Scott Woodward: In November 1833, ruthless mobs of local settlers drove over a thousand church members out of Jackson County, Missouri, plundering their property and burning their homes to dissuade them from ever returning. These battered and scattered saints took refuge that winter in various nearby counties while local church leaders sent desperate letters to Ohio to seek the counsel of the Prophet Joseph Smith. As the prophet petitioned the Lord’s guidance on the matter, he was told, among other things, to have those scattered saints petition government leaders for help, which they did. In fact, Missouri Governor Daniel Dunklin was quite sympathetic to the saints’ plight and expressed his willingness to provide a military guard to escort the saints back to their lands and property in Jackson County. The only problem, he said, was that he could not authorize a standing army to be stationed there for the ongoing protection of the saints. This essential piece of news would soon factor heavily into the decision of Joseph Smith and over 200 saints from the East to march nearly a thousand miles to Missouri in what would become known as Zion’s Camp. Their aim was to join the governor’s military escort of the saints into Jackson County and then become that standing army who would ensure the resettlement and safety of their scattered friends once Governor Dunklin’s troops withdrew. In this episode of Church History Matters, we dig into some of the ins and outs of Zion’s Camp and discuss what the march of a quasi-military group of Latter-day Saints led by a prophet of God might teach us about peace and violence among Latter-day Saints. I’m Scott Woodward, and my co-host is Casey Griffiths, and today Casey and I dive into our third episode in this series on peace and violence in Latter-day Saint history. Now let’s get into it.

Casey Griffiths: Hello, Scott.

Scott Woodward: Hi, Casey.

Casey Griffiths: How we doing?

Scott Woodward: Fantastic. Fantastic.

Casey Griffiths: Awesome.

Scott Woodward: You doing good?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, I mean, I’m hanging in there, basically, and I’m glad we got a chance to continue this thread we’ve been following, this idea of violence in the history of the church.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, not the most uplifting of topics, but an important one. As we set up in our first episode in this series, there have been some caricatures that have been painted about not just us as Latter-day Saints, but people of all faiths, as though religion sort of inspires violence or is somehow—lends itself to violence. And so we’re kind of exploring that in our own tradition that we know more about. So it’s important in that way to kind of check this assumption. Is that true? And so far, we haven’t really come up with anything that would affirm the truthfulness of that critique.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, I guess the question we’re exploring here is, are Latter-day Saints, like, inherently violent? Is our theology violent? Does our history lend it—there’s plenty of violence in our history, as there is in almost the history of all religions, but . . .

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: Is there anything about us in particular that leads to greater violence? And I don’t know. I was just visiting with someone in my office who was like, hey, when we look at Captain Moroni, Book of Mormon, do we see, like, someone we should emulate, as in he’s an awesome warrior and knew how to chop off a person’s scalp, or do we emulate the parts of his personality where it seems like he’s very reluctant, and the Book of Mormon talks about how he didn’t want to shed blood and that he only saw violence as justifiable if you were defending your home and your family.

Scott Woodward: I just opened up to Alma 48:11, where he says, “He was a man that did not delight in bloodshed, but a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and freedom of his country and his brethren from bondage and slavery.” So we don’t want to caricature even people like Moroni, who are awesome military leaders. Mormon himself was an awesome military leader. But I think what’s true of Moroni is true of Mormon as well, that he was reluctant to shed blood.

Casey Griffiths: And I think there’s kind of a maturity that comes along with it. I remember when I was a kid thinking Moroni was awesome because those warrior reasons. Like, man, that guy could kick butt.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: But then when I experienced violence, which was probably on my mission, the first time I experienced—you know: I had a gun pulled on me.

Scott Woodward: Oh, wow.

Casey Griffiths: I had people throw stuff at me. I was forced off someone’s porch a couple times. It was Florida, Scott. It was not a civilized country like where you went, which was what? Thailand?

Scott Woodward: Thailand, yeah.

Casey Griffiths: Did you run into any rough characters in Thailand, or was everybody pretty nice?

Scott Woodward: Everyone’s so nice. They’re just like, who’s Jesus? I’m like, okay. All right. Let’s start with that. And oftentimes they would say, no, thank you, but would you like a drink of water? You know, just—they’re so nice there. I don’t know. I was geared up. I was ready for persecution. I was ready for people to pull out the Bible and want to go to town. And nobody did. They were so nice. So, yeah, I didn’t really—I didn’t really get the persecution that I’ve heard of: such lore as that which happens in Florida missions.

Casey Griffiths: And I’m making Florida sound like a Mad Max sort of wasteland where there’s just anarchy and violence, which only parts of Florida are like that. Most of Florida is very nice, and the climate’s good, but it’s a little crazy there. I’m glad I served there. It was a—it was a fun place to serve.

Scott Woodward: Good.

Casey Griffiths: Speaking of that, we’ve talked about individual acts of aggression against us and maybe Latter-day Saints, especially those that have served missions have run into that, but at least initially, even though the ideas that Joseph Smith and others are teaching could be very upsetting to other religious people, there’s only small acts of aggression against individuals. This starts to change in 1832, when there’s a mob attack at the John Johnson farm. This is organized persecution.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: People met together. They had a plan. They beat up and tar and feather Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, but, again, that’s directed against individuals. The first organized violence against Latter-day Saints as a people comes in 1833, when the citizens of Jackson County, Missouri organize themselves to evict the Latter-day Saints from their homes in Jackson County, the place where they believe that Zion is going to be established. So in the fall of 1833 Latter-day Saints are forcibly evicted from their homes in Jackson County, and Joseph Smith is struggling with this.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: He receives several revelations. These run from—really the earliest one dealing with it directly is section 97. Section 98 deals with it. Section 100 is the Lord comforting them over it, but then section 101 comes after the violence has happened, and they’re grappling with what the meaning is, basically, and section 101 says, hey, this is partially the saints’ fault. They had internal squabblings and problems and disunity, but the Lord also offers them a comfort and a promise that Zion would be redeemed, and that leads us to where we’re at today. Now, they’ve been forcibly evicted from Zion because of violence. How do they respond?

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: In this series we’ve been using this model to kind of examine the types of violence that Latter-day Saints have been involved in. The first type of violence is where the Saints are victims. They’re solely on the receiving end of it. We’ve explained that examples like the attack on the Johnson farm—and I think the expulsion from Jackson County fits into this category, where it doesn’t seem like they attacked first. If they acted violently, it was only in self defense, and that the violence was the sort that they were victims of, that they weren’t the initiators of violence.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, and I don’t think—I can’t think of any stories where they fought back in the 1833 expulsion. Can you?

Casey Griffiths: There were individual cases, I think, where they did fight back. But, again, it was, they were attacking our farm, we fired back, we chased the mobbers away, all that kind of stuff: nothing where they organized themselves or offered any kind of resistance other than piecemeal families, kind of saying, get off our land. That kind of thing.

Scott Woodward: One-off, people shooting their rifles, and—

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: But nothing organized.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, and it generally spontaneous, too. They don’t organize to defend their homes or anything. They do organize to negotiate with the leaders of Jackson County.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: So I’d feel comfortable placing the 1833 persecutions into situation one: they were victims of violence.

Scott Woodward: For sure.

