As we highlighted in excruciating depth last week, the early part of November 1831 saw Joseph Smith and his close associates scrambling to organize a response to Ezra Booth’s public criticisms of the church and its leadership. Over a twelve-day period, Smith convened at least five conferences of elders and produced no fewer than seven revelations, largely focused on the matter of publishing a collection of Smith’s commandments and revelations. This decision was in response to Ezra Booth’s criticisms regarding the non-transparent and abusive manner whereby Smith produced revelations to direct the church. The content of the early November revelations showcase the extent to which Joseph Smith was responding to Booth’s public criticisms.

Ezra Booth was not the only one publicly challenging Smith’s authority. Symonds Ryder had joined with Ezra Booth in voicing public opposition to the church and Joseph Smith’s leadership. The combination of Booth’s and Ryder’s preaching against Smith was having profound impacts on the church in Ohio and could not be ignored. Thus, Smith and his loyal associates responded in part by deciding to edit and publish a collection of his revelations, in part to respond to both Booth’s and Ryder’s criticisms that they were concealed from the general membership of the church. Additionally, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon decided to pause their ongoing work of revising the King James Bible to focus on responding to Booth’s and Ryder’s criticisms via a public preaching tour. This decision was backed by a revelation Smith produced commanding such a course. However, before we turn to this revelation and the others Smith produced between December and January, let us learn a little more about Symonds Ryder.

The Disaffection of Symonds Ryder

Symonds Ryder, a once faithful elder of the church, had become disaffected with Mormonism in the fall of 1831, from what appears to be a combination of his concerns over the principle of consecration and the reports of the mission to Missouri from his friend Ezra Booth. However, the LDS church has often portrayed Ryder’s disaffection as resulting from more petty reasons, similar to how they have misrepresented the story of Ezra Booth. According to the prevailing narrative presented by the LDS church, Symonds Ryder became disaffected because his name was misspelled in the commission he received at the June 1831 Conference, calling him to preach the gospel. Ryder then allegedly began to doubt the veracity of the church because he had expected the revelations of God to be inerrant. The church has presented this account of Ryder’s disaffection frequently in its official teaching materials:

Simonds Ryder was converted to the Church in 1831. Later he received a letter signed by the Prophet Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, informing him that it was the Lord’s will, made manifest by the Spirit, that he preach the gospel. Both in the letter he received and in the official commission to preach, his name was spelled Rider instead of Ryder. Simonds Ryder “thought if the ‘Spirit’ through which he had been called to preach could err in the matter of spelling his name, it might have erred in calling him to the ministry as well; or, in other words, he was led to doubt if he were called at all by the Spirit of God, because of the error in spelling his name!” (History of the Church, 1:261). Simonds Ryder later apostatized from the Church.

Doctrine and Covenants and Church History (1999), Lesson 24
Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, LDS Sunday School

Symonds became a member of the Church after witnessing what he considered to be a miracle. Shortly after his baptism he was ordained an elder of the Church. Later accounts suggest that when he received an official commission to preach the gospel, he found that his name was misspelled on the certificate. Supposing that a revealed call would have been free from even small errors, Symonds began to question the extent of Joseph Smith’s prophetic inspiration.

Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual (2017), Chapter 26
LDS Institutes of Religion, Religion 324–325

This narrative is intended to diminish the actual reasons for Ryder’s disaffection and make them easier to dismiss, by characterizing Ryder as having left over a petty offense or having unreasonable expectations of church leaders. It is the exact same tactic used to dismiss Ezra Booth and many other prominent disaffections in Mormon history. This rhetorical strategy in dismissing the experiences of former members continues to be a favorite among faithful Latter-day Saints.

The reality of Symonds Ryder’s experience is far more complex and highlights issues that the church would rather not discuss with the membership. However, some faithful historians, such as Mark Lyman Staker, have pushed back on the official narrative:

Although this explanation is engaging and is frequently articulated with the implication that Ryder could not have had solid faith in the first place if so trivial a problem could have deflected him, the story is certainly more complex than Hinsdale's description. A copy of the revelation mentioning him exists in Symonds Ryder's handwriting that spells his name in the call as "Simonds." Alexander Campbell and Ryder's own congregation in Hiram often misspelled his name in Disciples of Christ publications and surviving church records as "Simonds Rider."

