029 Exploring the Divine-Human Partnership in Scripture Creation | Featuring the D&C - Church History Matters

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Scott Woodward (00:05):
One of the biggest criticisms of scripture generally
is the extent to which humanswere involved in its production.
On the one hand, we can't reallyexpect scripture to be effortlessly
beamed down from heaven to flawed andimperfect humans and then interpreted
flawlessly and recorded perfectly, can we?
But on the other hand, how divineand trustworthy can scripture be

(00:28):
if flawed humans were involvedin writing it, compiling it,
editing it, and publishing it?
In today's episode of Church HistoryMatters, we discuss an important, albeit
not foolproof, process to mitigateagainst human weakness and error in
scripture, and that's called canonization.
We look at the difference betweenscripture, scripture canon, and what

(00:51):
we call the harmonized scripture canon.
We discuss why these distinctionsmatter, what's involved in the process
of scripture canonization, and we lookat how the production of the Doctrine
and Covenants itself offers us a valuablewindow into this important process.
I'm Scott Woodward, and my co-host isCasey Griffiths, and today we dive into
our fifth episode in this series dealingwith Joseph Smith's non-Book-of-Mormon

(01:15):
translations and revelations.
Now, let's get into it.

Casey Paul Griffiths (01:21):
Hello, Scott.
How are you?

Great.
How you doing, my friend?

I'm doing great.
Good to see you once again.

Yes.
We get to continue talkingtoday about scripture.
We've been talking our last few episodesabout the Joseph Smith Translation,
and now we're kind of pivoting toanother major project that Joseph
Smith worked on, beginning in theKirtland time period, of preparing the
Doctrine and Covenants to be published.

Yeah.
Today this is our series on theDoctrine and Covenants, but one
thing to keep in mind is thisis all happening simultaneously.

Yeah.

The earliest sections of the Doctrine and
Covenants are linked to thetranslation of the Book of Mormon.
And we talked about how the JosephSmith Translation of the Bible is
a huge factor in the creation ofthe Doctrine and Covenants as well.

That's right.

And so while we've kind of put them into these nice,
little, separate categories, it wouldbe helpful for our listeners to realize
this is all happening simultaneously.
And they're all interlinkedwith each other.
So in your mind, keep that Venn diagramof the Joseph Smith Translation of
the Bible and the Book of Mormonand the Doctrine and Covenants
all overlapping with each other.

(02:30):
And the basic thing we're trying toget 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?

That's right.
So today where should we start as we begintalking about, and specifically shining
a light on, the Doctrine and Covenants?

Let's start out by talking about
what makes this book different.

Okay.

This is directly from the introduction
of the Doctrine and Covenants,which, Scott, not many people read.
I'm going to fully confess, I readthe introduction in preparation for
this and was like, “Holy cow, there'sa bunch of stuff in here.” There's
some great, great stuff, some of whichwe're going to get to a little bit
later on, but let's start out by justa direct statement in the introduction.

It says this (03:11):
“The book of Doctrine and Covenants is one of the standard
works of the church in companywith the Holy Bible, the Book of
Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price.
However, the Doctrine andCovenants is unique because it's
not a translation of an ancientdocument but is of modern origin.
Was given of God through his chosenprophets for the restoration of his
holy work and the establishment ofthe Kingdom of God on the earth in

(03:32):
these last days.” So this might be anoversimplification, but one of the things
that makes the Doctrine and Covenantsdifferent is it's not an ancient document.

Hmm.

It isn't something the Israelites or the Nephites or
the Lamanites, or any other ancientpeople, had in their possession.
It is the book and scripture thatGod is creating in collaboration
with the modern Latter-day Saints.
That makes it differentright from the get go.

It's in English.

Yeah.

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

Yes.

It's American scripture.

Yes.

That's incredible.

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 Doctrineand Covenants is challenging—

Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths: —for us to understand. (04:19):
undefined
I mean, I tell my classes, if I wasintroducing someone to the gospel,
there's no question what book I would givethem: I'd give them the Book of Mormon.
It is the most user friendly ofall the scriptures that we have.
The Doctrine and Covenants isnot that user friendly, but that
makes it a little bit more rich.
So I'd give somebody the Bookof Mormon and say, “Here.

(04:40):
Here's the basics you need to knowabout God, Jesus Christ, and the Plan
of Salvation.” And then once they feelcomfortable with that, the Doctrine
and Covenants is the AP course.
It's the, “Hey, let'stake 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 salvationis faith, repentance, baptism,

(05:02):
and the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Let's talk about how we do that foreverybody, including people that
have already died.” The Doctrine andCovenants is interested in exploring
those questions that a person mighthave once they've gained a testimony
and a witness of the basic, the firstprinciples and ordinances of the gospel.
And that's really appealing to me.

Yeah.
President Ezra Taft Benson, he quotedJoseph Smith saying that the Book of
Mormon is the keystone of our religion.
And then he says, and the Doctrineand Covenants is the capstone, right?
It's that next level.
It builds on the keystone.

Yeah.

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

We believe in an open canon, and that is upsetting
to some Christians, but it's also, tome, one of the most appealing aspects
of our faith, is that we don't thinkGod has finished speaking to people.

Yeah.

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

Yeah.

Now, in some cases, I'll tell you right now,
the messiest book of scripturethat we have by far is the Bible.

What do you mean by that?

