Returning to the series I was working on earlier this year about canonization, I wanted to discuss why it sometimes isn’t the best idea to canonize documents. Part 1 of the series discussed the process by which canonization occurs in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, while Part 2 discussed some documents that could possibly be canonized in the future. While I generally feel like more documents could and should be canonized, I also recognize that there are legitimate reasons to be hesitant about expanding the scriptural canon.
The most notable reason is that practices and doctrines change in the Church over time. This is a necessary part of allowing the Church to adapt and is why ongoing revelation is so important. In my discussion of Monogamy is the Rule, for example, I discussed the 1886 Revelation of John Taylor and how the document was not canonized and is not regarded as binding upon the Church as a result. The Church began the process of backing away from plural marriage as a practice within five years of the Taylor revelation being recorded, and if it had been officially canonized, this process would have been made much more difficult. (As it was, section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants has posed its own challenges to the process of divorcing the Church from practicing polygamy.)
This reason for avoiding canonization is highlighted by the stories of the few documents that have been decanonized in Latter-day Saint scripture. The most notable example is the Lectures on Faith, a theological textbook for missionaries in the Church that was prepared by a group of Church leaders in Kirtland in 1834. This was the original “doctrine” section of the Doctrine and Covenants, but was suggested for removal in 1876 and was finally removed in the 1920 edition. While there is still much in the lectures that is congruent within the Latter-day Saint tradition, a likely reason is differences of belief about the Godhead portrayed in the lectures from the current beliefs (particularly those shaped by section 130 after its canonization in the 1870s).[1] There is also an 1835 statement of marriage that was decanonized. This statement of belief declared, “we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”[2] Given the practice of plural marriage that was current in the Church in the 1870s, this document was quietly dropped from the scriptures at the same time that section 132 was added.
As the stories of these decanonized documents that were removed due to changes in belief and practice demonstrate, it is, perhaps, more beneficial to guide the Church through documents that are regarded as easier to change. The Church’s handbook has largely come to fulfil this purpose while avoiding the relative immutability that comes with canonization.
President Brigham Young provided another theological reason for care about how revelations are presented—accountability. There is a revelation of Brigham Young that was rediscovered by Christopher Blythe that allows us to glean some insight into how he chose to capture and convey what had been revealed unto him. President Brigham Young shared the revelation at the beginning of a discourse given in St. George, Utah, in February 1874. He stated:
The word of the Lord that was reveal[e]d to his People, by his servant the Prophet sear and Reverlator, President Brigham Young, Feb[r]uary 1874[.] He speak unto the people saying, Thus saith the Lord it is my will that this people should enter into A Holy united order, by concentrating their labour, there time, and their means together for the interest of my Kingdom, and for their own mutual benefit, And I the Lord will bless them abundantly, they shall get along with less labour, and less means, And become a great deal richer, and happyer, and be enabled to do a great deal more good, And if not the curse of the Lord will be upon them, for we are got as far as we can get in our present position, for the time is fully come that we should enter into this Holy Order, the Lord is saying come, and Holy angles are saying come, and all good men are saying come, and I say come let us enter into this Holy Order, that the Kingdom of Heaven may continue to advance, till it fill the whole earth with the knowledge and love of God, Hear this oh Israil, I tell you the Kingdom of God cannot advance one step further until we enter into this Holy Order.[3]
While this revelation was shared in this form at that time to encourage the Latter-day Saints to join the United Order of Enoch and follow the Law of Consecration, Young chose to soften the presentation the next time he shared it by framing it as follows: “Thus saith the Lord unto my servant Brigham, Call ye, call ye, upon the inhabitants of Zion, to organize themselves in the Order of Enoch.”[4]
Christopher Blythe noted the change and provided some reasoning for why President Brigham Young changed the wording to something other than a direct command from God to the Saints. Blythe wrote, “First, he argued that the Saints had not lived up to the revelations that Joseph Smith had already revealed,” quoting President Young as saying, “But before we desire more written revelation, let us fulfil the revelations that are already written, and which we have scarcely begun to fulfil.” Blythe then added, “Second, Young believed that the Saints were more accountable when a revelation was framed in the voice of deity,” quoting Young again as stating that if the will of the Lord is framed more softly, “the consequences of disobedience are not so dreadful, as they would be if the word of the Lord were to be written under the declaration, ‘Thus saith the Lord.’”[5] It seems like, based on this example, Brigham Young avoided written revelations because he believed the Saints still needed to embrace the ones they had in that format and that to add more would make them more accountable than they were ready for. While I don’t necessarily appreciate the lack of respect for moral agency or trust in the capabilities of Latter-day Saints, it is an additional reason to avoid canonization in some cases.
