying the excited feelings which were growing out of the scandalous letters then being published in The Ohio Star by the apostate Ezra Booth.” So Joseph clearly acknowledges here that this mission is directly an outgrowth of Ezra Booth’s scandalous letters, he calls them. And he reports in his history that they were pretty effective in allaying the excited feelings that were growing out of this. And as for Sidney’s public meetings with Ezra Booth and Symonds Ryder, neither of them actually showed up to defend their accusations before the public as Sidney had requested. Symonds had even written back through The Ohio Star, formally declining the invitation, saying that it would be futile to exchange with Sidney, given that Sidney has, quote, “An irascible temper, loquacious extravagance, an impaired state of mind, and want of due respect to his superiors.”

Scott Woodward:
Oh, jeez. And then Sidney, on January 6th, Sidney finally writes a final public notice in The Ohio Star, condemning Symonds Ryder, specifically. He writes this. You feel the intensity of this. He says, “Having a few weeks since invited Symonds Ryder to meet me and investigate the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, with which he pretended to have an intimate acquaintance, and which he had pronounced an imposition. And he now, having denied my invitation, I ask, if Symonds Ryder is afraid to have his assertions put to the test, why make them? If he is certain, as he pretends, that the Book of Mormon is a base imposition, why be afraid to come forward and prove it? I say, Where is honesty? Where is candor? Surely not in the heart of such a man. He presented himself,” Sidney continues, “before the public as an accuser, and he has been called upon before that same public to support his accusations. And does he come forward and do it? Nay, but seeks to hide himself behind a battery of reproach and abuse and low insinuation. Let the public remember when Symonds goes forth again to proclaim his anathemas against the Book of Mormon, that he has been invited upon honorable principles to investigate its merits, and he dare not do it.”

Scott Woodward:
And then it concludes with this, “He who is afraid to have his assertions put to the test, let him cease to make them.” That’s heat coming off of Sidney’s pen here. That’s… Woo! So they never actually get to debate. They never actually come before the public to spar. But Sidney feels like he’s done what the Lord asked him to do and both Symonds and Ezra have declined his invitation. And so around the 8th of January, Joseph and Sidney go back home to Hiram, Ohio. They felt like they had successfully completed their mission to combat the falsehoods. And in about two weeks from that time, they were going to hold their next conference of elders in the Church. And so their question to the Lord now was, so what were they and the elders in the area supposed to do in the meantime before that conference starts? And then Joseph says, on the 10th of January, 1832, I received the following. And so that’s the consequences of Section 71, and it’s also the backstory of Section 73. And so now we can jump into Section 73. In Section 73, in verse one, the Lord instructs that the elders in this area “should continue to preach the gospel, and in exhortation to the churches in the the regions round about, until conference; and then, it shall be made known unto them, by the voice of the conference, their several missions.”

Casey Griffiths:
And as for, this is in the revelation, “Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, saith the Lord, it is expedient to translate again.” As for Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, they’re told “it is practicable, to preach in the regions round about until conference,” and that they should also do so. And after the conference, the Lord says, “It is expedient that they should continue the work of Bible translation until it be finished. Now I give no more unto you at this time. Gird up your loins and be sober. Even so, Amen.” It seems like the Lord was pleased with what they were doing, tells them to preach. And then now that they’ve had their break to answer these critics of the Church to go back to translating the Bible, which they do, and that’s when they get Section 76, that huge, important revelation that changes everything.

Scott Woodward:
Good. So that’s the consequences of 71, the context of 73, the content of 73. And now let’s talk about some of the controversies that come out of Sections 71 and 73, Casey.

Casey Griffiths:
All right, so I got one. Remember when you were a missionary, like, they used to talk about Bible-bashing, which I have to admit, I got pretty good at when I was a missionary. I served in the Southern states of the United States, where there is a lot of anti material. And I’ve read a couple of books, and by the end of my service, I could, you know, Bible-bash with the best of them. But is that a good thing? And where do we draw the line between Bible-bashing and defending the faith? Like how do we thread that needle between being contentious but also not getting walked all over?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, there’s like a serious tension in the scriptures, I think, between these two ideas. The first one is when Jesus says, “He that has the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, who stirs up the hearts of men to contend with anger one with another.” There’s that. And I think a lot of Church members are averse to defending the faith because it feels like contention. Yet Section 71 is clearly here saying, Confound your enemies. Call upon them to meet you both in public and in private, right. So those ideas are in tension here. Should we confront our enemies? Sometimes, it sounds like the Lord says here, maybe not all the time, maybe not every day, but sometimes it’s appropriate to call out those who are tearing faith down, and they’re misrepresenting the Church, and they’re misrepresenting the Book of Mormon, and they’re misrepresenting Joseph Smith and his revelations. Sometimes it makes sense to actually directly confront those who are spreading those kinds of lies, right. How do we navigate that with contentions of the devil and stirring hearts of people to anger one against another? That’s a delicate needle to thread here.

Scott Woodward:
What are your initial thoughts on that?

