Scott Woodward:
Do not make the gospel boring. This is the greatest news on earth. This should be happy. You should be excited. You should fill yourself with the subject matter before you teach it and, and make sure you know where the joy is. You know what’s exciting?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. This is huge. It really changes the whole direction that the Church is headed in.

Scott Woodward:
But wait, there’s. There’s, there’s more.

Casey Griffiths:
Hello, Scott.

Scott Woodward:
Hello, Casey.

Casey Griffiths:
How are you doing?

Scott Woodward:
Doing great. Excited to dive into Section 27 and 28 today.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah…

Scott Woodward:
It’s going to be a party.

Casey Griffiths:
Good stuff here, good stuff here. And I want to mention, you gave me your, your permission to do a little bit of a shout out.

Scott Woodward:
You didn’t need my permission. Go ahead.

Casey Griffiths:
Well, you graciously provided your permission, so I appreciate it. I’m on another podcast this week, a group called the Gathering of Tribes. The reason why this podcast is really special, not every podcast gets a shout out from us. Gathering of Tribes is by and for indigenous peoples. So they do a little Come, Follow Me where they go through the Book of Mormon. But the host and the co-hosts are indigenous. They’re Native Americans. And they’re just wonderful, wonderful, great people. And I was honored to be their guest, especially in these sections that point us towards, you know, the destiny of the Lamanites and how the Lord feels about them and a lot of really, really cool things. So thanks to Gathering of Tribes for having me, and I hope everybody will go and take a look at it, and I hope that was okay, Scott.

Casey Griffiths:
That was awesome, Casey. Yes. We are of the opinion that anyone out there that’s trying to do good and spread light and truth, you are our friends, and we would be happy to endorse you. So.

Casey Griffiths:
We need all the friends we can get.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. And to be honest, Casey, I’d never heard of that podcast. So I appreciate you pointing that out. I got to go check them out, too.

Casey Griffiths:
So what’s on the docket today? What are we, what are we tackling today? What’s the what’s, the subject?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. So today we get to tackle Doctrine and Covenants 27 and 28. Two very different sections, very different topics. But let’s get into it.

Casey Griffiths:
This is linked in a lot of ways to the sections we discussed last week, which have to do with the persecutions that happened right after the Church is organized. So to put yourself in the timeline here, Church is organized in April 1830. And a lot of people, it seems like Joseph Smith thought, Oh, we did it. We’re done. But it was kind of, you know, out of the frying pan into the fire sort of situation because persecution increases. One of the things we noted was that Joseph goes back home to his home, which is in Harmony, Pennsylvania, which is a long ways away from a lot of the other members of the Church who are up in Palmyra and Fayette, and persecution heats up in and around Harmony, Pennsylvania, which is Emma Smith’s hometown. They’re, they’re living there because they’re farming next door to Emma’s father. So Section 27 is kind of linked to those persecutions. In that August of 1830, two of Joseph’s close friends, Newel and Sally Knight, visit the home of Joseph and Emma in Harmony, Pennsylvania. So they come down from Colesville, and on this particular occasion, Emma and Sally had both been baptized.

Casey Griffiths:
But because of the outbreak of persecution that happened in that area in the summer that year, neither had been confirmed a member of the Church. Today we’re used to during the baptism, the confirmation right after. But back then they would usually do the baptism and then wait a couple days and have a nice little ceremony. And that’s what was supposed to happen. But all heck broke loose, basically. And Joseph gets dragged to a number of trials and there’s revelations received in the intervening time, like Section 24 and Section 25, which is given to Emma to comfort her in the midst of these trials. But now it’s time to get them confirmed. So Joseph Smith introduces this in his own history by writing, “as neither his,” meaning Newel’s wife, “nor mine had been as yet confirmed, it was proposed that we should confirm them and partake together of the sacrament before he and his wife should leave us. In order to prepare for this, I set out to go to procure some wine for the occasion, but had only gone a short distance when I was met by a heavenly messenger and received the following revelation.” So part of this revelation is the words of an angel that speaks to Joseph Smith.

Casey Griffiths:
And during this time in the summer of 1830, Joseph writes down the first paragraph of the revelation, which, if you’re keeping track, is roughly verses 1 through 4, verse 14, and then parts of verses 5, 15 and 18 in our current Doctrine and Covenants. So that’s what the angel says to Joseph that he records. This part of the revelation is recorded in the manuscript revelation books, which you can find on the Joseph Smith Papers website. It’s included in the 1833 Book of Commandments. The rest of the revelation was written according to Joseph in the September following.

Scott Woodward:
So this is in. This happened in August. So in the September following means the next month, we presume.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. So part of the revelation is given by the angel who speaks to him. And then some of it is given in September following. And then there’s a big part of the revelation that appears in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, and that is one of the controversies linked to this section, was that apparently another revelation was received in 1835 that adds to this revelation, and they combine them all together into one revelation that appears in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants and has been in the Doctrine and Covenants in that form ever since. And we’re going to walk you through some of those changes. The other thing that I’ll note is this is the last revelation that’s received in Harmony, Pennsylvania. So we talked last time about how one of the things the Lord says to Emma in Section 25 is “go with him at the time of his going.” And that’s because persecution was getting more serious in Harmony, and it really looked like they were going to have to leave. And they do leave in September, they leave their home in Harmony. It’s their first home as a couple, and they never return to Harmony.

Casey Griffiths:
And one poignant thing, they leave behind their infant son, who’s buried in the cemetery at Harmony, who’s literally just 100 yards away from where their house is at this time. So this is a, a tough time, and it marks a, a significant shift, which is Joseph and Emma leaving their first home and kind of going to lead the Church. And that’s going to be his main vocation from here on out.

Scott Woodward:
Okay, well, let’s drop then into the content here of Section 27.

Scott Woodward:
It opens this way. “Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God, and your Redeemer, whose word is quick and powerful.” Which is an interesting way to start a section, Casey, when we know that it was an angel who gave him these couple verses, right? It’s the, the angel as a messenger telling Joseph Smith in the first-person voice of Jesus Christ these words, which is fascinating. It kind of reminds me of Revelation, is it 19, where a messenger comes and speaks in the name of Jesus in first person? John falls down to worship him, and he says, Hey, I’m just a messenger. Stand up. Don’t worship me. I’m not actually Jesus. I’m speaking his words. It reminds me of that.

Casey Griffiths:
What we call a divine investiture of authority, where the most common manifestation is Jesus speaking as if he is the Father, because he has this divine investiture of authority. But this is one interesting case where an angel is speaking as if he is the Savior through divine investiture of authority.

Scott Woodward:
We remember that Joseph was out to procure some wine for the sacrament meeting. And that happens to be what the angel wanted to talk about here. He says, verse two: “For behold, I say unto you that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what you shall drink when you partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory, remembering unto the Father my body, which was laid down for you, and my blood, which was shed for the remission of your sins.” So verse two, right there just introduces a great amount of flexibility into what we use for the sacrament as long as we can keep our “eyes single to my glory.” I remember, you know, teaching teenagers for lots of years. They would often, you know, perk up at this point. Like, so we could do, like, Sprite and like, we could do, like cookies and Sprite. Like, would that be all right? And I said, Yes, but could you, do you think you could actually pull that off while doing it with an eye single to his glory and remembering the body and blood of Jesus when you do that?

Scott Woodward:
See, that’s the hard part with Sprite and cookies. But what matters is what you’re thinking about. Right? What matters is what you are, what your intention is as you’re partaking of those emblems. Right. Keep your mind riveted on the body and the blood of Jesus, and then it doesn’t really matter what you’re using as the emblems per se.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, because I am all in favor of an eggnog and Oreo sacrament meeting. There’s allergies to consider, I guess you’d say. But the Savior does kind of cut to the heart of the matter here, which is to say, Hey, the substance doesn’t matter. What matters is the way in which you do it that you remember. And you’re right, eggnog and Oreos would probably throw everybody off.

Scott Woodward:
It’d be distracting, I think.