Thus, while canonization is an important process for establishing what documents will guide and shape our religious community, more is not always better. The constant process of evolving and adapting the Church to meet the needs of the time—guided by revelation—means that documents established as scripture can sometimes prove more limiting than useful.
Footnotes:
[1] Allen D. Roberts, Steven C. Walker and Richard Van Wagoner, “The ‘Lectures on Faith’: A Case Study in Decanonization,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 20, no. 3 (Fall 1987), 71–77.
[2] Appendix 3: Statement on Marriage, circa August 1835, p. 251, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-3-statement-on-marriage-circa-august-1835/1.
[3] Thomas C. Haddon, Thomas C. Haddon writings, circa 1882, Church History Catalog, Salt Lake City, UT (MS 3216).
[4] Brigham Young, “The United Order is the Order of the Kingdom where God and Christ Dwell—The Law of the Kingdom of Heaven Protects All People in Their Religious Worship—In Obeying Counsel There Is Salvation,” in Journal of Discourses, 17:154.
[5] Christopher James Blythe, “Brigham Young’s Newly Located February 1874 Revelation,” BYU Studies 58, no. 2 (2019), 171–175. Brigham Young quotes are from Brigham Young, “The Lord at the Head of His Kingdom—Self-discipline—Necessity of Cultivating a Knowledge of Science, and Particularly of Theology, etc.,” in Journal of Discourses, 6:319, and Brigham Young, “Saints Improving Slowly—Guidance of the Spirit and Dictation of the Priesthood—Fasting, and Gathering the Poor,” in Journal of Discourses, 12:127–128.
Comments
8 responses to “Canonization, Part 3: Reasons to Avoid Canonization”
Along with this thought would be the unfortunate tendency for some among us to use uncharitably use the new “revelation” as a rhetorical club with which to rhetorically beat their neighbors. This is a human tendency, not a specific Mormon pathology, but we are human.
Correct principles can be taught by persuasion, kindness, and so forth, by those sustained by the people as leaders. It is the better way.
Great series. It seems harder to canonize in general as the LDS Church becomes larger and more expansive. We’ll get useful spiritual growth goals in conference or testimony or Temple announcements or policy changes but we seem part of an era were the possibilities of canonization continue to diminish. This may have a pattern in institutional maturity. The examples of decannonization provided are great. This era seers harder in general for religious leaders to do larger broader “ Thus saith the Lord” pronouncements for established groups Papal decrees now seem dusty and philosophical. Though the pastoral pronouncements seem individual and inspiring. Many democratic Protestant sects have committee pronouncements that clearly aren’t trying to be at a cannon level and seem overthought. Religious innovation in canonizing upstarts seems low in this era too.
I work for a Federal agency that’s been around for over a decade. Those in the first years there could more easily write policy that would get signed, but then as the agency has grown I’ve noticed publishing policy takes years, requires more cross agreement, and rarely gets pushed out. I’ve taken on roles in policy and planning recently and understand the slow downs, many of which don’t even relate to to the current Admins added layer slowing things down more, which seem to increase. We can publish some less formal guidance and push out slides but even an official Memo becomes more rare. Sights get lowered with time for the highest level of publication. Gov and Church are not the exact same but it’s hard to add to the cannon in a more written in stone way with time, size, and modernity. That is what makes the BOM and D and C even more amazing is that recent new scripture actually has gotten out and is working. There is likely some current counter examples but the BOM is the only new scripture with potential to grow in acceptance since Muhammad’s time.
BY avoided writing revelations because he did not consider himself a prophet or was sustained as such (first few years) but just the “president” to carry on what the “prophet” was doing. After 30+ years of that we just got “declarations” or manifestos that we (members) take as revelations.
Now most members take everything said in conference as prophecy regardless of who is speaking.
Recently the church made some statements about polygamy. One of those was something like…”in the past some church leaders taught that it (polygamy) was necessary for salvation. Today church leaders dont.”
Those past leaders were Smith, Young, Taylor, Woodruff, Snow, Smith and Grant.
Which leaders are right? We are talking salvation here not just a “practice” as the church calls it now. To me, if the current leaders are going against past leaders that said “thus sayeth the Lord” then we need another “thus sayeth the Lord” to change the doctrine.
The “statement of marriage” you mentioned was dropped because JS wasn’t around when the other leaders wrote/published it and I am pretty sure when they wrote it they didn’t know JS was living it.
Dismissing the need for canonization today, for me, opens up a bigger problem since we started with it. I personally would like it to come back.
I thought Lectures on Faith was decanonized due to the church not being sure it came from Joseph Smith?
