Scott Woodward:
One of the biggest criticisms of scripture generally is the extent to which humans were involved in its production. On the one hand, we can’t really expect scripture to be effortlessly beamed down from heaven to flawed and imperfect humans and then interpreted flawlessly and recorded perfectly, can we? But on the other hand, how divine and trustworthy can scripture be if flawed humans were involved in writing it, compiling it, editing it, and publishing it? In today’s episode of Church History Matters, we discuss an important, albeit not foolproof, process to mitigate against human weakness and error in scripture, and that’s called canonization. We look at the difference between scripture, scripture canon, and what we call the harmonized scripture canon. We discuss why these distinctions matter, what’s involved in the process of scripture canonization, and we look at how the production of the Doctrine and Covenants itself offers us a valuable window into this important process. I’m Scott Woodward, and my co-host is Casey Griffiths, and today we dive into our fifth episode in this series dealing with Joseph Smith’s non-Book-of-Mormon translations and revelations. Now, let’s get into it.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Hello, Scott. How are you?

Scott Woodward:
Great. How you doing, my friend?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
I’m doing great. Good to see you once again.

Scott Woodward:
Yes. We get to continue talking today about scripture. We’ve been talking our last few episodes about the Joseph Smith Translation, and now we’re kind of pivoting to another major project that Joseph Smith worked on, beginning in the Kirtland time period, of preparing the Doctrine and Covenants to be published.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. Today this is our series on the Doctrine and Covenants, but one thing to keep in mind is this is all happening simultaneously.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
The earliest sections of the Doctrine and Covenants are linked to the translation of the Book of Mormon. And we talked about how the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is a huge factor in the creation of the Doctrine and Covenants as well.

Scott Woodward:
That’s right.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And so while we’ve kind of put them into these nice, little, separate categories, it would be helpful for our listeners to realize this is all happening simultaneously. And they’re all interlinked with each other. So in your mind, keep that Venn diagram of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants all overlapping with each other. And the basic thing we’re trying to get to here is what is a prophet’s role in the creation of scripture? How does that work? And what are the ins and outs of that?

Scott Woodward:
That’s right. So today where should we start as we begin talking about, and specifically shining a light on, the Doctrine and Covenants?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Let’s start out by talking about what makes this book different.

Scott Woodward:
Okay.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
This is directly from the introduction of the Doctrine and Covenants, which, Scott, not many people read. I’m going to fully confess, I read the introduction in preparation for this and was like, “Holy cow, there’s a bunch of stuff in here.” There’s some great, great stuff, some of which we’re going to get to a little bit later on, but let’s start out by just a direct statement in the introduction. It says this: “The book of Doctrine and Covenants is one of the standard works of the church in company with the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price. However, the Doctrine and Covenants is unique because it’s not a translation of an ancient document but is of modern origin. Was given of God through his chosen prophets for the restoration of his holy work and the establishment of the Kingdom of God on the earth in these last days.” So this might be an oversimplification, but one of the things that makes the Doctrine and Covenants different is it’s not an ancient document.

Scott Woodward:
Hmm.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
It isn’t something the Israelites or the Nephites or the Lamanites, or any other ancient people, had in their possession. It is the book and scripture that God is creating in collaboration with the modern Latter-day Saints. That makes it different right from the get go.

Scott Woodward:
It’s in English.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
We get to read it in the original language in which it was first received.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yes.

Scott Woodward:
It’s American scripture.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yes.

Scott Woodward:
That’s incredible.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And I don’t know Greek or Hebrew, but I know English pretty well, I’d like to think. And so that makes it more accessible. At the same time, too, the Doctrine and Covenants is challenging—

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
—for us to understand. I mean, I tell my classes, if I was introducing someone to the gospel, there’s no question what book I would give them: I’d give them the Book of Mormon. It is the most user friendly of all the scriptures that we have. The Doctrine and Covenants is not that user friendly, but that makes it a little bit more rich. So I’d give somebody the Book of Mormon and say, “Here. Here’s the basics you need to know about God, Jesus Christ, and the Plan of Salvation.” And then once they feel comfortable with that, the Doctrine and Covenants is the AP course. It’s the, “Hey, let’s take it to the next level. You know God exists. Let’s talk about where God comes from. You know people are children of God. Let’s talk about what that actually means. You know that the way to salvation is faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Let’s talk about how we do that for everybody, including people that have already died.” The Doctrine and Covenants is interested in exploring those questions that a person might have once they’ve gained a testimony and a witness of the basic, the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. And that’s really appealing to me.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. President Ezra Taft Benson, he quoted Joseph Smith saying that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. And then he says, and the Doctrine and Covenants is the capstone, right? It’s that next level. It builds on the keystone.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
The capstone’s kind of right above the keystone, almost as this statement of finality. But here’s the crazy thing. The Doctrine and Covenants is not finished, right? It’s not final. Don’t we believe in an open canon, Casey?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
We believe in an open canon, and that is upsetting to some Christians, but it’s also, to me, one of the most appealing aspects of our faith, is that we don’t think God has finished speaking to people.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But that also raises a couple big questions, because once you get into scripture study, the question of where does this come from and how do we determine what does or doesn’t go into the scriptures is a major question that you have to deal with.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Now, in some cases, I’ll tell you right now, the messiest book of scripture that we have by far is the Bible.

