Lds History From Lds Sources... Which Are The Official Ones?

[canard78]

Which of the above sources would you consider "official" LDS sources?

 

I am compiling and summarising a list of LDS history sources and want to limit it to only to ones that are "safe" or "approved." The intention is to use LDS.org as the first choice whenever possible. Beyond that, I also intend to use a few other sources as additional reading. I'd welcome your perspective on the above. Also, which might be a bit of a turn-off to general Mormon readers. josephsmithpapers.org might be official (and, as discussed in a recent thread, links from LDS.org) but might still make some members feel uncomfortable.

 

In October 2014, Elder Neil L. Andersen said:

 

We might remind the sincere inquirer that Internet information does not have a “truth” filter. Some information, no matter how convincing, is simply not true.

 

 

 

While acknowledging the irony of starting a Mormon history blog in response to that statement, the project is an attempt to create an easy-to-use list of some of the events in LDS history that have caused questions or concerns. Linking to LDS sources allows people to read about them but in an official/approved environment rather than feeling a need to go to other places on the internet.

 

Elder Andersen also said:

 

We might remind the inquirer that some information about Joseph, while true, may be presented completely out of context to his own day and situation.

 

 

By linking directly to LDS sources it gives the reader the opportunity to read the information in the context the church considers reasonable and fair.

 

So... What are the official/approved sources?

 

Second... If the church references something in their essays or elsewhere on LDS.org, do you think it's reasonable to add that as a source? E.g. "In Sacred Loneliness" was referenced in the recent polygamy essay.

[DBMormon]

I would add that I make as you likely do as well that official and Doctrinal are two widely different things.  Official may contain the accepted views of the Church and still not be Doctrinal.  And as we have discussed here numerous times Doctrinal is an almost impossible thing to get at anyway. 

[CV75]

I am compiling and summarising a list of LDS history sources and want to limit it to only to ones that are "safe" or "approved."

If I were adding links to my blog for the sake of my audience’s interest in the Church, I would ask myself the following questions (and ask "why" five times to get to the most fundamental root answer):

 

1. What is the purpose of my blog and would the Church consider it “safe”?

2. Would the Church approve of my blog as a reasonable and fair representation of the restored gospel?

3. Why are visitors feeling a need to visit my blog, and how am I attracting them?

4. What does my audience need from my blog to (for example) follow Elder Andersen’s counsel to exercise “more than intellectual consideration,” or to get spiritual answers to spiritual questions?

5. If the lds.org articles already list their resources, why reiterate them?

[KevinG]

Does my blog bring people into Christ, or move them away from His truth?

There are many good sources of information, but I,do t think the source is as important as how they are used. We suffer so many errors of presenting, context, moral equivelence, confirmation bias, and so on, that it makes navigating history a tricky proposition.

I love the "i don't have a testimony of church history" essay. It really puts history criticism and apologetics in their proper place in relation to teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Edited October 26, 2014 by KevinG

[canard78]

I would add that I make as you likely do as well that official and Doctrinal are two widely different things. Official may contain the accepted views of the Church and still not be Doctrinal. And as we have discussed here numerous times Doctrinal is an almost impossible thing to get at anyway.

Is there such a thing as "doctrinal history"

Saying: "Fanny Alger was Joseph's first plural wife" isn't a question of Doctrine, it's a question of history.

I see this project as having two uses:

Some people are interested in LDS history but don't want to use unapproved sources.

Some people are also called up for listening to "anti-Mormon lies" - this project aims to give a source from the church to show some of the concerning events in history are not lies and also to provide a link to the church addressing these issues.

[canard78]

If I were adding links to my blog for the sake of my audience’s interest in the Church, I would ask myself the following questions (and ask "why" five times to get to the most fundamental root answer):

1. What is the purpose of my blog and would the Church consider it “safe”?

2. Would the Church approve of my blog as a reasonable and fair representation of the restored gospel?

3. Why are visitors feeling a need to visit my blog, and how am I attracting them?

4. What does my audience need from my blog to (for example) follow Elder Andersen’s counsel to exercise “more than intellectual consideration,” or to get spiritual answers to spiritual questions?

5. If the lds.org articles already list their resources, why reiterate them?

1. See reply to DB above. As for whether they'd consider it "safe" - who knows. If I'm only linking to their published content then why would they not?

2. As above, I'm linking to their own content.

3. See reply to DB above. To be clear, I will be mainly addressing the "thorny" aspects of LDS history and linking to the LDS sources showing either that it really happened or that the church has addressed it

4. A lot of church history is available from LDS sources. They are, however, quite difficult to find.

5. First, I am doing this for my own purposes to create a library of all the content that is on official sources. Second, so that other people can easily find them all too.