Well, I mean, when we're talking about how did the Bible
come to be and what's the process by whichsomething was placed into the Bible or
something was chosen to not be placed inthe Bible, you know, there's—it seems like
every other History Channel documentaryis this lost books of the Bible or,
you know what, if we had just put thisdocument in, things would have been

(06:42):
totally different or anything like that.
It's one of the most tantalizing“what ifs” that's out there.

Yeah.

But a lot of questions about the Bible, too, are
difficult to solve because we justdon't have the sources to solve
it, and the sources that we do haveare copies of copies of copies.

Yeah.

Same thing with the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon is more wellcurated than the Bible, but we
don't have the original sourcematerial, so we can't go back.

Yeah.

We have a couple really tempting statements, like
in Words of Mormon, Mormon says, Icannot include the hundredth part of
what I have, which means if the Bookof Mormon is 531 pages long, there's
53,100 pages of material out there.

If we take him literally, yeah.

Yeah, if we take him literally, which he probably wasn't
meant to be taken literally, but howdid Mormon choose the 1 percent that
got into the book that we have today?
Like, I'm interested in knowinghow the sausage was made, I guess
you'd say, even if it's messy.
One of the great things about theDoctrine and Covenants is we do have
a ton of material on how the materialwas selected, how it was placed

(07:45):
in the Doctrine and Covenants, andwhy it was given so much emphasis.
So since it isn't finished, andit's literally in the process of
being created, it's very informativein helping us understand how
scripture comes to be canon.

Yeah.

And I'm getting ahead of myself here, because
I'm introducing two terms we'vegot to go back to and deal with.
That's scripture and canon.

Yeah, we need to talk about those.

So it might feel kind of basic to say, what is scripture?

Yeah.

But, I mean, I remember reading this talk where the
general authority cited this NotreDame football coach who would sit
down with his players and pull out afootball and go, this is a football.
You know, it's round in themiddle, it's elongated at the
end, and he would start there.
In order for us to understand theDoctrine and Covenants, we might
have to start with a really basicquestion, which is, what is scripture?

(08:31):
What do we mean by that?

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

And this is why professors are so
fun to hang out with, right?
Somebody comes up to you and says, the skyis blue, and they're like, wait a minute.

Is it, though?

What is blue?
What does that mean, exactly?
But this is what we do.

Yeah.

Let's start with this basic question.
What is scripture?

Okay.

Yeah.
So I pose this to a class of, youknow, a bunch of college freshmen.
And, I mean, nine times out often, the answer that comes back is
usually “words spoken by inspirationgiven to prophets and apostles.”

Yeah.

And that's not bad, but it does raise a couple questions.
For instance, does it have tocome to a prophet or an apostle?
There are books in the Biblethat were about people that
weren't prophets or apostles—

Yeah.

—that were probably written by people that weren't prophets
or apostles, or it's clear that in someof the biblical books people that weren't
prophets or apostles kind of went in andmade changes and edited things like that.

Yeah.

And so that's the first question.
Does it have to come toa prophet or an apostle?

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

Yeah, because there's no church, right?

There was no church.
I guess you could arguewe had a prophet, though.
He was a prophet, eventhough there was no church.
But, it can get complicated.

It can get complicated, right?

Yeah.

And, you know, a basic question would be, is
a patriarchal blessing scripture?
Your patriarch has a position inthe church where he is set apart
to give individual revelations, buthe's not a prophet or an apostle.

Yeah.

So is a patriarchal blessing scripture?
That is one question we could bring up.

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

Yeah.
Yeah, let's do it.

Like, Doctrine and Covenants 68:4-5 says this
whatsoever they shall speak,” now,the “they” here are four individuals
in particular that the Lord'stalking about in this instance.
This was Orson Hyde, Luke Johnson,Lyman Johnson, and William E.
McClellan.
You can see those right inthis section introduction.

(11:02):
And none of those areapostles at this time.
They're not prophets.
They're not apostles.
Some of them will become apostles.
Actually, all of themwill become apostles.

Yeah, all of them become apostles.

But at this time?

But years later.

Yeah.
This is November 1831.
We don't get a Quorum of theTwelve 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 theyshall speak,” those four new converts,
“when moved upon by the Holy Ghostshall be scripture, shall be the will

(11:36):
of the Lord, shall be the mind ofthe 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 theLord unto you, O ye my servants.”
So that's a fascinating little twoverses about what is scripture.
It can be given to newconverts to the church, right?

Yeah.

I mean, anybody can speak scripture.
The only qualification is theyhave to be moved upon by the
Holy Ghost and then speak it.
That's scripture.
That's interesting.

That's a broad definition, right?

So broad.

Because by that definition, your patriarchal
blessing definitely is scripture.

That would be scripture.

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 bythe power of the Holy Ghost to them?
Is that scripture?

It sounds like yes, according to section 68.

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

Totally.

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 withwho would constantly say, “But the
Spirit told me to do this.” And Iwould be like, “Yeah, but it doesn't
seem like a wise thing to do.” Andthat's why we have to introduce
a second term, and that is canon.

Ooh, canon.

Yes.

What is canon?

Okay.
The simplest definition of canon we canfind just comes from the Bible Dictionary,
so, again, we're being pretty basic here.

Okay.

The Bible Dictionary says canon is a word of
Greek origin, “originally meaninga rod for testing straightness.
Now used to denote the authoritativecollection of the sacred books
used by true believers in Christ.
In The Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter-day Saints, the canonical
books are called the standard works.”And so scripture is anything that

(13:30):
comes by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Yeah.