Casey Griffiths:
It’d be, they’d be so excited about, you know, the cream filling that they’d probably forget the whole purpose, which is to have an “eye single to God’s glory and remembering unto the Father my body, which was laid down for you, and my blood, which was shed for the remission of your sins.”

Scott Woodward:
That’s the key. That’s the key. And let’s remember, too, that during this time, they were not using water for the sacrament like we do today. They were actually using wine. That’s what Joseph was out to go get. The angel doesn’t say, Oh, stop using wine, like, they continued to use wine for many years, and we’ll talk about the transition here a little bit later when we start talking about the controversy. But he does give them some specifications here. In verse three, he says, “wherefore a commandment I give unto you that you shall not purchase wine, neither strong drink of your enemies.” And let’s just be really clear. The wine in question here is alcoholic. Right, this is alcoholic. And that’s okay. That’s okay. You can use wine for the sacrament. They were using wine for the sacrament. Jesus introduced the sacrament with wine. Right. And so that’s not the issue. It’s not that we, we partake of water these days because wine is alcoholic. That was never the issue. We’ll talk about what it was later.

Casey Griffiths:
But, and let’s be clear, the Word of Wisdom, the revelation that forbids the use of wine, is not given until 1833. That’s three years later than this. And even after that, the Word of Wisdom was seen as exactly what it sounds like, a word of wisdom. It becomes a commandment and expectation later on in the Church. So in this particular case, the, the meeting that they intended to use the wine for, they did use wine for. Joseph Smith actually writes, “In obedience to the above, we prepared some wine of our own make and held our meeting. We partook of the sacrament, after which we confirmed the. These two sisters, Emma Smith and Sally Knight, into the Church and spent the evening in a glorious manner. The Spirit of the Lord was poured out upon us. We praised the God of Israel and rejoiced exceedingly,” so that also, like Emma, got confirmed. It’s taken three or four sections to do that, but we got it done. Emma and Sally Knight are both official members of the Church at this point, too, which is a huge, a huge burden off my mind.

Scott Woodward:
And by the way, you mentioned the Word of Wisdom, Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants. It does make a provision in there to drink wine for the sacrament. Right. I just looked it up here, verse five and six, if you want to go check that out. You can use wine for the sacrament. It just needs to be wine of your own make. It needs to be pure. There’s a few stipulations there. It all seems to grow out of this same idea of not getting wine from your enemies. I don’t know what the concern is here because I’m not very versed in wine things, Casey, but apparently…

Casey Griffiths:
I have. Always thought that one of your defects is your lack of knowledge about winemaking, Scott. But, you’re, I still like you.

Scott Woodward:
Well, that’s one of many. One of many defects. But yeah, for whatever reason the Lord here says, Do not purchase it from your enemies. Now verse four is really interesting. “Wherefore you shall partake of none, except it’s made anew among you. Yea, in this my Father’s kingdom, which shall be built up on the earth.” And then he starts to pivot and talk about this kingdom. So verse 5. “Behold, this is wisdom in me. Wherefore marvel not for the hour cometh,” here’s a prophecy, “that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth.” You, Joseph Smith, and Jesus are going to be drinking wine together. But then he expands the group and Moroni will be there. The “Moroni whom I sent to reveal the Book of Mormon that contains the fullness of the Gospel.” Him, the one who’s got the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim. That meant Moroni. And verse 6, “also with Elias, to whom I’ve committed the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things.” We’ll talk about the identity of that person in just a moment.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, that’s one of the controversies here. Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Verse 7. “Also John the Baptist will be there drinking wine.” Can you picture this? Jesus, Joseph Smith, Moroni, Elias, John the Baptist, who else, in verse 9. “And also Elijah, unto whom I’ve committed the keys of turning the hearts of the children, the fathers, fathers, the children.” He’ll be there drinking wine with you. And then over in verse, let’s just keep going, verse 10 and 11, Joseph of Egypt, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham of Old Testament fame. The, the “fathers by whom the promises remain,” he says in verse, meaning the promises concerning God’s covenant people. God’s promises that Abraham’s seed would be blessed and be the, those who administer the blessings of the Gospel to all the nations of the earth. Like through them, these promises remain through their posterity, which is you guys here in the last days. He’ll say in other revelations. But the point is Joseph of Egypt is going to be here at that wine-drinking experience. Jacob, Isaac, Abraham. Also verse 11 says Michael will be there. Or “Adam, father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days, will be there.” “Also Peter, James and John,” verse 12 says, “whom I have sent and by whom I have ordained you, apostles and special witnesses of my name.”

Scott Woodward:
Casey, that’s a cool group if you just kind of picture them in your mind. Like this is kind of the who’s who of the Restoration. Right? The ones behind the Restoration, ones involved in the Restoration. We know John the Baptist, Peter, James and John, Elias, Elijah. And now he mentions Joseph in Egypt, which I don’t know of a moment where he’s going to play a role directly in the Restoration, although it’s the promises that were made to Joseph. If you look in like Genesis 50 JST, Book of Mormon prophecies like 2 Nephi 3 about the seed of Joseph in the last days, maybe it’s in that same category as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It’s those ancient fathers whose seed in the latter days is going to bring about, like the restoration of all things. So it’s, it’s kind of the who’s who of the Restoration, the angelic messengers.

Casey Griffiths:
Let’s go to the text, verse 5. “I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth.” And then he starts to list off all these figures. And I, I consider this one of the most valuable parts of Section 27 is it basically gives us a list of ancient figures who are now angels that participate in the Restoration. The corresponding list, which is written near the end of Joseph Smith’s life, is Section 128, verses 20 to 21, which lists a lot of these same people, but adds in others as well. And interesting details like Michael detecting the devil on the banks of the Susquehanna, which probably would have been around this time. That’s in this area where they’re living. And also adds in the angel Raphael, whose identity is, is difficult to pin down. But he does an interesting thing here too, which is he takes an angelic figure, Michael. This is in verse 11, and identifies Michael as Adam. I don’t know if there’s a place where this happens before this, but the idea that Michael, the angel that cast Satan out of heaven would be Adam, is sort of radical. When you look at how Jewish people and Christians typically think of Adam like a fallen person who messed up, who made a big mistake.

Casey Griffiths:
Instead, Section 27 elevates Adam and basically says, Yes, he’s one of the noble and great ones. He was the person who cast Satan out of heaven. I mean, the name Michael literally means in Hebrew, who is like God.

Casey Griffiths:
He’s the prince.

Casey Griffiths:
In elevating Adam, it kind of elevates all of us too, right?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. The descendants of the, the Prince of all, the ancient of days. Now that’s cool.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. So keep an eye on this list. This and Section 128 are the two lists of angels of the Restoration, though, like you said, there’s some, like Joseph and Isaac and Abraham, that we don’t know if they appeared or, if they did, what they restored, but that they will be part of this big celebration where we drink of the fruit of the vine with the Savior.

Scott Woodward:
By whom the promises remain is how he says it. It’s through them and their posterity that we’re even having a Restoration because of the promises made to them that one day the Lord would reach out to their posterity and would bring to pass the restoration of all things. He would, how does he say it in 2 Nephi 3, that he would raise up a seer from the loins of Joseph of Egypt, that he would bring together the, the Bible and the, and the writings of Joseph’s descendants. So there’s a lot of prophecies about their seed in the latter days specifically, like I think in 1 Nephi 15, where the Lord says that the promises made to Abraham that his seed will bless all the nations of the earth, will be fulfilled in the latter days. Right. It specifies a time period there, whether they were involved directly or not. I’m also thinking of the Kirtland Temple. Whoever Elias is, he’s going to restore what he, what’s called the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham. So it wasn’t Abraham himself that shows up apparently, but the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham. We’ll talk about what that means later. It’s related to celestial marriage.

Scott Woodward:
But here we are, right? This, this who’s who of the Restoration here. Jesus says that it’s not just this elite little group, but verse 14 says, “and also with all those who my Father has given me out of the world.” So anyone who qualifies for like the early millennium. Right. Those in the morning of the first resurrection. We’re talking about the group that is headed for the celestial kingdom. That group, they’ll be part of this sacramental service. Is that better, Casey? They’ll be part of this drinking of the fruit of the vine with Jesus in the beginning of the millennial day, which just seems glorious.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, it does. And I used to teach this when I was a seminary teacher by saying, here’s the guest list, going all the way up to verse 14. And then the rest of it is the dress code. So here’s what you’re expected to wear, verses 15 through 18, which repeats that great sermon that Paul makes in, in Ephesians about the armor of God.