With the Taylor example you have, today, if Pres Nelson said that in GC, it would be treated as prophecy and doctrine regardless if it was canonized. He wouldn’t even have to say “thus sayeth the Lord, all he would have to say is this is what we are doing. (mormon is a bad word thing)
To me the church has a duty to let members know when the prophet speaking for God/Jesus vs what they believe is the right direction. (mormon fine, mormon not fine thing) I get that I may be in the minority with my thinking. This whole cannon thing has always been a problem for me.
REC911, I think the overall gist of what you’re saying is reasonable. I would prefer to shift to a situation where the leaders of the Church are more in line with how you describe Brigham Young – acknowledging that they are administrators who receive some inspiration, but not constantly in touch with God and speaking His will every time they open their mouths in general conference. At the same time, I also have a list of documents that I think would be good to canonize, so would personally prefer it to be more prevalent as a practice in the Church today. My goal in this post was to try to understand some of the mentality behind Church leaders not pushing for more canonization.
The ultimate problem here, I think, is that it is difficult for people to discern when their thoughts are inspired and when they are simply their own thoughts. I don’t see the “thus saith the Lord” revelations as a completely separate phenomenon from the inspired guidance and decision making – they are often just different ways of portraying what the individual believed they were inspired to think. I think there have been lessons learned from things like the John Taylor revelation where Church leaders have regretted things being said as “thus saith the Lord” and then didn’t work out.
As far as Brigham Young, I do believe section 136 does undermine your narrative there a bit, though he did tend to say things like he wasn’t a seer or that he wasn’t an apostle of Jesus Christ so much as an apostle of Joseph Smith.
I don’t tend to buy the story that the “statement of marriage” passed without Joseph Smith’s approval and was removed simply because of that. First, he had plenty of opportunities to push back against it, including during the publication of the second edition of the Doctrine and Covenants in Nauvoo. Second, the statement on government (section 134) has the exact same history as that statement, but didn’t disappear. Third, Joseph Smith was saying things akin to what the document says in public to deny polygamy up to the end of his life, and he knew he was practicing it in secret. The reality is that it just no longer fit once the Church openly practiced polygamy.
As far as Lectures on Faith, when the apostolic committee removed it in 1921, they basically said that it was just a study help (akin to the Bible Dictionary today) and since it had out-of-date views on the Godhead, it shouldn’t be published with the actual revelations. The issue of authorship is something that has become more important to folks in recent history. (https://rsc.byu.edu/lectures-faith-historical-perspective/authorship-history-lectures-faith has some good info on that.) I disagree with that interpretation, but it was the reasoning they gave.
“…I also have a list of documents that I think would be good to canonize…”
Uh oh — so this series isn’t innocent intellectual curiosity?
Thanks for your reply and insights Chad.
As far as “it is difficult for people to discern when their thoughts are inspired and when they are simply their own thoughts.” …
For me it was trial and error at first but eventually it is pretty clear. Like most things we do in life, practice helps. They do feel/sound the same so it can be tricky but people just need to keep at it. I think there is a ton of personal revelation members are missing. My litmus test, if I am not sure, is I ask if I could have come up with that thought. If the answer is “not a chance” then I typically run with that thought. I also clear my mind to see what pops in. :) Have had some amazing experiences with this process over the years.
ji, given that I have zero influence on what happens at Church headquarters, I consider that list to be something of an innocent intellectual curiosity/exploration in and of itself, haha. I’m not trying to agitate for anything so much as understand how the sausage is made, so to speak.
Thanks, Chad.
Personally, I hope for no document canonizations unless real revelation occurs.
But really, isn’t canonization really meaningless in our present church culture? To wit.,
(A) If the president of the church decided to canonize the family proclamation or any other text, including his most recent general conference talk, he would make the announcement in general conference and ask for a sustaining vote, and it would be done. There would be no pre-announcement and no opportunity for personal prayer or contemplation. There would also be no tolerance for a “no” vote. To me, canonization and common consent only make sense with pre-announcement and opportunity.
(B) The doctrine versus policy debate is hopelessly muddled and provides no meaning. Whatever we believe today is immutable doctrine, but when we decide tomorrow that we don’t believe it anymore, then we say is never was doctrine but was mere policy all along. To me, thus seems disingenuous and unfair.
So, based on the above, I really want no more canonizations of already existing texts — I am okay that there have been no canonizations lately. We can accomplish anything through policy. And, my concern I shared in my first comment is a very real concern to me in our present church culture. All that said, I have as little influence as you, or access either, so I really cannot declare why canonizations have seemingly ceased.