Canon is a collection of scriptures that we
use to measure what is scripture.

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

If that makes sense, right?

Wait, wait.
So say that one more time.
Say that one more time.

So canon is a measuring rod.

Uh-huh.

Even the word standard, the standard works,
denotes that this is a way ofmeasuring what is genuine and what
is not when it comes to scripture.
In section 28 of the Doctrine andCovenants, Hiram Page has a seer stone.
He is receiving revelations throughthe seer stone, and the whole Whitmer

(14:09):
family, which is basically a third ofthe church at this point in time, accepts
what Hiram Page is saying as scripture.
Now, what's interesting is two otherpeople, that's Joseph Smith and Newell
Knight, listen to what Hiram Page hasreceived through this seer stone, and
both of them immediately raise thesame concern, which is—Newell Knight

(14:30):
says, what Hiram Page had receivedcontradicted 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 majorred flag here that it seems like what
Hiram Page is receiving contradictsthe revelations we've already been
given and what's in the New Testament.

(14:50):
And we don't know what HiramPage received, by the way.

Something about Zion, right?

Casey Paul Griffiths: Something about Zion. (14:54):
undefined
Yeah, the best description we have.
which is from Emer Harris, who wasn'teven there, says that the roll of
writings was eventually burned.
But we do know that it set offalarm bells for both Joseph Smith
and Newell Knight, that what theywere saying contradicted the canon.

Okay, so a canon is the measuring rod by which you
test, like, the reliability or thetrustworthiness of a particular
truth claim, usually a theologicaltruth claim, a doctrinal truth claim.
Like, canon is the waythat you measure it.
It's the standard works.
It's an agreed upon, I'm tryingto not use the word standard,

(15:32):
it's an agreed upon filter system.
It's a way by which we can haveconfidence that something is
trustworthy and right and true.
Something like that, right?
Like, Elder Christofferson says it likethis: he says speaking of the standard
works, he calls them the touchstonefor measuring correctness and truth.

(15:53):
They are the touchstone formeasuring correctness and truth.
Like, anciently there were these stonesthat you could tell the difference between
a true gold coin and a fake gold coin.
You would rub it across these darkstones called touchstones, and if it
drew a certain color of a line, youwould know that it was true gold.
So Elder Christofferson'susing that analogy, that the
canon is like a touchstone formeasuring correctness and truth.

Yeah.

President Hugh B.
Brown, he once said, we are onlybound by the four standard works, and
we're not required to defend what anyman or woman says outside of them.
So someone says, well, my patriarchalblessing says this, or I heard this,
or my seminary teacher said that, orthere was this quote in the Journal of
Discourses that said this other thing.
That's all interesting, and it could betrue, but the way that we're going to,

(16:41):
like, test and measure that is by runningit through what has been canonized.

Yeah.

It's kind of a standard of safety.
It's like a doctrinal safety net.

Yeah.
Imagine in your mind, two circlesoverlapping: one's labeled “scripture,”
and one's labeled “canon.” And we wouldhope 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 alwayscomes up is the Song of Solomon.
We've talked about this, but inJoseph Smith's Translation of the

(17:11):
Bible, he wrote a note that the Songof Solomon is not inspired writing.
But outside of that, I can'tthink of anything in the canon,
in the four standard works, thatwe wouldn't consider scripture.
On the other hand, the Lord's definitionof scripture is so broad, it includes
a ton of stuff, and if somebody offchance claims that something is scripture

(17:32):
and we have doubts about it, the mostreliable way of figuring out if it
is or isn't is to go to the canon.

Yeah.

Say, does this agree with the canon?
Does it contradict the canon?
Is this something that'salready in the canon?

Yeah.

And we use that kind of as our measuring rod.

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

Okay, fire away.

1 John 4:12.
“No man hath seen God at any time.” What'sinteresting is you can use consistent,
repeated teachings throughout the canonto kind of spot outliers like that, right?
Like they're in Exodus 24, Exodus33, Genesis 32, Acts 7, Revelation 5.
Like there's people who'veseen God in the Bible.
And so you can measure that littleoutlier scripture that says no man

(18:16):
has seen God at any time as eitherscribal 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 inRevelation 5 says that he saw God.
Even Revelation 1 says that Jesus, like,appeared and laid his hand on his head.

(18:39):
So is John contradicting John?
Yeah.
Well, then who do we go with?
Well, we go with what's been consistentlytaught throughout the canon, right?

Yeah.
That's right.
I guess the best way to state itwould be the measure of truth is
the harmonized scriptural canon.

I like that.
I like that.

Because if a person is making their whole point by
using one scripture, even if it's inthe canon, that's shaky ground to be on.

Yeah.

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

Yeah.

We don't think the canon's perfect.

No.

And one of the things that we don't want to fall
into is making the canon the object ofour worship rather than Jesus Christ.

Right.

The canon brings us to Jesus Christ.
It's the best tool we have, butit also goes through the hands
of humans, and anything that goesthrough the hands of humans is messy.

Yeah.

And the creation of canon is messy, right?

I think that's a super important point.
Like, we need to, like, always have asour underlying assumption about scripture
that this is a collaborative effortbetween humans and the divine, right?
That, yes, you're going to findGod in scripture, but you're
also going to find humans.
You're going to find evidenceof God's divine handiwork, but
you're also going to find humanfingerprints all over this, right?

(19:58):
As Moroni said in the beginning on thetitle page of the Book of Mormon, if there
are errors in here, they're the mistakesof men, but please do not condemn the
things of God because you're going tofind some human fingerprints in this book.

