Canonization is a fascinating process. And with an open canon, Latter-day Saints have the potential to expand books of scriptures like the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. The process of expanding the canon is a rare event in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, especially since the 1870s, but some of the more recent additions give insight into the process and how it could unfold in the future.
One of the areas in which canonization has been studied extensively is the process through which the New Testament was canonized. Thomas Wayment explained that “there is something akin to an official canon and an unofficial or functional canon. We all recognize this most obviously in the way we give weight to certain books of scripture over others.” This applies both to documents that are currently canonized in how we weigh them (e.g. the lack of use of the Song of Solomon compared to 3 Nephi) and in documents that are currently not canon, but are treated as authoritative sources for community beliefs and praxis. This is important, because, as Wayment has written, “The way I see the issue is that the official canon followed the functional canon—and it eventually solidified the scriptural preferences of the communities which believed in Christ.” He added,
We don’t know a great deal about the functional canon that existed prior to the official canon [of the New Testament] being decided upon in the mid-fourth century, but the reality is that people were reading a widely distributed corpus of Christian books that looked similar, but not exact, in almost all Christian communities. …
As Christian communities came together for the purpose of churchwide councils, they were able to see similar usage patterns across other communities. Those shared texts formed the agreed upon scriptural canon.[1]
Authorship and distribution were key elements in selection of texts to include in the New Testament. The official canonization of these texts, however, was ultimately a formalization of the functional canon from which the Christian communities drew inspiration.
Canonization among Latter-day Saints since the death of Joseph Smith has followed a similar pattern. Important considerations that have led to canonization are authorship (i.e., the author was Joseph Smith or one of his successors), distribution and use as functional canon, and an ability to support the priorities of current leadership of the Church at the time of canonization.
The most outstanding example of the process is the Pearl of Great Price. Terryl L. Givens has noted that while the Pearl of Great Price was not canon until nearly 30 years after its initial publication in 1851, it immediately filled a need that led to widespread distribution and use as functional canon. Latter-day Saints needed access to important documents that undergirded unique beliefs (Book of Moses, Book of Abraham, and a few revelations), a brief summary of beliefs (Articles of Faith), and their foundational story (Joseph Smith—History) for use in missionary work. This not only supported missionaries in the field, but also aligned with the needs of church leadership in Utah. The Pearl of Great Price almost immediately began to be cited frequently and authoritatively by those leaders over the pulpit and in Church publications like the Millennial Star. “The Pearl of Great Price was being quoted for doctrine as much or more than the Book of Mormon and was gradually slipping into the role of another standard work,” as Givens wrote. Thus, when the next significant edition of scriptures was prepared in the 1870s and canonized in 1880, the canonization process was a minor formality for a collection that had already been part of the functional canon for decades.[2]
A second example is from Doctrine and Covenants 121–123, the excerpts from Joseph Smith’s letters from Liberty Jail. Kathleen Flake has written about the process of canonization of the letters. As she noted, “it is tempting to assume that the scriptural authority granted Smith’s letter arose necessarily from his already-established status among the Latter-day Saints as prophet and president of the church.” While “this was, no doubt, a significant and even necessary factor”, it was “of itself was an insufficient cause. Smith wrote other letters, many from jail—even this jail—that were not granted scriptural status.” The letter appealed to many Latter-day Saints because “Missouri was a watershed experience for Mormonism’s first generation, and Smith’s reflections on it had always been a chief means of rationalizing their suffering. … [It] made sense of a colossal failure related to core aspects of the church’s mission, and authoritatively legislated a rule of faith that gave hope of overcoming that failure.” Thus, it was printed three times in church newspapers between 1840 and 1854. Then, in 1876, Orson Pratt worked to create a new edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, under Brigham Young’s direction. Pratt included about 40% of the letters as sections 121–123. His redactions removed sections that focused on invective condemnation of Missourians, removing the limits of historical particularity. In addition to its historical use up to that time, the moment in history where it was canonized gave reason for the addition to canon. The U.S. government was taking measures to end the practice of plural marriage, schisms were occurring in the church in Utah, and the first generation of Latter-day Saints was passing away. The letters from Liberty Jail fit the needs of 1876 because it made sense of their past and current circumstances and suffering.[3]
Two revelations added in the twentieth century as Doctrine and Covenants 137–138 also reflect similar patterns. Section 137 is the vision of the celestial kingdom that Joseph Smith experienced in the Kirtland Temple. Stephen Smoot has traced out its history, from journal entry in 1836 to manuscript history in 1843-1844, to publication in the Deseret News and Millennial Star in 1852–1853 and B. H. Roberts’s History of the Church in 1904, all of which gave the vision a wide distribution among Latter-day Saints. As early as the 1860s, leaders of the Church “were drawing from either the language or concepts of the vision as they discussed the eternal destiny of the Saints and their duty to redeem the dead.” This trend continued into the twentieth century, with leaders like Joseph Fielding Smith, LeGrand Richards, and Bruce R. McConkie citing it directly when discussing salvation of the dead, both in general conference addresses and written works (such as in the influential A Marvelous Work and a Wonder by Richards). Thus, “even before its entry into the standard works in 1976, the Prophet’s 1836 vision was being used by leaders of the Church as an authoritative source and was understood to carry significant doctrinal weight. … What may be surprising, if anything, is not that the 1836 vision was eventually canonized but rather how long it took.”[4] Once again, the vision was used in the functional canon to the extent that it was a simple formality in adding it to the official canon.