Casey Griffiths:
We need to kind seek a balanced response, right, between being contentious and angry, which a lot of times these discussions do devolve into, but also being willing to combat falsehoods spread about the Church. We kind of have to blend this whole “contention is of the devil” idea, which I 100% believe. And I swear there were times as a missionary when I crossed the boundary into being contentious and I could feel the Spirit leaving, and I realized, Oh, at this point, I’m just debating. Now I’m trying to win an argument, not persuade somebody to believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ. But also, you know, the Lord does say, Earnestly contend for the faith. That’s in the New Testament, Jude 1:3. The Lord tells us, Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil. That’s Doctrine and Covenants 18:20. In other words, we contend against the church of the devil. So I would say when we start to cross the border into we’re attacking a person’s faith, sometimes when we get too personal, attacking somebody else, too. I love the way Joseph and Sidney, I think they are a great model of this. Even Sidney’s letters to Symonds Ryder, to where he doesn’t attack Symonds Ryder.

Casey Griffiths:
He’s attacking Symonds’ ideas, and he’s answering the charges that both Symonds and Ezra Booth were making against the Church without turning it into a Methodist versus Latter-day Saints-type dichotomy, that he’s just stating the truth and stating it clearly and saying, This is what they got wrong or this is what they said that is misleading.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Sidney is saying, Look, Symonds, you have made all kinds of accusations that you know the Book of Mormon’s faults. I believe it’s true. Why don’t you come and lay those ideas, right? Back to the ideas. Lay those ideas out in front of the public and let me debate them. And if you’re afraid to do that, then why make those accusations in the first place? He’s confronting the spreader of the falsehoods and trying to say, Let’s do this honorably. That’s the word he used, upon honorable principles of fair debate. Let’s lay it out so the public can decide. Let’s not do this slander, sleazy way that you’re doing it. If you want to do this, let’s do it. I think the more important issue here to me, kind of the insight that I see in what’s happening here, given the context, is, Casey, there were real people in innocent people who are going to be hurt by Ezra Booth’s letters and Symonds Ryder’s accusations against the Book of Mormon. There were innocent people, neutral people, who are now being swayed against the Church and against Joseph, against the revelations because of these letters that are being written, right, that are not fairly treating the facts.

Scott Woodward:
They’re jaded, they’re slanted, they’re twisting. They’re making Joseph look like the worst possible fraudster. They’re making the Church look like this thing that’s trying to steal people’s money. And that’s actually influencing innocent people. And so I think when innocent people are involved, when, if we don’t say something, innocent people will get hurt. That seems to be when the Lord says, All right, Sidney, Joseph, stop translating. Get out there and help the public. The public are being exposed to these rotten ideas, these twisted ideas, and you need to say something about that. So to me, that’s an important line. It’s not like if someone on the streets is like, Hey, Joseph Smith’s a fraud against me. I’m like, whatever, you can have your own opinion. But if they’re starting to talk to people that I love and these ideas are starting to spread, then maybe it’s time to say something. In our day and age, when technology makes it so easy to spread ideas, you can just, you vomit on TikTok whatever problems you have against the Church or whatever, in 30 seconds to two minutes, you can just say whatever you want. I’m so glad Ezra Booth didn’t have access to TikTok, but people with his ideas and disposition definitely do.

Scott Woodward:
And it’s hurting real people, Casey. Real people are getting hurt because of these ideas. And so the Lord says, there is a time and a place to defend the faith, and it’s when innocent people are going to get hurt. And so you got to do something about that.

Casey Griffiths:
Let me say this, too. The idea that you contend against their ideas is central here, right? When we do get to the point to where it’s kind of using pejoratives, and I’m sorry, but anti-Mormon and apologists have both just turned into pejoratives, basically, you’re poisoning the well to say, I’m not going to listen to what this person has to say on any level because they’re an apologist, is showing what Sidney Rigdon is talking about here, which is you really seem to have a lack of confidence in your ideas.

Scott Woodward:
If the strength of your position is in your ideas, then, as Sidney was inviting, bring forth those ideas, or as the Lord said, better, Bring forth your strong reasons. Let’s see them. Show your reasoning rather than attacking the person.

Casey Griffiths:
I’ve had students in class bring up attacks on the Book of Mormon, for instance, something like, Hey, isn’t it repeating ideas from A View of the Hebrews? I’ll just ask, Have you read A View of the Hebrews? And no. They read a website that suggested A View of the Hebrew says this, and I also see faithful Church members sometimes attacking people or attacking other religions with the same type of shallow understanding. They’re just throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks, and they’re not actually presenting a logical argument. I’m all about having debates, right? And Scott, when you and I are together in a car, we’re debating the whole time, pretty much, right? But you never do so in a personal way that seems mean. You’re just presenting ideas. And I’d like to think that I do the same. Maybe I’ve gotten personal a couple of times.

Scott Woodward:
No, you do great.

Casey Griffiths:
I think you are a real model of exactly what Sections 71 and 73 are talking about, which is, it’s okay to contend for the faith, you can contend without being contentious.