Yeah.

Scripture is a collaborative effort
between humans and God.
And so you're going to findevidence of both there.

Yeah.
Scripture has to be read withthis discerning eye, whether
it's your patriarchal blessing—

Yeah.

—whether it's a talk that was given in sacrament
meeting, a general conference talk—

Yeah.

—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.

Yeah.
Scripture is a dance betweenthe human and the divine.
It's a collaborative work, a collaborativeeffort, and we're trying in this
series to show how that works, how it'smessy, but also how it's beautiful and
ultimately how it benefits all of us.

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

Yeah.

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

Yeah.
How does scripture become canon?

Yeah, so that can be complex as well.
The formal canonization processestablished by the church is that
something is prepared by the FirstPresidency and the Twelve and then
presented to the membership of theChurch for a formal sustaining vote.
The last time we sawthis was in the 1970s.
Two documents, they are nowDoctrine and Covenants 137 and

(21:54):
138, and Official Declaration 2were all added to the scriptural
canon, but even that was complex.
At first, for instance, D&C 137 and 138were put into the Pearl of Great Price.
That was in 1979.
In 1981 they were given sectiondesignations and placed into
the Doctrine and Covenantsbecause they fit better there.
Official Declaration 2 was alwaysin the Doctrine and Covenants.

(22:16):
But we canonized each one of thesethings by going through the same process:
the First Presidency and the Twelvepresented them to the church, the church
offered a sustaining vote, and then wechanged the Pearl of Great Price first,
and then the Doctrine and Covenants.
It became part of the scriptural canon.

Yeah, that reminds me of this quote by Hugh B.
Brown.
He was in the First Presidency, andhe explains in really clear detail,
like, how does something go from whatwe're calling scripture to canon?
Here's what he says, “The only way I knowof by which the teachings of any person or
group may become binding upon the churchis if the teachings have been reviewed by

(22:55):
all the brethren, submitted to the highestcouncils of the church, and then approved
by the whole body of the church.” Hesays, “I do not doubt that the brethren,”
speaking of his fellow apostles, “I donot doubt that the brethren have often
spoken under inspiration and given newemphasis, perhaps even a new explanation
or interpretation of church doctrine,but that does not become binding upon the

(23:16):
church unless and until it is submitted tothe scrutiny of the rest of the brethren
and then later to the vote of the people.
Again, we are only bound by the fourstandard works,” he says, “and are
not required to defend what any manor woman says outside of them.” Wow.
That's really clear.
And then President Lee said, “Theonly one authorized to bring forth

(23:37):
any new doctrine is the President ofthe Church, who, when he does, will 1.
Declare it as a revelationfrom God, and 2.
It will be so accepted bythe Council of the Twelve.
And then 3.
It will be sustained by thebody of the church.” So that's
how doctrine is done, right?
It's going to be initiated by thechurch president, and then it's
going to be accepted in the councilsand then voted on by the church.

(23:59):
And so you're saying the last timethat happened was in the 1970s?

The formal canonization process.
Now you could make the argument, andI have heard people say that there's a
kind of informal canonization process.

What?

And that is where things are quoted or placed.
For instance, and this is the examplethe person I was talking to cited, if
you go into the Gospel Library app, thereis a tab for Scriptures, and there is

the four standard works (24:25):
Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine
and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price.
But there's also another tab rightnext to it that says Basic Resources.
You click on that, that has theLiving Christ, the Proclamation
on the Family, and the RestorationProclamation given in 2020.
By placing these in such a prominentplace right next to the four standard

(24:46):
works, some people would argue thatthis is a semi-canonization process.
It's not formal, there wasn't a sustainingvote, but they're given a prominent place.
And you also point out that thesedocuments, like the Living Christ,
especially the Family Proclamation, arequoted so much in General Conference that
that's a sort of informal canonization.

Yeah.
That sounds a little sketchy to me, thatsomething could be informally canonized,
right, because as President Hugh B.
Brown is saying, We're onlybound 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

(25:28):
to acknowledge, you know, that these arethe standards of the church, or these
are the doctrinal propositions thatwe adhere to as members of the church.
You know what I'm saying?

Yeah.

Like, for me, that's just messy.
It's like, we kind of basicallybound by it, but we're not,
like, actually fully bound by it.
Like, what does that even mean?

Well, and that's part of the reason why, like
you, I feel a little uncomfortablewith the wording of semi-canonization
or informal canonization.

Yeah.

And I would say the same thing, too.
The Family Proclamation gets quoteda lot, but until it goes through the
formal canonization process, I wouldn'tconsider it part of the scriptural canon.

I thought it was interesting when President Hinckley
actually introduced the FamilyProclamation, just as an interesting case
study, he said, “We, the First Presidencyand Council of the Twelve now issue a
proclamation to the Church and to theworld as,” note how he characterizes
it, “a declaration and reaffirmationof standards, doctrines and practices
relative to the family which the prophets,seers, and revelators of this Church

(26:26):
have repeatedly stated throughout itshistory.” That's interesting, right?
That it's basically a synthesis documentof what's been repeatedly taught from
the beginning of this dispensation.
And much of it finds itsbasis in the canon, actually.
And so it is a secondary document.
At the end of the day, the FamilyProclamation is a secondary document

(26:47):
based on a lot of primary documents.

Yeah.

