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

[canard78]

The Gospel Topics essays on lds.org carry the notice that "The Church acknowledges the contribution of scholars to the historical content presented in this article; their work is used with permission."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

I think you're straining at gnats and semantics.

These essays are approved by the first presidency and quorum of the twelve:

"...we are very pleased that these scholars would agree to do this research. They then submitted a draft of their paper to a committee of historians here in the Church History Department as well as General Authorities who have reviewed their work and adjusted some edits. Those edits are made with the permission of the original writer. And that’s then submitted to the presiding Quorums of the Church, the Twelve and the First Presidency for approval. And then it’s published in Gospel Topics under LDS.org."

Elder Steven E. Snow

Church Historian and Recorder and the Executive Director of the Church History Department.

Video statement, 01:13

https://www.lds.org/topics?lang=eng#media=11373505780672488714-eng

If the essay has been approved by the 15 prophets who lead the church is it still not approved/official reading material for the membership?

There's a difference between canon/doctrine and approved/recommended reading material.

Are you simply playing semantics? If you don't like the word "official" replace it with "approved."

[canard78]

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.”

A wonderful letter, I have it in my quotes library, linked below. Unfortunately not in any official/approved publication that I know of. If you know of one, I'd love a link.

“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).

I don't see what relevance this quote has to what is official/approved church material.

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 .

Another quote that I really like. Unfortunately this quote doesn't qualify as being doctrinal or official by its very own definition.

How do you know what he's just said isn't "...a personal, though well-considered, opinion?"

It seems ironic that you quote two obscure statements and then add a third quote that effectively disqualifies them.

[CV75]

These essays are approved by the first presidency and quorum of the twelve:

I agree. But where is "Sacred Loneliness" listed as recommended reading per post #14?

[CA Steve]

I agree. But where is "Sacred Loneliness" listed as recommended reading per post #14?

Footnote #29 of the "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo "essay says "See Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith"... along with a reference to Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy.

[KevinG]

This is the source of official doctrine:

 

Doctrine and Covenants 93:

 

 21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn;

 22 And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn.

 23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which isSpirit, even the Spirit of truth;

 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

 25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

 26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

 27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

 28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or thelight of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

 31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

 32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

 33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

 34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

 35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.

 36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

 

I'm not trying to be smart here.  We can find truth in a variety of sources.  Limiting sources will not get us to truth or doctrine any faster than depending on the Spirit of God to guide our reading and understanding.

[CV75]

Footnote #29 of the "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo "essay says "See Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith"... along with a reference to Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy.

Yes, i know, but that does make them "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.

 

Footnote 29:

"Estimates of the number of these sealings range from 12 to 14. (See Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith [salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997], 4, 6; Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 1:253–76, 303–48.) For an early summary of this practice, see John A. Widtsoe, “Evidences and Reconciliations: Did Joseph Smith Introduce Plural Marriage?” Improvement Era 49, no. 11 (Nov. 1946): 766–67."

 

The use of the word "See..." provides direction to particular pages covering a specific practice between two others, and doesn't constitute a generalized "recommended reading" to offer readers additional information or background on the subject. Similarly, the Improvement Era isn't recommended reading, either, just the referenced article--and interestingly, on the subject that the first two books may also cover but aren't referenced. So the footnotes are intended to be quite specific.

[CA Steve]

Yes, i know, but that does make them "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.

 

Footnote 29:

"Estimates of the number of these sealings range from 12 to 14. (See Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith [salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997], 4, 6; Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 1:253–76, 303–48.) For an early summary of this practice, see John A. Widtsoe, “Evidences and Reconciliations: Did Joseph Smith Introduce Plural Marriage?” Improvement Era 49, no. 11 (Nov. 1946): 766–67."

 

The use of the word "See..." provides direction to particular pages covering a specific practice between two others, and doesn't constitute a generalized "recommended reading" to offer readers additional information or background on the subject. Similarly, the Improvement Era isn't recommended reading, either, just the referenced article--and interestingly, on the subject that the first two books may also cover but aren't referenced. So the footnotes are intended to be quite specific.

This where the equivocating on critical sources bothers me. Clearly the essay is providing a reference to Compton's book. Nowhere does it say "but we only want you to read the parts we link". Are you saying the an uninformed reader will know that he/she is only supposed to read that specific passage? Would you then criticize that same person for reading more than the reference? How would such a reader know that there is other material in that book he should not read without actually reading it?