Scott Woodward:
Amen. Amen to that. Thank you. That’s kind of you to say that. One of my favorite quotes about defending the faith was one of the biographers of C.S. Lewis, Austin Farrar, who talked about how C.S. Lewis defended Christianity, and some people, you know, thought that if it was true, it didn’t need to be defended. If it’s true, you don’t have to defend it. You’re just being an apologist, C.S. Lewis. You’re just, whatever. And Austin Farrar, he said, one of my favorite quotes of all time, he said, quote, “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. Rational argument does not create belief, but,” here’s the crucial point, “it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.” And I think that’s exactly what the Lord is asking Sidney and Joseph to do, is go help maintain a climate in which belief may flourish. Show them that against the strong reasoning of Ezra and Symonds, there are other really strong reasonings on the other side, even more powerful reasonings, really. Show them. That’s going to help the bystanders, the innocent people who would otherwise be influenced by those anti- arguments, to have a chance to choose.

Scott Woodward:
Let’s give everyone a chance to choose. Let’s have both arguments clearly stated, if you’d like, so that people can choose to believe rather than only hearing one side of it. I just think that’s a powerful thought.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. Let me add this thought from Jeffrey R. Holland. Elder Holland said, “We have always been at war with the adversary in our effort win the hearts of men and women. But now more and more, partly because of technological access, we must be vigilant in the battle for the minds of the human family.” And that is part of it, too, is we live in an amazing time, you know, where 15 minutes before we started recording, you were looking at documents on the Joseph Smith Papers site that we would never have had access to, even 20 or 25 years ago, not because anybody was trying to keep it secret, but because I can’t drive to the Church History Library every day and get out those documents. Now they’re there, and that’s amazing. At the same time, too, the flood of information that we’ve been confronted with in the last few years has been partly good and partly bad. And the amount of disinformation that is out there is just incredible as well. And so going back to some of the things we’ve said before on the podcast, if you encounter something that you’ve never heard before, Take it slow.

Casey Griffiths:
Look at it. Check it. Make sure that it’s even right before you commit to making any changes that are with it. And second, it is okay to respond when someone says something that’s false or untrue about your faith, but do so in a Christ-like way. Contend for the faith, but don’t get into contention where we start to do it because we’re angry or because our ego is affected or because we want to hurt somebody. We’re not really helping anybody, are we? You’re winning arguments, but you’re not winning hearts. It just doesn’t do more good. It generates more heat than light. It’s not really an effective way of winning souls to Christ.

Scott Woodward:
It’s a valuable lesson, man. Let your responses to criticism be motivated by love, not anger or contempt, and you’re probably on the right track, and you’ll probably go about it in the right way. Well, let’s talk about the consequences of Sections 71 and 73, Casey.

Casey Griffiths:
Section 71 took Joseph and Sidney away from the Bible translation project to spend some time to go out and confound their enemies. Doctrine and Covenants 73 puts them back on task, sending them back to do the work of translation. In fact, little did they know that it’s the very next month, their work of the Bible translation sparks one of the most important doctrinal revelations of Joseph Smith’s lifetime. That’s Section 76, but that’s what we’re going to talk about next week.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, another consequence, I think, that flows out of this little sequence of 71 and 73 is, unfortunately, that there’s going to be a tarring and feathering in March, Casey. I have to believe that Joseph and Sidney’s bold offensive against Ezra Booth and Symonds Ryder here played into the plot these two enemies of theirs executed against them only months later when they attacked Joseph and Sidney on the night of March 24th, 1832. And Casey, I think it’s the height of shame that they did what they did. I mean, they refused to meet Joseph and Sidney in the light of day to have their accusations answered on intellectual grounds. Instead, they stooped to the cowardly venting of their fury in the dead of night through physical abuse. It’s one of the most shameful sucker punches in history. If you don’t agree with someone’s theology and spiritual claims, fine. Let the war of words go on. Bring forth your strong reasons, not your tar buckets in the middle of the night when your opponents are sleeping. That accomplishes nothing. I wish you would have just met Joseph and Sidney on intellectual grounds and had it out rather than stooping the way you did.

Scott Woodward:
Just a horrible outcome of this.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, it seems like the worst possible outcome to contention is violence. That’s unfortunately where Symonds Ryder and Ezra Booth end up. That’s a shame. It’s a shame for what Joseph and Sidney had to go through, and it’s a shame for them that they reached that point to where they thought that was acceptable. But we’ll leave it up to God to decide what to do with them. All right. So maybe one last question I want to bring up, which is, Do we engage with anti-Mormon material? Do we have to watch every anti-Church thing that’s out there, or where do we draw the line?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, I don’t see the Lord in Section 71 inviting us to seek out critical material against the Church. But I do see him saying that we don’t need to be bothered by… The Lord doesn’t seem to be bothered by the criticisms of the Church out there, right? In the sense of, Oh, no. If people find out X, they’ll leave the Church. The Lord says, Let them bring forth their strong reasons, and in time, your enemies will be confounded. No weapon that is formed against you shall prosper. These are words of confidence coming from the Lord. I know there’s a lot of anti- material out there these days. There’s a lot of criticism against the Church. The Lord doesn’t invite us to seek it, but when there are loved ones of ours that are affected by it, we can come from that position of confidence that the Lord is exuding in Section 71. Eventually, these enemies will be confounded, and no weapon that’s formed against you shall prosper, ultimately. I know there are people who are losing their testimonies. I know it doesn’t always look like the enemy isn’t prospering. It does seem to be right now, but the Lord seems to be saying, give it time.