Was this misspelling really the precipitating incident that led Ryder out of the Church? No documentation exists that he found such errors particularly exasperating, especially given the fact that spellings were more frequently phonetic than otherwise in the early nineteenth century. [...] He did not mention the spelling incident in his own recollections. Instead he wrote of his slow descent into doubting over the summer as he began to focus, not on a misspelled name, but on the principle of consecration. [...]

As the missionaries left for the East and Missouri, he stayed in Ohio and intently studied the text of "the Law of the Church" rather than follow the directive to preach. Ryder was most concerning about its second difficult principle: consecration. He claimed [...] that the Mormonite elder "left their papers behind" when they departed on missions. "This [action] gave their new converts an opportunity to become acquainted with the internal arrangement of their church, which revealed to them the horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it under the control of Joseph Smith the prophet." [...]

Ryder published the text of the "law of the Church" in the Portage County Ravenna Courier on September 6, 1831, and it was reprinted a week later in the Painesville Telegraph. It has the dubious distinction of being the first published attack by a former member. [...]

Ryder's article consisted of a verbatim copy of the revelation with a brief preface that included the comment: "The Prophets or Preachers, declare it to be a Law revealed to them from heaven, by the Almighty, on the 23d of February 1831, and assert, that they were commanded not to communicate it to the world, nor even to their followers, until they become strong in the faith."

Hearken, O Ye People: The Historical Settings of Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations, p. 294-295.

Thus we see that Ryder’s disaffection was not because his name was misspelled in the transcript of his commission to preach the gospel, but for reasons similar to those independently ascertained by Ezra Booth. Namely, that Joseph Smith was establishing a system where members consecrate all their properties to the church—of which Smith was the self-appointed head—through revelations he produced and kept secret from the general membership. These are the criticisms he published in the Ravenna Courier and Painesville Telegraph in early September 1831. I’ll leave it to you, reader, whether these square with the portrayal of his leaving over a petty offense.

Critiquing the Critics (D&C § 71)

As mentioned in the introduction above, Joseph Smith produced a revelation on 1 December 1831 commanding that he and Sidney Rigdon halt their revision of the King James Bible in order to publicly respond to the criticisms of Ezra Booth and Symonds Ryder. By this point, seven of the nine Ezra Booth letters had been published in the Ohio Star. The most recently published of these included a copy of a letter Booth had written in September to Edward Partridge, the bishop in Missouri, advising him to “transfer the lands you hold in your hands, to the persons whose money paid for it. Place yourself from under the influence of the men who have deceived you; burst the bands of delusion; and fly for your life, fly from the habitations haunted by impostors.” Smith produced this revelation on a day that Booth’s eighth letter would have been scheduled for weekly publication. However, it did not appear until the following week when the final two letters were published as a pair. The revelation Smith produced on this occasion now comprises D&C § 71.

2 Verily I say unto you, proclaim unto the world in the regions round about, and in the church also, for the space of a season, even until it shall be made known unto you.
3 Verily this is a mission for a season, which I give unto you.
4 Wherefore, labor ye in my vineyard. Call upon the inhabitants of the earth, and bear record, and prepare the way for the commandments and revelations which are to come.

7 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.
8 Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.
9 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper;
10 And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.

Doctrine and Covenants § 71:2–4, 7–10

In accordance with the revelation, Smith and Rigdon stopped working on the revision of the Bible and began visiting and preaching to the various branches of the church in Ohio. The week after Ezra Booth’s final two letters were published, Sidney Rigdon—a skilled and experienced orator who had previously led a large congregation of the Disciples of Christ before converting to Mormonism—paid the Ohio Star to print a notice challenging both Booth and Ryder to a public debate on Christmas Day. However, neither Booth or Ryder we keen to engage with Rigdon in this setting. As explained by Mark Lyman Staker:

Rigdon invited Booth to join him there for a public discussion. In the same notice, he challenged "Simons Rider" to a debate (characteristically misspelling his name), because Ryder had "publicly declared the book of Mormon to be an imposition." Rigdon requested Ryder to respond publicly through the Ohio Star. Ryder's response, instead of a paid notice, appeared as an article in the regular columns on December 29. Chastising Rigdon for "want of due respect to his superiors," Ryder noted that his and Rigdon's dwellings were only sixty rods apart (990 feet) and that they could easily discuss the matter in private. "But to undertake to correct him of his errors before the public, would be a most arduous task for me." He signed the notice (correctly), "Symonds Ryder."