Casey Griffiths: The second type of situation is where the Saints engaged in conflict with their neighbors, kind of where they gave as good as they got. So they fight back. Sometimes they were aggressors, and an example of this, which we’re going to talk about in a later episode, is the 1838 Mormon War in Missouri, where the Saints organized, and there was back and forth amongst them and their foes. The Saints attacked a settlement, their adversaries attacked a settlement, and there was to and fro.

Scott Woodward: Lex talionis, as we said last time.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. Again, anytime that you get a chance to speak Latin, you generally use it, right? Because—

Scott Woodward: Dropping it.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: Dropping it, yes.

Casey Griffiths: If you know Latin, you’ve got to use it.

Scott Woodward: Tit for tat.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. Is that Latin?

Scott Woodward: It’s a dying language. If we don’t—if we don’t use it, we’re going to lose it.

Casey Griffiths: Let’s keep rolling. So situation three is where Latter-day Saints are the aggressors, where they engage in violence. And unfortunately there are examples of this within Latter-day Saint history. The most terrible example is the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which we’re going to get to eventually. It’s not a happy thing to talk about, but we need to talk about it. So today presents kind of an interesting case study of where does this fit into the three categories. So you want to give us a little context of what we’re going to talk about?

Scott Woodward: Yeah. We began talking last time about Zion’s Camp, this group, and so let me just recap a little bit about Zion’s Camp. So in the aftermath of receiving Section 101, Missouri church leaders petition Governor Daniel Dunklin, of Missouri, and even U. S. President Andrew Jackson for assistance. Governor Dunklin was actually quite responsive, and he called for both civil and military courts of inquiry, even sending the Attorney General with witnesses protected by a military escort to Jackson County to criminally prosecute the mobbers, and ordering the mob to, like, restore weapons they had stolen from the saints and stuff, but it becomes very apparent very quickly that the hatred of the Jacksonians was so strong that, I mean, even the jurors refused to do anything. The attorney general of Missouri advises the saints to relinquish their hopes of criminal prosecution against this band of outlaws, he says, and despite the governor’s orders, their weapons were never returned. Then Governor Dunklin also expressed his willingness to have a military guard actually escort the saints back to their lands and property. He said, “Under the protection of this guard, your people can, if they think proper, return to their homes in Jackson County, but,” he says, he was not authorized to station this military there for any length of time after this. So he could provide a military escort, yes, but a standing army to keep them safe in perpetuity? He could not. So this essential piece of news will actually factor into the decision of Joseph Smith and over 200 saints from the East to actually marching to Missouri in what will become known as Zion’s Camp. The intention was to march with the governor’s military escort, which could only be temporary, right? That escort. And then once the escort pulled back, Zion’s Camp would become the standing army in Jackson County that would basically ensure the resettlement and safety of their scattered friends, their fellow Latter-day Saints. In fact, church leaders in Ohio write to Governor Dunklin. They say to him what their intentions are. They said, “Our object is purely to defend ourselves and possessions against another unparalleled attack from that mob. Inasmuch as the executive of this state [Governor Dunklin] cannot keep a military force to protect our people in that county without transcending his powers, we want, therefore, the privilege of defending ourselves, and the constitution of our country.” So they’re just stating outright the purposes for which they envision Zion’s Camp actually coming in and helping where Governor Dunklin’s army could not.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: So that’s the situational context behind church leaders’ decision to form Zion’s Camp. I should add, too, that in Doctrine and Covenants 101, the Lord gives a parable which very much sounds like he would endorse something like Zion’s Camp. In fact, let me just read a little bit of it. It starts in verse 43 where the Lord says, “And now I will show unto you a parable that you may know my will concerning the redemption of Zion.” And this idea of redeeming Zion meant explicitly here, like, getting the land back, yeah? So here’s the parable: “A certain nobleman had a spot of land,” he says, ”very choice, and he [says to] his servants: Go ye [into] my vineyard, . . . upon this very choice piece of land, and plant twelve olive trees; And set watchmen round about them, and build a tower, that one may overlook the land round about, [and] be a watchman upon the tower, that [my] olive trees may not be broken down when the enemies shall come to spoil and take upon themselves the fruit of my vineyard. [Then] the servants of the nobleman went and did as [the] lord commanded them, [they] planted the [twelve] olive trees, [they] built a hedge . . . [they] set watchmen, [they built] a tower.” At least they “began to build a tower.” And he says, “And while they were yet laying the foundation [of the tower], they began to say among[st] themselves: . . . What need hath my lord of this tower, seeing this is a time of peace? Might not this money be given to the exchangers [or invested]? For there is no need of these things. And while they were at variance one with another they became very slothful, and they hearkened not unto the commandments of their lord. And the enemy came by night, and broke down the hedge; and the servants of the nobleman arose and were affrighted, and fled; and the enemy destroyed their works, and broke down the olive trees. Now, behold, the nobleman, the lord of the vineyard, called upon his servants, and said unto them, Why! what is the cause of this great evil? Ought ye not to have done even as I commanded you, and—after ye had planted the vineyard, and built the hedge round about, and set watchmen upon the walls thereof—built the tower also, . . . set a watchman upon the tower, and watched for my vineyard, and not have fallen asleep, lest the enemy should come upon you? And behold, the watchman upon the tower would have seen the enemy while he was yet [far] off; and then ye could have made ready and kept the enemy from breaking down the hedge thereof, and save my vineyard from the hands of the destroyer.” Really interesting parable so far. Like—

Casey Griffiths: Interesting stuff. And this is a long parable, so maybe we should pause in the middle?

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: And do some exploring here. In the Savior’s parables the Lord of the vineyard is usually the Savior himself, right?

Scott Woodward: Yeah. Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: The servants are his disciples.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: It seems clear that the tower is the temple, and it seems like he’s saying, if you had taken a little bit more seriously the construction of the temple, you would have seen this danger coming, or the danger wouldn’t have happened, or—what do you think he’s saying there?

Scott Woodward: Yeah, that’s interesting. Yeah, because section 57, way back in 57 he said there would be a temple in Jackson County, and then in section 84 he says, it needs to be built, and it needs to be built in this generation. Yeah, so I think that’s fair, that that’s probably the thing, that they were being slothful. Section 84 was what? That was September of 1832, and this is now . . .

Casey Griffiths: Section 101 is December 1833.

Scott Woodward: So this is December of 1833, so they’ve had about a year, and not a lot of progress has been made on building the temple. Do you think that might be the tower?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, and I’d like to point out that it’s not necessarily that they haven’t made a lot of progress, because they’ve only had a year, and most of them are still moving in and setting up their—it seems like in the parable, what he’s saying is that it’s their attitude towards the temple.

Scott Woodward: Hmm. The slothfulness.

Casey Griffiths: That they’ve laid the foundation, which they’d done, but they’ve then sort of backed up and said, yeah, what need hath my Lord of this tower, seeing it’s a time of peace? Might not this money be given to the exchangers, or invested? And so it doesn’t seem like it’s their effort to build the temple, because they’ve only had a year: It’s their attitude towards the temple that the Lord has an issue with.