Scott Woodward:
In time, this is all going to be worked out.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, I think what the Lord is saying here is you have to defend the faith against falsehoods, things that just aren’t accurate. At the same time, too, we don’t have anything to be afraid of. You and I have talked a lot about how understanding the truth is a process of maturing and coming to accept complexity, and that everything is maybe a little bit more complicated than you initially thought it was. But I remember an old mentor of mine, Richard Bennett, basically saying, Yeah, I’m not afraid of finding out anything about the Church. The truth is the truth. I accept it and take it as we go. It doesn’t change the foundational parts of my testimony to find out that this person said this or this person did that. We shouldn’t be afraid of the truth, but we do have an obligation to answer falsehoods. Unfortunately, there are a lot of falsehoods shared about our religion, and it feels like it’s gotten a little bit more intense in the last little while, if I’m being completely frank.

Scott Woodward:
You and I, Casey, we set out two-plus years ago to try to help people work through some of the challenging issues in Church history. That’s why we started Church History Matters, the podcast. If we’re being honest, to try to help people understand that there’s nothing you need to be afraid of in our Church’s history. I’ve heard people say such things. I’ve even heard people on the other side say to faithful Church members, If you knew what I knew, you would leave the Church, you know. And you and I, Casey, have tried to show that that’s not the case. It does sometimes require careful thinking, slow thinking, reasoning through these things carefully point by point. We’ve tried to do that. I don’t know if we’re the best in the world at doing this, Casey, but we’ve tried to show that in last year and the year before in previous episodes and series that we’ve done on difficult Church history topics. We’re trying to model that at least imperfectly, but we’re not afraid, and we don’t think anyone needs to be afraid. The Lord is giving us permission in Section 71 that you don’t need to be afraid, that this is all eventually going to work out okay.

Casey Griffiths:
So, Scott, we’ve handled Section 71 and Section 73. Now we’re going to go back. Let’s talk a little bit about Section 72, which is the first of these revelations that kind of has to do with internal things within the Church. We’ve handled the external opposition. Let’s talk about some of the internal concerns that are happening in the Church during this time.

Scott Woodward:
Casey, this is where we get our second bishop in the Church, isn’t it?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, kind of a milestone, because up to this point, we’ve only had one bishop, and he was the presiding bishop, but he presided over what was basically a ward-sized church. So not all that different from bishops do today. But Section 72 introduces us to a second bishop in the Church, and Section 72 sets up a lot of the responsibilities that still resonate with Church leaders, especially bishops today.

Scott Woodward:
We get to be introduced to Newek K. Whitney as our second bishop. What’s the actual background here with Section 72 then? Why does this come about?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. So Section 72 is another one of those sections that’s multiple revelations condensed down to one section. It’s clear from the text that it consists of three revelations given on December 4th, 1831. During this time, Joseph Smith is gathered together with other leaders in Kirtland to discuss several issues concerning the Church. We don’t have the minutes from this conversation, unfortunately, but Joseph Smith recorded the circumstances of the meeting in a later history that on their way to fulfill the Lord’s commands in Section 71. So they’re on their way to contend with these people that are attacking the Church, publishing falsehoods. Joseph writes, “I took a journey to Kirtland in company with Elder Sidney Rigdon on the third day of December. Then the next day,” on the fourth, he said, “several of the elders and members assembled together to learn their duty and for edification. And after some time had been spent in conversing about our temporal and spiritual welfare, I receive the following.” So I don’t know, take this as an early ward council meeting or something like that, where they don’t have wards yet. They’re so small, they’re not organized yet. But people are coming in and saying, Hey, sister so-and-so is dealing with this, or brother so and so is having a hard time.

Casey Griffiths:
And Joseph Smith just receives these revelations that address these concerns within the Church itself. So that’s the context.

Scott Woodward:
Okay, so for the content. So you mentioned, Casey, that this section is actually three revelations. Let’s outline each of these three. And you can actually easily tell where one ends and the other begins because they’re all punctuated with the word Amen. So for instance, the first revelation is verses one through eight, where Newel K. Whitney is called to serve as the second bishop of the Church. And notice the Amen at the end of verse eight. Second revelation explains Bishop Whitney’s duties as the bishop of the Church in Ohio. That’s verses nine through 23. Notice the Amen at the end of verse 23, ending that revelation. Then the third revelation is just a short little guide, just three little verses that provides additional guidance to Bishop Whitney on how to issue recommends. We’ll talk about this. Recommends to Church members who are desirous to travel to Missouri and to assist in building up Zion there. That’s verses 24 through 26. And so it’s three little revelations, all to Bishop Whitney about his duties and responsibilities as a bishop in Ohio. So now he’s going to be working kind of in tandem with Bishop Partridge, who’s over in Missouri, remember. And he’s going to be in Ohio, and they’re going to have this kind of relationship where Bishop Whitney helps prepare people here to go and help in Missouri.