I know that when I track down footnotes I try and read not only the parts cited but some of what leads up to those parts and after them to see If I agree that the footnote author is actually supporting the person who cites him/her. I have found that it is not uncommon that the footnote don't actually support what the author is saying.

[Calm]

"Nowhere does it say "but we only want you to read the parts we link"

I think this is attributing a usage to footnotes that is not intended. The articles are academic in nature, therefore one should look at how footnotes are used in academic papers. It is providing documentation to support a claim, not proving either a recommended reading list or attempting to limit reading to only that specified reference.

I wouldn't make more of footnotes than they are.

"I know that when I track down footnotes I try and read not only the parts cited but some of what leads up to those parts and after them to see If I agree that the footnote author is actually supporting the person who cites him/her. I have found that it is not uncommon that the footnote don't actually support what the author is saying."

And this is why footnotes are provided, but I don't see it as useful to therefore label it as recommended (in the sense that the entire work is seen as an excellent source) or approved or official. It is simply leaving it up to the reader to choose to delve into it more deeply or not, depending on whether they care and if they do making it possible for the reader to see what supports the claim or not as the case may be.

On occasion Fairmormon is used as a reference, etc. by church leaders, in the Church News etc. I try to be very careful not to make more of it than how it is phrased and always include the Church doesn't vet these sites to ensure doctrinal accuracy.

I can't remember any significant leader or lds.org referring to a specific site or book to avoid, but rather they teach general principles to figure out what is worth our time or not. I think these principles apply to all citations etc. we need to decide for ourselves what is approved by the Spirit and what isn't.

For those members who look to others to tell them what the Spirit says, having something on lds.org generally makes them feel something is "safe", but even though some of these members think just because something is in a church bookstore, it has been officially cleared to read by some committee or leaders or something vaguely labeled "Church" in their mind****, I would be very reluctant to even begin to assume that was how anyone of authority approached such things.

*****Based on personal experience while working in an LDS related bookstore.

Edited October 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[CA Steve]

"Nowhere does it say "but we only want you to read the parts we link"

I think this is attributing a usage to footnotes that is not intended. The articles are academic in nature, therefore one should look at how footnotes are used in academic papers. It is providing documentation to support a claim, not proving either a recommended reading list or attempting to limit reading to only that specified reference.

I wouldn't make more of footnotes than they are.

"I know that when I track down footnotes I try and read not only the parts cited but some of what leads up to those parts and after them to see If I agree that the footnote author is actually supporting the person who cites him/her. I have found that it is not uncommon that the footnote don't actually support what the author is saying."

And this is why footnotes are provided, but I don't see it as useful to therefore label it as recommended (in the sense that the entire work is seen as an excellent source) or approved or official. It is simply leaving it up to the reader to choose to delve into it more deeply or not, depending on whether they care and if they do making it possible for the reader to see what supports the claim or not as the case may be.

On occasion Fairmormon is used as a reference, etc. by church leaders, in the Church News etc. I try to be very careful not to make more of it than how it is phrased and always include the Church doesn't vet these sites to ensure doctrinal accuracy.

I can't remember any significant leader or lds.org referring to a specific site or book to avoid, but rather they teach general principles to figure out what is worth our time or not. I think these principles apply to all citations etc. we need to decide for ourselves what is approved by the Spirit and what isn't.

For those members who look to others to tell them what the Spirit says, having something on lds.org generally makes them feel something is "safe", but even though some of these members think just because something is in a church bookstore, it has been officially cleared to read by some committee or leaders or something vaguely labeled "Church" in their mind****, I would be very reluctant to even begin to assume that was how anyone of authority approached such things.

*****Based on personal experience while working in an LDS related bookstore.

Hi Cal,

 

While you may approach footnotes in this manner, the average person is not that well informed about how they are to be used, especially the intended audience of these essays. I think my questions still stand. How does an uninformed reader know not to read beyond the specific reference?  Additionally why shouldn't he/she do so given the frequent criticism leveled here about it being our own responsibility to be informed?

 

On Edit.