Scott Woodward:
Yes. Walk us through the dress code. If you want to be there at that meeting when Jesus drinks of the fruit of the vine with those whom the Father has given him out of the world. Like, what’s, what’s the dress code, Casey?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, so he’s quoting Paul here, but “having your loins gird about with truth,” this is verse 16, “having on the breastplate of righteousness, having your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, which I have sent mine angels to commit unto you, taking a shield of faith wherewith you shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked and take the helmet of salvation and the sword of my Spirit, which I will pour out upon you, and my word which I reveal unto you.” So, yeah, those who go there are those who are given to the Savior out of the world. So this sacramental service, this party, to use your, to use your language.

Scott Woodward:
I never said party.

Casey Griffiths:
You just kept saying we’re drinking wine with the Savior.

Scott Woodward:
Drinking wine? Yes. Sacramentally. Sure, sure. Sacramentally. Yeah. Okay.

Casey Griffiths:
In fact, I’m going to interject an interesting thought here. A BYU devotional speaker, I can’t remember her name, but this was a fascinating thought. Don’t take this seriously. Just put it in your gee whiz or that’s interesting column. She got up and she quoted this verse. And then her connection was she said, What if the word of wisdom is there to remind us that we won’t partake of these things until the Savior comes again? You know, the Savior prohibited wine to remind us that there will be a time when we will drink of the fruit of the vine with him again. I don’t know if there’s any scriptural backing to that, but I just thought it was kind of a cool connection, that even the Word of Wisdom could be a reminder of this glorious moment when we’ll partake of the fruit of the vine with the Savior.

Scott Woodward:
But again, doesn’t the Word of Wisdom in verse 5 and 6 authorize this drinking of wine for the sacrament, though? Like, it’s still. It was never forbidden there, right?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, but that was her thought. And I can’t remember the devotional speaker’s name, so consider that a tangent.

Scott Woodward:
So I think this covers the basic content of Section 27. Let’s circle back now with a couple controversies.

Casey Griffiths:
Controversy number one could be that today we use water instead of wine in the sacrament. And today the Word of Wisdom is such a signature part of our faith that I’ve heard Church members try to, you know, use justifications to say, well, Jesus didn’t drink wine. You know, Jesus drank grape juice. They just called it wine or things like that, when in reality, I mean, it probably was wine. It probably was, was fermented. It probably had alcohol in it. Like you said, the Word of Wisdom didn’t prohibit the use of wine in sacramental services. And we also need to keep in mind that the Word of Wisdom also says it was given in consequences of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of men in the latter days. So the Word of Wisdom is a commandment for the latter days. I don’t think there was anything wrong with Jesus or the earlier disciples or the Nephites drinking wine, even though there are passages of the Old Testament that suggest the abuse of alcohol is bad. Don’t be a wine-bibber is the term that shows up there. And some of our listeners might be surprised to know that Section 27 did not end the use of wine in the Church.

Casey Griffiths:
We noted that Emma Smith and Sally Knight at their confirmation, they used wine. Latter-day Saints continued to use wine in sacrament services throughout the 19th century. The Word of Wisdom wasn’t enforced the same way it is today. That’s a major thing, though leaders often counseled against it. But we used it in sacramental services, and it doesn’t seem like there was any problem. There’s also a bunch of other things we don’t currently do, like use a common cup, although I know some movements that do. The Bickertonites use a common cup. And it’s a, it’s a really important thing for them. And that’s wonderful.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. It’s not specified either way in the revelations, how you have to do it that way. So we continue to drink wine as part of the sacrament all the way up through the 19th century, the turn of the 20th century, it seems to change. Why, Casey? What happened where we start going from, from wine to water? We’re in Utah now. What’s the context? What brings about the change? The major shift, I would say, from, from going to wine to water?

Casey Griffiths:
Well, I mean, Section 27 opened the door for us, right. It said that it doesn’t matter what substance you use, but actually we’re not immune from the flow of history. And in the 19th century, there were a lot of temperance movements, movements to kind of ban the sale or the use of alcohol. And this continues to kind of grow as a movement in the United States until most people will be aware that the United States prohibited the sale or manufacture of alcohol starting in 1919. They eventually repeal that. But presidents of the Church, including Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant, were very supportive of this temperance movement of saying we should ban alcohol. So beginning in 1902, this is when Joseph F. Smith was president of the Church. He began institutional reforms within the Church to try to lead people to greater adherence to the Word of Wisdom. He wanted people to take the Word of Wisdom more seriously. And in keeping with that change in emphasis, the First Presidency and the Twelve substituted water for wine in the sacrament in their temple meetings beginning in July 1906, actually July 5, 1906. And so once the First Presidency and the Twelve start to use water instead of wine, most local Latter-day Saint congregations follow suit.

Casey Griffiths:
And this becomes a practice that remains standard to this day. And I know for some visitors when they come to our church, it’s kind of strange to see us using water instead of wine. We mentioned earlier that a, you know, a Sprite and Oreo sacrament meeting would be really fun. But water is cheap, it’s readily available. Not very many people are allergic to water, and so it suits our purposes. But you and I have also seen bread be substituted for different substances. You know we, we have a gluten-free option in my ward, where we meet, where we have little gluten-free crackers that a person can use if they can’t eat bread easily.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, that’s interesting. So kind of summarize what you’re saying here. It sounds like a couple factors really influenced the shift from wine to water. One is actually the temperance movement more broadly in the United States of America, which Church presidents, especially Heber J. Grant, really got on board with. And the emphasis of non-alcoholic drinks starts to play into what decisions were made for what we should use in the sacrament. We have the doctrinal flexibility already built in from Section 27 here, verse 2, so that’s not a problem. And there’s a practicality issue, an availability issue as well, which really just makes this a really cheap option. It’s readily available. So kind of a mixture of those influences tend to, I think, bring this about. Is that what you’re saying?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, because I mean, Section 27 doesn’t condemn the use of wine. It was warning them against using wine because their enemies may have poisoned it. But it did open the door to say it doesn’t really matter what substance you use. And since we have this other revelation, Section 89, that asked the Saints to abstain from the use of wine, it made sense that we would eventually transition over to that. And that remains a central part.

Scott Woodward:
Except I have to keep saying verse 5 and 6 of Section 89 allow for wine to be used for the sacrament. Even in the very revelation that prohibits the use of alcohol for drinking, it says, except for wine in your sacraments. Right?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. So I mean, they, I don’t think they were under any condemnation or the Lord was looking down on them for using wine in their sacraments. It just became a better fit for us, especially as the Word of Wisdom was urged by the leaders of the Church for us to abstain from using wine entirely, including in sacramental services.

Scott Woodward:
Interesting. But one thing we know for sure is that wine is coming back in the millennium.

Casey Griffiths:
You’re big on that. That’s a, that’s a big thing for you.

Scott Woodward:
I’m just taking Jesus at his word. Verse five.

Casey Griffiths:
Okay, okay.

Scott Woodward:
Okay. So next controversy is the identity of Elias. Who is this Elias? In verse 6, here’s the verse again. It says, “and also with Elias, to whom I have committed the keys of the bringing to pass the restoration of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began concerning the last days.” Who is that? Is that John the Baptist? Sometimes John the Baptist is called Elias in the New Testament, but verse 7 clarifies that and says, no, it’s not John. John was filled with the spirit of Elias. Verse 7 says, but it’s, it’s not him. Is it Elijah? Because Elijah in Greek is just Elias, right? Elias is how you would say Elijah in Greek.

Casey Griffiths:
Most of the times in the New Testament, when the name Elias appears, it’s a direct reference to the prophet Elijah. So Luke 4:25–26, James 5:17, Matthew 17:1–4, these are all talking about Elijah, but just using the Greek form of the name, which is Elias. And some people have suggested that Joseph Smith was so, you know, illiterate that he just didn’t know the difference between the two. But clearly he does. The revelations clearly state them to be two different people.