Scott Woodward: No, I think that’s good. Obviously the enemies coming down and throwing down the trees and everything, this is what they’ve just experienced: the persecution of their aggressors here. So that’s the context here of the parable, but then he says this, okay? Here’s the next verses: “And,” so to address this loss they’ve just experienced, “the lord of the vineyard said [to] one of his servants: Go and gather together the residue of my [servant], and take all the strength of mine house, which are my warriors, my young men, and they that are of middle age also among all my servants, who are the strength of mine house, save those only whom I have appointed to tarry; And go ye straightway unto the land of my vineyard, and redeem my vineyard; for it is mine; I have bought it with money. Therefore, get ye straightway unto my land; break down the walls of mine enemies; throw down their tower, and scatter their watchmen. And inasmuch as they gather together against you, avenge me of mine enemies, that by and by I may come with the residue of mine house and possess the land.” Okay. That sounds aggressive.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: That sounds like we’re recruiting a group of young and middle-aged men to go and lay some smack down back on the aggressors here and get their land back, right?

Casey Griffiths: It kind of sounds like a, hey, go there, and we’re going to kick butt and take names.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: And I could see how they could interpret it that way.

Scott Woodward: Totally. And then when the governor, Governor Dunklin, says, hey, we can’t—when he says, we can escort you into Jackson County, but we can’t keep a standing army, and then church leaders are like, well, we could provide our own standing army, and that might, in their eyes, also help fulfill part of this parable where the young men and the middle-aged men are going to be this group that, like, makes sure the land is not taken away again. So that’s interesting, right? So Governor Dunklin, in combination with this parable from 101, seems to give them all the encouragement they need here to maybe start thinking in this direction, and then section 103 makes it explicit. Section 103 is where the Lord actually says, straight up—he actually interprets the parable, in fact—a little part of it. He says—you go over to section 103, verse 21. He says, “Verily, verily I say unto you, that my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., is the man to whom I likened the servant to whom the Lord of the vineyard spake in the parable which I have given unto you. Therefore let my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., say unto the strength of my house, my young men and the middle aged [men]—Gather yourselves together unto the land of Zion, upon the land which I have bought with money that has been consecrated unto me. And let all the churches send up wise men with their moneys, and purchase [land] even as I have commanded them. And inasmuch as [my] enemies come against you to drive you from my goodly land,” he says—this is verse 24, “ye shall curse them; And whomsoever ye curse, I will curse, and ye shall avenge me of mine enemies. And my presence shall be with you even in avenging me of mine enemies unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.” And then he drops this: “Let no man be afraid to lay down his life for my sake; for whoso layeth down his life for my sake shall find it again. And whoso is not willing to lay down his life for my sake is not my disciple.” So now section 103 is making explicit what section 101 only hinted at in parable form.

Casey Griffiths: I want to push back a little bit here.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Casey Griffiths: It’s interesting that the language is—let’s see here. He says, verse 23: “let all the churches send up wise men with their moneys, and purchase lands even as I have commanded them.” That’s not violent language.

Scott Woodward: That’s not violent.

Casey Griffiths: And then he says, “Inasmuch as mine enemies come against you to drive you from my goodly land, which I have consecrated to be the land of Zion, even from your own lands after these testimonies, which ye have brought before me . . . ye shall curse them; . . . whomsoever ye [will] curse, I will curse,” which, again, he could have used more violent language there. He could have said smite or destroy, but he uses the word curse, which—I don’t know.

Scott Woodward: Do you think that’s just verbal, possibly? Like . . .

Casey Griffiths: I mean, it is less violent than other Old Testament language, like smite.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: But he does also say, “ye shall avenge me of my enemies,” and that’s kind of violent language, isn’t it?

Scott Woodward: Verse 26, yeah.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: And then verse 27, he says, don’t be afraid to lay down your life for my sake. That kind of implies there might be some . . .

Casey Griffiths: There might be violence.

Scott Woodward: There might be the kind of conflict that leads to you losing your life, yeah. It could be violent.

Casey Griffiths: It seems like he’s saying to them, be prepared for violence.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. But notice it’s defensive posture, right? Like, he says—

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: —verse 24: “Inasmuch as [my] enemies come against you to drive you from my goodly land,” then you can spring into action. I’m not asking you to instigate any violence here, but you are authorized to curse and avenge, and if you die, that’s okay. So that leads us to our burning question of the day.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: What we want to look at today explicitly is, like, okay, so what does the March of Zion’s Camp actually say about peace, violence among Latter-day Saints? Is this an example of Latter-day Saints being violent and God authorizing them to be violent, or is there more to the story here? I’ll tell you right now, this is something that bothered some early saints. Like even, like, William E. McLellin, one of the original twelve apostles, he’ll say that this is one of the reasons he leaves the church. He thought this was unbecoming of a prophet of God to lead a military group. He said, that, to me, was proof Joseph was a fallen prophet. David Whitmer will say similar things, that this, to them, seemed out of character for a true prophet, to lead a military group. This has bothered people from the very beginning, even some stalwarts: David Whitmer and a member of the Twelve. So let’s get into it, then. Let’s talk about this.

Casey Griffiths: And I want to say that seems odd to me, especially because William McLellin seems to have been such a huge proponent of the Book of Mormon, and about—you know, a significant number of the prophets in the Book of Mormon are also military leaders.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: Alma the Younger is the civil and political and military leader before he leaves to join the ministry.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: Captain Moroni is seen as a righteous person. And then there’s Mormon, you know?

Scott Woodward: There’s Mormon.

Casey Griffiths: The editor of the book is seen as both a great prophet, but also a significant military and civil leader, and so I wonder if that’s hindsight, that they’re writing this stuff after they left the church and looking for reasons to criticize Joseph, but . . .

Scott Woodward: Yeah, and it’s definitely not the full story. Like, McLellin will also confess that he had quit praying. He’d quit supporting the leadership of the church, and he had been indulging himself in some lustful desires, he says.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: So there was more going on. It’s always more complicated than just, oh, Zion’s Camp, there was a military prophet. I’m out of the church. Like, there’s things, but this is one of the burrs under his saddle, I guess, that made him feel angsty against Joseph Smith, so . . .

Casey Griffiths: Well, let’s dive into the call of Zion’s Camp, then. So you’ve set it up beautifully, Scott: the saints in Kirtland, Ohio were very worried about their brothers and sisters in Missouri who are basically refugees on the banks of the Missouri River in Clay County. They’ve been forced out of their home. They don’t have adequate shelter or food. Many of them are ill. The condition of the Saints was tough. It was really tough. In fact, W. W. Phelps writes to Joseph Smith, “The condition of the scattered Saints is lamentable and affords a gloomy prospect.” But he also adds in that deal that Governor Dunklin was willing to make: “The governor is willing to restore us, but as the Constitution gives him no power to guard us when back, we are not willing to go. The mob swore if we come, we shall die.” So—

Scott Woodward: Oy.