The other document that was canonized in 1976 was section 138, Joseph F. Smith’s vision of the redemption of the dead. Mary Jane Woodger observed that “went through an incubation period until it was formally added to the Pearl of Great Price, and later to the Doctrine and Covenants.” She summarized the process:
General Authorities began referring to the doctrine in the vision in general conference addresses. The revelation was then taught, accepted, and ultimately applied by Church membership. When technological advancements made genealogical research practical, the Saints could more fully live by the teachings in President Smith’s revelation, and it was canonized as part of the standard works.
The document was recorded in October 1918, shared with the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency for approval, then published in the Deseret Evening News, the Improvement Era, the Relief Society Magazine, the Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine, the Young Woman’s Journal, the Millennial Star, and the book Gospel Doctrine over the course of the following year. Despite the flurry of publications, the vision wasn’t cited in general conference until 1945, then began to gather more citations in the 1960s. Bruce R. McConkie and Spencer W. Kimball both advocated for adding the vision to the scriptural canon because of the significance it (along with section 137) would accord genealogy work. In the mid-1970s, a “genealogy mania” was taking root in the United States, creating a milieu in which genealogical research technology would blossom alongside a deeper interest in family history among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This blossoming undergirded the institutional priority for genealogy that sections 137 and 138 would support.[5] This need was an important consideration in why it was canonized, alongside its authorship by a prophet-president and gradually increasing use among Latter-day Saints.
In sum, the process of canonization within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reveals a consistent pattern of evolving communal use, prophetic authorship, and institutional relevance. Whether examining the emergence of the Pearl of Great Price, the inclusion of Liberty Jail letters, or the formal adoption of revelations like Sections 137 and 138, it becomes clear that scripture in the Latter-day Saint tradition is not only a matter of divine origin but also of communal recognition and practical application. The functional canon—shaped by how members and leaders use, cite, and rely on certain texts—often precedes and informs official canonization. As new doctrinal needs and historical moments arise, this dynamic interplay suggests that the open canon of Latter-day Saint scripture remains a living and responsive element of the faith.
For more, see the Chad Nielsen On Scriptures page.
Footnotes:
[1] Thomas Wayment and Chad Nielsen, “How Was the New Testament Canonized?”, FromtheDesk.org, February 16, 2023, https://www.fromthedesk.org/canonization-new-testament-thomas-wayment/.
[2] Terryl Givens with Brian M. Hauglid, The Pearl of Greatest Price: Mormonism’s Most Controversial Scripture (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 16–22.
[3] Kathleen Flake, “Joseph Smith’s Letter from Liberty Jail: A Study in Canonization,” in Open Canon: Scriptures of the Latter Day Saint Tradition, ed. Christine Elyse Blythe, Christopher James Blythe, and Jay Burton (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2022), 117–131.
[4] Stephen O. Smoot, “Joseph Smith’s 1836 Vision of the Celestial Kingdom: A Historical and Contextual Analysis,” in Joseph Smith as a Visionary: Heavenly Manifestations in the Latter Days, ed. Alonzal L. Gaskill, Stephan D. Taeger, Derek R. Sainsbury, Roger G. Christensen (Provo: Religious Studies Center at Brigham Young University, 2025), 211–227.
[5] Mary Jane Woodger, “From Obscurity to Scripture: Joseph F. Smith’s Vision of the Redemption of the Dead” in You Shall Have My Word: Exploring the Text of the Doctrine and Covenants, ed. Scott C. Esplin, Richard O. Cowan, and Rachel Cope (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University), https://rsc.byu.edu/you-shall-have-my-word/obscurity-scripture-joseph-f-smiths-vision-redemption-dead.
Leave a Reply