Scott Woodward:
Right here. Verse nine. Right. Verse nine of this section, it now mentions Elijah separate from verse 6, Elias separate from John the Baptist, Elias. And so this Elias of verse 6 cannot be conflated to be Elijah the Old Testament prophet, or John the Baptist who had the spirit of Elias. It’s got to be somebody else, right? He’s being clearly distinguished here. And later in Section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants, Moses shows up to confer keys. Then comes Elias. And just so we’re not confused, that’s not Elijah. How do we know that? Because the next angel that shows up is called Elijah. So we have Moses, Elias, and Elijah distinguished from one another there. So who is this Elias, Casey? What do we know about his identity?

Casey Griffiths:
Well, I mean, it’s best to think of Elias as a title that refers to several different people. For instance, the Elias in these verses is the angel who visited Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, and informed Zacharias that he and his wife Elizabeth were going to have a son. At the time the angel called himself Gabriel. That’s a reference to Luke chapter one, where the angel appears. And later in his life, Joseph Smith gives a discourse where he identifies Gabriel as Noah. So the Elias referred to here specifically is probably Noah. But as you go through the Doctrine and Covenants, you’ll note that Elias is used several times and it clearly refers to a number of different people. For instance, the Joseph Smith Translation of John, chapter 1, verses 20 through 28 associates John the Baptist with the title of Elias.

Scott Woodward:
Which that can’t be right in this case because of the next verse, verse seven, right?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, yeah, it’s, it’s clearly not John here, but Elias at various places can refer to John. The passage that I was referring to, the JST of John 1:20–28, explains that “John denied not that he was Elias, but confessed saying, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, how then art thou, Elias? And he said, I am not that Elias who was to restore all things.” So it feels like John the Baptist felt comfortable identifying himself as an Elias, but opens the door to say, but I’m not the Elias that’s going to restore all things. And there’s another passage in, in the Doctrine and Covenants, but it’s in Section 77 where the Lord identifies John the Revelator, the person who received the Book of Revelation, as an Elias.

Scott Woodward:
So sounds like you’re kind of saying that anyone that’s kind of involved in the Restoration of like, kind of preparing the way for the coming of Jesus and the Second Coming can be considered an Elias. That could be John the Baptist, that could be Elijah, that could be be John the Revelator, that could be Gabriel. You can kind of think of it as a collective. All of those angels that were somehow involved with the Restoration, you can collectively think of as Elias, which is a helpful thought on the one hand, but it doesn’t help solve verse six, which seems to be talking about one individual who’s going to be drinking wine with Jesus. Right. And so Elder Boyd K. Packer, he said, Maybe Elias is just a person from the Old Testament that we don’t know about. Maybe it’s somebody that his identity was lost. It’s not in the Old Testament. But he’s clearly a person. Right? Verse 6 makes him sound like a person, not just a title guy or a collective, which are all helpful definitions depending on the passage. Those just don’t seem to work here for verse six. And so that’s what President Packer, I think, comes in and says, maybe it’s just a person named Elias.

Casey Griffiths:
It could be. You know, the Book of Mormon mentions several prophets like Zenos and Zenock and Neum, who were all Old Testament figures who we just don’t have any mention of in the traditional Bible. So it’s possible that Elias is just a person, it’s most likely the way that he’s referred to a person who lived around the time of Abraham. Because in Section 110 it talks about Elias bringing the keys of the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham. The truth is, it’s, it’s many people. Could be one person. But we haven’t quite been given absolute clarity on this yet.

Scott Woodward:
Well said. So is this a controversy or is it more of a riddle? I don’t know. But…

Casey Griffiths:
You know, tomato, tomato.

Scott Woodward:
Don’t get too dogmatic about this person is definitely boom. I think we don’t have enough information yet to know that. So.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Good. Any other controversies we need to tackle from this before we conclude Section 27?

Casey Griffiths:
One more. And I bring this up because I’m really grateful to the Joseph Smith Papers, the good people that work there, in pointing out that this revelation is really received in three parts. There’s the original revelation that’s given when Joseph is going to seek wine, an angel appears to him, speaks to him. He says additional material was received the following September. And then in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, a whole bunch of additional material. All the stuff that discusses the angels of the Restoration are added there. So if you go to the Joseph Smith Papers and you look up the earliest version of this revelation, which is in what was called the manuscript revelation books, they take the original paper and copy it into this book. So that John Whitmer usually did this, he was the Church historian, so they could take it and get it printed as the Book of Commandments. What’s received there is like we mentioned, around verses 1 through 5, verse 14, and parts of other various verses. Then in 1835, so if you pull up the Doctrine and Covenants for 1835 and find this section, you’ll see that there’s, there’s quite a bit of material that was added when 1835 Doctrine and Covenants was produced.

Casey Griffiths:
And so I guess the controversy here is can a revelation be added to? And yes is the answer.

Scott Woodward:
Obviously, yeah, we have one right here, Section 27. Can it be added to? He just did, yeah. Prophet, prophets can do that, yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
He just does it. And he doesn’t offer any explanation for the 1835 material, which leads me to just suppose that he’s preparing the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. He’s got the manuscript revelation book and the Book of Commandments, and he asks, is there more? He probably asked about this occasion where the fruit of the vine would be partaken of with the Savior. And additional revelation comes that clarifies all the people that will be there. So he just does it, you know, and when it comes to transparency, yeah, they don’t redact the 1833 Book of Commandments, which was published by the Church. They just go ahead and do this in plain daylight, no problem.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Joseph had an important role in what’s called the literary firm that Section 70 is going to set up. And his role there is to review the revelations and make inspired corrections or additions before it goes to publication. Like that’s explicitly his assignment. But, yeah, some want to play gotcha here with Joseph Smith, and they want to say, hey, you know, Joseph changed things. He took stuff out of the Doctrine and Covenants, he added stuff into his revelations. He’ll splice together various revelations and somehow trying to call foul. Right. That if he really was God’s prophet, then he wouldn’t have to change anything. And that’s, that’s an assumption that some people bring to the table here, but it’s an unfounded assumption. There’s no, there’s no rule book that says a prophet must let whatever revelation he receives stand and never add to or take away from it whatsoever. Right. So Joseph is doing his, his role and his prerogative as a prophet and as a member of the literary firm set up by Section 70 to go through and make inspired changes and additions. And that’s what the whole committee expected him to do. And Section 27 is a cool example of a result of Joseph doing his job.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, I can’t think of a better example than Section 27 of Joseph Smith receiving supplemental revelation that adds to, that clarifies, that, that kind of brings the section to its fullness. And again, I mean, this all happened in broad daylight, so I don’t think he was sneaking around trying to change the Doctrine and Covenants. He’s part of a committee, like you mentioned. He’s assigned to do it. It just, it might be surprising to some people that believe every section of the Doctrine and Covenants was delivered to us wholly the way it is right now. And if you want to get into the textual history of scriptures, the Book of Mormon has a complicated history. And, oh, boy, does the Bible have a complicated history of textual transmission. So once you open this, it’s a fascinating world to explore. But it’s just one of those things that when you get into the creation of scripture and how it works, you kind of come to accept and in a lot of ways expect.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, this is how prophets work, actually. To go a little deeper dive on this, we’d recommend our friend Steve Harper’s great article called “That They Might Come to Understanding: Revelation as Process.” He does a great job. It’s available for free online. Google it. Great article that dives deep into that. Consequences, real quick of Section 27.

Casey Griffiths:
Casey, real quick. I mean, we see the impact of Section 27 almost every Sunday where the substance doesn’t matter, the way in which we take the sacrament matters, the, the spirit in which we do it. And then those angels of the Restoration. Until recently, it was common for us to put angels on top of temples. We’re not doing that right now, but it was common to call that angel Moroni. And I know leaders of the Church have referred to the angel as Moroni. I would point out though that that is kind of a nickname, that that angel represents all the angels of the Restoration. And so the angel represents Elias and Elijah and Peter, James and John and all these ancient prophets who returned to pass on the keys and powers that they had received.