Rigdon was given space in the new column of the Star to respond. "If Simons Rider is afraid to have his assertions put to the test," he challenged, "why make them? If he is certain (as he pretends) the the book of Mormon is a 'base imposition,' why be afraid to come forward and prove it?" Ryder refused to be drawn into a debate. [...]

As promised, on Christmas day and the following, a large group congregated in Ravenna to hear Rigdon preach an "exposition upon Booths letters." The sermons lasted for two days, even in Booth's absence.

Hearken, O Ye People: The Historical Settings of Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations, p. 301.

We do not have any copies of Rigdon’s preaching on this occasion; the Ohio Star did not cover the event. Likewise, neither Booth nor Ryder published anything in response to the sermons. What does survive is Joseph Smith’s description of their preaching in December and January. Smith recorded that he and Rigdon went about “setting forth the truth, vindicating the cause of our Redeemer; showing that the day of vengeance was coming upon this generation like a thief in the night; that prejudice, blindness and darkness filled the minds of many, and caused them to persecute the true Church, and reject the true light.”

A Bishop Cooperative (D&C § 72)

On 4 December 1831, Smith and Rigdon convened a conference of elders and high priests in Hiram, Ohio, to further instruct them on their duties in the church. Minutes of this meeting do not survive, but three separate revelations (1, 2, 3) produced over the course of the day were combined to make the contents of D&C § 72. The Joseph Smith Papers speculate that part of the instruction given to the elders at this time was “on the need to counter the published criticisms of former church member Ezra Booth.” However, the content of these revelations deal primarily with internal affairs, such as appointing Newell K. Whitney as the second bishop of the church, as foreshadowed by a revelation nearly a month prior.

The revelation explained that among Whitney’s duties as the bishop over Ohio was to receive accounts of the stewardships given to the elders of the church—in both matters temporal and spiritual. That is, Whitney would receive reports of how members were managing the consecrated properties they were allotted, as well as the reports of the proselytizing efforts of those called to serve missions (v. 5–8). The two bishops, Whitney and Partridge, were to remain in close communication. Partridge was to see to the colonizing of Zion while Whitney was to manage the storehouse of consecrated funds and goods in Ohio. Any debts incurred by those drawing goods from the storehouse would be covered by properties managed by Partridge in Missouri (v. 10–14). Additionally, Whitney was also tasked with evaluating individuals being sent to Missouri for their worthiness to receive an inheritance in Zion. No one arriving in Missouri was to be given an inheritance unless they presented to Bishop Partridge a recommend issued by Bishop Whitney (v. 19–26).

Organizational Affairs (D&C § 73 and 75)

As mentioned above, Smith and Rigdon continued to travel between branches of the church in Ohio, to preach in response to Booth and Ryder’s public opposition, through December and into early January 1832. Shortly after returning to Hiram, Joseph Smith produced a revelation (D&C § 73) on 10 January commanding him and Rigdon to return to their efforts in revising the King James Bible. The elders of the church, however, were to continue preaching among the members in the region until the General Conference scheduled for two weeks later.

On 25 January 1832, a General Conference of the church was held in Amherst, Ohio—50 miles west of Kirtland. A parallel conference was being held in Missouri on 23–24 January. We do not have minutes from the conference in Ohio, but two revelations (1, 2) produced on the occasion provides a glimpse into the business of the gathering. These two revelations are combined into modern D&C § 75. The revelation concerns itself with the calling of several elders on proselytizing missions to various locations. William McLellin’s previous assignment to the “eastern countries” is revoked on account of “the murmurings of his heart,” and he is given a new one intended to “chasten him” in the “south countries,” with Luke Johnson as his companion (v. 6–12). Called to the east are companionships Orson Hyde with Joseph’s brother Samuel, and Lyman Johnson with Orson Pratt, while Asa Dodds and Calves Wilson are to travel west, and Major Ashley with Burr Riggs are to travel south. These men are counselled to preach from house to house, and instructed in a ritual cursing to perform on the homes that reject their message, which ritual continues to hold a place significant place in modern Mormon folk doctrine—especially among missionaries. One could write an entire essay on this ritual alone.