Scott Woodward:
What do you mean by that?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Well, I mean, when we’re talking about how did the Bible come to be and what’s the process by which something was placed into the Bible or something was chosen to not be placed in the Bible, you know, there’s—it seems like every other History Channel documentary is this lost books of the Bible or, you know what, if we had just put this document in, things would have been totally different or anything like that. It’s one of the most tantalizing “what ifs” that’s out there.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But a lot of questions about the Bible, too, are difficult to solve because we just don’t have the sources to solve it, and the sources that we do have are copies of copies of copies.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Same thing with the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is more well curated than the Bible, but we don’t have the original source material, so we can’t go back.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
We have a couple really tempting statements, like in Words of Mormon, Mormon says, I cannot include the hundredth part of what I have, which means if the Book of Mormon is 531 pages long, there’s 53,100 pages of material out there.

Scott Woodward:
If we take him literally, yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah, if we take him literally, which he probably wasn’t meant to be taken literally, but how did Mormon choose the 1 percent that got into the book that we have today? Like, I’m interested in knowing how the sausage was made, I guess you’d say, even if it’s messy. One of the great things about the Doctrine and Covenants is we do have a ton of material on how the material was selected, how it was placed in the Doctrine and Covenants, and why it was given so much emphasis. So since it isn’t finished, and it’s literally in the process of being created, it’s very informative in helping us understand how scripture comes to be canon.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And I’m getting ahead of myself here, because I’m introducing two terms we’ve got to go back to and deal with. That’s scripture and canon.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, we need to talk about those.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
So it might feel kind of basic to say, what is scripture?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But, I mean, I remember reading this talk where the general authority cited this Notre Dame football coach who would sit down with his players and pull out a football and go, this is a football. You know, it’s round in the middle, it’s elongated at the end, and he would start there. In order for us to understand the Doctrine and Covenants, we might have to start with a really basic question, which is, what is scripture? What do we mean by that?

Scott Woodward:
I was having dinner one evening with a math professor at BYU, and he said, The longer that I do math, the longer I really engage it to the depths, the harder it is for me to answer the question, what is math? Like, what is math?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And this is why professors are so fun to hang out with, right? Somebody comes up to you and says, the sky is blue, and they’re like, wait a minute.

Scott Woodward:
Is it, though?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
What is blue? What does that mean, exactly? But this is what we do.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Let’s start with this basic question. What is scripture?

Scott Woodward:
Okay.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. So I pose this to a class of, you know, a bunch of college freshmen. And, I mean, nine times out of ten, the answer that comes back is usually “words spoken by inspiration given to prophets and apostles.”

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And that’s not bad, but it does raise a couple questions. For instance, does it have to come to a prophet or an apostle? There are books in the Bible that were about people that weren’t prophets or apostles—

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
—that were probably written by people that weren’t prophets or apostles, or it’s clear that in some of the biblical books people that weren’t prophets or apostles kind of went in and made changes and edited things like that.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And so that’s the first question. Does it have to come to a prophet or an apostle?

Scott Woodward:
Like, the first 20 sections of the Doctrine and Covenants were technically given to a non-member.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah, because there’s no church, right?

Scott Woodward:
There was no church. I guess you could argue we had a prophet, though. He was a prophet, even though there was no church. But, it can get complicated.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
It can get complicated, right?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And, you know, a basic question would be, is a patriarchal blessing scripture? Your patriarch has a position in the church where he is set apart to give individual revelations, but he’s not a prophet or an apostle.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
So is a patriarchal blessing scripture? That is one question we could bring up.

Scott Woodward:
Can we quote the Doctrine and Covenants a little bit here?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. Yeah, let’s do it.

Scott Woodward:
Like, Doctrine and Covenants 68:4-5 says this: “And whatsoever they shall speak,” now, the “they” here are four individuals in particular that the Lord’s talking about in this instance. This was Orson Hyde, Luke Johnson, Lyman Johnson, and William E. McClellan. You can see those right in this section introduction. And none of those are apostles at this time. They’re not prophets. They’re not apostles. Some of them will become apostles. Actually, all of them will become apostles.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah, all of them become apostles.

Scott Woodward:
But at this time?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But years later.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. This is November 1831. We don’t get a Quorum of the Twelve until February 1835. And so they’re not apostles. These are actually new converts. These are new converts to the church. So just kind of keep that context in mind. The Lord says, “And whatsoever they shall speak,” those four new converts, “when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.” So that’s a fascinating little two verses about what is scripture. It can be given to new converts to the church, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
I mean, anybody can speak scripture. The only qualification is they have to be moved upon by the Holy Ghost and then speak it. That’s scripture. That’s interesting.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
That’s a broad definition, right?

Scott Woodward:
So broad.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Because by that definition, your patriarchal blessing definitely is scripture.

Scott Woodward:
That would be scripture.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But what about a sacrament meeting talk where somebody speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost? Or what about that time you were, you know, in high school riding a bus with your friend and you spoke by the power of the Holy Ghost to them? Is that scripture?

Scott Woodward:
It sounds like yes, according to section 68.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
It sounds like, yeah, but you can see how that definition could get us into trouble, too, right?

Scott Woodward:
Totally.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Because anytime a person feels like they’ve spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost, they’re saying it’s scripture. Boom. That’s authoritative. I had somebody I used to work with who would constantly say, “But the Spirit told me to do this.” And I would be like, “Yeah, but it doesn’t seem like a wise thing to do.” And that’s why we have to introduce a second term, and that is canon.

Scott Woodward:
Ooh, canon.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yes.

Scott Woodward:
What is canon?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Okay. The simplest definition of canon we can find just comes from the Bible Dictionary, so, again, we’re being pretty basic here.

