Is There A "Secondary Doctrine" With Some Of The Books At Deseret Book?

[thatjimguy]

I ran across an argument that I had heard about before, but never brought up here. There is a good number of books by church leaders at Deseret Book (Miracle of Forgiveness, Mormon Doctrine, Gospel Doctrine, etc.) . They are written by Prophets and Apostles and the like. I know that they are popular books, but at the same time, are not considered official. Yet, they are always on display at Deseret Book. So this is obviously an endorsement by the church I would think in some form. I can only imagine that it is much like the Apocrypha, where you pretty much cherry pick it.

Is there anywhere where the church has a list of what is "not right" in the books, like an errata or something similar? I know that you could say the Holy Spirit could guide you and you'd know what is solid and what wrong, but I am certain even the wrong parts are going to sound convincing.

[Robert F. Smith]

I ran across an argument that I had heard about before, but never brought up here. There is a good number of books by church leaders at Deseret Book (Miracle of Forgiveness, Mormon Doctrine, Gospel Doctrine, etc.) . They are written by Prophets and Apostles and the like. I know that they are popular books, but at the same time, are not considered official. Yet, they are always on display at Deseret Book. So this is obviously an endorsement by the church I would think in some form. I can only imagine that it is much like the Apocrypha, where you pretty much cherry pick it.

Is there anywhere where the church has a list of what is "not right" in the books, like an errata or something similar? I know that you could say the Holy Spirit could guide you and you'd know what is solid and what wrong, but I am certain even the wrong parts are going to sound convincing.

Good question, for which there is no good answer. Only perspectives:

Unlike the Roman Catholic Church (which once had an Index of Forbidden Books), the LDS Church does not have a policy of preclearing books by members, with imprimaturs and nihil obstats by authoritative priesthood holders. General Authorities have, from time to time, been asked by those senior to them to revise books they have written, or to insert a disclaimer in the book declaring that the contents are the opinion of the author and not necessarily of the Church. The same applies to Church employees, including professors in the Church Educational System.

Deseret Book is, of course, owned by the Church, and I have no doubt that some embarrassing items are not carried by Deseret Book stores. On the other hand, a range of items which seem out of synch with the Church have in fact been carried by Deseret Book over the years, so that it is clear that merely being carried by Deseret Book is not an endorsement or imprimatur of some kind.

[Calm]

I ran across an argument that I had heard about before, but never brought up here. There is a good number of books by church leaders at Deseret Book (Miracle of Forgiveness, Mormon Doctrine, Gospel Doctrine, etc.) . They are written by Prophets and Apostles and the like. I know that they are popular books, but at the same time, are not considered official. Yet, they are always on display at Deseret Book. So this is obviously an endorsement by the church I would think in some form. I can only imagine that it is much like the Apocrypha, where you pretty much cherry pick it.

Depending on the DB, you can find Harry Potter on display. Do you see that as an endorsement by the Church in some form?

[Garden Girl]

Deseret Book is, of course, owned by the Church, and I have no doubt that some embarrassing items are not carried by Deseret Book stores. On the other hand, a range of items which seem out of synch with the Church have in fact been carried by Deseret Book over the years, so that it is clear that merely being carried by Deseret Book is not an endorsement or imprimatur of some kind.

I've been surprised at some of the books I've seen carried at Deseret, at least the one near the Portland Temple.

GG

[Calm]

I've been surprised at some of the books I've seen carried at Deseret, at least the one near the Portland Temple.

GG

In the past most of them, they have been pretty much a standard bookstore except with the addition of LDS books as well, however in more recent years some of those here in Utah have limited themselves in only LDS books and not many of those at times...at least of other LDS publishers. More space is given to knickknacks and home decorations than books in a few even. I don't generally go to DB stores anymore save to pick up the latest James Christensen puzzle.

Having had experience in a church bookstore, though not a DB one, I came across a few critical, not quite anti-mormon but close ones on the shelves that had been assumed by the blurb to be at least neutral, if not positive treatments. The manager pulled them after I mentioned that while they had good material in them, there was some that was questionable as well, that I didn't feel bad about selling them but perhaps some caution on informing the buyer to take care and check sources might be needed. Apparently she preferred just to remove them completely. IOW, if a DB bookstore is getting books from other publishers, it is possible whoever orders the books doesn't pay that much attention to them beyond the promos which can at times be misleading. I also came across a few teen fiction books that had been ordered because the author was popular and had a good reputation for children's books without actually reading them, when read the themes were obviously a bit more adult and the language was inappropriate for an LDS teen audience.

Then there were the ones that were just poor scholarship or made me cringe because of the folklore or other stuff they promoted as fact even though proLDS. Luckily they weren't good sellers so I was justified for more than just personal dislike in removing them from the reorder list.