 

I find that footnotes are especially valuable in referring me to book with which I am unfamiliar and the mere fact a book is referenced by a author I am reading many time leads me to read the referenced book. I do not expect I am alone in this method of adding to my reading list.

Edited October 27, 2014 by CA Steve

[Bob Crockett]

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 .

Essays and statements on lds.org are not statements by a Church "leader," but by the Church itself. They go through extensive correlation, are presented for review by a body of general authorities which include apostles, and they are approved by the FP. They are, essentially, current doctrine and procedure (which could change, as doctrine is not the same thing as something revealed from on high).

The various quotes you offer about offering a way to disregard the counsel of the brethren applies only to individual statements. If you'll note in the George Albert Smith letter, he refers to the "true position of the Church." That is something today equal to the content of official statements on the website.

This reminds me of a account I read from Joseph Fielding Smith. He was in a sacrament meeting where the deacons passed the sacrament to him, as ranking priesthood authority, first. He asked around as to why that practice had been adopted and was told that the Church had instituted the practice the week before, whereupon he grumbled that he was out that day. In this example we can see the difference between the Church corporate body and an individual authority; as well, we can see the difference between church official procedure and revealed truth. They are not necessarily the same.

I love it when you, Robert, try and figure out ways to disregard church official statements and manuals presumably to advance the higher hidden gnosis of Mormon intelligentsia. We've caught on to that!

[KevinG]

I would like to see examples of where any of these resources conflict with the scriptures and doctrines of our Church.  If there is internal inconsistency then the question makes sense to ask, and research.

 

If not this whole discussion of which source is more or less official is over a hypothetical issue.

[Calm]

How does an uninformed reader know not to read beyond the specific reference?  Additionally why shouldn't he/she do so given the frequent criticism leveled here about it being our own responsibility to be informed?

 

On Edit.

 

I find that footnotes are especially valuable in referring me to book with which I am unfamiliar and the mere fact a book is referenced by a author I am reading many time leads me to read the referenced book. I do not expect I am alone in this method of adding to my reading list.

I don't have the least problem with someone using footnotes to find something to read more in depth.

Who is saying that readers shouldn't read beyond the quote?

[CV75]

This where the equivocating on critical sources bothers me. Clearly the essay is providing a reference to Compton's book. Nowhere does it say "but we only want you to read the parts we link". Are you saying the an uninformed reader will know that he/she is only supposed to read that specific passage? Would you then criticize that same person for reading more than the reference? How would such a reader know that there is other material in that book he should not read without actually reading it?

I know that when I track down footnotes I try and read not only the parts cited but some of what leads up to those parts and after them to see If I agree that the footnote author is actually supporting the person who cites him/her. I have found that it is not uncommon that the footnote don't actually support what the author is saying.

You seem to have a sore spot over this issue. The Improvement Era was mentioned in footnote 29 also, and it is no more “recommended reading” than is Sacred Loneliness.

 

My comment isn’t about what is “critical” and what is not – it is about what is “recommended reading” and what is not. I haven’t been criticizing anyone or anything, except the suggestion that footnotes constitute the author’s “recommended reading” list. I have not equivocated on that. And there is no equivocation in using the terms “Resources” and “See...” in footnotes to mean anything more or less than pointing out ancillary information; in this case, indicating a source.

 

Is this thread really a forum to criticize the criticism of critical sources? What does that have to do with identifying “official” sources to list on your blog?

 

You evidently consider Sacred Loneliness as “critical” of the Church; I haven’t commented on it at all. That the Church uses a piece of information from it to support its article has nothing to do with whether it is “critical” or not, and has nothing to do with it not being recommended reading, either. The Church is simply using good form in researching its articles and documenting its sources.

 

I hardly understand your questions, but any reader, informed or not, can (“should” to use your term; really?) look up whatever he wants with any degree of thoroughness he chooses. The provision of footnotes has nothing to do with what a reader is motivated to do or “should” do, but is what the author should do in properly documenting his work.

[CV75]

I would like to see examples of where any of these resources conflict with the scriptures and doctrines of our Church.  If there is internal inconsistency then the question makes sense to ask, and research.

 

If not this whole discussion of which source is more or less official is over a hypothetical issue.