20 And in whatsoever house ye enter, and they receive you not, ye shall depart speedily from that house, and shake off the dust of your feet as a testimony against them.
21 And you shall be filled with joy and gladness; and know this, that in the day of judgment you shall be judges of that house, and condemn them;
22 And it shall be more tolerable for the heathen in the day of judgment, than for that house; therefore, gird up your loins and be faithful, and ye shall overcome all things, and be lifted up at the last day. Even so. Amen.

Doctrine and Covenants § 75:20–22

Whereas the first revelation was addressed to those elders present “who have given your names to go forth to proclaim my gospel, and to prune my vineyard,” the second revelation (comprising D&C §75:23–36) was addressed to a separate group of elders “who have given your names that you might know his will concerning you.” The revelation first addresses the provision of support for the families of those men who were just called to travel on missions. The “Laws of the Church of Christ” revealed in February the year prior had instructed that the families of travelling missionaries were to be “supported out of the property which is consecrated to the Lord.” Despite this instruction, some of these families suffered; minutes from the preceding October General Conference discussed the plight of Thomas Marsh’s family, describing them as being “somewhat destitute.” This new revelation suggested that the families of travelling elders should be taken in by those who are staying behind (v. 24–25). Finally, it directed the inquiring elders that they should find support for their families and then serve missions of their own, being directed “by the Comforter, whither they shall go” (v. 26–27). Several companionships of these elders were then designated, without specifying where they should serve.

The most significant development of this General Conference, however, is not reflected in these revelations. In fulfillment of both a November revelation and the criticisms of Ezra Booth, Joseph Smith was appointed as “President of the High Priesthood,” further solidifying his authority to “preside over the whole church” and designating him as “a Seer, a revelator, a translator, & a prophet, having all the gifts of God” (D&C § 107:91-92).

Wresting the Scriptures (D&C § 74)

We turn now to the last section of the Doctrine and Covenants serving as the basis of this week’s lessons. This section is an odd duck, because we do not know with certainty the date of its origin. The section heading describes it as a revelation, but even that is in question. The Joseph Smith Papers label it as an “explanation of scripture” and note that it was not included in the publication of the 1833 Book of Commandments that represented a compilation of the revelations Smith produced through September 1831. When John Whitmer made a copy of it in 1831, he placed it between documents dated 6 January 1831 and 4 February 1831, though he designated its origin in the heading as “Wayne County. N.Y 1830.” In all likelihood, Whitmer’s dating is probably correct. Regardless of its date of origin, this section reflects an explanation given by Joseph Smith regarding the proper interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:14—a passage that has long been used as a prooftext defending infant baptism.

Smith’s explanation is an elaborate expansion beyond the text. According to Smith, in the days of Paul the Apostle, unbelieving Jewish husbands of believing Christian wives sought to enforce the law of circumcision upon their children, and raise them according to the Law of Moses. This would lead these children to reject the gospel of Christ and become unholy. As a consequence, Paul instructed the Christians at Corinth to not be united in mixed-faith marriages, so that the children of believers might not be raised according to Jewish traditions and become unholy by rejecting the faith. Smith concludes by affirming that “little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ.”

Smith’s explanation of this passage of the Bible seems to contradict its original message. In this chapter of Corinthians, Paul is writing instructions to the members at Corinth in response to their questions regarding sexual purity and marriage. In this particular passage, Paul does indeed address the subject of mixed-faith marriages, but rather than discourage them, Paul instructs members who find themselves in such relationships to remain in them. After restating Jesus’s sayings regarding divorce as found in the gospels, Paul gives his opinion that husbands or wives of an unbelieving spouse should not divorce on account of their unbelief. His rationale is that the unbelieving spouse, and their children, are made holy through their relationship with their believing partner. He goes so far as to suggest that for all a believing spouse knows, they might be the means to converting their partner.

12 To the rest I say—I and not the Lord—that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
13 And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you.
16 Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife.

1 Corinthians 7:12–16, New Revised Standard Version

Nowhere in this discourse on mixed-faith marriage is circumcision invoked. It is from the following passage comprising verses 18–20 that Smith pulled his elaborate discourse on circumcision. However, in these verses Paul is merely reinforcing his central point: whatever circumstances a person finds themselves in upon conversion to Christianity—be it married or unmarried, circumcised or uncircumcised, bond or free—those circumstances are not required to change on account of their conversion. “Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called” (v. 20).