[canard78]

Does my blog bring people into Christ, or move them away from His truth?

There are many good sources of information, but I,do t think the source is as important as how they are used. We suffer so many errors of presenting, context, moral equivelence, confirmation bias, and so on, that it makes navigating history a tricky proposition.

I love the "i don't have a testimony of church history" essay. It really puts history criticism and apologetics in their proper place in relation to teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Good question. Does the essay on Race and the priesthood or Nauvoo polygamy take people closer to or further from His truth?

Given I will only quote from/link to official sources then whatever your answer to your question is answered by your answer to my question.

[canard78]

CV75 and Kevin,

I'm curious to know why you wanted to discuss the blog and question my motives rather than discuss the actual question of this thread which was whether all/some of the above can be considers official sources.

[CA Steve]

If someone is interested in a topic, are they supposed to stop at what the Church has put together or is tracking down the sources used even by the Church okay? For example, as Canard points out, if one work backwards through the citations on the recent church essays on polygamy, they are going to encounter what are clearly Anit-Mormon sources. Bushman and Hales, for example, cite Fawn Brodie numerous times in their books. Is it okay to read Bushman & Hale but not Brodie? Why or Why not?

 

On one hand members are routinely criticized here for not being better informed yet attempts to cite some of these sources can be met with accusations of reading critical authors. How does one know at what point to stop? How does one know if a source is actually "critical". Are the recent book on Brigham Young by John Turner and the martyrdom of Joesph Smith by Alex Beam considered critical sources and if so how does one know this without reading them?

 

I am also troubled by the immediate questioning of motives already apparent in this thread. The question raised in the OP is very valid regardless of the intentions of Canard since time and time again we see posters telling other posters that it is their own responsibility to be better informed.

[KevinG]

CV75 and Kevin,

I'm curious to know why you wanted to discuss the blog and question my motives rather than discuss the actual question of this thread which was whether all/some of the above can be considers official sources.

My bad I was tacking my thoughts onto the end of the thread not the OP.

The part of my comments that says in effect, the source is not as important as how we use it apply. As long as your audience is given a chance to click a link to gain access to the broader and source context of your writings, I think almost any source is fair game. Even non-LDS sources can be fair game. Bushman is a great example of presenting sources without bias and letting his audience decide.

[CV75]

1. See reply to DB above. As for whether they'd consider it "safe" - who knows. If I'm only linking to their published content then why would they not?

2. As above, I'm linking to their own content.

3. See reply to DB above. To be clear, I will be mainly addressing the "thorny" aspects of LDS history and linking to the LDS sources showing either that it really happened or that the church has addressed it

4. A lot of church history is available from LDS sources. They are, however, quite difficult to find.

5. First, I am doing this for my own purposes to create a library of all the content that is on official sources. Second, so that other people can easily find them all too.

 

CV75 and Kevin,

I'm curious to know why you wanted to discuss the blog and question my motives rather than discuss the actual question of this thread which was whether all/some of the above can be considers official sources.

I am not questioning your motives. The questions I raised are meant to answer your stated concerns over safety, approval, reasonableness and fairness; your intention to link to lds.org as the primary go-to source for “events in LDS history that have caused questions or concerns” (presumably for you and/or your audience); and the value of reiterating resources that are already referenced in the lds.org articles'  footnotes. Your reference to Elder Andersen’s talk suggests that some spiritual consideration and alignment with Church interests are involved. So your answers to the questions that I would ask myself would give you a course of action; it’s your blog.

[canard78]

Thanks for your feedback CV75.

[Duncan]

I don't think there is such a thing as official history and a source thereof. I know there are official histories written and all but they seem to be written from within but usually even they don't have every document to read from. Historians want, ideally, the earliest primary documents to something, someone etc. That can be obtained from anywhere. besides of which but must be said historians don't always agree on the evidence and interpretation. In Canada take the Metis people for example, I think their have been more books written about them than there were actual Metis People! People just don't agree on stuff.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Duncan

[canard78]

If someone is interested in a topic, are they supposed to stop at what the Church has put together or is tracking down the sources used even by the Church okay? For example, as Canard points out, if one work backwards through the citations on the recent church essays on polygamy, they are going to encounter what are clearly Anit-Mormon sources. Bushman and Hales, for example, cite Fawn Brodie numerous times in their books. Is it okay to read Bushman & Hale but not Brodie? Why or Why not?