Scott Woodward:
Well, let’s transition now over to Doctrine and Covenants 28, our final section for this week.

Casey Griffiths:
So Doctrine and Covenants 28 is sort of the first ecclesiastical crisis in the history of the Church. The first incident happens about a month before Section 28 is given. Scott, I know you and Anthony Sweat kind of went over this when you talked about Section 20, correct?

Scott Woodward:
The, the letter that Oliver writes…

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Rebuking Joseph Smith for making a little addition to verse 37.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Of Section 20. Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
It’s not a light rebuke. Right. Oliver Cowdery writes him and says, “I command you in the name of God to erase those words that no priestcraft be amongst us,” so.

Scott Woodward:
So for more detail, if you want to go back and review our Section 20, we dig into this controversy. But I mean, that’s the upshot of it, isn’t it, that Oliver Cowdery rebuked Joseph Smith and commanded him in the name of the Lord to take a line out from verse 37 of Section 20, the line that says, “and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto remission of their sins.” That just rubbed him wrong. For some reason. They were able to work it out. Joseph helps him come to understanding. And the Whitmers, who are all on Oliver’s side, they all eventually come to see the wisdom Joseph was putting in there. In fact, Joseph said I put it in there because it was a revelation from God to me. That gets all resolved. So that, but that’s episode one. You’re saying anything else about that that you need to highlight?

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, they get that fixed and it seems like everything’s okay. But then the incident that sets off Section 28 comes. So we’re already saying there’s a little geographical distance between Joseph and Oliver. Oliver’s up at the Whitmers’, Joseph is down in Harmony. Significant distance between the two places. And then here’s what happens. Okay. Second episode was that as persecution increased in Harmony, Pennsylvania, Joseph said that “Peter Whitmer, Sr. invited us to go and live with him. During the last week in August, we arrived in Fayette amongst the congratulations of our brethren and friends. To our great grief, however, we soon found that Satan had been lying in wait to deceive. Brother Hiram Page had in his possession a certain stone by which he had obtained revelations concerning the upbuilding of Zion, the order of the Church, etc. All of which were entirely at variance with the order of God’s house as laid down in the New Testament and in our own layers, revelations.” So Hiram Page, who is a Whitmer brother-in-law, he was married to Catherine Whitmer, but he’s also one of the Eight Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. So this isn’t any random person in the Church.

Casey Griffiths:
This is quite a significant person in the Church. And the Church isn’t that big to begin with during this time, starts receiving revelations. And the revelations Joseph mentions were at variance with the order of God’s house as laid down in the New Testament. Contradicts the New Testament. And he said it contradicts our own late revelations as well. And I want to add in here too, the third family in the Church, this is the Knight family, also picks up on this. This is from Newel Knight and his history. He says “Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmer family had given heed to these revelations, although they were in contradiction to the New Testament and the revelations of these last days. Here was a chance for Satan to work among the little flock. And he sought by this means to accomplish what persecution had failed to do. Joseph was perplexed and scarcely knew how to meet this new exigency.” So the Knights pick up on it. And it seems like both Joseph Smith and Newel Knight hone in on the fact that these revelations that Hiram Page is receiving contradict the scriptures and the revelations they’ve already received.

Casey Griffiths:
So we’ve done a discussion on, on three lenses to find truth. One is the scriptures, one is the prophets, one is the Holy Ghost. And this one’s running into problems because what Hiram had received was contradicting the scriptures.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. And Newel Knight says that it wasn’t just a couple. He said he, quote, “he had quite a roll of papers full of these revelations, and many in the Church were led astray by them. Even Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmer family had given heed to them.” So this, they’re actually quite persuasive to even Oliver Cowdery, the second elder of the Church, an apostle in the Church, and the Whitmers. But you’re right. Yeah. The first thing that should have sent their spidey sense tingling was this contradicts scripture.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. And again, it contradicts scripture is one thing that they all emphasize. I think this was going to happen sooner or later. The earlier revelations indicate that anybody in the Church can get revelation. And so the question of, well, who can get revelation for who was eventually going to come up. I mean, in a church where anybody can get revelation, that’s a recipe for chaos, unless there’s some kind of order or structure. And so Joseph doesn’t know what to do about this, but he calls a conference to convene, like he has to sort of solve this. And he, he does exactly what he should do. He works to achieve consensus. He later writes, “finding that many, especially the Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery, were believing much in the things set forth by this stone, we thought best to inquire of the Lord so important a manner.” So he sits down and discusses this with them and receives Section 28 as an answer answer to this question. So again, maybe we’re foreshadowing here, but in a matter of months, we’ve had two different episodes where Oliver Cowdery has been at odds with Joseph Smith, telling him to change that line in Section 20, or believing somebody else is getting revelations for the entire Church.

Casey Griffiths:
And both of these issues are addressed in the section. That’s primarily why this section is directed towards Oliver Cowdery.

Scott Woodward:
So the Lord directs Section 28 to Oliver Cowdery specifically, as you said, explaining to him in verse one that as the second elder of the Church and as an apostle, Oliver does have certain privileges in the Church. Namely, here they are, quote, “thou shalt be heard by the Church,” the Lord says, “in all things whatsoever thou shalt teach them by the Comforter, concerning the revelations and commandments which I have given,” that’s in his prerogative, that’s in his calling to teach the Church, to speak to the Church, to be heard by the Church about the revelations. But verse two clarifies, it’s a big but here. But “no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jr. for he receiveth them even as Moses. to declare faithfully the commandments and the revelations with power and authority unto the Church.” Okay, so here the Lord is drawing some clearly defined lines between the roles of Oliver and the roles of Joseph. So Joseph, like Moses, is to receive the revelations and commandments in the Church, and Oliver, like Aaron, is to teach about those revelations and commandments and to declare them faithfully to the Church by the Comforter with power and authority.

Scott Woodward:
So that’s really important. Important. Verse 4 says that if however Oliver ever feels “led by the Comforter to speak or teach by way of commandment unto the Church, thou mayest do it.” He’s authorized to do that. The Lord says, “but thou shalt not write by way of commandment, but by wisdom.” Really interesting. Why exactly Oliver could speak by way of commandment to the Church, but not write by way of commandment is left unclear here. Yeah, the Lord is very clear to him in verse six that quote, “thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the Church.” That is most likely a reference to Oliver commanding Joseph to alter that line back in Section 20, verse 37, a month or so earlier. Such a course was inappropriate for Oliver because the Lord explains, “I have given him the keys of the mysteries and the revelations which are sealed until I shall appoint unto them,” meaning the Church, “another in Joseph’s stead.” So that’s an interesting phrase, right? The revelations which are sealed. That suggests heretofore unknown doctrine or unknown information. If it’s unknown, if it’s brand new stuff that’s coming, it’s going to come through the president of the Church.

Scott Woodward:
It’s going to come through Joseph or whoever is standing in his stead. The Lord says. So with no further comment on this point, the Lord seems to be implying here that it’s basically self-evident that one without the keys of the mysteries and revelations which are sealed, such as Oliver, should never command the one with those keys to change anything in the revelations. Right. That’s inappropriate. That’s not his role. Before we go to verses eight and on, anything you want to say about one through seven there, Casey?

Casey Griffiths:
Just that this doesn’t negate our beautiful belief that anybody can get revelation. It sort of provides the structure to say, yes, anybody can get revelation, but within this framework, you can get revelation within your stewardship.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, that’s how we’ll come to talk about it, isn’t it? We’ll talk about stewardships.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, yeah. And, I mean, later on, Joseph Smith makes some statements where he kind of lines that up, right, and says this. This is a letter that he writes to a member of the Church. He says, “it is contrary to the economy of God for any member of the Church or anyone to receive instruction for those in authority higher than themselves. Therefore, you will see the impropriety of giving heed to them. But if any person have a vision or a visitation from a heavenly messenger, it must be for his own benefit and instruction for the fundamental principles, government, and doctrine of the Church are vested in the keys of the kingdom.” In that statement, Joseph isn’t saying you can’t have an angelic messenger visit you or receive a vision, but that you need to recognize that it will be for your personal instruction and not on behalf of the Church. We tend to look at Hiram Page and say, oh, gosh, this, this was crazy. But it still happens in the Church all the time. There are still random people from different walks of life who come in and say, I’ve seen a vision and the Church needs to change because of this, or, I’ve gotten a revelation, and it runs contrary to what the leadership of the Church is teaching.