From this section we can see how Joseph Smith used his authority and role as “revelator” to answer doctrinal disputes among his followers—by inventing narrative explanations that do not exist in the source text. This approach is found throughout the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible—the very project Smith was working on with Sidney Rigdon in early 1831. Interestingly, in their “translation” of the Bible, Smith and Rigdon did not alter 1 Corinthians 7:12–16 in any fashion.

The “Come, Follow Me” Lesson Manuals

With that lengthy exposition in place, let’s turn now to the Come, Follow Me manuals and look at what messages they have for members today. We will focus on three main ideas repeated across the manuals: 1) how to defend the faith from critics, 2) the importance of sharing the gospel, and 3) how bishops minister to the members of their wards.

Defending the Faith and Confounding the Critics

The first major message emphasizes that members have a responsibility to defend the church and the faith from attacks by critics. The manuals draw from D&C § 71 as a platform for this discussion. The gist of the message conveyed is that members should follow the examples of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon when confronted by opposition to the faith. That is, members should respond by bearing personal testimony of what they believe to be true. They should not be nervous or fearful, but bear fervent witness of the testimony they possess “according the that portion of Spirit” the Lord has given them.

The Lord will confound critics of His work in His own time.
We may be concerned when we hear people criticizing or ridiculing the Church or its leaders, especially when we’re afraid people we know and love will be influenced by that criticism. When something similar happened in Ohio in 1831 (see the section heading to Doctrine and Covenants 71), the Lord’s message to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon was one of faith, not fear. As you study Doctrine and Covenants 71, what do you find that builds your faith in the Lord and His work? What impresses you about the instruction the Lord gave His servants in this situation?

What were Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon asked to do when others were criticizing the Church and its leaders? How do we “prepare the way” for people to receive God’s revelations?

Come, Follow Me — Individuals and Families Manual, 4 July 2021, emphasis my own.

We can follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost as we defend our beliefs.
Have we ever felt fearful or nervous about defending our beliefs? Perhaps you could invite class members to write on the board words or phrases they find in Doctrine and Covenants 71 that describe how the Lord asked Joseph and Sidney to respond to the criticisms of Ezra Booth and others. Class members could then discuss in small groups what these instructions may mean for us today. Why is it important that we act “according to that portion of Spirit” the Lord gives us?

Come, Follow Me — Sunday School Manual, 4 July 2021, emphasis my own.

I want to break here just to highlight how dishonest and absolutely shallow a presentation of the historical context is provided in the video suggested for the Primary. Sure, it’s intended for children, but it’s horrendously bad.

EDIT: The Church has inexplicably set Chapters 24–49 of their Doctrine and Covenants Stories videos to “Private” on YouTube, making them inaccessible. At present, however, the videos are still available on the church website (1/1/2023).

I can defend the truth by sharing my testimony.
The Lord does not expect children to respond to critics of the Church as He called Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon to do. But you can help the children understand that their simple testimony of the truth can have a powerful effect on others.

Read Doctrine and Covenants 71:1 with the children, and help them find what the Lord wanted Joseph and Sidney to do about the “unfriendly feelings” people had toward the Church (section heading). What did He say they would be given to help them? How can we be like Joseph and Sidney?

Come, Follow Me — Primary Manual, 4 July 2021, emphasis my own.

Priming the Membership for Political Maneuvers

One more video included in the lesson materials bears mentioning in particular. The video below is presented as an example of how members might be challenged by critics of their beliefs, and how members should respond by seeking common ground with those who oppose the church. Encouraging members to listen to others and identify common ground with them is not an offensive suggestion, nor is it particularly earth-shattering. The portrayal of the venom and individually-directed animosity of the church’s critics is a humorous caricature. However, none of those things are particularly worth highlighting. Rather, I want to point out the purpose for which this video was created—preparing members to become engaged supporters of the Fairness For All legislation that the church has sponsored in opposition to the Equality Act.