Scott Woodward:
Okay.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
The Bible Dictionary says canon is a word of Greek origin, “originally meaning a rod for testing straightness. Now used to denote the authoritative collection of the sacred books used by true believers in Christ. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the canonical books are called the standard works.” And so scripture is anything that comes by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Canon is a collection of scriptures that we use to measure what is scripture.

Scott Woodward:
Wait, wait, wait, wait. That we use to measure what is scripture?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
If that makes sense, right?

Scott Woodward:
Wait, wait. So say that one more time. Say that one more time.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
So canon is a measuring rod.

Scott Woodward:
Uh-huh.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Even the word standard, the standard works, denotes that this is a way of measuring what is genuine and what is not when it comes to scripture. In section 28 of the Doctrine and Covenants, Hiram Page has a seer stone. He is receiving revelations through the seer stone, and the whole Whitmer family, which is basically a third of the church at this point in time, accepts what Hiram Page is saying as scripture. Now, what’s interesting is two other people, that’s Joseph Smith and Newell Knight, listen to what Hiram Page has received through this seer stone, and both of them immediately raise the same concern, which is—Newell Knight says, what Hiram Page had received contradicted the revelations we’d already received and the New Testament. And Joseph Smith says the same thing, too. So they both said, hey, it’s a major red flag here that it seems like what Hiram Page is receiving contradicts the revelations we’ve already been given and what’s in the New Testament. And we don’t know what Hiram Page received, by the way.

Scott Woodward:
Something about Zion, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Something about Zion. Yeah, the best description we have. which is from Emer Harris, who wasn’t even there, says that the roll of writings was eventually burned. But we do know that it set off alarm bells for both Joseph Smith and Newell Knight, that what they were saying contradicted the canon.

Scott Woodward:
Okay, so a canon is the measuring rod by which you test, like, the reliability or the trustworthiness of a particular truth claim, usually a theological truth claim, a doctrinal truth claim. Like, canon is the way that you measure it. It’s the standard works. It’s an agreed upon, I’m trying to not use the word standard, it’s an agreed upon filter system. It’s a way by which we can have confidence that something is trustworthy and right and true. Something like that, right? Like, Elder Christofferson says it like this: he says speaking of the standard works, he calls them the touchstone for measuring correctness and truth. They are the touchstone for measuring correctness and truth. Like, anciently there were these stones that you could tell the difference between a true gold coin and a fake gold coin. You would rub it across these dark stones called touchstones, and if it drew a certain color of a line, you would know that it was true gold. So Elder Christofferson’s using that analogy, that the canon is like a touchstone for measuring correctness and truth.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
President Hugh B. Brown, he once said, we are only bound by the four standard works, and we’re not required to defend what any man or woman says outside of them. So someone says, well, my patriarchal blessing says this, or I heard this, or my seminary teacher said that, or there was this quote in the Journal of Discourses that said this other thing. That’s all interesting, and it could be true, but the way that we’re going to, like, test and measure that is by running it through what has been canonized.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
It’s kind of a standard of safety. It’s like a doctrinal safety net.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. Imagine in your mind, two circles overlapping: one’s labeled “scripture,” and one’s labeled “canon.” And we would hope that all canon is scripture, though we could maybe find exceptions to that. Like, when I ask my classes, “Is everything in the canon scripture?” The example that always comes up is the Song of Solomon. We’ve talked about this, but in Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible, he wrote a note that the Song of Solomon is not inspired writing. But outside of that, I can’t think of anything in the canon, in the four standard works, that we wouldn’t consider scripture. On the other hand, the Lord’s definition of scripture is so broad, it includes a ton of stuff, and if somebody off chance claims that something is scripture and we have doubts about it, the most reliable way of figuring out if it is or isn’t is to go to the canon.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Say, does this agree with the canon? Does it contradict the canon? Is this something that’s already in the canon?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And we use that kind of as our measuring rod.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, and I can think of some examples that are in the canon, but are not scripture.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Okay, fire away.

Scott Woodward:
1 John 4:12. “No man hath seen God at any time.” What’s interesting is you can use consistent, repeated teachings throughout the canon to kind of spot outliers like that, right? Like they’re in Exodus 24, Exodus 33, Genesis 32, Acts 7, Revelation 5. Like there’s people who’ve seen God in the Bible. And so you can measure that little outlier scripture that says no man has seen God at any time as either scribal error, or John wasn’t feeling very well that day, or something. Somehow that made it into the canon, but it’s clearly contradicted by a host of other verses that say, no, God has appeared to people. He talked with Moses face to face. In fact, John himself in Revelation 5 says that he saw God. Even Revelation 1 says that Jesus, like, appeared and laid his hand on his head. So is John contradicting John? Yeah. Well, then who do we go with? Well, we go with what’s been consistently taught throughout the canon, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. That’s right. I guess the best way to state it would be the measure of truth is the harmonized scriptural canon.

Scott Woodward:
I like that. I like that.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Because if a person is making their whole point by using one scripture, even if it’s in the canon, that’s shaky ground to be on.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
On the other hand, when you brought up 1 John 4:12, you had multiple data points from other scriptures in the canon that kind of show, hey, this is a doctrinal outlier.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
We don’t think the canon’s perfect.

Scott Woodward:
No.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And one of the things that we don’t want to fall into is making the canon the object of our worship rather than Jesus Christ.

Scott Woodward:
Right.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
The canon brings us to Jesus Christ. It’s the best tool we have, but it also goes through the hands of humans, and anything that goes through the hands of humans is messy.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And the creation of canon is messy, right?