And when I teach a course on the Family
Proclamation, that's how we study it.
We study it as, okay, this is asecondary document coming from
the First Presidency and Twelve.
What are the primary sources, scripturalcanon, that undergird this, that
help us to actually increase ourconfidence in the validity of what
is being taught and proclaimed here?

Yeah.

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 whatis the standard works.
Like, why could we put this stuff in thebasic resources in the gospel library?
Why would we feel so confidentputting that next to scripture?
Well, you'll find at the end of theday when you scrutinize it, when

(27:28):
you analyze it, that it squaresreally solid with the canon.
So that's why we can havehigh confidence in it.

Casey Paul Griffiths: You make a good point. (27:34):
undefined
I mean, I believe the FamilyProclamation is scripture.

Yeah.

But it might not be canonized because it seems
like the point President Hinckleywas trying to make was everything
that it says is already in the canon.
It's just we put it into aconvenient, one-stop shopping
place where you can find all theseprinciples related to the family.

Yeah.

I'd say the same thing about the Restoration Proclamation.

Yeah, for sure.

Everything in the Restoration Proclamation
is already in the canon.

Yeah.

So we probably don't need to formally canonize it.

Right.

It's just a great resource where everything's there in
one place and has been given a new stampof approval by the First Presidency
and Twelve by them republishing it.

Totally.

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.

Right.
That's a good way to say it.

So this canonization process, like we said,
is messy, and it's a collaborationbetween human beings and God.

Yeah.
So what do you see as one of the biggestcriticisms of human involvement in the
creation of scriptural canon generally andthe Doctrine and Covenants specifically?

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, andthere's been any kind of editing or
reworking of the text, it's not true,when in reality, I don't think that,

(29:02):
you know, any serious person who reallyunderstands scripture makes that claim.
Everybody understands that the formationof the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the
Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl ofGreat Price were a complex process.

Right.

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 itthings like the Doctored Covenants.

Ha-ha-ha.

Because it's clear that they did go through and edit it.

Yeah.

And, I mean, this is sort of a dumb attack to make
because, first of all, it's suggestingthat there was some sort of cover up.

Yeah.

That we're trying to conceal the process.
And second, it's trying to suggestthat, well, scriptural texts just appear
out of nowhere and don't require humanbeings to work on them, to publish them.
Anybody that's written a book or anarticle knows what a messy process it is.

Yeah.

We want to exempt scripture from that process,
but it's just not true, and it'snever been anything that the leaders
of the Church have claimed was true.
If there's this vast conspiracy tocover up the fact that sections of
the Doctrine and Covenants have beenchanged and altered and edited as they
were compiled and went through thecanonization process, the Church has

(30:17):
done a lousy job covering that up.
In fact, this was one of the thingsthat I read in the introduction of the
Doctrine and Covenants that sort ofsurprised me, made me go, “Holy cow.
Is this actually in here?” It saysthis: “The revelations were originally
recorded by Joseph Smith’s scribes, andchurch members enthusiastically shared
handwritten copies with each other.
To create a more permanent record,scribes soon copied these revelations

(30:39):
into manuscript record books, whichchurch leaders used in preparing
the revelations to be printed.
Joseph and the early saints viewed therevelations as they did the church:
living, dynamic, and subject torefinement and additional revelation.”

Yeah.

“They also recognized that unintentional errors
had likely occurred through theprocess of copying the revelations
and preparing them for publication.
Thus, a church conference asked JosephSmith in 1831 to correct those errors or
mistakes which he may discover by the HolySpirit.” So this is in the introduction
to the Doctrine and Covenants.
They're saying there's all kinds ofways mistakes could have crept in.

(31:13):
These revelations are living.
Sometimes it looks like they had arevelation, like section 27, and when they
went to publish it, they had unansweredquestions, and so they sought a further
revelation on what section 27 meant, andthen they combined those two together to
create the section 27 that we have today.
The point is we've never, everpresented this as something where

(31:35):
the verses just appeared and wenever changed or altered them or they
didn't need to be edited or alteredbefore they were fit for publication.
I mean, if you want to knowhow the sausage is made, it's
messy and it's collaborative.

But in the end, it's delicious.

Casey Paul Griffiths: In the end, it's great. (31:51):
undefined

Like sausage.

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.

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

Yeah.

—from manuscript to manuscript.
Sometimes he'll take stuff out.
Sometimes he'll add stuff in.

Yeah.

Sometimes he splices together two separate revelations
that were never received together, butsometimes years apart, and then he'll put
them together as one cohesive revelation.
And that causes people tohave some heartburn, right?

Yeah.

Because it violates kind of an unexamined assumption, right?
There's an assumption that if hereally was God's prophet, then he
wouldn't have to change anything.
There would be no needto change stuff, right?
Is that a fair summary sofar of what you're saying?
Like—

Yeah.

—that is the problem, and it's based on a faulty assumption,
but that's not an assumption thatchurch leaders have ever shared,
that prophets are not supposed toever 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 forerror, and so those need to be cleaned
up before publication, basically.

Yeah.
And alongside the word error, weought to use that word they use in
the introduction, which is living.

Okay.

A lot of members of the church will note that there
have been changes in the templeceremonies in the last couple of years.
I wouldn't say that thosechanges came because there were
errors in the temple ceremony.

Yeah.

I think the temple ceremonies were spot on.

Yeah.

I would say the changes came because the
temple ceremonies are living.
They're living in the sensethat they're part of our lives.
They're affected by the circumstances weexist in, and prophets and apostles have
the right to go in and make changes toadapt these sacred texts—which I consider
the temple ceremonies to be sacredtexts—so that they meet our needs as well.