On one hand members are routinely criticized here for not being better informed yet attempts to cite some of these sources can be met with accusations of reading critical authors. How does one know at what point to stop? How does one know if a source is actually "critical". Are the recent book on Brigham Young by John Turner and the martyrdom of Joesph Smith by Alex Beam considered critical sources and if so how does one know this without reading them?

I am also troubled by the immediate questioning of motives already apparent in this thread. The question raised in the OP is very valid regardless of the intentions of Canard since time and time again we see posters telling other posters that it is their own responsibility to be better informed.

I agree with you completely.

The essays regularly reference multiple sources. I've seen In Sacred Loneliness criticised by members of this board and now an essay approved by the first presidency has included it as additional recommended reading.

Setting that aside, I wasn't even planning on quoting from any of the books. The intention was to only use materials that are officially published by the church.

[canard78]

I don't think there is such a thing as official history and a source thereof. I know there are official histories written and all but they seem to be written from within but usually even they don't have every document to read from. Historians want, ideally, the earliest primary documents to something, someone etc. That can be obtained from anywhere. besides of which but must be said historians don't always agree on the evidence and interpretation. In Canada take the Metis people for example, I think their have been more books written about them than there were actual Metis People! People just don't agree on stuff.

I'm obviously not suggesting an official history. I'm collating history from official sources. There's a difference

[Tacenda]

If someone is interested in a topic, are they supposed to stop at what the Church has put together or is tracking down the sources used even by the Church okay? For example, as Canard points out, if one work backwards through the citations on the recent church essays on polygamy, they are going to encounter what are clearly Anit-Mormon sources. Bushman and Hales, for example, cite Fawn Brodie numerous times in their books. Is it okay to read Bushman & Hale but not Brodie? Why or Why not?

On one hand members are routinely criticized here for not being better informed yet attempts to cite some of these sources can be met with accusations of reading critical authors. How does one know at what point to stop? How does one know if a source is actually "critical". Are the recent book on Brigham Young by John Turner and the martyrdom of Joesph Smith by Alex Beam considered critical sources and if so how does one know this without reading them?

I am also troubled by the immediate questioning of motives already apparent in this thread. The question raised in the OP is very valid regardless of the intentions of Canard since time and time again we see posters telling other posters that it is their own responsibility to be better informed.

3x's I either shared, liked or commented on FB about the latest essays, and 3x's I deleted them immediately. I guess we're all a little fearful the info that is now out there may hurt testimonies. Should we push through to expose or should we continue protecting the weaker or susceptable member. I'm sure this has been on the minds of church leaders for years. But the internet forced the decision. I wonder though if the average member does really pay any mind to stuff in history.

[Robert F. Smith]

I agree with you completely.

The essays regularly reference multiple sources. I've seen In Sacred Loneliness criticised by members of this board and now an essay approved by the first presidency has included it as additional recommended reading.

Setting that aside, I wasn't even planning on quoting from any of the books. The intention was to only use materials that are officially published by the church.

So, should LDS Church manuals be included in your list?  Past as well as current?

 

And what about the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which was edited by the head of LDS Correlation (Dan Ludlow) and supervised by some of the Brethren?  It is online at http://eom.byu.edu/ .

Edited October 26, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

1.  LDS.org
2.  mormonnewsroom.org
3.  josephsmithpapers.org
4.  mormon.org
5.  josephsmith.net
6.  byu.edu
7.  familysearch.org
8.  Journal of Discources
9.  Periodicals (e.g. Times & Seasons/Improvement Era/Millenial Star)
10.  History of the Church (the book)

Which of the above sources would you consider "official" LDS sources?

...........................................................................................   

"None of the above" should have been listed.

None constitute an official LDS position, although many official LDS positions are likely contained within works on the list.

 

Also, B. H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church (sometimes erroneously cited as DHC) is not one book, but a set of 7 volumes, available online at https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheChurchhcVolumes1-7original1902EditionPdf .

[CV75]

If someone is interested in a topic, are they supposed to stop at what the Church has put together or is tracking down the sources used even by the Church okay? For example, as Canard points out, if one work backwards through the citations on the recent church essays on polygamy, they are going to encounter what are clearly Anit-Mormon sources. Bushman and Hales, for example, cite Fawn Brodie numerous times in their books. Is it okay to read Bushman & Hale but not Brodie? Why or Why not?

 

On one hand members are routinely criticized here for not being better informed yet attempts to cite some of these sources can be met with accusations of reading critical authors. How does one know at what point to stop? How does one know if a source is actually "critical". Are the recent book on Brigham Young by John Turner and the martyrdom of Joesph Smith by Alex Beam considered critical sources and if so how does one know this without reading them?