Scott Woodward:
I think that’s a super important point. Like, we need to, like, always have as our underlying assumption about scripture that this is a collaborative effort between humans and the divine, right? That, yes, you’re going to find God in scripture, but you’re also going to find humans. You’re going to find evidence of God’s divine handiwork, but you’re also going to find human fingerprints all over this, right? As Moroni said in the beginning on the title page of the Book of Mormon, if there are errors in here, they’re the mistakes of men, but please do not condemn the things of God because you’re going to find some human fingerprints in this book.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Scripture is a collaborative effort between humans and God. And so you’re going to find evidence of both there.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. Scripture has to be read with this discerning eye, whether it’s your patriarchal blessing—

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
—whether it’s a talk that was given in sacrament meeting, a general conference talk—

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
—we measure it using the harmonized scriptural canon to say, yep, that lines up. That works. It fits the measuring rod, or no, that contradicts it. That seems to go against it.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Scripture is a dance between the human and the divine. It’s a collaborative work, a collaborative effort, and we’re trying in this series to show how that works, how it’s messy, but also how it’s beautiful and ultimately how it benefits all of us.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
It’s complicated, but it’s amazing to see how God works through different people to create the canon, the measuring rod that we use. And it also affirms to me that God gives scripture all the time. He just gives a safeguard so that we know what’s scripture and what’s not scripture, and that is canon.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Now, the question of canonization is the next thing we’ve got to deal with, though.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. How does scripture become canon?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah, so that can be complex as well. The formal canonization process established by the church is that something is prepared by the First Presidency and the Twelve and then presented to the membership of the Church for a formal sustaining vote. The last time we saw this was in the 1970s. Two documents, they are now Doctrine and Covenants 137 and 138, and Official Declaration 2 were all added to the scriptural canon, but even that was complex. At first, for instance, D&C 137 and 138 were put into the Pearl of Great Price. That was in 1979. In 1981 they were given section designations and placed into the Doctrine and Covenants because they fit better there. Official Declaration 2 was always in the Doctrine and Covenants. But we canonized each one of these things by going through the same process: the First Presidency and the Twelve presented them to the church, the church offered a sustaining vote, and then we changed the Pearl of Great Price first, and then the Doctrine and Covenants. It became part of the scriptural canon.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, that reminds me of this quote by Hugh B. Brown. He was in the First Presidency, and he explains in really clear detail, like, how does something go from what we’re calling scripture to canon? Here’s what he says, “The only way I know of by which the teachings of any person or group may become binding upon the church is if the teachings have been reviewed by all the brethren, submitted to the highest councils of the church, and then approved by the whole body of the church.” He says, “I do not doubt that the brethren,” speaking of his fellow apostles, “I do not doubt that the brethren have often spoken under inspiration and given new emphasis, perhaps even a new explanation or interpretation of church doctrine, but that does not become binding upon the church unless and until it is submitted to the scrutiny of the rest of the brethren and then later to the vote of the people. Again, we are only bound by the four standard works,” he says, “and are not required to defend what any man or woman says outside of them.” Wow. That’s really clear. And then President Lee said, “The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will 1. Declare it as a revelation from God, and 2. It will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve. And then 3. It will be sustained by the body of the church.” So that’s how doctrine is done, right? It’s going to be initiated by the church president, and then it’s going to be accepted in the councils and then voted on by the church. And so you’re saying the last time that happened was in the 1970s?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
The formal canonization process. Now you could make the argument, and I have heard people say that there’s a kind of informal canonization process.

Scott Woodward:
What?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And that is where things are quoted or placed. For instance, and this is the example the person I was talking to cited, if you go into the Gospel Library app, there is a tab for Scriptures, and there is the four standard works: Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price. But there’s also another tab right next to it that says Basic Resources. You click on that, that has the Living Christ, the Proclamation on the Family, and the Restoration Proclamation given in 2020. By placing these in such a prominent place right next to the four standard works, some people would argue that this is a semi-canonization process. It’s not formal, there wasn’t a sustaining vote, but they’re given a prominent place. And you also point out that these documents, like the Living Christ, especially the Family Proclamation, are quoted so much in General Conference that that’s a sort of informal canonization.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. That sounds a little sketchy to me, that something could be informally canonized, right, because as President Hugh B. Brown is saying, We’re only bound by what is canonized. We’re bound by the standard works, right? But how do you be semi-bound? Like, what’s an example of being, like, informally bound, but not actually bound to acknowledge, you know, that these are the standards of the church, or these are the doctrinal propositions that we adhere to as members of the church. You know what I’m saying?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Like, for me, that’s just messy. It’s like, we kind of basically bound by it, but we’re not, like, actually fully bound by it. Like, what does that even mean?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Well, and that’s part of the reason why, like you, I feel a little uncomfortable with the wording of semi-canonization or informal canonization.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And I would say the same thing, too. The Family Proclamation gets quoted a lot, but until it goes through the formal canonization process, I wouldn’t consider it part of the scriptural canon.

Scott Woodward:
I thought it was interesting when President Hinckley actually introduced the Family Proclamation, just as an interesting case study, he said, “We, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as,” note how he characterizes it, “a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this Church have repeatedly stated throughout its history.” That’s interesting, right? That it’s basically a synthesis document of what’s been repeatedly taught from the beginning of this dispensation. And much of it finds its basis in the canon, actually. And so it is a secondary document. At the end of the day, the Family Proclamation is a secondary document based on a lot of primary documents.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And when I teach a course on the Family Proclamation, that’s how we study it. We study it as, okay, this is a secondary document coming from the First Presidency and Twelve. What are the primary sources, scriptural canon, that undergird this, that help us to actually increase our confidence in the validity of what is being taught and proclaimed here?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
So—and that’s my approach, right, is like, well, let’s not say something’s semi-canonized. Let’s say, ooh, if that’s so solid, like, what makes it so solid? Let’s run it through the canon. Let’s run it through what is the standard works. Like, why could we put this stuff in the basic resources in the gospel library? Why would we feel so confident putting that next to scripture? Well, you’ll find at the end of the day when you scrutinize it, when you analyze it, that it squares really solid with the canon. So that’s why we can have high confidence in it.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
You make a good point. I mean, I believe the Family Proclamation is scripture.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But it might not be canonized because it seems like the point President Hinckley was trying to make was everything that it says is already in the canon. It’s just we put it into a convenient, one-stop shopping place where you can find all these principles related to the family.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
I’d say the same thing about the Restoration Proclamation.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, for sure.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Everything in the Restoration Proclamation is already in the canon.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
So we probably don’t need to formally canonize it.