Scott Woodward:
And there’s going to be some communication back and forth, some recommends, and some really interesting things. So let’s kind of dig deeper into the first revelation here where the Lord calls him to be the bishop in Ohio. He calls it in verse 2, “In this part of the Lord’s vineyard,” referring to Ohio, he says, “it is required of the Lord,” verse 3, “at the hand of every steward, to render an account of his stewardship, for he who is faithful and wise in time is accounted worthy to inherit the mansions prepared for him of my Father.” Bishop Whitney is being invited into a really important stewardship. That is that of a bishop. Verse 5, the Lord says, “Verily I say unto you, the elders of the church in this part of my vineyard shall render an account of their stewardship to the bishop, who shall be appointed of me in this part of my vineyard.” He’s being set up in a way to also receive the accounts of the stewardships of the elders in that area to kind of help everyone stay accountable. Verse 8 is significant. He says, “Now, verily I say unto you, my servant Newel K. Whitney is the man who shall be appointed and ordained unto this power. This is the will of the Lord your God, your Redeemer. Even so. Amen.”

Scott Woodward:
That’s part one, right?

Casey Griffiths:
Just to kind of keep this clear in your head, the Church during this time period, from about 1831 to 1838 is in two places. And so it’s not surprising that they’re going to call a bishop for Ohio and a bishop for Missouri. Edward Partridge is going to be the bishop in Missouri. He’s called in Section 41 because he’s relocated to Missouri. He’s actually instructed to stay there in Section 58. We need another bishop that’s going to take care of the needs of the Saints in Kirtland, and that’s Newel K. Whitney, who it’s not surprising that he’s called as a bishop. He’s called as an agent of the Church in Section 63, a little bit earlier. And these two kind of act as regional bishops. We don’t quite have enough people yet to initiate the system we currently have now, where we have wards and branches with a presiding officer over each who’s a bishop or a branch president, but we’re getting there. And it hints to the idea that one of the most essential role of leaders in the Church is going to be making sure that everybody’s taken care of. They got enough food, that they’re keeping the commandments.

Casey Griffiths:
They’re doing the things that they’re supposed to do. This is an early initiation of that practice. In fact, let’s keep going. The second revelation, which starts in verse 9, starts to lay out what a bishop is supposed to do. Okay, so he says, “The word of the Lord, in addition to the law which has been given,” referring to Section 42, “makes known the duty of the bishop who has been ordained unto the church in this part of the vineyard, which is verily this – to keep the Lord’s storehouse; to receive the funds of the church in this part of the vineyard; to take an account of the elders as before has been commanded; and to administer to their wants, who shall pay for that which they receive, inasmuch as they have wherewith to pay; that this also may be consecrated to the good of the church, to the poor and needy. And he who hath not wherewith to pay, an account shall be taken and handed over to the the bishop of Zion, who shall pay the debt out of that which the Lord shall put into his hands.” So he’s in charge of these temporal affairs, making sure that everybody is living the law of consecration, that resources are being equally divided, that everybody’s being taken care of.

Scott Woodward:
And that seems to track still with bishops today. We call this kind of the welfare responsibility of a bishop, to take care of the poor, the needy, to be a steward over fast offering money, that kind of thing. So we see the earliest kind of seeds of what we still do today right here in Section 72, which it also mentioned all the way back to Section 42, that the Lord has been laying the groundwork for structure in the Church and people in positions in the Church to take care of the poor and the needy based on the resources they get from the consecrated money and land, et cetera, from Church members. And so Newel K. Whitney seems to be a great choice for this, right? Because he’s got the store, the Newel K. Whitney store right there in Kirtland, which is going to become like the bishop’s storehouse in Kirtland that people will be able to draw from as needed. And so he’s already a very successful grocer. How do you say? He’s a grocery store guy.

Casey Griffiths:
Businessman? Let’s just put it that way. If you go to Kirtland, actually, and you visit, you can see how many irons in the fire Bishop Whitney has going, that he is in charge of the ashery, that he’s got this store, that his store is not only the bishop’s storehouse. It’s like Church headquarters. It’s also the first educational building in the Church. And Newel was a great choice because he’s so generous. Now, the other thing that I want to add here, too, is, again, we don’t appreciate what a big deal consecration was. For instance, take a look in verse 15, the Lord says, “According to the law every man that cometh up to Zion must lay all things before the bishop in Zion.” In other words, the Lord is saying you have to commit to live the law of consecration if you want to have the privilege of building the city of Zion.

Scott Woodward:
Was it something kind of a little bit less formal in Kirtland? How did law of consecration work in Kirtland? Knowing that the Lord is saying here, verse 15, if you go to Missouri, you need to be fully all in on the law. Is Kirtland kind of a more of a preparation stage? You’re not fully required to live it there. How did that work?