Casey Griffiths:
And Section 28 sets up the rules to say, well, I mean, if it contradicts the scriptures, if it contradicts the leaders of the Church, it’s not a genuine revelation.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, two really important keys there, as we’ll learn later on. In a couple verses, the Lord says, it actually was a true revelation to Hiram Page. It was just from Satan.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And so, so there is such thing as, I think President Packer calls that sinspiration. Right. Or, or inspiration from a dark source. It is possible to actually be receiving revelation, but not from God. So really interesting.

Casey Griffiths:
And it’s a really important thing for people to understand because I know some people outside the Church have criticized this system where anybody can get a revelation. You and I did a whole series on violence in the Church, and it. It was partially in response to John Krakauer’s book Under the Banner of Heaven. And in that book, Krakauer directly, like, criticizes our religion by saying, well, in a church where anybody can get revelation, you know, anything goes. If a person gets a revelation to do something horrible. And Section 28 is, is us saying, no, there’s structure. There’s a way to know if a revelation comes from God or if it doesn’t come from God. And this was probably a difficult episode for the Church, but it was a growing episode for the Church, too. This was going to have to happen sooner or later, like I said.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, well said. Okay, let’s move on to verses 8 through 10. In these verses, the Lord, somewhat abruptly like, switches topics and directs Oliver to go on a mission. To, quote, “go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them.” Whoa. The term Lamanites here refers to the Native Americans who lived by the western border of the United States at the time. In fact, as recently as May of, of this year, this is 1830, was something called the Indian Removal Act, had just been passed in the United States of America, which basically directed the American Indians to relocate to new territories just outside the border of the United States in present-day Kansas and Oklahoma. And, and so that’s what the Lord means when he says, go to the Lamanites and preach the gospel there. That’s where Oliver is to go, basically to modern-day Kansas and Oklahoma. And then the Lord says, “and inasmuch as they receive thy teachings,” verse eight continues here, “thou shalt cause my church to be established among them, and,” the Lord assures him, “thou shalt have revelations.” Which now tells Oliver that he does have revelatory privileges. Like you were saying, Casey.

Scott Woodward:
Right. You can receive revelation, Oliver. Just don’t command him who is at thy head. Don’t contradict him in the revelations and the scriptures. But the Lord reminds him, don’t write your revelations by way of commandment. That’s how verse eight ends. Verse nine. “And now behold, I say unto you that it is not revealed, and no man knoweth where the city Zion shall be built, but it shall be given hereafter.” Why is the Lord explaining this? How is this relevant to the issues at hand? Well, recall that that’s what Hiram Page’s stone had been giving him revelations about. Right. Among other things, Joseph said it was about the upbuilding of Zion. And we don’t have a copy of these revelations. We don’t know the specific contents of Hiram Page’s purported Zion revelations, which Oliver had started to believe in. But it’s probable that among them, the location of Zion was supposedly revealed. That’s what the Lord seems to be correcting here in verse 9. Like nobody actually knows where it’s revealed. Seems to be a response to those revelations, those false revelations.

Casey Griffiths:
And I, I appreciate the fact that if that is what Hiram Page’s revelations were about, the Lord appears to be sensitive to their concerns. It seems like the early members of the Church were really obsessed with this idea of a New Jerusalem. Grant Underwood did a, did a review of early Church literature and the two passages in the Book of Mormon that were quoted the most were Ether 13 and 3 Nephi 20–22, which both talk about the city, the New Jerusalem that’s going to be built. So this is our first clue as to where the location of Zion is going to be, where the New Jerusalem is going to be built. And I would, I’m speculating, but it does sound like from Joseph Smith’s description that that may have been one of the things that Hiram Page’s revelations addressed.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, I think that’s very likely. And the Lord emphasizes here that that information is not revealed yet, right? No man knows it. That’s an example of revelation which is sealed, right? That only the, the one holding the keys would be able to reveal that. Yet the Lord actually drops a hint here at the end of verse 9 about the location of Zion. He says to Oliver, “behold, I say unto you that it,” meaning Zion, “shall be on the borders by the Lamanites,” which could be, say, in western Missouri somewhere. Missouri was the border of the United States at the time. Just across the border is Kansas. And so the Lord hints that it’s somewhere over in that area, actually. And so that’s interesting. The Lord says, I will reveal the location later. For now, here’s a hint. Now then, Oliver is, is told not to leave for his mission until after the September conference that was about to take place there. And as it happens, Oliver will eventually leave for this mission from Fayette, New York the next month on the 17th of October, with three additional companions. More on that, though, when we cover Sections 30 and 32.

Scott Woodward:
In two weeks from now, we’ll dig into his companions, we’ll lay out this whole mission. It’s really significant, but we don’t want to get into that today. In verse 11, the Lord then squarely addresses the issue of Hiram Page in his revelation, his little revelation-giving stone specifically. He directs Oliver to, quote, “take thy brother,” which is interesting because they’ll eventually be related, right? When he marries Elizabeth and Hiram has married Catherine and they’ll kind of be brothers-in-law-ish, right? He says, “take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and the alone, and tell him that those things which he had written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him.” So there you go. The first indication that these were illegitimate revelations was the Lord explains that, quote, “these things have not been appointed unto him.” This is not Hiram’s appointment. Hiram doesn’t occupy the position to receive those kinds of revelations. Like you said, we’re setting in order the Church. We’re setting in order here the line by which a legitimate revelation comes on behalf of the whole Church.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, but let me, let me add here, too. I think these verses also indicate that Hiram Page wasn’t deliberately trying to mislead the Church. It seems like he was deceived. He stays in the Church after this until the entire Whitmer family leaves in 1838. And I appreciate the fact that the Lord gives the instruction to Oliver to take him alone. Like, they don’t make a public spectacle of him. They just take him aside. And Oliver’s asked to tell him that, you know, these revelations didn’t come from God. So I appreciate the way this is handled. And it’s still a good model for how to handle controversy in the Church. You know, we we, try to talk to people privately and not embarrass them publicly.

Scott Woodward:
And we’re, we’re, still. In verse 12, the Lord goes on and says, “neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.” That phrase, church covenants. This means Doctrine and Covenants 20. Right. Known as the Articles and Covenants of the Church. And in that Section 20, the Lord had delineated Joseph Smith as the apostle and first elder of the Church. In other words, the Lord’s not going to go around his appointed first Church elder, his apostle, to reveal sealed things through Hiram Page. Right. This would be contrary to the order of the Church that’s established in Section 20. “For all things must be done in order,” the Lord goes on to explain here, “and by common consent and by the prayer of faith.” That’s verse 13. So common consent we talked about last week. Right. We need to have, there’s a, there’s a order to these things. There’s a president of the Church who will receive revelation and the Church members get to sustain him and for really significant revelations, will sustain those revelations. So maybe we can stand back here a little bit, Casey, and, and we can kind of see a pattern emerging that in context here, we’re learning that to test the authenticity of a revelation that has come through somebody, we just have to have to ask a couple questions.

Scott Woodward:
Right? Number one, did this revelation come through the one duly appointed by the Lord to receive such revelations. Number two, was this person sustained and accepted by Church members to do so? Right. Prophet, seer, revelator. And then third, like verse 13 is saying, did this revelation come as a response to the prayer of faith among Church members? Which is interesting. Right back in Section 25, the Lord indicated, quote, “that all things might be revealed unto the Church through Joseph, according to their faith.” So the Church members themselves, it’s the questions that they’re asking. In fact, we get a lot of sections from the Doctrine and Covenants because the Church members are uniting their faith and asking. And as they do so, as they come to the prophet ask, then he turns to the Lord and asks, and we get marvelous revelations. Most of the revelations of Doctrine and Covenants come that way, where Church members are adding their faith to the role of the prophet, and that brings about the revelation. So these are kind of three safeguards, I would call them, to protect Church members against counterfeit revelations and satanic deceptions such as Hiram Page was experiencing.