Casey Griffiths: —they’re helpless. The governor isn’t being very proactive in trying to assist them, and Joseph Smith is really, really struggling with this, and I want to point out another thing in section 101, which is—section 101 gives part of the reasons why they’re suffering. Some of the language—this is verses two and four: “I, the Lord, have suffered the affliction to come upon them, wherewith they have been afflicted, in consequence of their transgressions; . . . Therefore, they must needs be chastened and tried, even as Abraham.” He’s invoking Abraham again, and then gives the parable of the vineyard and tells them, “Zion shall not be moved out of her place, notwithstanding her children are scattered.” So we’re going to get the land back, but you’re going to be scattered for a little while.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: Then section 103 comes, which includes kind of this martial call: put together a group, travel to Zion, and avenge me of mine enemies, or curse our enemies, or anything like that.

Scott Woodward: Yep.

Casey Griffiths: So church leaders start acting on this commandment immediately, section 103. Just two days after Joseph Smith received section 103, he and Parley P. Pratt begin recruiting volunteers to go to Missouri, and in the following weeks, Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, Hyrum Smith, Frederick G. Williams—all of these prominent church leaders joined in recruiting efforts.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: Parley P. Pratt would later write, “Our mission resulted in the assembling of about 200 men at Kirtland with teams, baggage, provisions, arms, etc. for a march of 1,000 miles for the purpose of carrying some supplies to the afflicted and persecuted saints in Missouri, and to reinforce and strengthen them, and, if possible, to influence the governor of the state to call out additional force to cooperate in restoring them to their rights. So that’s interesting: None of the reasons Parley gives are violent. He says they’re taking supplies. He says they’re reinforcing and strengthening the saints, and they think that if they show up, the governor will finally kind of call out some people to help them also. But Parley does say that this little “army,” that’s the word he uses, was led by the prophet Joseph Smith in person. In records from the time, this group, we should note, was originally referred to as the Camp of Israel. So if you go to search on the Joseph Smith Papers for stuff about this, that’s the search term you should use, but later on the Camp of Israel becomes associated with the trek west. The more common name used with this expedition to Missouri, which takes place in the spring and summer of 1834, is Zion’s Camp, so that’s where the name kind of comes from. Now, if we’re talking about martial language, too, at the Kirtland High Council meeting in February 1834, Joseph Smith was appointed commander-in-chief of the armies of Israel and the leader of those who volunteered to go and assist in the redemption of Zion. So that sounds like military language, too, which might suggest violence.

Scott Woodward: Yep. Yeah, there could be—there could be combat.

Casey Griffiths: There could be combat, yeah. And it’s probably best to say that Zion’s Camp was sort of a quasi-military force. They have peaceful objectives in mind, but the revelation tells them to be ready to fight, to even lay down their life if they have to, but the objectives that Parley gives—and, again, he’s writing after the whole thing’s over—seem to be mostly non-violent. They’re trying to help the saints and figure out a way to get their lands back. But he doesn’t make it sound like they’re looking to use force to do so, though, again, he’s writing twenty years down the road and probably looking back on it with a different lens.

Scott Woodward: Maybe they’re ready to spring into action if needed, but their preference is toward non-violence. Something like that.

Casey Griffiths: They’re not looking for a fight, but they’re ready in case one comes.

Scott Woodward: So as the camp journeys from Ohio to Missouri, Joseph Smith counsels the men in the camp to keep the commandments of God and be united in faith, and he promises them deliverance from their enemies by obedience. If they’re unfaithful, they were warned that the Lord would, “visit them in His wrath” as He had the children of Israel and, “vex them in His sore displeasure.” So there’s a pretty high standard here of obedience and compliance to the commandments of God. There were two divisions in Zion’s Camp. One was led by Joseph Smith from Kirtland, Ohio, and the other one was actually led by Hyrum Smith from Pontiac, Michigan, and the assembled force ranged in age from 10-year-old little Bradford Elliott and George Fordham to the oldest, who was Noah Johnson, age 71. But the average age was 29, and at its height, there were 207 men, 11 women, and 11 children on Zion’s Camp, according to the numbers we have. What’s also, I think, important to the story is to note that there are a number of names that we’re going to start to recognize as time marches on in church history, but they were all kind of brand new church members at this time. We’re talking about Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Parley P. Pratt—these guys are not in any real big positions of leadership yet. There’s no Quorum of the Twelve yet. These are some future leaders of the church we’re going to want to keep our eyes on, and they are going to talk in hindsight about how formative this was to march with Brother Joseph.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, and I like to tell my classes Zion’s Camp is, like, the early church dream team, you know? That all these figures that are going to be significant later on come into play. Let me also add, too, that there’s a lot of stories from Zion’s Camp.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: And we’re not going to tell all of them right now, and we were debating, like, right up until we hit record, like, are we going to talk about Zelph? Are we going to talk about Zelph the Lamanite, which is a story associated with Zion’s Camp? But we decided to kind of keep a tight focus on this theme of violence and peace, and so we apologize if we’re leaving out your favorite Zion’s Camp story, which probably is Zelph the Lamanite. Awesome story. Look it up. Tons of material on Scripture Central, but we’re doing it—

Scott Woodward: Keeping it tight.

Casey Griffiths: —for the sake of focus. We’re keeping it tight. We’re keeping it tight, yes. So keep me disciplined, Scott.

Scott Woodward: Oh, likewise. Although there is that cool story, Casey, that I think fits: the rattlesnake story. Remember this rattlesnake story? I got—

Casey Griffiths: The rattlesnake story fits the theme, so let’s tell the rattlesnake story.

Scott Woodward: It fits the theme, so—yeah, so there’s this moment, right, as they’re marching along, that Joseph learns that there’s these men in camp that are trying to kill three rattlesnakes, and he actually intervenes and says, “Let them alone. Don’t hurt them. How will the serpent ever lose its venom while the servants of God possess the same disposition?” Leave it alone, man. There you go. There’s a non-violent plug right there. I mean, of anything, you would think that we’re justified in killing rattlesnakes, aren’t we, Casey?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: I mean, these things are dangerous. These are violent. But Joseph’s like, just leave it alone, guys. Leave it alone.

Casey Griffiths: I’ve used that story with the young men and young women in my ward when we go camping. Like, hey, stop killing stuff. Joseph Smith wouldn’t want you to do that—that unwarranted violence is just that: it’s unwarranted.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: There’s a time and place to defend yourself from rattlesnakes, but if they’re not threatening you, you know, why? Why use violence?

Scott Woodward: If we’re not really typically justified in killing rattlesnakes, then how are you going to justify killing squirrels and birds, kids, right? Leave them alone. Leave them alone. Here’s another one: On another occasion, Parley P. Pratt, who was, he says, riding to near exhaustion to catch up with the camp, he dismounted and collapsed into a deep sleep. “I had only slept a few moments,” he recalled, “when a voice more loud and shrill than I had ever before heard fell on my ear,” and the voice commanded him to, like, rise and continue on his journey. And then he says, “I sprang to my feet so suddenly that I could not recollect where I was or what was before me to perform.” So then he got up and started heading to the camp, and when he got to camp, he related the experience to Joseph, who told him the voice was an angel of the Lord. Joseph later wrote, “God was with us, and his angels went before us, and the faith of our little band was unwavering. We know that angels were our companions, for we saw them.” This is what Joseph told them that they could expect. If they kept the commandments, God would be with them. They shouldn’t even deviate on little excursions or seemingly innocent things like killing rattlesnakes. Like, keep it tight, everybody. Stay focused. And Parley P. Pratt is saying, I was the recipient of some of that obedience, right? An angel actually woke me up and told me to get on. Who knows what would have happened if he hadn’t, but they weren’t always consistently obedient, were they, Casey? Do you want to talk about what happens next?