Casey Griffiths:
You know, one thing I didn’t realize until I went through the Doctrine and Covenants, because I had to go through the entire thing line by line to write the commentary we put on Doctrine and Covenants Central, was how all-in they were on Zion. To the point to where when we start to get into troubles in Zion in 1833, it’s really 10 to one. There’s 10 Saints in Missouri for every the one that’s in Kirtland. And yeah, it’s probably fair to say that in Kirtland, the law of consecration was seen as desirable and good and positive. But in Zion, it’s required. In fact, when they lose the land of Zion, one of the things that the Lord brings up in Section 101 is that they really weren’t living the law of consecration like he asked them to, and so they had to be chastened for the things that they did. In fact, he’s trying really hard to show the Saints in Kirtland that before they get serious about Missouri, they’ve got to commit to this. Take a look at verse 17, “A certificate from the judge or bishop in this part of the vineyard, unto the bishop in Zion, rendereth every man acceptable, and answereth all things for an inheritance, and to be received as a wise and as a faithful laborer; otherwise he shall not be accepted of the bishop in Zion. Now, verily, I say unto you, let every elder who shall give an account unto the bishop of the church in this part of the vineyard be recommended by the church or other churches, in which he labors, that he may render himself and his accounts approved in all things.”

Casey Griffiths:
Emphasizing this idea of recommendation, right, which is still a term we use loosely in the Church. You get a temple recommend, or you get to recommend to be ordained to a priesthood office or to be given a new calling or anything like that. It’s putting this in the hands of the bishop. And boy, right here in these few verses is kind of capturing like the X axis and the Y axis of being a bishop. I think maybe I’ve mentioned a couple of times. I don’t want to overly mention it, but I was a bishop, and these verses were incredibly instructive to me. We see a lot of that, the bishop presides over the ward and the bishop helps people will become recommended to go to the temple. That’s very visible. But this other side of temporal welfare, I had no clue about until I got put into that calling.

Casey Griffiths:
And I wasn’t totally clueless. I was a seminary teacher and had served in the Church my entire life. But the first time I was done with all my temple recommend interviews, and the clerk came in and put a bunch of bills on my desk. But really, you can see that here, that one thing that a bishop is supposed to is make sure everybody is recommended, that they’re ready to make the covenants that they’re making. So on an average Sunday, you might be interviewing a young man or a woman who is getting ready to go into Young Women’s, receive the priesthood, get a limited-use temple recommend. But you’re also spending a lot of time, and it’s a lot of time in the average ward, making sure that everybody is fed and clothed and that we’re consecrating sufficiently to take care of everyone’s needs. Those two things, the X and the Y-axis of being a bishop really are sort of underappreciated in the Church. We appreciate the presiding role and the role that the bishop plays in recommending us, but we don’t always appreciate the concerns that he has to make sure everybody’s taken care of, and that is a heavy burden to bear.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Can we come back to verse 17 and 18 here? Make sure I’m reading this right. It’s almost like a temple recommend today, but it’s like a Zion recommend. Bishop one over here in Ohio is to recommend to bishop two over there in Missouri that this person is ready, is vetted, if you will. I’ve talked with them, and I fully endorse them participating in the Zion project in Missouri, something like that.

Casey Griffiths:
It seems like this is the earliest form of a temple recommend, right? It’s just there isn’t a temple. But this idea of, I need to make sure that you’re ready before you enter into these higher covenants where there’s maybe higher expectations. And again, it’s the Lord being very, very cautious with us to just basically say, Hey, I want you to be ready to do this. We try and do the same thing with baptism. But one thing that people sometimes misunderstand is once you’re baptized into the Church, there’s the next level and the next level and next level. And the job of your ecclesiastical leaders, male and female, is to get you ready for those things, to make sure that you understand what you’re covenanting to do, and that you’ve demonstrated that you’re ready to keep those covenants. That’s a big part of what they do also.

Scott Woodward:
I was in a leadership training recently with Elder Bednar, which was awesome. He said that the duty of every single leader in the Church, doesn’t matter what your position is, is to do the following thing. Ask the question, what is the next step for the people in my stewardship in order to help them get to their next covenant? That’s it. Our job is to help them as best we can to get ready for the next ordinance, the next covenant, and to then help them keep those that they’ve made, if we can. He made a T-chart that said, name, and then on the other side, ordinance. He said, let’s just go through, What’s their next ordinance? Next ordinance. How can we help them? How can we help this person? So you’re right. It’s just helping people get ready for the next thing, in this case, getting the people of Kirtland ready so they can participate fully in the Zion project in Missouri, which we learned is going to have a temple, right? Section 57 mentioned that. We don’t know anything about the temple yet in terms of what the theology is going to be, but that much has been teased already.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. And you see that in this part of the revelation and also the final little chunk of revelation. That’s just the last three verses. “A few words,” this is verse 24, “in addition to the laws of the kingdom, respecting the members of the church – they that are appointed by the Holy Spirit to go up unto Zion, and they who are privileged to go up unto Zion – let them carry unto the bishop a certificate from three elders the church, or a certificate from the bishop; otherwise he who shall go up unto the land of Zion shall not be accounted as a wise steward. This also is an ensample. Amen.” At this point in time, because there’s only really two judges in the Church, and the Church is scattered, we’re sort of like in the branch phase until we get big enough congregations to form wards, which isn’t even in the nomenclature yet. The word ward doesn’t really show up until Nauvoo, to be honest with you, but does certify that the officers of the Church, part of their job is to certify readiness. Are they ready? Are they prepared to accept this? So the Lord says a bishop or three elders in good standing can give you this kind of certificate.