Edited June 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

I ran across an argument that I had heard about before, but never brought up here. There is a good number of books by church leaders at Deseret Book (Miracle of Forgiveness, Mormon Doctrine, Gospel Doctrine, etc.) . They are written by Prophets and Apostles and the like. I know that they are popular books, but at the same time, are not considered official. Yet, they are always on display at Deseret Book. So this is obviously an endorsement by the church I would think in some form. I can only imagine that it is much like the Apocrypha, where you pretty much cherry pick it.

Is there anywhere where the church has a list of what is "not right" in the books, like an errata or something similar? I know that you could say the Holy Spirit could guide you and you'd know what is solid and what wrong, but I am certain even the wrong parts are going to sound convincing.

The bolded part is what most will probably reply to. It's not a church endorsement. DB is a commercial, for-profit, business. They sell stuff that... well... sells.

I believe that only the official logo on a book implies an endorsement.

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps a good analog is the Deseret News. It is owned by the Church. Yet it would be naive and foolish to regard every word published therein as reflecting the official position of the Church, even though the newspaper has a mission and a brand image that is consistent with the values of the Church.

[BCSpace]

Is there anywhere where the church has a list of what is "not right" in the books, like an errata or something similar? I know that you could say the Holy Spirit could guide you and you'd know what is solid and what wrong, but I am certain even the wrong parts are going to sound convincing.

Starting with the link in my siggy and continuing on to Teaching No Greater Call, only works published officially by the Church are doctrinal. However, individual quotes from non doctrinal works do make it into official doctrinal works and those individual quotes are therefore doctrine.

[cinepro]

Depending on the DB, you can find Harry Potter on display. Do you see that as an endorsement by the Church in some form?

10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,

11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

Deuteronomy 18

Edited June 27, 2013 by cinepro

[Duncan]

My younger sister and one of the High Priests in our ward years ago used to trade "Sweet Valley High" books with each other, my sister bought one at the bookstore and was hooked-she's off it now

[Kenngo1969]

Perhaps a good analog is the Deseret News. It is owned by the Church. Yet it would be naive and foolish to regard every word published therein as reflecting the official position of the Church, even though the newspaper has a mission and a brand image that is consistent with the values of the Church.

We all know, however, in the immortal words (well, the immortal word) of Archie Bunker, that Scott Lloyd is inflammable, and he writes for the Deseret Morning News.

[Kenngo1969]

My younger sister and one of the High Priests in our ward years ago used to trade "Sweet Valley High" books with each other, my sister bought one at the bookstore and was hooked-she's off it now

I've never read any of the books, but that doesn't sound like typical High Priest fare!

[bu11fr0g]

They are all nondoctrinal but worth considering as writings by thoughtful, devout Mormons that are considered acceptable for the callings they hold.

My uncle would consider anything in print a fact. The internet has disposed of that idea pretty readily. Knowing how seriously to take a particular sentence is tough especially since my interpretation of the spirit isnt 100% accurate.

[Scott Lloyd]

We all know, however, in the immortal words (well, the immortal word) of Archie Bunker, that Scott Lloyd is inflammable, and he writes for the Deseret Morning News.

I forgot to mention that every single word I write is to be regarded as the absolute unvarnished truth.

By the way, we're back to being called just the Deseret News. The "Morning" in the name was rather short-lived and was dropped after the paper had clearly established itself as a morning rather than an afternoon publication, this after many years of obstructionism by the former management of the Salt Lake Tribune (which, by the way, is according to the latest figures on the verge of losing its position as the highest-circulation daily in Utah).

[Kenngo1969]

I forgot to mention that every single word I write is to be regarded as the absolute unvarnished truth.

By the way, we're back to being called just the Deseret News. The "Morning" in the name was rather short-lived and was dropped after the paper had clearly established itself as a morning rather than an afternoon publication, this after many years of obstructionism by the former management of the Salt Lake Tribune (which, by the way, is according to the latest figures on the verge of losing its position as the highest-circulation daily in Utah).

Dang! You mean I can't call it (thoroughly tongue-in-cheek, of course ) the Deseret Morning Snooze?! Seriously, I'm glad to hear the paper's doing well. Maybe all of the crowing the Trib did about the News' alleged imminent demise following staff cutbacks at the News was a teensy, weensy tad bit premature! (I hope you won't hold it against me that I've had op-eds published in both the Trib and the News in the last 2 1/2 years, and that I think it's a very healthy thing for a market of this size to have two dailies [especially when one considers what has been happening to papers even in much larger markets recently ...] )

Edited June 29, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[thatjimguy]

Depending on the DB, you can find Harry Potter on display. Do you see that as an endorsement by the Church in some form?