(33:58):
I think that's a healthy way to lookat scripture, that it's something
that is continually flowing from God.
And the scripture that makes up the canonneeds to be looked at that way, too.

Yeah.

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 whatauthority they have that concerns us.

Yes, excellent.
I like that other word,too, in the introduction.
Right next to the wordliving is the word dynamic.

Yeah.

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

Yeah.

And we have records of them doing so.
And for anyone who wants to do a deeperdive 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 toUnderstanding: Revelation as Process.” And
he's specifically focusing on the Doctrineand Covenants and how it came about.
But we can only assume thatthere was some sort of similar

(34:53):
messiness with the Book of Mormon.
With Mormon, all of his hundred times morematerial to work with and work through.
With the Bible, for sure, we havesome documented messiness, but there's
so much more that we don't knowabout, no doubt, but we have a unique
vantage point with the Doctrine andCovenants because it was so recent.
We've got a lot of theoriginal manuscripts.

Yeah.

And Steven Harper does a fantastic job walking through
the messiness of all of this.
I'll give an example ofsomething that Steve says.
He said this, “Joseph Smith didnot assume, as we might, that his
revelation texts were faxed from heaven.
He understood that the Lord couldcertainly send signals seamlessly,
but he, Joseph, knew better thananyone else that he lacked the power

(35:34):
to receive the messages immaculatelyor to recommunicate them perfectly.
He considered it, ‘an awful responsibilityto write in the name of the Lord,’
as he put it, largely because he feltconfined by what he called the, quote,
‘total darkness of paper and pen andink and a crooked, broken, scattered,
and imperfect language.”’ So you getthis sense that Joseph was frustrated

(35:57):
by this task that he had to try toput divine revelations into English.
And he was always frustrated to the endof his life, his ability to communicate
well what God had revealed to him.

Mm-hmm.

Steve Harper goes on, he says, “Joseph rightfully
regarded his language as a deeplyflawed medium for communication.
Even so, the Lord consciouslyrevealed the sections of the Doctrine
and Covenants in Joseph's corruptlanguage, 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.

Yeah.

And English that Joseph Smith would understand.
Steve continues, “He revealed ina language Joseph could come to
understand so that we, too, couldcome, by a process, to understand.
The communicative limits of Joseph'srevelation texts are inherent not
in the Lord who gave them but inthe imperfect language spoken by his
weak servants, who had to decode thedivine messages, with various kinds of

(36:54):
noise inhibiting them.” There you go.
There's a little tantalizingsample of Steve Harper's great
treatment of all of this.
And he goes through the process ofJoseph revising and amending the text
before publication and putting some textstogether so as to better communicate what
he understood to be the will of the Lord.
And sometimes there's justline upon line things.
There's things like the current versionof section 20 includes information about

(37:17):
priesthood offices that were not knownwhen the original text was written, right?
So sometimes it's practical like that.
Or, like, section 42 now says thatthe bishop and his counselors should
administer the law of consecration, butwhen it was revealed, there was no bishop
and counselors, it was just a bishop.
Originally section 68 saidthat bishops should be chosen
by a council of high priests.

(37:39):
Now it says that responsibility isin the hands of the First Presidency.
The reason it didn't say it originallyis because there was no First Presidency.
First Presidency hadn'tbeen organized yet.
It wouldn't be until1832 that that happens.
And so there's some practicalthings like that where Joseph
totally has the prerogative totweak and amend and update, right?
But other times it's very, justclarifying, he's just trying to

(38:01):
communicate the mind and will ofGod as best Joseph could in his
broken, scattered, dark language.
And he relied heavily on those who he feltwere more gifted in literary ways, like W.
W.
Phelps and Sidney Rigdonand Oliver Cowdery to try to
help him with this process.

Yeah, and one of the scriptures that Steve quotes a lot
in that very excellent article that youcited is in Doctrine and Covenants 1.
This is another example of theSavior commenting on scripture.
And one of the things he says herethat I think is incredibly valuable to
understand all scripture, verse 24, hesays, “I am God, and have spoken it.

(38:37):
These commandments are of me and weregiven 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 mightbe chastened, that they might repent.
And inasmuch as they were humble, theymight be made strong, and blessed from

(38:58):
on high, and received knowledge fromtime to time.” So there's the Savior
Himself saying, I'm working with a—

Yeah.

—an imperfect medium here.
And that has to do with His servantsand their imperfections, their
language and their imperfectionsand their understanding.
And so the Savior's working through allthese barriers to communicate His will.
We should expect there to be somemessiness in scripture, even scriptural
canon, because there's humans involved.

(39:25):
And I want to commendanother resource here.
That is the work done by the men andwomen that work on the Joseph Smith
Papers Project, which have done a greatjob just laying out there exactly how
complex the creation of scripture andthe book that they highlight the best and
the most is the Doctrine and Covenants.

That's right.

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

Yeah, let's do it.

So, first one, Doctrine and Covenants 27—

Okay.

—is the revelation of the Doctrine and Covenants that when
most church members refer to it, theyrefer to the fact that it's the revelation
where the Savior says it doesn't reallymatter what you use for the sacrament.
What matters is thespirit in which you do it.
The context is Joseph Smith is withNewell Knight, and Joseph and Newell's
wives, Emma and Sally, have both beenbaptized but haven't been confirmed,

(40:33):
and they're going to confirm them, andthey're going to hold a sacrament service.
So Joseph goes out to purchasewine for the sacrament service.
Some church members might beshocked to know that they used wine
in sacrament services back then.