Casey Griffiths: There’s also numerous stories about them grumbling and complaining on Zion’s Camp.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: A lot of them are centered around Joseph Smith and his conflict with a guy named Sylvester Smith—no relation, by the way: they’re just both Smiths—that they went back and forth. Like, Sylvester Smith threatened to shoot Joseph Smith’s dog if he didn’t stop barking, and Joseph Smith said, I’ll whoop ya if you do anything to my dog.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: And it feels like any travel narrative—and they’re using very much, like, the scriptural lens to look at their travels—there’s murmuring, and there’s complaining.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: Joseph Smith, when he’s looking back on Zion’s Camp, said, “I told them they would meet with misfortunes, difficulties, and hindrances, and I exhorted them to become united, that they might not be scourged.” These are difficult circumstances. It’s several hundred miles to go from Kirtland to Missouri. The pace is brisk. They travel up to forty miles a day. The wagons—we don’t always realize this, but in the 19th century, you didn’t ride in the wagon. The wagon was where you carried your baggage, and then you walked alongside on foot. One member of Zion’s Camp, and there’s a nice little article written about this young man, said that “Our toes were so galled that our stockings were wet with blood.”

Scott Woodward: Oy.

Casey Griffiths: And others, like we mentioned Sylvester Smith, complain throughout the journey, they don’t like the food, they don’t like that they had a lack of water, but they keep going.

Scott Woodward: Remember the old seminary video that has Sylvester Smith, like—he’s always complaining. “There’s no more fresh water!”

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: “No more fresh . . .”

Casey Griffiths: Good stuff.

Scott Woodward: “How are we supposed to eat this rancid mess?”

Casey Griffiths: “How are we supposed to eat this rancid”—yeah. It’s funny how in my mind that will always be Zion’s Camp to me: that old classic seminary video.

Scott Woodward: It was pretty good. It was classic. It was so good.

Casey Griffiths: But it is bad: I mean, some of the written sources—one written source says the only way they could find water to drink was gathering dew by scooping a dish suddenly through the grass. I mean, that’s pretty extreme.

Scott Woodward: Wow.

Casey Griffiths: A lot of the narrative center, this is kind of this difficult journey, but they also have the opportunity to learn along the way. They eventually make it to Missouri. They go right to the border of Jackson County, where their lands are, and they wait for the governor to act, and it seems like if there’s going to be any violence, this is the point where it’s going to happen, but this is an interesting part of the narrative, too, because the only battle that Zion’s Camp engages in—and you could call it a battle or not, depending on how you look at it—is what’s popularly known today as the Battle of Fishing River.

Scott Woodward: This is a cool story.

Casey Griffiths: This is a cool story, yeah, and we’ve got to tell this story.

Scott Woodward: I love it. Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: Zion’s Camp gets to Fishing River in late June. It’s this little stream that separates the boundary of Jackson County. They’re camped on the Fishing River. Several men ride into their camp and start issuing threats and claiming that 300 men are coming to attack, and Zion’s Camp is smaller than that. Wilford Woodruff is the one who tells the story, but according to Wilford Woodruff, he said, “In a few minutes the whole heavens were covered with a pall as black as ink.” This storm comes out of nowhere, and struck with such violence that the men of Zion’s Camp scramble for cover, some seeking shelter in a nearby Baptist church. Wilford Woodruff later says, “The prophet Joseph came in, shaking the water from his hat and clothing and said, “Boys, there is some meaning to this. God is in this storm.” And, Scott, that is in the video. That’s one of the awesomest moments that are there.

Scott Woodward: That is a great moment.

Casey Griffiths: And then they sing a song, and they show the mob in the video struggling. I mean, again, you’ve got to watch this: It’s epic.

Scott Woodward: Got to watch it.

Casey Griffiths: Now, what they had reported to them was that the opposing force, the group that was coming to attack them, was so battered by the storm, and the Fishing River rose so much that it was impossible for them to cross the river and get to them. Joseph Smith later said that one of their men was killed by lightning, and another had his hand torn off by his horse, and they declared that if this was the way God fought for the Mormons, they might as well go about their business. Good stuff, right?

Scott Woodward: Good stuff.

Casey Griffiths: Good stuff. And you would think this is the opening salvo of the redemption of Zion, right? That—

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: —oh, yeah. If this is the kind of thing that’s going to happen, we’re going to go in, and we’re going to clean house, but that’s not what happens, either.

Scott Woodward: God is with us. God is with us.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, God is with us.

Scott Woodward: No way those guys can stop us. Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: But then, plot twist.

Casey Griffiths: Plot twist, yeah.

Scott Woodward: So then once they get there, right on the edge of Jackson County, as it were, a group of messengers were sent to the governor, and the governor, seeing the writing on the wall that this was going to be a bloodbath, he knew that if he escorted the saints into Jackson County and then pulled out, there would definitely be fighting, and there would be a lot of loss of life, and so actually, at this point, the governor reneges on his offer. He says, I’m sorry, but we’re not going to do this. I am not going to have my military escort you into Jackson County. And at that point, that’s a pretty frustrating moment for everybody, right? That the story they had in their head was the way it would go, they would go into Jackson County, he would pull out his military, Zion’s Camp would protect everything, and the saints would re-inherit the land. Zion would be redeemed, right? This was how it was supposed to go. So when the governor reneges, then all the pressure is on the prophet here. What do we do now? And so then the prophet prays, right there on Fishing River, and it was June 22, 1834 where section 105 is received by the prophet.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: And he’s actually told that the camp should disband because, the Lord says, “In consequence of the transgressions of my people, it is expedient in me that my elders should wait for a little season for the redemption of Zion.” Woo! You can imagine how devastating that must have sounded, right? I imagine the prophet’s countenance, crestfallen, and others, like, what did he say? And then when he tells them, how disappointing this moment would be, and then the Lord speaks to all the church members collectively and says they are not yet ready to redeem Zion. The revelation directly states that, “Zion cannot be built up unless it’s by the principles of the law of the Celestial Kingdom.” And as evidence of their inability to build Zion, the Lord cited that the saints had failed to impart of their substance to the poor and the afflicted among them. This was not a condemnation of all the saints, especially the men and women who sacrificed to travel with Zion’s Camp, right? But many members of the church were not then living the principles of Zion, and therefore, collectively, they were not yet ready to build Zion. And so that’s interesting. You know, if you look in a lot of detail in this section, section 105, like, he is pretty clear that there’s two clear reasons why Zion cannot be redeemed right now: Number one, the branches of the church have not consecrated their money like he asked them to do to purchase the lands. And he says, since this land cannot be redeemed by bloodshed, it has to be done by money, and the saints have not sent enough money. And number two, verses 16 and 17, he says, there is not a sufficient number of young and middle-aged men who responded to come with you to redeem Zion as I asked them to do. Section 103 actually called for 500, and what they got was 200 and something. And he says that’s not enough. So I guess one thing we can kind of pull out of this is—the way I would say it is that corporate blessings require corporate obedience, right? If we’re going to receive a blessing that’s intended for the entire group, then everybody needs to be in on this, right? And so the Lord says that the solution here is that they need to take a break. They need to go back to Kirtland, many of them, and he says in verses 9 and 10, he says, both the elders and my people need to “be taught more perfectly, and have experience, and know more perfectly concerning their duty, and the things which I require at their hands.” And then he says for this to happen for the elders, they must be endowed with power from on high. And so education is the solution here. He says, the solution is you need education, and you need an endowment. You need more experience. You need to be taught more perfectly. You need to like, also, you know, learn how to consecrate like I’m asking. I mean, that’s really interesting here. He says, no bloodshed. We’re not going to do this. Meanwhile, those who remain in the region, He says, should try to find grace and favor in the eyes of the locals in that area until Joseph and other leaders have sufficient “time to gather up the strength of my house,” He says in verse 27, “until the army of Israel becomes very great,” verse 26, and for “wise men” to purchase “all the lands in Jackson County that can be purchased.” This is the Lord’s somewhat disappointing revelation, response to the Saints there on the banks of the Fishing River. So then what happens? How do they respond now, Casey?