Do people quote Harry Potter at church meetings, teachings and gatherings?

[jim_mason]

As we are instructed to learn from all "good books", the only endorsement I could see would be that books display are deemed "good books" for learning.

[Calm]

Do people quote Harry Potter at church meetings, teachings and gatherings?

People have quoted CS Lewis. Do you think that means he is officially endorsed by the Church?

I have heard the Princess Bride quoted in church along with a few other fictional books. Does this mean they are officially endorsed?

And come to think of it, I have heard Harry Potter quoted in church, something Dumbledore says to Harry. Also something Gandalf says to Frodo, a Yoda or two saying and undoubtedly Obi Wan.

Edited June 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

People have quoted CS Lewis. Do you think that means he is officially endorsed by the Church?

I have heard the Princess Bride quoted in church along with a few other fictional books. Does this mean they are officially endorsed?

And come to think of it, I have heard Harry Potter quoted in church, something Dumbledore says to Harry. Also something Gandalf says to Frodo, a Yoda or two saying and undoubtedly Obi Wan.

No Sunday testimony meeting is complete without a quote from someone's latest fiction read.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[thatjimguy]

People have quoted CS Lewis. Do you think that means he is officially endorsed by the Church?

I have heard the Princess Bride quoted in church along with a few other fictional books. Does this mean they are officially endorsed?

And come to think of it, I have heard Harry Potter quoted in church, something Dumbledore says to Harry. Also something Gandalf says to Frodo, a Yoda or two saying and undoubtedly Obi Wan.

Very well, but seriously folks, when someone mentions something church authorities say in a book, I think it will be taken as if scripture and not questioned for it's validity. Do you not see that as a serious problem?

[volgadon]

People have quoted CS Lewis. Do you think that means he is officially endorsed by the Church?

I have heard the Princess Bride quoted in church along with a few other fictional books. Does this mean they are officially endorsed?

And come to think of it, I have heard Harry Potter quoted in church, something Dumbledore says to Harry. Also something Gandalf says to Frodo, a Yoda or two saying and undoubtedly Obi Wan.

When I was in the MTC I could have sworn that Star Wars was the 5th standard work.

[ERMD]

People have quoted CS Lewis. Do you think that means he is officially endorsed by the Church?

I have heard the Princess Bride quoted in church along with a few other fictional books. Does this mean they are officially endorsed?

And come to think of it, I have heard Harry Potter quoted in church, something Dumbledore says to Harry. Also something Gandalf says to Frodo, a Yoda or two saying and undoubtedly Obi Wan.

Yep.

Truth is truth no matter where you find it.

[Calm]

Very well, but seriously folks, when someone mentions something church authorities say in a book, I think it will be taken as if scripture and not questioned for it's validity.

By some perhaps, not by others.

Do you not see that as a serious problem?

A human problem, whether or not it is serious depends on how far the individual takes it. My husband had a companion who insisted on eating milk toast because he had heard that President Kimball partook of it...even though this missionary hated the stuff.

I am not sure how the Church can avoid it as it is a tendency of some humans to model themselves after others that they want to create a connection with. One of my roommates wore purple socks because she had a crush on Donny Osmond. She had also joined the Church because of her interest in him. If this connection brought her into the faith but she then grew beyond it and developed a testimony based on a wider and more spiritually oriented foundation, then I see that as a positive.

Where such beliefs lead to a better individual, I see it as a positive issue and not a problem, serious or otherwise. If people fixate at that point and don't grow emotionally or spiritually, it can become a problem, even a serious one.

Edited June 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[thatjimguy]

My point is, when it comes to the apocrypha, there is already is disclaimer in place in the D&C that you have to be aware that not all is perfect within those texts. So for instance, if someone were to quote from the Story of Suzanna, which is a decent moral story but in the Apocrypha, they would probably state where it came from and give the disclaimer. But no one does that when quoting secondary doctrine books. No, people probably do not give a disclaimer to CS Lewis or any other author either, but is rather common knowledge that those are works of pure fiction, as opposed to church leaders, who are trying to convey what they literally believe and would have you believe.

I don't think most LDS, let alone converts, could just pick up one of these books and tell the difference of what is official or not. I couldn't really and I really have dove into this stuff.

[Freedom]

We cannot cure ignorant, but all a person needs to do is go to the church website to understand what is doctrinal. All books published have a qualifier. Only those with the church logo should be accepted as doctrinaly valid. The world is filled with material that is not official. There are non-official websites about famous people, non-official biographies, and all sorts of books about history and science. These are all peoples qualified opinions. The church does not have the rigidity of doctrine you want to attribute to it.