Like Jesus.

Like Jesus.
Along the way, Joseph Smith saidthat an angelic messenger met him on
the road and gave him a revelation.
Now, the revelation, as we understandit, is not all of section 27.
It's part of it.

Yeah.

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 theoriginal Doctrine and Covenants, which
is called the Book of Commandments, butin 1835, when they decide to publish
the first Doctrine and Covenants,which is kind of a revised and updated,

(41:20):
he receives a much larger revelationthat he combines with this earlier
one, and that creates Section 27.
So we would have to basically saySection 27 was received in 1830, when
the original revelation was given, whenthe angel spoke to Joseph Smith, and
in 1835, when Joseph Smith set down toformally canonize this, put it into the

(41:43):
Doctrine and Covenants, and he askedfollow-up questions, and more revelation
was given, the two are combined, and thatbecomes what we're familiar with today as
section 27 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

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

Yeah.
And like I said, Joseph tried topublish the original revelation in the
Book of Commandments, then publishedthe revised revelation in 1835.
These are both public documents.

Yeah.

So he's not trying to cover up the fact that
he received more revelation, and hedecided to enlarge the revelation.
He does it in the mostpublic way he possibly can.

Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths: By publishing a book. (42:25):
undefined

Yeah.

So that's a little messy, right?
But there's no indication there was anykind of cover up, that there was any
kind of shady activity going on thatthey were trying to confuse people.
They're just showing how the canonizationand revelation process works.
In fact, I would say in thiscase the canonization process
led to further revelation.

That's right.
President Packer once said, “Of coursethere have been changes and corrections
in the Doctrine and Covenants.
Anyone who's done even limitedresearch knows that.” And then he says

this (42:55):
“When properly reviewed, such corrections become a testimony for,
not against, the truth of the books.”

Amen.
Next case study, Doctrine and Covenants107, and you and I were talking about this
beforehand, but Doctrine and Covenants107 is a really crucial revelation.
It's basically the whole governmentof the church in a nutshell, but
when you go back and trace it, it'sclear that it's several revelations
given at several different times thatthey combined together to create the

(43:26):
section that we're now familiar with.

Yeah.
Can I walk through howmessy it is real quick?

Yeah.
Let's walk through that real fast.

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 averse, 71-72, skip a verse, 74-75,
78-87, verse 89, 91-92, and 99-100.

(43:52):
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 preparingthis section for inclusion in the
Doctrine and Covenants, he's addingall those little verses, like verse
61, little transition verse, verse70, verse 73, verse 76 and 77, verse

(44:13):
88, verse 90, verses 93 through 98.
This is Joseph adding, as he's preparingthis 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 alland read it all as one, like,
harmonious revelation, right?

(44:33):
But it's actually, when you get intothe, how the sausage is made, it's messy.
There's a lot of differentpieces coming together.
But at the end of the day, likegood sausage, it's delicious.

It is messy.

Yeah.

And let me point out, we were putting
together our commentary that's onDoctrine and Covenants Central.
The part that actually was coolest tome when I found out this: verses 53-55,
which talk about Adam gathering togetherhis posterity and giving them a final
blessing three years prior to his death.
This was a revelation given in 1833that was placed into section 107,

(45:10):
because section 107 is the one-stopshopping, find out who the governing
bodies of the church are, and theywanted to include something about
the role of patriarchs in the church.
So this revelation was actually givenwhen Joseph Smith's father was called as
the presiding patriarch of the church.
And it could have been a totallyseparate section of the Doctrine
and Covenants, and I would have beenfine with that, but if we're putting

(45:33):
everything into section 107 that describesthe governing bodies of the church,
this is the right place for it to go.

Yeah.

So there's no sinister motive.
There's no cover up.
It's very transparent about how allthese different revelations were placed
together so that section 107 would beconsidered a cohesive, whole revelation
where you could go and figure out howthe church is supposed to be governed.

That's good.

One last example, and this maybe is a
great example to deal with ourquestion of scripture versus canon.
That's section 137.
Section 137 is one of the newestsections of the Doctrine and Covenants.
In fact, the last time the churchwent through the formal canonization
process, Section 137 was oneof the documents considered.
It's right at the end of the Doctrineand Covenants, but what's unique about

(46:31):
it is it wasn't a new revelation.
It was a very old revelation.
It comes from an excerpt in JosephSmith's journal where he was
in the Kirtland Temple—KirtlandTemple wasn't finished yet.
It hadn't been dedicated—onJanuary 21st, 1836, and he saw a
vision of the Celestial Kingdom.
He sees his father and mother, he seesHeavenly Father and Jesus Christ, and then

(46:54):
he sees his brother Alvin in the CelestialKingdom and asks how this was possible.
And the Lord tells him all those whowould have received the gospel had
they been permitted to tarry shallbe heirs of the celestial kingdom.
Now, later on, the whole theology ofhow that works and work for the dead
is going to be given to Joseph Smith.
But at this point, he'sjust given this ray of hope.
Now, this is old.

(47:15):
I mean, this is older than somerevelations in the Doctrine and Covenants.
It wasn't canonized until 1979.
That's when it's placed inthe Pearl of Great Price.
It becomes section 137 in 1981, andthis whole thing, to me, sort of
captures the canonization process,because first, it's not the whole thing.
The vision itself has a wholeother section where Joseph saw

(47:37):
the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb.