Scott Woodward:
Right.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
It’s just a great resource where everything’s there in one place and has been given a new stamp of approval by the First Presidency and Twelve by them republishing it.

Scott Woodward:
Totally.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But the chances of it being put in the canon, unless something changes, are probably pretty low because most of it’s already there already.

Scott Woodward:
Right. That’s a good way to say it.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
So this canonization process, like we said, is messy, and it’s a collaboration between human beings and God.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. So what do you see as one of the biggest criticisms of human involvement in the creation of scriptural canon generally and the Doctrine and Covenants specifically?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
The straw man argument that a lot of people who want to destroy faith use against the Bible, and the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants, and all scripture, basically, that if it didn’t just appear out of nowhere in its final form, and there’s been any kind of editing or reworking of the text, it’s not true, when in reality, I don’t think that, you know, any serious person who really understands scripture makes that claim. Everybody understands that the formation of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price were a complex process.

Scott Woodward:
Right.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
But sometimes people that want to destroy faith will look at the Doctrine and Covenants, which we have a lot of material on how it was formed, and call it things like the Doctored Covenants.

Scott Woodward:
Ha-ha-ha.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Because it’s clear that they did go through and edit it.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And, I mean, this is sort of a dumb attack to make because, first of all, it’s suggesting that there was some sort of cover up.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
That we’re trying to conceal the process. And second, it’s trying to suggest that, well, scriptural texts just appear out of nowhere and don’t require human beings to work on them, to publish them. Anybody that’s written a book or an article knows what a messy process it is.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
We want to exempt scripture from that process, but it’s just not true, and it’s never been anything that the leaders of the Church have claimed was true. If there’s this vast conspiracy to cover up the fact that sections of the Doctrine and Covenants have been changed and altered and edited as they were compiled and went through the canonization process, the Church has done a lousy job covering that up. In fact, this was one of the things that I read in the introduction of the Doctrine and Covenants that sort of surprised me, made me go, “Holy cow. Is this actually in here?” It says this: “The revelations were originally recorded by Joseph Smith’s scribes, and church members enthusiastically shared handwritten copies with each other. To create a more permanent record, scribes soon copied these revelations into manuscript record books, which church leaders used in preparing the revelations to be printed. Joseph and the early saints viewed the revelations as they did the church: living, dynamic, and subject to refinement and additional revelation.”

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
“They also recognized that unintentional errors had likely occurred through the process of copying the revelations and preparing them for publication. Thus, a church conference asked Joseph Smith in 1831 to correct those errors or mistakes which he may discover by the Holy Spirit.” So this is in the introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants. They’re saying there’s all kinds of ways mistakes could have crept in. These revelations are living. Sometimes it looks like they had a revelation, like section 27, and when they went to publish it, they had unanswered questions, and so they sought a further revelation on what section 27 meant, and then they combined those two together to create the section 27 that we have today. The point is we’ve never, ever presented this as something where the verses just appeared and we never changed or altered them or they didn’t need to be edited or altered before they were fit for publication. I mean, if you want to know how the sausage is made, it’s messy and it’s collaborative.

Scott Woodward:
But in the end, it’s delicious.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
In the end, it’s great.

Scott Woodward:
Like sausage.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
So if we’re trying to describe how something goes from a revelation, which is scripture, to formal canonized works in the Doctrine and Covenants, it’s messy.

Scott Woodward:
Okay, so let me just summarize to be really clear on the point that you’re making. So one of the biggest criticisms of the Doctrine and Covenants itself is that Joseph changed things—

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
—from manuscript to manuscript. Sometimes he’ll take stuff out. Sometimes he’ll add stuff in.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Sometimes he splices together two separate revelations that were never received together, but sometimes years apart, and then he’ll put them together as one cohesive revelation. And that causes people to have some heartburn, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Because it violates kind of an unexamined assumption, right? There’s an assumption that if he really was God’s prophet, then he wouldn’t have to change anything. There would be no need to change stuff, right? Is that a fair summary so far of what you’re saying? Like—

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
—that is the problem, and it’s based on a faulty assumption, but that’s not an assumption that church leaders have ever shared, that prophets are not supposed to ever change a revelation when it came, because humans are involved. Whenever humans are involved, it’s going to be messy. There’s going to be chances for error, and so those need to be cleaned up before publication, basically.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. And alongside the word error, we ought to use that word they use in the introduction, which is living.

Scott Woodward:
Okay.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
A lot of members of the church will note that there have been changes in the temple ceremonies in the last couple of years. I wouldn’t say that those changes came because there were errors in the temple ceremony.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
I think the temple ceremonies were spot on.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
I would say the changes came because the temple ceremonies are living. They’re living in the sense that they’re part of our lives. They’re affected by the circumstances we exist in, and prophets and apostles have the right to go in and make changes to adapt these sacred texts—which I consider the temple ceremonies to be sacred texts—so that they meet our needs as well. I think that’s a healthy way to look at scripture, that it’s something that is continually flowing from God. And the scripture that makes up the canon needs to be looked at that way, too.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
It’s not that we can’t change it. It’s not that we can’t alter it. It’s who makes those changes and what authority they have that concerns us.