This video was published in 2016, just as the church was getting started with their efforts to promote what would become the Fairness For All Act. Recall that on 26 June 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the legality of same-sex marriage in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case. This decision came in the wake of the 2014 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. case ruling that private entities may be exempt from a regulation to which its owners religiously object, which arguably serves as an inspiration for the Fairness For All Act. While the act was not formally proposed until 2019, the church and other conservative religious groups had been drumming up support and working on its construction for years prior. When the act was proposed in 2019 by Utah Rep. Chris Stewart, the church published a formal statement of support, which it repeated in February 2021 after the US House of Representatives voted in favor of the Equality Act. In recent years, the LDS church has been a very active player in promoting legislation and petitioning the US Supreme Court to rule against LGBTQ+ civil rights in the name of protecting religious liberty.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a damning track record when it comes to treatment of the LGBTQ+ community—especially when it comes to using its resources to promote legislation that marginalizes same-sex couples. The LDS church’s involvement in promoting Proposition 8 in California’s 2008 elections is an infamous example, which has ever since been a stain on the church’s reputation. Their activism in 2008 was an echo of the church’s opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. The efforts we see today are a continuation of the same political activism by the church—in opposition to equal rights on the basis of gender and sexuality—under the cloak of protecting religious liberty. It is interesting, therefore, to see propaganda created to prepare members to defend the church’s political maneuvering, being included as part of the official instructional materials distributed to the entire church, and framed as part of each member’s spiritual duty to defend the church from critics.

Sharing the Gospel

The second major theme repeated across the Come, Follow Me manuals is a message encouraging members to seek opportunities to share the gospel with others. This discussion draws primarily from Doctrine and Covenants § 73 and § 75. Along with the message to follow the prophet, who serves as God’s mouthpiece in these latter-days, the message of the importance to share the gospel is probably the most oft repeated theme in the Come, Follow Me manuals for this year’s instruction. Inasmuch as we’ve touched on this theme numerous times already this year, and this week’s lessons don’t really add much that is new to that discussion, we won’t go into depth on this topic again for now. The primary message given this week is to encourage the members to consider sharing the gospel as a “practicable” or “realistic” part of their other responsibilities, and to remind members of the blessings promised to those who diligently share the gospel with others.

I can seek opportunities to share the gospel.
As you read Doctrine and Covenants 73, consider how you can make preaching the gospel an ongoing, “practicable” (verse 4)—or realistic—part of your life among your other responsibilities.

The Lord blesses those who faithfully proclaim His gospel.
What words and phrases do you find in Doctrine and Covenants 75:1–12 that help you understand how to preach the gospel effectively? What blessings does the Lord promise to faithful missionaries? Consider how these instructions and blessings apply to you as you share the gospel.

Come, Follow Me — Individuals and Families Manual, 4 July 2021, emphasis my own.

We can seek opportunities to share the gospel.
The Lord told Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon to preach the gospel “inasmuch as it is practicable” (Doctrine and Covenants 73:4) while also working on the translation of the Bible. Perhaps class members could share some ways they have found it “practicable”—or realistic—to share the gospel among their other responsibilities.

Come, Follow Me — Sunday School Manual, 4 July 2021, emphasis my own.

The Stewardship of Bishops

The final theme that is consistently presented across the Come, Follow Me manuals emphasizes the role that LDS bishops play in tending to the welfare of their congregations. The basis for this discussion is drawn exclusively from Doctrine and Covenants § 72. The lesson manuals especially instruct members to consider the various ways that bishops have blessed them and their families. They also emphasize the importance of sustaining their bishop and direct members to ponder the various ways they can do so. Members are reminded of the ways they are to be held accountable by their bishop. Primary teachers are directed to help the children see the bishop as a representative of Jesus Christ, and to consider the situations in which they might need to meet with the bishop.

Bishops are stewards over the spiritual and temporal affairs of the Lord’s kingdom.
When Newel K. Whitney was called to serve as the second bishop of the Church, his duties were a little different from those of today’s bishops. For example, Bishop Whitney oversaw the consecration of property and permission to settle in Missouri, in the land of Zion. But as you read about his calling and duties in Doctrine and Covenants 72, you might notice some connections to what bishops do today—at least in the spirit, if not the specifics, of their duties. For example, in what ways do you “render an account” to your bishop? (verse 5). In what sense does your bishop “keep the Lord’s storehouse” and manage the consecrations of ward members? (see verses 10, 12). How has a bishop helped you?

How have bishops blessed our family? What has our bishop asked us to do, and how can we sustain him? Perhaps your family could make a card thanking your bishop for his service.

Come, Follow Me — Individuals and Families Manual, 4 July 2021, emphasis my own.