I think the information credited in the footnotes supports the articles; that is why they are listed. That the some take Sacred Loneliness to be, on the whole, "critical" of the Church (including perhaps in conflict with the scriptures and doctrines --is it that kind of book?), has nothing to do with the estimates which the Church deemed useful for its article.

[canard78]

Yes, i know, but that does make them "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.

 

Footnote 29:

"Estimates of the number of these sealings range from 12 to 14. (See Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith [salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997], 4, 6; Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 1:253–76, 303–48.) For an early summary of this practice, see John A. Widtsoe, “Evidences and Reconciliations: Did Joseph Smith Introduce Plural Marriage?” Improvement Era 49, no. 11 (Nov. 1946): 766–67."

 

The use of the word "See..." provides direction to particular pages covering a specific practice between two others, and doesn't constitute a generalized "recommended reading" to offer readers additional information or background on the subject. Similarly, the Improvement Era isn't recommended reading, either, just the referenced article--and interestingly, on the subject that the first two books may also cover but aren't referenced. So the footnotes are intended to be quite specific.

 

In the literal definition of things, you're right, a reference in an essay is not "recommended reading." Using a publication in an essay source does, however, give the source credibility. Whenever I read something online the first thing I try to do is check the references and, if possible, go and read the reference in context. 

 

On that basis I'm still pleased to see In Sacred Loneliness in the sources/references on LDS.org because it's an important publication on this topic and, for people who want to read further, would be worth people's time and attention.

[canard78]

You seem to have a sore spot over this issue. The Improvement Era was mentioned in footnote 29 also, and it is no more “recommended reading” than is Sacred Loneliness.

 

My comment isn’t about what is “critical” and what is not – it is about what is “recommended reading” and what is not. I haven’t been criticizing anyone or anything, except the suggestion that footnotes constitute the author’s “recommended reading” list. I have not equivocated on that. And there is no equivocation in using the terms “Resources” and “See...” in footnotes to mean anything more or less than pointing out ancillary information; in this case, indicating a source.

 

Is this thread really a forum to criticize the criticism of critical sources? What does that have to do with identifying “official” sources to list on your blog?

 

You evidently consider Sacred Loneliness as “critical” of the Church; I haven’t commented on it at all. That the Church uses a piece of information from it to support its article has nothing to do with whether it is “critical” or not, and has nothing to do with it not being recommended reading, either. The Church is simply using good form in researching its articles and documenting its sources.

 

I hardly understand your questions, but any reader, informed or not, can (“should” to use your term; really?) look up whatever he wants with any degree of thoroughness he chooses. The provision of footnotes has nothing to do with what a reader is motivated to do or “should” do, but is what the author should do in properly documenting his work.

 

You're right in a sense... this isn't really the topic of discussion. I've no intention of using In Sacred Loneliness as a reference in compiling my "LDS History from LDS Sources." I recognise it's not an LDS source.

 

I will, however, draw attention to publications that are sourced in the essay so that, if anyone were to read my blog (I doubt many will) and are interested in studying the topic further they can, at least, see the sources that the LDS.org essay writer has used in compiling the essay.

 

The essay writer clearly considers it worth a mention and has used ISL as a source - if someone wants to read up on the topic then it seems a reasonable part of their study does it not? 

[CV75]

In the literal definition of things, you're right, a reference in an essay is not "recommended reading." Using a publication in an essay source does, however, give the source credibility. Whenever I read something online the first thing I try to do is check the references and, if possible, go and read the reference in context. 

 

On that basis I'm still pleased to see In Sacred Loneliness in the sources/references on LDS.org because it's an important publication on this topic and, for people who want to read further, would be worth people's time and attention.

The Church is just doing its job. There will be some who read the whole book (with and/or without its being referenced). That you are pleased because you have found it "important" is something you can blog about!

[CV75]

You're right in a sense... this isn't really the topic of discussion. I've no intention of using In Sacred Loneliness as a reference in compiling my "LDS History from LDS Sources." I recognise it's not an LDS source.

 

I will, however, draw attention to publications that are sourced in the essay so that, if anyone were to read my blog (I doubt many will) and are interested in studying the topic further they can, at least, see the sources that the LDS.org essay writer has used in compiling the essay.

 

The essay writer clearly considers it worth a mention and has used ISL as a source - if someone wants to read up on the topic then it seems a reasonable part of their study does it not? 