Casey Griffiths:
And these are the earliest forerunners of temple recommends. So at the time of this revelation, I want to emphasize no temples had been built and many years would pass before the full blessings of the temple would be revealed. But to be found worthy to travel to Zion and to be declared a wise and faithful steward by the bishop of the Church carried its own blessings. The certificates and recommends that we issue now in the Church signify more than worthiness to travel to Zion or to enter the temple. In the ultimate sense, they’re saying that we’re ready to enter the kingdom of God, which is how they thought of the city of Zion, and I hope how we think of the temple today. I’ve kind of always had this weird thing where I’ve talked about how the temple is like the American embassy, where if you’re in a foreign country, you go to the American embassy, technically, you’re on American soil. The temple is celestial soil. If you can go to the temple and you’re worthy, then you can say with full confidence, Yeah, I’m ready to go to the celestial kingdom. In fact, you even have a little certificate that you’ve been recommended to go there by a trusted figure, a leader in the Church.

Scott Woodward:
And we know also that some people did not abide by this revelation. For instance, William E. McLellin will just bypass this whole process. He’ll go to Missouri because he’s curious. He’ll purchase land privately, and he’ll live there. That’s an example of what verse 26 is saying when it says, “Otherwise he who shall go up in the land of Zion shall not be accounted as a wise steward.” That’s an example of you went, but you weren’t supposed to, you weren’t ready, you weren’t certified, you weren’t recommended. He went more as a spectator to kind of see how this whole thing is going to play out rather than as a fully-consecrated participant to to try to help bring it about. We’ll see examples of that, William McLellin being one.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, some of them hinder the Zion project, if we’re being really frank.

Scott Woodward:
Okay, let’s talk about controversies of Section 72.

Casey Griffiths:
In a lot of ways, we acted like the bishop was the sole arbiter of who can and cannot go to the temple or receive this ordinance or whatever, anything like that. Section 72 demonstrates there’s a little flexibility there. It says the bishop or three elders in good standing. It is okay for a person who’s meeting with a member of the bishopric to ask for another adult to be present if they feel uncomfortable, so that it’s not feeling like a one-on-one situation where someone can be pressured or anything like that. At the same time, too, there has to be some kind of system that determines readiness, that recommends people are ready to receive these covenants, because I’ve also seen situations where a person, say, went to the temple and they weren’t ready or they didn’t fully understand the covenants that they were making, and that was really hard on them, spiritually, that they weren’t prepared and sufficient time wasn’t taken. And so they went there and then they made covenants and they weren’t ready to keep them, or they went there and they weren’t prepared or knew what the covenants were going to be.

Scott Woodward:
A member of the bishopric will say, Do you live the law of chastity? It’s a yes or no question. That’s it. And if they say no, there may be some follow-up questions like, Well, are you working on it? Do you feel comfortable telling me what’s going on? That kind of stuff is appropriate. If the answer is no, then it’s okay. They’re just going to take steps. If the person really wants to go to the temple, and we assume that they do because they’re in the recommend interview, then there would be appropriate steps taken to help them prepare to be able to answer yes to that question honestly. Like, yes, I keep a lot of chastity. And if you want your parents there, that’s great. If you want the Relief Society president in there, totally appropriate. Young Women’s president, Sure. No problem.

Casey Griffiths:
The temple recommend questions for the most part are yes or no. If there’s a no, it can be an invitation to a further conversation, but only to the level the person feels comfortable. I’d liken it to a doctor’s visit, you know. It’ll help if you answer the doctor’s questions in an honest way, but if you don’t feel comfortable talking to the doctor, that’s okay, too. It’s very gentle, and I feel like it’s been mischaracterized because we do need an outside perspective sometimes to tell us if we’re doing okay. There’s something really uplifting about being able to say to somebody, You are worthy to go to the temple, or, You are worthy to receive this ordinance. Sometimes people do confuse worthiness with their own personal worth, which does not change in the sight of God. And maybe the word like, You’re ready to go to the temple, or, You’re ready to receive this ordinance.

Scott Woodward:
Doesn’t D&C 18 say, “The worth of souls is great in the sight of God?” Then doesn’t he go on to say that it was worth so much that he was willing to die for sinners? Sin doesn’t make you less worth or more worth. Your worth doesn’t go up or down. It doesn’t fluctuate. We’re always worthy in the eyes of God in the sense of having worth. So Jesus guaranteed your worth. He nailed it to the cross. A God has died for you. You are worth it. It doesn’t matter your level of sinfulness. In fact, it was because we are sinners that he was willing to do what he did for us, already recognizing our worth.