 

I am also troubled by the immediate questioning of motives already apparent in this thread. The question raised in the OP is very valid regardless of the intentions of Canard since time and time again we see posters telling other posters that it is their own responsibility to be better informed.

See my reply on #11. I think there is some unwarranted hypersensitivity to suggestions on ways the blogger can ensure that his links and posts tie back to the fundamental purpose of his blog.

 

Your concern seems to be with the suggestion that linking to sources that are already referenced as footnotes in Church publications include sources not published by the Church and which some opine are critical of the Church. If the blogger’s intent is to 1) link only to those sources published by the Church; and 2) avoid the redundancy of linking to sources already referenced in the lds.org footnotes, this becomes a moot point.

 

I don’t think the OP brings up the question of critical material; you are the first to mention that. But no blogger can control what a reader does with his work.

 

 

The essays regularly reference multiple sources. I've seen In Sacred Loneliness criticised by members of this board and now an essay approved by the first presidency has included it as additional recommended reading.

i don't think  a recommended reading list and a resource list are the same thing--the new articles have resource lists; some of the older Gospel Topics articles have suggested reading, prophetic teachings, and links to other Church publications. Where on the Church websites is "Sacred Loneliness" listed as recommended reading?

[tonie]

I would be leary of thinking that just because a sentence or single statement is referenced in a Gospel Topic Essay means "official" acceptance of the entire paper from which the reference is taken.

Edited October 26, 2014 by tonie

[canard78]

• LDS.org
• mormonnewsroom.org
• josephsmithpapers.org
• mormon.org
• josephsmith.net
• byu.edu
• familysearch.org
• Journal of Discources
• Periodicals (e.g. Times & Seasons/Improvement Era/Millenial Star)
• History of the Church (the book)

"None of the above" should have been listed.

None constitute an official LDS position, although many official LDS positions are likely contained within works on the list.

How about the essays? Official position or not? Given they have first presidency approval we can probably say official, right?

Also, B. H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church (sometimes erroneously cited as DHC) is not one book, but a set of 7 volumes, available online at https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheChurchhcVolumes1-7original1902EditionPdf .

Yes, I know. We had all 7 on our family bookshelf when I was growing up. My bad for missing an 'S' off my option.

[Tacenda]

All of them. What now we don't trust the leaders?

[Robert F. Smith]

How about the essays? Official position or not? Given they have first presidency approval we can probably say official, right?

....................................................................................

The Gospel Topics essays on lds.org carry the notice that  "The Church acknowledges the contribution of scholars to the historical content presented in this article; their work is used with permission."

However, no signature of the First Presidency and Twelve.  Indeed, no formal attribution.

 

What we do have with official historical statements, such as Joseph Smith - History, in the Pearl of Great Price, is its canonical status as Scripture.

[Bob Crockett]

 

The Gospel Topics essays on lds.org carry the notice that  "The Church acknowledges the contribution of scholars to the historical content presented in this article; their work is used with permission."

However, no signature of the First Presidency and Twelve.  Indeed, no formal attribution.

 

What we do have with official historical statements, such as Joseph Smith - History, in the Pearl of Great Price, is its canonical status as Scripture.

 

Nonetheless, the essays are "official" in that they come from an "official" source and intended to convey an official pronouncement.  The fact that they are unsigned is meaningless, as they reflect the official view of the institution -- like unsigned editorials of the New York Times or 10-K statements of a corporation or Canonical pronouncements of the Catholic Church.  They are more binding that JSH.

[Robert F. Smith]

Nonetheless, the essays are "official" in that they come from an "official" source and intended to convey an official pronouncement.  The fact that they are unsigned is meaningless, as they reflect the official view of the institution -- like unsigned editorials of the New York Times or 10-K statements of a corporation or Canonical pronouncements of the Catholic Church.  They are more binding that JSH.

You have been saying such things for years, and you are certainly not the only faithful Mormon who believes this, but I see no basis in fact for your assertions.  Lds.org does not make any such statement.   Indeed, the Brethren have been at pains to allay such a notion by saying the following:

 

George Albert Smith letter, Dec 7, 1945, “I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts.” 

 

 “How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest” (J. Reuben Clark Jr., “When Are Church Leaders’ Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture?” Church News, July 31, 1954, 9–10; see also Doctrine and Covenants 28:1–2, 6–7, 11–13).

 

D. Todd Christofferson, "The Doctrine of Christ," General Conference, April 2012,  "it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”  Online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng .

Edited October 27, 2014 by Robert F. Smith