You had already made it clear you weren’t going to use it and explained why. But then you went on to say it was “critical” and that you have a bone to pick about that. 

 

So you are compiling a list of what you consider to be official publications and also “draw attention” to "critical" (your term) publications that you think are important because the reader (informed and uninformed) might overlook their listing in particular articles?

 

What is the difference between a compilation of one set of sources and drawing attention to another set of sources?

 

Any good essay writer more than mentions his sources, he lists them all.

[canard78]

You had already made it clear you weren’t going to use it and explained why. But then you went on to say it was “critical” and that you have a bone to pick about that.

Did I say ISL is critical? What bone do I pick with it being critical? Can you remind me which post you're talking about?

So you are compiling a list of what you consider to be official publications and also “draw attention” to "critical" (your term) publications that you think are important because the reader (informed and uninformed) might overlook their listing in particular articles?

On each topic (e.g. Polygamy) I'm listing the places where people can read about the topic on official sources.

I'm not selecting "critical" (is it my word?) publications specifically. I will create a list of some of the sources in the essays.

What is the difference between a compilation of one set of sources and drawing attention to another set of sources?

Any good essay writer more than mentions his sources, he lists them all.

I'm not writing an essay. Not really sure what this sentence is talking about.

[CV75]

Did I say ISL is critical? What bone do I pick with it being critical? Can you remind me which post you're talking about?

#14 – “This where the equivocating on critical sources bothers me,” and then you go on about the book and complain about some perceived criticism by others.

On each topic (e.g. Polygamy) I'm listing the places where people can read about the topic on official sources.

I'm not selecting "critical" (is it my word?) publications specifically. I will create a list of some of the sources in the essays.

Yes, you used “critical” in reference to In Sacred Loneliness, and that you would “draw attention” to it and similar sources that you catalog as the same type.

I'm not writing an essay. Not really sure what this sentence is talking about.

“Any good essay writer [not you, but the writers of the lds.org essays] more than mentions his sources, he lists them all,” was a reply to “I will, however, draw attention to publications that are sourced in the essay …The essay writer clearly considers it [iSL in particular] worth a mention…” The essay writer doesn't list his resources because he considers them worth a mention; he obviously used them because he found them worthwhile, but regardless any good article writer will list all his resources and footnotes.

 

What is the difference between a compilation of one set of sources and drawing attention to another set of sources?

 

Why compile a separate list of some of the resources when all of them are already listed in the article footnotes for all to see?

[Robert F. Smith]

I think you're straining at gnats and semantics.

These essays are approved by the first presidency and quorum of the twelve:

Based on what Church Historian Snow says (thanks for the video), what strikes me first about the production of the Gospel Topics essays is that they are generated via the same process which is used for Church manuals, as well as for the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.  I have no objection to such a process, and believe it is a good, worthwhile process.

 

However, nowhere in these manuals, encyclopedia articles, or essays do we find them being termed by the Church as "official."  No Roman Catholic style imprimatur or nihil obstat accompanies them.  In fact, the blurb preceding them says that they are subject to updating from time to time:

 

Studying the word of God by topic is an inspiring and rewarding experience. The topics and related articles included herein can help members learn by study and also by faith. From time to time, this information and associated footnotes and resources may be updated. The videos below will help you understand how the Gospel Topics section can assist you and your family as you seek to strengthen your faith in Jesus Christ.  https://www.lds.org/topics?lang=eng#media= 

 

If the essay has been approved by the 15 prophets who lead the church is it still not approved/official reading material for the membership?

There's a difference between canon/doctrine and approved/recommended reading material.

Are you simply playing semantics? If you don't like the word "official" replace it with "approved."

 

If the Brethren wanted us to consider these essays as "official" in some way, they would likely so inform us.  I don't believe that they would leave any doubt in our minds, and that is why, when serious issues arise, they may typically have an official First Presidency Letter read in all congregations by the bishopric, or published in the Church magazines, or both.  Sometimes such "official declarations" rise to the level of Scripture, and are added to the Canon, leaving no doubt of their status.