Yeah.

In fact, I'll read a little bit of it here
the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb, who arenow 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 tatteredand feet swollen, with their eyes cast
downward, and Jesus standing in theirmidst, and they did not behold Him.
The Savior looked upon them and wept.
I also beheld Elder McClellan in theSouth standing on a hill surrounded
by a vast multitude preaching tothem and a lame man standing before

(48:02):
him supported by his crutches.
He threw them down at his word and leapedas an hart by the mighty power of God.
And also Brigham Young standing in astrange land in the far Southwest in a
desert place upon a rock in the midstof a dozen men of color who appeared
hostile.” Again, all this stuff is cool.

Yeah.

And I would have been fine if they put all of
this in the Doctrine and Covenants.
But the First Presidency and Twelvelooked at this particular excerpt
from Joseph Smith's history and said,hey, this part is really important.
This part about the CelestialKingdom, about Alvin, about the fate
of those who would have receivedthe gospel if they'd had the chance.

Yeah.

Let's canonize that.
So they clipped that part out.
They presented it to the church, thechurch sustained it, and now it's section
137 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Yeah.

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

Yeah.

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

Yeah.

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 thisis how we end the episode.
What would you canonize?

Ooh.
What would you canonize?
Let's play a little game.

Oh, all right.
Let's do this.
Let's do this.
So I'll go, and then you can go.

Oh, geez.
Okay, go ahead.

So I would canonize the Wentworth Letter.
I'd canonize the whole thing.

The whole Wentworth Letter.

Part of it is already canon.
That's the Articles of Faith.
We just clipped that out andsaid, let's put that in the canon.
That's in the Pearl of Great Price.
But I think the whole thing is anexquisite history of the church.
It has some amazing, inspirationalstatements, that whole, “the
standard of truth is going forth.”I'd canonize the whole thing.
That would be my first pick.

(50:03):
Let's just make this formal.
We quote it all the time.

Yeah.

Everything in it seems like it lines up
and fits with everything else.

Yeah.

Casey Paul Griffiths: Let's just put it in there. (50:09):
undefined
Let's make it part of the Doctrineand Covenants, I would say.

That's hard to argue against.
If that was proposed in our nextgeneral conference, I would sustain it.
I would sustain theWentworth Letter as canon.
That's good.

Okay.
So what would you canonize?
What's your pick?

I might go back to that excerpting model, and I
would like to excerpt large swathsfrom the King Follett Discourse.
I think there are some booyah synthesisof man's divine potential that are
stated better there than most places.
It squares with scripture, revelationsthat have been canonized, but
it's just said so beautifully.

(50:48):
Also, I'd probably bring more of theLiberty Jail letter, like section 121,
122, and 123 are just excerpts froma longer letter that Joseph wrote in
Liberty Jail that Orson Pratt just—hewent 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 yourealize that there's crucial context

(51:10):
that some of the verses that have beencanonized 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?

I would, definitely.
In fact, you kind of picked thenext one I was going to pick, which
is the King Follett Discourse.
And to be honest, I’d justcanonize the whole thing.

The whole thing?

I would.
I know that some people have sometheological issues with it, but I just
think the whole thing's dynamite, andit gets quoted so much in the church
that I would at least do excerpts.

Yeah.

And if I were king for a day, I'd
just canonize the whole thing.
I think it's amazing.

That's fun.

The central point we're trying to make here is the Doctrine
and Covenants is still in process.
There could be new revelations that gothrough the formal canonization process.
There could be old revelations wealready have that go through the
canonization process, but it isliving, dynamic, and that makes
it changing to a certain extent.
And in our next episode, what we'regoing to do is actually go through the

(52:12):
Doctrine and Covenants and show you howin each edition it's gone through changes.
There isn't a single edition of theDoctrine and Covenants that hasn't
undergone major changes, includingthe edition we use right now in
the church, and that's going to beour subject for the next episode.

Excellent.
Thank you for listening to thisepisode of Church History Matters.
In our next episode we trace theiterative production of the Doctrine
and Covenants from its earliest version,known as the Book of Commandments,
to its 1835 version, which includedtheological lectures known as the Lectures
on Faith, to the 1921 version, whichdecanonized the Lectures on Faith, clear

(52:51):
through to the version we use today.
It'll be a thrilling tour of the ongoingstory of the Doctrine and Covenants, and
we get front row seats in witnessing theproduction of modern scriptural canon.
If you're enjoying Church HistoryMatters, 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.

(53:13):
Today's episode was produced andedited by Scott Woodward, with show
notes and transcript by Gabe Davis.
Church History Matters is a podcastof Scripture Central, a nonprofit
which exists to help build enduringfaith in Jesus Christ by making
Latter-day Saint scripture and churchhistory accessible, comprehensible,
and defensible to people everywhere.
For more resources to enhance yourgospel study, go to scripturecentral.org,

(53:37):
where everything is availablefor free because of the generous
donations of people like you.
And while we try very hard to behistorically and doctrinally accurate
in what we say on this podcast, pleaseremember that all views expressed in
this and every episode are our viewsalone and do not necessarily reflect the
views of Scripture Central or The Churchof Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

(53:58):
Thank you so much for beinga part of this with us.

All Episodes

029 Exploring the Divine-Human Partnership in Scripture Creation | Featuring the D&C

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}029 Exploring the Divine-Human Partnership in Scripture Creation | Featuring the D&C