Scott Woodward:
Yes, excellent. I like that other word, too, in the introduction. Right next to the word living is the word dynamic.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, these are dynamic documents that can shift and change. And prophets who have the prerogative to be able to do so have done so.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And we have records of them doing so. And for anyone who wants to do a deeper dive on this, there’s a fantastic article written by Steven Harper. We’ve had him on the show before. It’s called, “That They Might Come to Understanding: Revelation as Process.” And he’s specifically focusing on the Doctrine and Covenants and how it came about. But we can only assume that there was some sort of similar messiness with the Book of Mormon. With Mormon, all of his hundred times more material to work with and work through. With the Bible, for sure, we have some documented messiness, but there’s so much more that we don’t know about, no doubt, but we have a unique vantage point with the Doctrine and Covenants because it was so recent. We’ve got a lot of the original manuscripts.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And Steven Harper does a fantastic job walking through the messiness of all of this. I’ll give an example of something that Steve says. He said this, “Joseph Smith did not assume, as we might, that his revelation texts were faxed from heaven. He understood that the Lord could certainly send signals seamlessly, but he, Joseph, knew better than anyone else that he lacked the power to receive the messages immaculately or to recommunicate them perfectly. He considered it, ‘an awful responsibility to write in the name of the Lord,’ as he put it, largely because he felt confined by what he called the, quote, ‘total darkness of paper and pen and ink and a crooked, broken, scattered, and imperfect language.”’ So you get this sense that Joseph was frustrated by this task that he had to try to put divine revelations into English. And he was always frustrated to the end of his life, his ability to communicate well what God had revealed to him.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Mm-hmm.

Scott Woodward:
Steve Harper goes on, he says, “Joseph rightfully regarded his language as a deeply flawed medium for communication. Even so, the Lord consciously revealed the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants in Joseph’s corrupt language, not to his own diction and dialect or native language.” Right? God’s not communicating to Joseph in “celestial-ese,” He’s doing it in English.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah.

Scott Woodward:
And English that Joseph Smith would understand. Steve continues, “He revealed in a language Joseph could come to understand so that we, too, could come, by a process, to understand. The communicative limits of Joseph’s revelation texts are inherent not in the Lord who gave them but in the imperfect language spoken by his weak servants, who had to decode the divine messages, with various kinds of noise inhibiting them.” There you go. There’s a little tantalizing sample of Steve Harper’s great treatment of all of this. And he goes through the process of Joseph revising and amending the text before publication and putting some texts together so as to better communicate what he understood to be the will of the Lord. And sometimes there’s just line upon line things. There’s things like the current version of section 20 includes information about priesthood offices that were not known when the original text was written, right? So sometimes it’s practical like that. Or, like, section 42 now says that the bishop and his counselors should administer the law of consecration, but when it was revealed, there was no bishop and counselors, it was just a bishop. Originally section 68 said that bishops should be chosen by a council of high priests. Now it says that responsibility is in the hands of the First Presidency. The reason it didn’t say it originally is because there was no First Presidency. First Presidency hadn’t been organized yet. It wouldn’t be until 1832 that that happens. And so there’s some practical things like that where Joseph totally has the prerogative to tweak and amend and update, right? But other times it’s very, just clarifying, he’s just trying to communicate the mind and will of God as best Joseph could in his broken, scattered, dark language. And he relied heavily on those who he felt were more gifted in literary ways, like W. W. Phelps and Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery to try to help him with this process.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah, and one of the scriptures that Steve quotes a lot in that very excellent article that you cited is in Doctrine and Covenants 1. This is another example of the Savior commenting on scripture. And one of the things he says here that I think is incredibly valuable to understand all scripture, verse 24, he says, “I am God, and have spoken it. These commandments are of me and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. Inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known. Inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed. Inasmuch as they sinned, they might be chastened, that they might repent. And inasmuch as they were humble, they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and received knowledge from time to time.” So there’s the Savior Himself saying, I’m working with a—

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
—an imperfect medium here. And that has to do with His servants and their imperfections, their language and their imperfections and their understanding. And so the Savior’s working through all these barriers to communicate His will. We should expect there to be some messiness in scripture, even scriptural canon, because there’s humans involved. And I want to commend another resource here. That is the work done by the men and women that work on the Joseph Smith Papers Project, which have done a great job just laying out there exactly how complex the creation of scripture and the book that they highlight the best and the most is the Doctrine and Covenants.

Scott Woodward:
That’s right.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
To kind of show this creation of scripture versus canon, and how scripture goes from being scripture to being canon, we picked case studies from the Doctrine and Covenants. Let’s walk through each one of them, okay?

Scott Woodward:
Yeah, let’s do it.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
So, first one, Doctrine and Covenants 27—

Scott Woodward:
Okay.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
—is the revelation of the Doctrine and Covenants that when most church members refer to it, they refer to the fact that it’s the revelation where the Savior says it doesn’t really matter what you use for the sacrament. What matters is the spirit in which you do it. The context is Joseph Smith is with Newell Knight, and Joseph and Newell’s wives, Emma and Sally, have both been baptized but haven’t been confirmed, and they’re going to confirm them, and they’re going to hold a sacrament service. So Joseph goes out to purchase wine for the sacrament service. Some church members might be shocked to know that they used wine in sacrament services back then.