Casey Griffiths:
Anybody listening, don’t ever take worthiness to mean flawlessness. In proper context, it just means you’re qualified. I’m recommending you. I think you’re ready to do this.

Scott Woodward:
Anyone who’s willing and wants to be ready, that should be the joy of every leader in the Church to try to help them, right? Men and women, let’s help people get ready who want to be ready for the next steps in their progress toward God. So, consequences of Section 72, Casey.

Casey Griffiths:
Okay, so the consequences of this one are huge if you’re looking at an organizational perspective in the Church. And I know there’s a lot of policy nerds out there that are right with me. But this revelation introduces the idea of multiple bishops and bishops being assigned geographically. Now, Scott, let me just run you quickly through this. So Newel K. Whitney’s called as a bishop. That is the first consequence. His store in Kirtland which is already an established, successful business, is going to become the first bishop’s storehouse, essentially in the Church. The Church during this time is small enough to just have two bishops to facilitate the law of consecration and the temporal needs of the Church. But as time goes on and the Church gets bigger, the role of a bishop is going to evolve, and the guidelines given here play a big, big role in that. So, for instance, by 1842, the city of Nauvoo was already organized into municipal wards. That’s where that word comes in. You’ll still hear people say stuff like, Well, the 99th Ward hasn’t reported in when we’re talking about elections and stuff like that. Nauvoo was already arranged into these wards so that people could vote, and they just made the decision that they were going to assign a bishop over each ward.

Casey Griffiths:
That’s where the term comes from. That’s why we don’t say parish or congregation or anything like that. The bishop’s job was to make sure that the Saints who lived in that ward, that geographical area, were taken care of. Same thing happening here where there’s a bishop over Ohio and a bishop in Missouri. Later, when the main body of the Church migrates to the western United States, bishops are called to preside over wards in larger settlements such as Salt Lake City, and also in smaller settlements. And during this time, the role of bishop was elevated to include the function of also acting as the presiding high priest of each ward, which is hinted at in these revelations, too, because the Lord’s giving Bishop Whitney spiritual roles as well. He’s supposed to make sure everybody’s fed, everybody’s keeping the law of consecration, but also recommend whether or not they’re ready to go to Zion. So that kind of combines together in the single individual, the temporal needs and the spiritual needs of the Church. And today, just like in Bishop Whitney’s day, bishops are called to teach the doctrine and principles relating to welfare and self-reliance and to direct the welfare work of the ward council.

Casey Griffiths:
So it actually says bishops are told directly to seek out the poor and provide assistance to those in needs. And as welfare needs have increased, the officers of the Church have been directed to assist the bishop. So today, you know, where this revelation is saying a bishop or three elders, that there can be other Church officers assisting in the duty of the bishop, in most wards, the two people that know about every welfare need are not the bishop and the first counselor. It’s the bishop and the Relief Society president. That’s kind of how this has evolved within the Church, that most of the time the boots-on-the-ground person, the person that knocks on the door and says, Do you have enough food, is usually the Relief Society present. This is the way Henry B. Eyring, who was the presiding bishop over the Church, explained it. He said, “It is the duty of the bishop to find and provide help to those who still need assistance after all they and their families can do. I found that the Lord sends the Holy Ghost to make it possible to seek, and ye shall find in caring for the poor as he does in finding truth. But I also learned to involve the Relief Society president in the search. She may get the revelation before you do.”

Casey Griffiths:
So this idea that the bishop is in charge of this, but he’s going to be assisted by other officers of the Church, has evolved in wonderful ways to where today the bishop and the Relief Society president, and I’m happy to see that in the last couple of years, also the ward council plays a big role in taking care of these temporal needs that people have, because it can be tough, first of all, to come and ask the bishop for help. But know, if you are struggling and if you’re having a hard time, that is one of the things that the bishop was meant to do. And I remember when I got called and set apart, the old bishop sitting down with me and saying those exact words. It’s not just your job to take care of the people you’re aware of. It is your job to seek out the people that you’re aware of. And Scott, to be honest, my ward that I worked with had a lot of temporal needs. We weren’t, like, dealing with anybody that we thought we’re going to starve to death But there were a couple of times when we went over and, you know, the only furniture they had was a mattress or something like that.

Casey Griffiths:
And I just want to give a shout out to all those wonderful ward council members, especially the Relief Society presidents, that spent so much time just making sure everybody had a roof over their head, a bed to sleep on, clothes to wear, and food to eat, which happens so much in the Church. People just don’t appreciate how much that happens and how much good these Church officers do.

Scott Woodward:
Awesome. Thank you, Casey. We have covered a lot of material here just in Sections 71 through 73. Still more to come, Sections 74, 75. So we’ll deal with that in our next video. Stay tuned.

Casey Griffiths:
Yep. See you then.