Scott Woodward:
And I’m with you, Casey. I don’t think he was doing anything deliberately nefarious. I think he was just honestly deceived. That happens.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. And I mean, as a further witness of this, this is from Newel Knight. Newel Knight described the conference, too. This is what he saw. He said, “conference, having assembled, the first thing done was to consider the subject of the stone in connection with Hiram Page. And after considerable investigation and discussion, Brother Page and all the members of the Church present renounced the stone and the revelations connected with it, much to our joy and satisfaction.” So Hiram publicly renounces the stone and says, I was, I was wrong. And so, again, no smear against his character. He was misled in this case and he admitted the mistake and he moved on. It’s all good.

Scott Woodward:
Well, this revelation concludes by telling Oliver to, to settle this issue before he goes on his mission to the Lamanites. The Lord assures Oliver that, quote, “it shall be given thee from the time thou shalt go on this mission until the time thou shalt return what thou shalt do.” Again, I just want to underline here. This reaffirms that Oliver does have a right to personal revelation to guide him in his actions. He does. There was just, he violated something earlier. But it’s not to say that you can’t receive personal revelation. The Lord then says that he is to go and “open his mouth at all times, declaring his gospel with the sound of rejoicing. Amen.” And maybe we could use a little bit more of that, by the way, Casey, declaring the gospel with the sound of rejoicing. I joke that when I extend callings, I’m in a bishopric right now, and I, I extend teaching callings. And I just say, hey, just so you guys know, we have a rule in this ward that you can’t give boring lessons. Like, that’s just it’s, just against our award policy. It seems like it should be a crime to take the most transformative thing in the world, right, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and then associate it with boring. It’s like, seriously, that should be a $500 fine every time there’s a boring lesson. I think the Lord said, right, declare my gospel with the sound of rejoicing. This should be happy. You should be excited. You should fill yourself with the subject matter before you teach it and make sure you’ve, you know where the joy is, you know what’s exciting, and then go out there and whether that’s your cute little Sunday school class or you’re out on a mission or wherever you are, do not make the gospel boring. Do not preach it with a solemn face, like, this is the greatest news on earth. And so declare it with the sound of rejoicing. I like how he ends this revelation with that.

Casey Griffiths:
Well, should we talk about some controversies with this revelation?

Scott Woodward:
Yes.

Casey Griffiths:
This does highlight something that we’ve discussed before, which is kind of the role of folk magic in the early Restoration. The Whitmers are the ones that are primarily on board with this. The Whitmers and Oliver Cowdery, who’s sort of a Whitmer, right. Later on, David Whitmer, when he writes this, he writes this like screed against the Church the year before he dies, where he upholds his testimony of the Book of Mormon, and that’s good. But he also says, I didn’t trust Joseph Smith after Joseph Smith stopped using an instrument, which seems to indicate that to the Whitmers, this idea of using an instrument, which is, is sort of foreign to us, it seems kind of strange to us, was a mark of authenticity to them. And so I think that was what caused part of the controversy, is that it wasn’t just that Hyrum Page was receiving revelations, is that he was receiving revelations through a seer stone, through an instrument that maybe led the Whitmers, including Oliver Cowdery, to place a little bit more stock in what he was saying.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, I think if anyone stood up in sacrament meting today and said, said, I’ve been receiving some revelations of late through my stone.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
I think everyone in the congregation would say, okay, that’s weird. Like, our spidey sense would tingle. But it’s interesting, considering the very different culture of that day, particularly what the Whitmers were on board with, that revelation should come through revelatory instruments.

Casey Griffiths:
If someone got up and said, I’ve been receiving revelation through my phone, we would think it was weird, right?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Griffiths:
Because we think of revelation as kind of ethereal, that it comes to your mind and your heart. But this does kind of again, drag us back to the early cultural context of the Restoration.

Scott Woodward:
Let’s do another controversy. Oliver Cowdery was an apostle, correct?

Casey Griffiths:
Yes.

Scott Woodward:
And yet the Lord tells him that he does not have a right to declare revelations to the Church, at least not to write them. And anytime he writes, he is to write by wisdom, not by way of commandment. And so I feel like there is some confusion in the culture of the Church today about whether or not apostles who are not the Church president have the right to declare revelation, have a right to declare doctrine, have a right to declare with finality. This is official, right, for the Church. And you and I run in circles where this isn’t even a resolved matter amongst religious educators. Some lean toward yes, some lean toward no. I thought it was interesting, though. Once I read a book that Elder Dallin H. Oaks wrote shortly after becoming an apostle. The line about apostles duty to be a witness of the name of Christ in all the world really stuck out to Elder Oaks. He said, what does it mean to be a witness of Christ’s name? And so he thought he would research the subject thoroughly and then would write a book about it. And the book is called His Holy Name.

Scott Woodward:
And at the very beginning, in the preface of that book, he clarifies that this book is not official doctrine of the Church. And you’ll see that a lot when, when apostles write books at the very beginning, they’ll say, this is not meant to be official, but but, here’s the reasoning he used, which is interesting. He actually quotes Section 28 here, which I thought, that’s interesting. He said, “this book is not definitive because it does not purport to declare the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or even to give any official Church position on the meaning of any particular scripture. Only the president of the Church or the First Presidency can perform those sacred functions. Modern revelation clearly declares that an apostle can write, quote, ‘by wisdom, not by commandment.’” And he cites Section 28, verse 5 there. That’s, that’s got me thinking. Can apostles individually declare the doctrine of the Church? And, and President Oaks seems to be suggesting here, no, that’s the prerogative of the president of the Church or the First Presidency united and not the role of an individual apostle. And we see that trace all the way back to this incident with Oliver Cowdery.

Scott Woodward:
So interesting that Elder Oaks would grab that thread and weave that into the preface of his book.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, and it’s a valuable contribution. I’m so glad they quote Section 28 here too. To just keep in mind that the leaders of the Church are human people and what they have to say is very wise and should always be taken seriously. But that the Church is a house of order, that revelation does come in a specific way if it’s intended for the entire Church. We all need to keep that in mind. Because people do go off and, and chase sometimes not reliable sources when it comes to how we receive our direction and guidance.

Scott Woodward:
That’s right. Yeah. Even just, even quoting an apostle, this passage from the Journal of Discourse basically settles the doctrine of the Church. And we’ve all seen how that can go askew pretty quickly. Yeah, it’s not like that.

Casey Griffiths:
We sometimes assume that this is, you know, an early Church thing, but it’s still a thing in the Church today. Let me share a little quote by Joseph F. Smith. He refers to this too. He says, “from the days of Hiram Page, at different periods there have been manifestations from delusive spirits to the members of the Church because they, these have come to men and women who, because of transgression, became easy prey to the arch deceiver and, other times people who pride themselves on their strict observance of the rules and ordinances and ceremonies of the Church are led astray by false spirits who exercise an influence so imitative of that which proceeds from a divine source that even these persons who think they are the very elect find it difficult to discern the essential difference. Satan himself has transformed himself to apparently be an angel of light.” So it’s interesting, he says, the two groups that are most prone to fall for these things are those who are involved in sin, those who’ve become involved in transgression, and those who are really, really strict and think themselves kind of better than the other members of the Church.

Casey Griffiths:
Then he goes on to say this: “No person has the right to induce his fellow members of the Church to engage in speculations or take stock in ventures of any kind on the specious claim of divine revelation or vision or dream, especially when it is in opposition to the voice of recognized authority, local or general. The Lord’s Church is a house of order. It’s not governed by individual gifts or manifestations, but by the order and power of the holy priesthood as sustained by the voice and vote of the Church and its appointed conferences.” So he’s pretty direct there, you know, saying speculation, stock, venture. I’m guessing, you know, if you have your neighbor come to you and say, I had a dream that you’re supposed to invest in my business venture…

Scott Woodward:
That’s false. I’ll say it. I’ll say it. It’s false. Don’t join your neighbor’s business venture if he says, I’ve received a revelation that you should join me in this venture. That’s so weird. That’s so weird. And outside the order of anything appropriate here.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah. At least, you know, see his investment portfolio or look at his business plan or, you know, reason and faith. People sometimes use a person’s faith to prey upon them by, you know, they, they use spiritual manifestations to manipulate them. So that’s the danger here.