Scott Woodward:
Like Jesus.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Like Jesus. Along the way, Joseph Smith said that an angelic messenger met him on the road and gave him a revelation. Now, the revelation, as we understand it, is not all of section 27. It’s part of it.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
The manuscript revelation books show that the original revelation was verses 1-5, verse 14, and parts of verses 5, 15, and 18. Joseph Smith includes this in the original Doctrine and Covenants, which is called the Book of Commandments, but in 1835, when they decide to publish the first Doctrine and Covenants, which is kind of a revised and updated, he receives a much larger revelation that he combines with this earlier one, and that creates Section 27. So we would have to basically say Section 27 was received in 1830, when the original revelation was given, when the angel spoke to Joseph Smith, and in 1835, when Joseph Smith set down to formally canonize this, put it into the Doctrine and Covenants, and he asked follow-up questions, and more revelation was given, the two are combined, and that becomes what we’re familiar with today as section 27 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. So, like, halfway through verse 5, all the way through verse 13, and a lot of verse 15 through 18, is all in that 1835 time period, as far as we understand. Is that correct?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. And like I said, Joseph tried to publish the original revelation in the Book of Commandments, then published the revised revelation in 1835. These are both public documents.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
So he’s not trying to cover up the fact that he received more revelation, and he decided to enlarge the revelation. He does it in the most public way he possibly can.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
By publishing a book.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
So that’s a little messy, right? But there’s no indication there was any kind of cover up, that there was any kind of shady activity going on that they were trying to confuse people. They’re just showing how the canonization and revelation process works. In fact, I would say in this case the canonization process led to further revelation.

Scott Woodward:
That’s right. President Packer once said, “Of course there have been changes and corrections in the Doctrine and Covenants. Anyone who’s done even limited research knows that.” And then he says this: “When properly reviewed, such corrections become a testimony for, not against, the truth of the books.”

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Amen. Next case study, Doctrine and Covenants 107, and you and I were talking about this beforehand, but Doctrine and Covenants 107 is a really crucial revelation. It’s basically the whole government of the church in a nutshell, but when you go back and trace it, it’s clear that it’s several revelations given at several different times that they combined together to create the section that we’re now familiar with.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah. Can I walk through how messy it is real quick?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Yeah. Let’s walk through that real fast.

Scott Woodward:
So, like, the first part of it that was received back in November 1831 starts in verse 59. 59-60, skip a verse, 62-69, skip a verse, 71-72, skip a verse, 74-75, 78-87, verse 89, 91-92, and 99-100. Hopefully you’re all following that. That was all November 1831. So then, in April of 1835, verses 1-58 were received. And then, as Joseph is preparing this section for inclusion in the Doctrine and Covenants, he’s adding all those little verses, like verse 61, little transition verse, verse 70, verse 73, verse 76 and 77, verse 88, verse 90, verses 93 through 98. This is Joseph adding, as he’s preparing this section for inclusion in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, these little transition phrases, explanatory phrases, clarifying phrases. And we just accept it all and read it all as one, like, harmonious revelation, right? But it’s actually, when you get into the, how the sausage is made, it’s messy. There’s a lot of different pieces coming together. But at the end of the day, like good sausage, it’s delicious.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
It is messy.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And let me point out, we were putting together our commentary that’s on Doctrine and Covenants Central. The part that actually was coolest to me when I found out this: verses 53-55, which talk about Adam gathering together his posterity and giving them a final blessing three years prior to his death. This was a revelation given in 1833 that was placed into section 107, because section 107 is the one-stop shopping, find out who the governing bodies of the church are, and they wanted to include something about the role of patriarchs in the church. So this revelation was actually given when Joseph Smith’s father was called as the presiding patriarch of the church. And it could have been a totally separate section of the Doctrine and Covenants, and I would have been fine with that, but if we’re putting everything into section 107 that describes the governing bodies of the church, this is the right place for it to go.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
So there’s no sinister motive. There’s no cover up. It’s very transparent about how all these different revelations were placed together so that section 107 would be considered a cohesive, whole revelation where you could go and figure out how the church is supposed to be governed.

Scott Woodward:
That’s good.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
One last example, and this maybe is a great example to deal with our question of scripture versus canon. That’s section 137. Section 137 is one of the newest sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. In fact, the last time the church went through the formal canonization process, Section 137 was one of the documents considered. It’s right at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants, but what’s unique about it is it wasn’t a new revelation. It was a very old revelation. It comes from an excerpt in Joseph Smith’s journal where he was in the Kirtland Temple—Kirtland Temple wasn’t finished yet. It hadn’t been dedicated—on January 21st, 1836, and he saw a vision of the Celestial Kingdom. He sees his father and mother, he sees Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, and then he sees his brother Alvin in the Celestial Kingdom and asks how this was possible. And the Lord tells him all those who would have received the gospel had they been permitted to tarry shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom. Now, later on, the whole theology of how that works and work for the dead is going to be given to Joseph Smith. But at this point, he’s just given this ray of hope. Now, this is old. I mean, this is older than some revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. It wasn’t canonized until 1979. That’s when it’s placed in the Pearl of Great Price. It becomes section 137 in 1981, and this whole thing, to me, sort of captures the canonization process, because first, it’s not the whole thing. The vision itself has a whole other section where Joseph saw the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
In fact, I’ll read a little bit of it here: “I saw the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb, who are now upon the earth and who hold the keys of this last ministry in foreign lands, standing together in a circle, much fatigued, with their clothes tattered and feet swollen, with their eyes cast downward, and Jesus standing in their midst, and they did not behold Him. The Savior looked upon them and wept. I also beheld Elder McClellan in the South standing on a hill surrounded by a vast multitude preaching to them and a lame man standing before him supported by his crutches. He threw them down at his word and leaped as an hart by the mighty power of God. And also Brigham Young standing in a strange land in the far Southwest in a desert place upon a rock in the midst of a dozen men of color who appeared hostile.” Again, all this stuff is cool.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And I would have been fine if they put all of this in the Doctrine and Covenants. But the First Presidency and Twelve looked at this particular excerpt from Joseph Smith’s history and said, hey, this part is really important. This part about the Celestial Kingdom, about Alvin, about the fate of those who would have received the gospel if they’d had the chance.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Let’s canonize that. So they clipped that part out. They presented it to the church, the church sustained it, and now it’s section 137 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And that, to me, is a great case study where you have this whole, huge revelation that’s really, really important, but they choose the most crucial part, the part that’s a measuring rod, and that’s what they choose to formally canonize.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
A lot of times when we talk about canonization, at least in my classes, it’s stuff like, is the Family Proclamation going to get canonized? Or will President Nelson receive a revelation that will become canonized? It’s just as possible that something that we’ve known about that’s been there for a long time will be canonized as well.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
I mean, to be honest with you, if somebody came to me and said, hey, do you want to canonize anything? I’d canonize—maybe this is how we end the episode. What would you canonize?