Casey Griffiths: The Lord tells them he’ll fight the battles of Zion, but like you said, that meets with mixed emotions. William Cahoon, who was there, wrote, “Many in the camp murmured because we were not permitted at this time to restore our brethren and sisters to their homes and defend them at all hazards.” And George A. Smith, this is Joseph Smith’s cousin—he’s in the video too, by the way. He’s, like, the central character.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: He’s a future apostle. He later says, “Several of the brethren apostatized because they were not going to have the privilege of fighting.” So it sounds like some of the men in Zion’s Camp did want to fight and were very disappointed.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: Another member of the camp—this is Nathan Tanner—said that some declared that they’d rather die than to return without a fight, and they gave vent to their wrath on a patch of pawpaw brush some distance from the camp, mowing it down like grass.” So they take out their frustrations on this plant, this brush, I guess?

Scott Woodward: Pawpaw brush.

Casey Griffiths: Pawpaw brush.

Scott Woodward: Does that mean they shot at it? That they shot it down? Mowed it down—

Casey Griffiths: He said they mowed it down like grass. I don’t know exactly what it means.

Scott Woodward: Okay.

Casey Griffiths: But, interestingly, Nathan—Nathan Tanner, the one who records this—said the revelation “was the most acceptable to him of anything he had ever heard before, the gospel being the exception.” So he’s glad that they don’t have to fight.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, that’s really interesting: that he feels relieved by that revelation and others were feeling deeply disappointed by the revelation. You know, there’s one other part of section 105 I did not quote. This is verse 14 and 15. Verse 14 says, “Behold, I do not require at their hands,” Zion’s Camp, “to fight the battles of Zion; for, as I said in a former commandment, even so will I fulfil—I will fight your battles. Behold,” this is really interesting, “the destroyer I have sent forth to destroy and lay waste mine enemies; and not many years hence they shall not be left to pollute mine heritage, and to blaspheme my name upon the lands which I have consecrated for the gathering together of my saints.” Whoa. So how does that play out, Casey, that the destroyer has been sent forth to clear the land of the enemies of God and, not many years hence—that sounds like a prophecy with a timestamp on it.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: Not many years hence, they will not pollute the land. How does that play out?

Casey Griffiths: Some 19th-century church members saw that fulfillment in the Civil War. For instance, this is B. H. Roberts, who’s the church historian. He cites a history of the Civil War in Missouri written by a local clergyman, W. M. Leftwich, and this historian wrote, “The warfare at home in Missouri presented scenes of outrage and horror unsurpassed by anything in the annals of civilized warfare, if indeed there can be such a thing as civilized warfare. For everything about it is intensely savage. Between the Jayhawkers of Kansas and the Bushwhackers of Missouri, some whole counties were plundered, some were desolated by fire and sword, and some were almost depopulated.”

Scott Woodward: And one of those was Jackson County, wasn’t it?

Casey Griffiths: One of those was Jackson County. Like, an interesting thing is if you go to the temple lot today, there’s two bicentennial markers. The United States set up all these historical markers during its bicentennial in 1976. One of them commemorates the spot of the temple, which Joseph Smith had set apart, and the other one commemorates a Civil War battle that actually happened on the temple lot, like in that exact place.

Scott Woodward: Crazy.

Casey Griffiths: Missouri never really seceded from the union during the Civil War, but two significant battles took place, and they were in Independence, Missouri, and some of the bloodiest fighting of what’s called the second battle of Independence actually did take place on the temple lot. That could be fulfillment.

Scott Woodward: That could be the fulfillment, yeah.

Casey Griffiths: And I want to point out a couple other things, too. The Lord counseled the saints in section 105 to be cautious in their dealings with the other settlers, too. Like, he told the members of Zion’s Camp to talk not of judgment, neither boast of faith, nor of mighty works, but to carefully gather together and to act consistently with the feelings of the people. That’s verse 24 in the revelation.

Scott Woodward: So be good neighbors.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, be good neighbors, and—read the room, it sounds like he’s saying, basically. It’s interesting, too, that shortly after the revelation is given, there is a punishment administered on Zion’s Camp, or at least that’s how they interpret it. So they’re sorting through exactly what we’re sorting through right now: what happened and what the meaning is.

Scott Woodward: Was it worth it?

Casey Griffiths: Was it worth it? Yeah, why did we do it? In the winter of 1835—so this is—the march happens in the summer. They come back to Kirtland. They hold, like, a little Zion’s Camp reunion in February, 1835. Joseph Smith gathers together sort of the veterans of Zion’s Camp, and he says to them, “God did not want you to fight. He could not organize his kingdom with twelve men to open the gospel door to the nations of the earth and with seventy men under the direction to follow in their tracks, unless he took them from a body of men who had offered their lives, and who made as great a sacrifice as did Abraham,” and he’s hearkening back to that language again. Like, you have to be willing to lay down your life, and some people on Zion’s Camp did lay down their lives, not in battle, but because of disease, and everybody on Zion’s Camp, he’s saying, did demonstrate that they were willing to lay down their lives for the cause. And then he announces that he’s calling a Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Nine members of the original Quorum of the Twelve are going to be veterans of Zion’s Camp. He calls the First Council of Seventy. Sixty-three members of the First Quorum of Seventy marched with Zion’s Camp, and it seems like he takes away that the purpose of Zion’s Camp and the suffering that they endured was to demonstrate their sincerity and to allow them a chance to receive training for leadership: that it was kind of a leadership training experience.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, it takes me back to that language of section 103 where the Lord said, “Let no man be afraid to lay down his life for my sake; for whoso layeth down his life for my sake shall find it again.” And then he says, “And whoso is not willing to lay down his life for my sake is not my disciple.” So you really could say that everyone who knew that this could be the end of their lives, like—I mean, I remember Wilford Woodruff saying, like, he thought he was going to be shot. He thought he was going to die. He thought he’s probably going to be killed. This is it. But he went anyway. And so you could see Zion’s Camp as, like, a discipleship proving ground: like, this proof that you really are the kind of people who are willing to do whatever it takes—anything the Lord asks you to do: even sacrifice your life, if necessary—for His cause, and Zion’s Camp certainly does that. So I think the Abraham motif here is pretty apropos, right? We were talking before we switched the mics on and started recording today that it seems that the rhetoric of sections 101, 103, are violent rhetoric. It’s rhetoric that says, we’re going to go in there, we’re going to get the land back, avenge my enemies, be willing to die, but the reality was more like Abraham, right? The rhetoric that God commanded Abraham was, sacrifice your son.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: The reality was, I don’t actually want you to do that, and you were pondering out loud, and I really liked it: you said, maybe this is in that same vein, that God actually did not want them to fight, but his rhetoric was, go and be willing to lay down your life. But then, like Abraham, he says, actually, I don’t want you to really do that, and now I know, and now you know, who is really a disciple and who’s not.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: Anything else you want to say about that? I thought that was really good.