Scott Woodward:
Okay, next controversy. Last one on this section. How about Casey, are Native Americans actually descendants of Book of Mormon Lamanites? The Lord seems to just drop that here, go on a mission to the Lamanites and specifically tells them where to go. We know that’s the group of Native Americans. Can we say that with high level of confidence that those are actually the descendants of Book of Mormon Lamanites?

Casey Griffiths:
My short answer, yes, but here’s the longer answer. There is a great article in Gospel Library under the Church History Topics tab on Lamanite identity. Our understanding of Lamanites has evolved and changed over time, partially because I think a lot of the early Church members just assumed that every indigenous person in North and South America was directly descended from the Lamanites. In fact, I think the introduction of the Book of Mormon used to say that the people of the Book of Mormon are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. At the same time, too, the geographical model presented in the Book of Mormon is that it’s relatively limited. They’re not talking about continental-size distances. They, they’re talking about distances you can travel in days. And so it might be better if we, if we looked at, say, the Bible and how a really small country like Israel can have people scattered throughout the nations that influence them. So, for instance, we believe that most people are descendants of Abraham. We believe that the House of Israel is scattered among all nations. I think it’s a, an acceptable model to say that the descendants of Lehi intermixed.

Casey Griffiths:
They may not have been, in fact, it’s likely they weren’t the only people that lived in all of North and South America. And their blood is amongst all these people. So when the Lord says, Yeah, the borders of the United States are where the Lamanites are, I think he even uses the term “between the border of Jew and Gentile,” doesn’t he, denoting their lineage.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Referring to the Native Americans as Jews.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, yeah. Which is kind of interesting. Right? I think he’s saying, yeah, their, their blood is intermixed among all these people. And I feel comfortable saying that. How do you feel about it?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, I like the idea, the model of a, like a Lamanite diaspora, the spreading over the centuries. What I don’t think is fair to do is to try to create a Book of Mormon geographical model based on the fact that the Lord said that the Lamanites are those over in Kansas-Oklahoma area. I’ve seen people do that. And like we just mentioned, these Native Americans were just moved there very recently because of the Indian Removal Act of 1830. We also know, like in the, in the Book of Mormon, Helaman chapter 3, there’s a great northern migration and we never hear from those people again. There’s also Hagoth and his people that get on boats and go who knows where. There’s clearly even within the Book of Mormon text itself a mention of this spreading, this diaspora. But the camera of the Book of Mormon just follows one group in one particular area. And so, yeah, I feel totally comfortable saying it. Yeah, this, that’s the Lord seems to be really clear here. It doesn’t seem symbolic. It doesn’t seem to be like this is some sort of, like, metaphorical, like he just seems to say, those are Lamanites, please go teach them.

Scott Woodward:
They’re Jewish descendants. They’re, you know, like they have a right to this. The Book of Mormon promises over and over again that the descendants of Lehi would in the latter days, have the Book of Mormon taken to them and they’d learn all of these things. And so, yeah, it seems very, very literal. My only caution is don’t use that to try to create Book of Mormon geography models. It doesn’t seem to work out very well.

Casey Griffiths:
Well, and I’ll just maybe push, can I push back against that just a little bit?

Scott Woodward:
Of course.

Casey Griffiths:
If a person wants to create a model, that’s great. I would just say the Church hasn’t endorsed any geographical models. So we can have a lively conversation where we discuss where we think the Book of Mormon took place. Just accepting that there’s evidences one way or the other. I don’t think the Church has ever said for sure. Yes, we know it took place here or, or there. And it seems like what’s suggested here in Section 28 seems or could lead to us saying, oh, yeah, they’re, they’re scattered, like you said, a kind of diaspora. We believe that the Book of Mormon took place in the New World, to use that term, but we don’t know for sure where. And I don’t think the Church has endorsed any model. But I’m just saying I don’t see a problem with a person creating a model if that helps them.

Scott Woodward:
No, you’re right, you’re right, you’re right. Go ahead and create whatever models you want. But, yeah, just don’t get dogmatic about it. Or at least don’t use this section as, like, the evidence that, you know, Oklahoma was the land of Zarahemla or something like that, you know, like, you gotta get more evidence than that. That’s all I’m saying, so.

Casey Griffiths:
For some people, it’s a really big deal. And if that draws them closer to God and helps strengthen their faith in the Book of Mormon, I’m all for it. I’m just saying we also should all have the humility to say, we just haven’t had that revealed to us 100% for sure yet.

Scott Woodward:
All right, well, let’s wrap up then with the consequences. The aftermath of Section 20. Casey, my question is, what happens to Hiram Page’s stone and his revelations? Do you want to tell us about that?

Casey Griffiths:
Well, we do have a couple interesting sources. And by the way, I went to the Community of Christ temple a couple years ago, and they brought out some seer stones that belonged to the Whitmer family that were sold to Community of Christ. I mean, they even put down one and said, this is Hiram Page’s seer stone, because it had been broken in two and then epoxied back together. And all of us were like, ooh, that’s really cool. Now, those, we think, are, are actually gorgets. They’re these stones that Native Americans would wear kind of, if you could see them, they were, like, elongated, and then they had a little hole where you could place, like, a leather strap in to create a necklace. We don’t think that that seer stone that they had in their possession is Hiram Page’s seer stone. Well, we have one source. This is Emer Harris. This is Martin Harris’s brother. He gave an address. This is what he described. He said, “brother Hiram Page dug out of the earth above black stone and put it in his pocket. When he got home, he looked at it. It contained a sentence on paper to befit it.

Casey Griffiths:
“As soon as he wrote one sentence, another sentence came on the stone until he wrote 16 pages.” Scott. He actually gives a numerical figure.

Scott Woodward:
16 pages, kay.

Casey Griffiths:
16 pages. “Brother Joseph was told of the fact. One person asked Joseph if it is right. He said he did not know. But he prayed and got a revelation. The stone was of the devil.” Section 28. “Then it was broke to powder and the writings burnt. It was a work of the power of darkness. Amen.” So Emer Harris, who seems to be pretty close to this, he’s one of the early members of the Church, said that the stone was broke to powder, meaning, yep, this is probably the end of Hiram Page’s seer stone, that it probably doesn’t exist in any form today.

Scott Woodward:
Okay, so the stone is broke to powder, the writing’s burnt. That’s why we don’t know what they said. That’s kind of the immediate aftermath of this. The, those who were believing in these revelations were convinced otherwise. They renounced those revelations as not being of God, Newel Knight reported. So that’s the immediate aftermath. A couple other things we should highlight is that this section is significant in a couple ways. Number one, it’s going to clarify and further establish the distinctive revelatory role of the president of the Church. Whereas anyone can be guided by the Lord in their personal actions and Church callings, only the head of the Church has the right to write by way of commandment and to receive the mysteries and the revelations which are sealed. That’s a big deal. And the second thing is that this revelation sets in motion the Lamanite Mission, which would be led by Oliver Cowdery beginning next month, October, and which would have an incalculable impact on the future of the Church.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, this is huge.

Scott Woodward:
So we’re not going to spoil it. We’re going to, we’re going to talk in depth about the Lamanite Mission in two weeks time from now, when we cover Sections 30 through 36, we’re going to dig into the details of the mission and its impact. And we’ll just say right now it’s remarkable.

Casey Griffiths:
Yeah, it really changes the whole direction that the Church is headed in and sets us up for things that we’re still talking about and dealing with today. So section 28 is a game changer. I mean, not only is Oliver Cowdery the first mission president, this is the first formal mission of the Church. And it completely shifts our direction as a people.

Scott Woodward:
So stay tuned for more on the Lamanite mission. We’ll see you guys next week with second section 2019.