Scott Woodward:
Ooh. What would you canonize? Let’s play a little game.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Oh, all right. Let’s do this. Let’s do this. So I’ll go, and then you can go.

Scott Woodward:
Oh, geez. Okay, go ahead.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
So I would canonize the Wentworth Letter. I’d canonize the whole thing.

Scott Woodward:
The whole Wentworth Letter.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Part of it is already canon. That’s the Articles of Faith. We just clipped that out and said, let’s put that in the canon. That’s in the Pearl of Great Price. But I think the whole thing is an exquisite history of the church. It has some amazing, inspirational statements, that whole, “the standard of truth is going forth.” I’d canonize the whole thing. That would be my first pick. Let’s just make this formal. We quote it all the time.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Everything in it seems like it lines up and fits with everything else.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Let’s just put it in there. Let’s make it part of the Doctrine and Covenants, I would say.

Scott Woodward:
That’s hard to argue against. If that was proposed in our next general conference, I would sustain it. I would sustain the Wentworth Letter as canon. That’s good.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
Okay. So what would you canonize? What’s your pick?

Scott Woodward:
I might go back to that excerpting model, and I would like to excerpt large swaths from the King Follett Discourse. I think there are some booyah synthesis of man’s divine potential that are stated better there than most places. It squares with scripture, revelations that have been canonized, but it’s just said so beautifully. Also, I’d probably bring more of the Liberty Jail letter, like section 121, 122, and 123 are just excerpts from a longer letter that Joseph wrote in Liberty Jail that Orson Pratt just—he went through and said this but not that, this but not that, this but not that, and that’s how we get 121 through 123, but when you read the whole letter you realize that there’s crucial context that some of the verses that have been canonized need that are not canonized. Like, I would, I would canonize, I don’t know, maybe the whole letter, but it’s really good. It’s really good. So maybe the Liberty Jail letter, if that was proposed in General Conference, I’d sustain it. Would you sustain that?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
I would, definitely. In fact, you kind of picked the next one I was going to pick, which is the King Follett Discourse. And to be honest, I’d just canonize the whole thing.

Scott Woodward:
The whole thing?

Casey Paul Griffiths:
I would. I know that some people have some theological issues with it, but I just think the whole thing’s dynamite, and it gets quoted so much in the church that I would at least do excerpts.

Scott Woodward:
Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
And if I were king for a day, I’d just canonize the whole thing. I think it’s amazing.

Scott Woodward:
That’s fun.

Casey Paul Griffiths:
The central point we’re trying to make here is the Doctrine and Covenants is still in process. There could be new revelations that go through the formal canonization process. There could be old revelations we already have that go through the canonization process, but it is living, dynamic, and that makes it changing to a certain extent. And in our next episode, what we’re going to do is actually go through the Doctrine and Covenants and show you how in each edition it’s gone through changes. There isn’t a single edition of the Doctrine and Covenants that hasn’t undergone major changes, including the edition we use right now in the church, and that’s going to be our subject for the next episode.

Scott Woodward:
Excellent. Thank you for listening to this episode of Church History Matters. In our next episode we trace the iterative production of the Doctrine and Covenants from its earliest version, known as the Book of Commandments, to its 1835 version, which included theological lectures known as the Lectures on Faith, to the 1921 version, which decanonized the Lectures on Faith, clear through to the version we use today. It’ll be a thrilling tour of the ongoing story of the Doctrine and Covenants, and we get front row seats in witnessing the production of modern scriptural canon. If you’re enjoying Church History Matters, we’d appreciate it if you could take a moment to subscribe, rate, review, and comment on the podcast. That makes us easier to find. Today’s episode was produced and edited by Scott Woodward, with show notes and transcript by Gabe Davis. Church History Matters is a podcast of Scripture Central, a nonprofit which exists to help build enduring faith in Jesus Christ by making Latter-day Saint scripture and church history accessible, comprehensible, and defensible to people everywhere. For more resources to enhance your gospel study, go to scripturecentral.org, where everything is available for free because of the generous donations of people like you. And while we try very hard to be historically and doctrinally accurate in what we say on this podcast, please remember that all views expressed in this and every episode are our views alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of Scripture Central or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thank you so much for being a part of this with us.