Casey Griffiths: It’s paradoxical, right? Because it sounds like he’s using this violent rhetoric to spur them to action, but then when they get there, the language in section 105 is very much to not fight, or that they wouldn’t fight, and it’s hard to figure out. I keep coming back to something our mutual friend, Stephan Taeger always brings up.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: He talks about the Chronicles of Narnia and how at the end of the Chronicles of Narnia, they’re having a big party, and somebody says, where’s Aslan? You know, Aslan’s the Christ figure, and Aslan’s left. And somebody says, why did he leave? And one of the characters says, well, he’s not a tame lion. He doesn’t play by the rules we expect him to play by.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: And sometimes I look at incidents like this and say, why all the games? Well, we don’t always know His purposes behind it, and maybe they were misinterpreting the revelations. They took it, and we still sometimes take it today, to mean that they were going to inflict violence and get their land back: they were going to kick butt and take names. But that wasn’t what the Lord intended. That they may have misread, or he may have known that that was the type of language that would get them to act, but that was never his plan all along the way.

Scott Woodward: So the subtext here is, I want to know who’s actually willing to spring into action for my cause when you think you might lose your life for my sake. Like—

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: And then from that group of those who had proven that, he then calls nine of the original Twelve Apostles and many members of the Seventy, and we always see it in hindsight: This was this proving ground for Apostles and Seventies to rise up, and I think this is why. I think this is why we see it that way.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: They themselves talk like this. Maybe we should quote them a little bit here. For instance, Brigham Young said that when they got back from Zion’s Camp to Kirtland, a brother said to me, “Brother Brigham, what have you gained by this journey?”

Casey Griffiths: This is in the video. Yay.

Scott Woodward: I replied, “Just what we went for. But I would not exchange the knowledge I have received this season for the whole of Geauga County, for property and mines of wealth are not to be compared to the worth of knowledge.” Classic Brigham Young, but this, like, I got everything I was supposed to get from Zion’s Camp. Like, Brigham got it, right?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: Still quoting from Brigham. He said, “Ask those brethren and sisters who have passed through scenes of affliction and suffering for years in this church what they would take in exchange for their experience and be placed back where they were, were it possible. I presume they would tell you that all the wealth, honors, and riches of the world could not buy the knowledge they had obtained, could they barter it away. Let the brethren be contented, and if you have trials and must see hard times, learn to acknowledge the hand of the Lord in it all.”

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. Let me do a quote by Wilford Woodruff, another Zion’s Camp participant. This is from an 1869 discourse. He said, “When the members of Zion’s Camp were called, many of us had never beheld each other’s faces. We were strangers to each other, and many had never seen the Prophet. We had been scattered abroad like corn sifted in a sieve throughout the nation. We were young men and were called upon in that early day to go up and redeem Zion, and we had to do what we had to do by faith. We assembled together from the various stakes at Kirtland and went up to redeem Zion in fulfillment of the commandment of God unto us. God accepted our works as He did the works of Abraham.” There’s that comparison. And then he goes on to say, “We accomplished a great deal, though apostates and unbelievers many times asked the question, ‘What have you done?’ We gained an experience that we never could have gained in any other way. We had the privilege of beholding the face of the prophet. We had the privilege of traveling a thousand miles with him and seeing the workings of the Spirit of God with him and the revelations of Jesus Christ unto him and the fulfillment of those revelations. Had I not gone up with Zion’s Camp, I should not have been here today.” That’s a good one, too.

Scott Woodward: Let me ask you this: Was Zion’s Camp a failure? Yes or no?

Casey Griffiths: Yes and no. There’s no easy solutions to this one, right? Because, I mean, if their stated purpose is to get their land back, then, yeah, it’s a failure.

Scott Woodward: Failure, yeah.

Casey Griffiths: Several people die. That’s tough, right? But it seems like they’re able to reframe Zion’s Camp to say, well, what were we actually supposed to do? Was this like when Abraham was asked to offer up Isaac, and that was never the point? Like, God did use violent rhetoric. Like, I need you to sacrifice your son.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: But in the end, that wasn’t what the point of the experience was. God led him to believe he was going down one road, when in reality he had a completely different lesson in mind for Abraham and for the men of Zion’s Camp.

Scott Woodward: So in that way, it would be a success.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: What a topic. Back to our burning question, then. So as we look at all this in hindsight, Casey, so what does the march of Zion’s Camp say about peace and violence among Latter-day Saints?

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: What would you say to kind of wrap it up?

Casey Griffiths: It’s hard to put it in any one of those three categories, right? Because they’re active participants. They’re not victims, the people in Zion’s Camp. They do experience some violence, but not violence that they carry out. They’re not the aggressors, definitely, but I still sort of think that we misread the texts surrounding Zion’s Camp. For instance, here’s one part of section 105 that we didn’t read. I want you to look at kind of the paradoxical language here.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: Section 105, verse 26. “Now, behold, I say unto you, my friends, in this way you may find favor in the eyes of the people, until the army of Israel becomes very great.” Now, that’s martial language, right? The army of Israel. It’s going to become great.

Scott Woodward: Bide your time until we get a big enough group to come in militarily and take over.

Casey Griffiths: Once we have enough people, we’re going to go in, and we’re going to clean house. But look at the next verse: “I will soften the hearts of the people, as I did the heart of Pharaoh, from time to time, until my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and mine elders, whom I have appointed, shall have time to gather up the strength of my house.” That’s non-violent. He’s citing the story of Pharaoh and the Exodus where the Israelites did not rise up as an army that inflicted violence, but that learned to trust in God, and God changed conditions. I guess there was violence, but not violence inflicted by the Israelites in this particular story from the Old Testament.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. What about that last part of that verse where he says, “until [you] have time to gather up the strength of my house”? Is he not saying, like, I’ll soften the hearts of your enemies until we’re strong enough to take them out? Is that not what he’s saying?

Casey Griffiths: I guess that’s one way to read it, but you could also say, I’m going to soften their hearts so that you don’t have to fight, too, as you gather your strength. Because look at the next verse. Look at the next verse. “And to have sent wise men, to fulfil that which I have commanded concerning the purchasing of all the lands in Jackson county that can be purchased, . . . in the adjoining counties round about. For it is my will that the land should be purchased; and that after they are purchased . . . my saints should possess them according to the laws of consecration which I have given [them]. And after these lands are purchased, I will hold the armies of Israel guiltless in taking possession of their own lands, which they have previously purchased with their moneys.” So all non-violent rhetoric, right? You’re going to purchase the lands. You’re not going to seize the lands.