Bishops are stewards over the spiritual and temporal affairs of the Lord’s kingdom.
How can the Lord’s instructions to Newel K. Whitney, when he was called to be the bishop in Kirtland, help those you teach appreciate the bishops who have been called to serve them? You could ask class members to search Doctrine and Covenants 72:8–16, looking for some of the responsibilities of Bishop Whitney and then comparing them to the responsibilities of bishops today. [...] Perhaps class members could share how they have been blessed by a bishop’s service. What can we do to more fully sustain our bishop?

Come, Follow Me — Sunday School Manual, 4 July 2021, emphasis my own.

The Lord has called a bishop to help me.
Little children may not know a lot about what their bishop does to serve them and other ward members. You can help them appreciate their bishop’s service.

Take the children on a walk to the bishop’s office (you may want to coordinate with other teachers). Describe for them some situations when they might meet with the bishop in his office (such as a baptismal interview or tithing settlement). Tell the children how you have been blessed by the bishop’s service.

Help the children make cards to give to the bishop, thanking him for what he does to help with the Lord’s work.

The Lord calls bishops to help Him do His work.
A bishop can have a strong positive influence in the life of a young person. What can you do to help the children see the bishop as a representative of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Read Doctrine and Covenants 72:8 with the children, and ask them to listen for who the Lord called to serve as the new bishop in Kirtland. Why does the Lord call bishops? Share with the children an experience when you were blessed by the service of a bishop.

Invite the children to make a list of some of the things they have seen the bishop do to help people in the ward. Ask the children to draw pictures of the bishop doing something they mentioned. Bear your testimony that your bishop was called by the Lord to be His servant. Why are we grateful that the Lord has called a bishop in our ward?

Come, Follow Me — Primary Manual, 4 July 2021, emphasis my own.

Bishops in the LDS church hold one of the most demanding positions in the church. It is an entirely uncompensated position that requires numerous hours per week in ward leadership council meetings, one-on-one member interviews, conducting weekly church services, leading the youth program for the Young Men, providing spiritual and temporal counseling to members in distress, providing welfare assistance to members in need, overseeing the spiritual instruction at all levels in the ward, receiving training from the stake and area leadership, judging in matters of church discipline at the ward level, and many other duties. All of these responsibilities are to be performed on top of their own responsibilities to their family and employment. While bishops do have an assortment of “auxiliary” leadership to assist with some of their responsibilities, they are definitely tasked with the largest ministerial burden for their ward congregations.

Bishops are called from the male lay membership of the ward. They receive little to no training on their responsibilities or in how to effectively minister to their congregants. The little training they do receive is generally from periodic meetings with stake leadership—who are also called from among the lay membership with little to no training, though they have generally served as bishops themselves—or from the area presidency. These leadership trainings, however, are often pretty general in focus and mostly refer back to the General Handbook of Instructions, which serves as the primary source of direction for bishops in understanding their ministerial duties. It is tiresome job that often takes a toll on bishops’ families.

What all of this means is that bishops are generally untrained individuals who are, by professionally-accepted standards, unqualified to serve as behavior or marriage counselors to their congregants—though they often play this role in fulfillment of their ministerial duties. Rather, bishops are taught—often as part of the limited leadership training they receive—that the Spirit qualifies them to perform this role and will provide them with inspiration to compensate for the training and experience that they lack. “Whom the Lord calls, he qualifies” is the oft repeated mantra. However, this can lead to situations in which individuals are given counselling that can exacerbate their problems and compound the harm they experience. Is this the bishops’ fault, or is it the fault of the system that demands too much from untrained and unqualified men while telling them that the Lord will make up the difference?

However you answer that question, I would like to acknowledge that most bishops are generally good men who are trying their very best to minister to the members of their ward. This does not mean they always get it right. Not infrequently will they inject their own personal biases into their ministry, or become the agents of inflicting some of the most harmful messaging and practices of the church upon their congregants. Yet generally, LDS bishops are well-meaning men who only desire to be the best Mormons they can be, and to serve their wards in the ways they are taught are best. As such, I think it is important to recognize the sacrifices bishops make on behalf of the members of their wards. Simultaneously, we can also hold the church accountable for the harm that it perpetrates upon many members, while recognizing that often the local leaders who become the agents of that harm are doing so not necessarily of their own design, but because of the system of which they are a part.