Scott Woodward: But then that verse continues.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. But then the verse continues, “and [of] throwing down [of] the towers of mine enemies that they may be upon them, and scattering their watchmen, . . . avenging . . . of [my] enemies [until] the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. . . . Let my army become very great. . . . Let it [become] sanctified before me, . . . fair as the sun, and clear as the moon, and that her banners may be terrible [upon] all nations.” And the question we’re asking here is what kind of army is this? Is this an army of violence? Is this an army of good? We’ve all seen situations where there’s a natural disaster. The army shows up. They’re distributing medicine. They’re building shelters. They’re helping people. An army can be a great force for good without violence. We’ve all seen bad situations where an army would show up. Look at the Lord’s instructions at the end of the section. He says, “And again I say unto you, sue for peace, not only to the people that have smitten you, but also to all people; And lift up an ensign of peace, and make a proclamation of peace unto the ends of the earth. And make proposals for peace unto those who have smitten you, according to the voice of the Spirit which is in you, and all things shall work together for your good. Therefore, be faithful; . . . and lo, I am with you even unto the end. Even so. Amen.”

Scott Woodward: Okay, so I think that is the Lord showing his cards at the end. Yes, he’s been using some violent rhetoric throughout this section, like he did with Abraham, but I think here we’re seeing the Christ Spirit breathe through here. Like, at the end of the day, what does he really want from his people? Peace. How many times did he say peace there? “Sue for peace.” Lift . . . an ensign of peace.” “Make a proclamation of peace.” “Make proposals for peace.” Yeah. So, man, I get why some people feel like there is a tendency toward this fighting spirit with Zion’s Camp. The language is there, if you want to grab it, but underneath it all, the actual actions that take place are very much the opposite.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: They’re not about fighting.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: You have proven that you’re willing to lay down your life. Excellent. Now, sue for peace. Proclaim peace. Raise an ensign of peace. This is the Christ Spirit. I don’t know. I just—I love how this section ends. It’s a bit of a rollercoaster, this whole section, with the rhetoric, but the way that it lands, just, like, ooh, is soothing to the soul.

Casey Griffiths: He sticks the landing, right? And I can see reading this last section why people like Patrick Mason, who I have a ton of respect for, are saying, what if this was an army like the army Mahatma Gandhi assembled, you know?

Scott Woodward: A salvation army.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah, and a group of people that are organized like an army and can get stuff done and handle logistics the way an army can, but that isn’t intended for violence. It’s funny how we still have this kind of violent rhetoric about the Second Coming. Like, I had somebody from Community of Christ in my office earlier today, and his question was, are you planning on building Zion on the rubble of our temple? And sometimes we do talk like that, right? Like, they’re going to get wiped out. But the Lord here is using words like purchase. He’s saying, raise up an ensign of peace. It seems like his overwhelming desire is an army that can carry out good works without inflicting violence. So I’m going to say Zion’s Camp, first of all, is incredibly complex as a story—

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: —but it sort of defies categorization because in the end, it seems like a story about non-violence.

Scott Woodward: Yeah, that’s interesting. So in conclusion, I think—so we have to acknowledge that there is language of violence regarding Zion’s Camp. I think we have to acknowledge that’s in the text.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: The purpose for that language does not seem to be to inspire them to actually be violent.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: In fact, it’s quite the opposite the way that the section ends, section 105—I think that’s telling. I think we’re seeing—I don’t know why God does this, Casey, and I don’t know that anyone does. The most troubling story in all of scripture is the sacrifice of Abraham. I don’t know that we want to always just hold that up as, like, this really warm and fuzzy story. It is not. It is—

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: That’s just awful. It’s an awful story. Like, this whole episode of Zion’s Camp is framed in this Abraham motif, though, right? Section 101, verse 4, where it says, “Therefore, they must needs be chastened and tried, even as Abraham, who was commanded to offer up his only son.” And on the other end of it, in February of 1835, you quoted that from Joseph Smith saying, God did not want you to fight. He couldn’t organize his kingdom with Twelve men to open the gospel door to the nations and with Seventy to follow in their tracks unless he took them from a body of men who had offered their lives and who had made as great a sacrifice as did Abraham, as if to say, the purpose of Zion’s Camp was accomplished, and the sacrifice is acceptable. So that’s something I’m walking away from this conversation, Casey, thinking about is the Abrahamic motif overlaid on top of Zion’s Camp: how the rhetoric versus the reality plays out similarly, how the blessings for those people who are willing to do what God asked them to but didn’t ultimately have to do that—

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: —also plays out as well, so thank you for that. Thank you for helping me see that frame.

Casey Griffiths: Again, I’m glad that you pointed out that the story of Abraham and Isaac is a tough story. There’s no easy answers there. It introduces the complexity of religious faith and what God sometimes asks us to do, and sometimes the paradoxical nature of faith. Zion’s Camp is another one of those stories, like Abraham, where I don’t know if we have all the answers, or if we’ve picked out the full lesson yet. It’s one of those stories you can go back to again and again.

Scott Woodward: Yeah.

Casey Griffiths: But I think the lesson I’m taking away today is that the Lord doesn’t want Zion, the new Jerusalem, built on a foundation of blood like the old Jerusalem, and that that’s a lesson Latter-day Saints should take to heart: that as we build our communities and build Zion in our own way, we don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past and create another Jerusalem that will just be drenched in blood and continually marched over and trodden underfoot by armies.

Scott Woodward: Well said. Well, that was a fun ride. Thank you, Casey. I really appreciate that.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah. Lots of twists and turns there. Boy.

Scott Woodward: Yeah. I don’t know that we solved everything, but what a provocative episode to consider.

Casey Griffiths: Yeah.

Scott Woodward: Thank you so much, man. We will see you in episode four. Thank you for listening to this episode of Church History Matters. Next week, Casey and I analyze the violent events that took place in northern Missouri in the summer and fall of 1838 during what is commonly referred to as the Mormon War, when for the first time, the Latter-day Saints engaged in organized retaliation against their enemies. If you’re enjoying or gaining value from Church History Matters, we would love it if you could pay it forward by telling your friends about it, or by taking a moment to subscribe, rate, review, and comment on the podcast. That makes us easier to find. Today’s episode was produced by Scott Woodward and edited by Nick Galieti, with show notes and transcript by Gabe Davis. Church History Matters is a podcast of Scripture Central, a nonprofit which exists to help build enduring faith in Jesus Christ by making Latter-day Saint scripture and church history accessible, comprehensible, and defensible to people everywhere. For more resources to enhance your gospel study, go to scripturecentral.org, where everything is available for free because of the generous donations of people like you. Let me say that one more time. All of our content is free because people like you donate to make it possible. And if you’re in a position where you’re both willing and able to make a one-time or ongoing donation, rest assured that your contribution will help us at Scripture Central to produce and disseminate more quality content to combat false and faith-eroding material out there in the digital marketplace of ideas. And while Casey and I try very hard to be historically and doctrinally accurate in what we say on this podcast, please remember that all views expressed in this and every episode are our views alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Scripture Central or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thank you so much for being a part of this with us.