 

You may consider caution in such matters to be "semantics," while I may consider your lack of caution to be carelessness.  Having myself caused a change in one Gospel Topic essay, I understand very well the process by which such materials are created and approved, and (as I have said) I approve of it.  I think it inappropriate and reckless to give it more authority and permanence than it in fact has, even as I welcome such essays and hope to see more.  The problem with your automatic assumption is that, if everything is official, then nothing is official -- everything having been leveled to one undifferentiated mass of expression.  You may want to ask yourself whether there are gradations of importance and accuracy in materials provided to the Church History Dept by outside historians.  Taking the long view allows for the usual oscillatory and unpredictable changes in research conclusions based on current and future data, rather than locking us into only one possible take on things.

[Robert F. Smith]

Essays and statements on lds.org are not statements by a Church "leader," but by the Church itself. They go through extensive correlation, are presented for review by a body of general authorities which include apostles, and they are approved by the FP. They are, essentially, current doctrine and procedure (which could change, as doctrine is not the same thing as something revealed from on high).

In addition to the fallacious anthropomorphizing of the LDS Church (is that in line with Citizens United v FEC?), you distinguish doctrine from revelation, and then make the former conveniently malleable over time, as though indistinguishable from procedure.  Sounds like pettifogging to me . . .

 

The various quotes you offer about offering a way to disregard the counsel of the brethren applies only to individual statements. If you'll note in the George Albert Smith letter, he refers to the "true position of the Church." That is something today equal to the content of official statements on the website.

Political operatives frequently equate two incommensurables and simultaneously demonize anyone they disagree with, i.e., good manners go out the window, and any false accusation is O.K.

 

.................................................................. we can see the difference between the Church corporate body and an individual authority; as well, we can see the difference between church official procedure and revealed truth. They are not necessarily the same.

Perhaps the only corporate body you recognize is of the sort having a secular legal charter -- a matter of convenience for business purposes.  Some might be more interested in the ancient Congregation of Israel or Congregation of the Lord as the Body of Christ -- the only corporate entity worthy of our strong fealty.

 

Surely you are right about official procedure and revealed truth, if you are simply distinguishing means and ends, or even if you are distinguishing between the commandment to Noah to build and ark -- which we may disregard in our post-Diluvian era.  On the other hand, one might just as well cross-identify them in many cases, and that may be why the Gospel Topics are not specifically labelled as "official."

 

I love it when you, Robert, try and figure out ways to disregard church official statements and manuals presumably to advance the higher hidden gnosis of Mormon intelligentsia. We've caught on to that!

Perhaps you could further line out the nature of this "higher hidden gnosis of Mormon intelligentsia" which you mention here.  What is its content, and who are the people who are a part of it?  is it the Illuminati?  Is it actionable before a stake high council?

 

At the same time, might one want to know why you attempt to give greater import to the issuance of regular LDS church manuals and Gospel Topics essays than those manuals and essays claim for themselves?  Is that why you concoct this sinister conspiratorial notion, in somewhat the same way (and for the same reasons) that anti-Semites concocted the horrible and blasphemous conspiracies of the Elders of Zion?!  You can look it up under "Blood Libel."

 

[The Nehor]

I am going to go out on a limb and say the Holy Ghost is the only official source. That way I am never wrong. WOOHOO!!!!!

[canard78]

What is the difference between a compilation of one set of sources and drawing attention to another set of sources?

Why compile a separate list of some of the resources when all of them are already listed in the article footnotes for all to see?

You might want to have another look at #14. It's written by CA Steve

[canard78]

Based on what Church Historian Snow says (thanks for the video), what strikes me first about the production of the Gospel Topics essays is that they are generated via the same process which is used for Church manuals, as well as for the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. I have no objection to such a process, and believe it is a good, worthwhile process.

However, nowhere in these manuals, encyclopedia articles, or essays do we find them being termed by the Church as "official." No Roman Catholic style imprimatur or nihil obstat accompanies them. In fact, the blurb preceding them says that they are subject to updating from time to time:

Studying the word of God by topic is an inspiring and rewarding experience. The topics and related articles included herein can help members learn by study and also by faith. From time to time, this information and associated footnotes and resources may be updated. The videos below will help you understand how the Gospel Topics section can assist you and your family as you seek to strengthen your faith in Jesus Christ. https://www.lds.org/topics?lang=eng#media=

If the Brethren wanted us to consider these essays as "official" in some way, they would likely so inform us. I don't believe that they would leave any doubt in our minds, and that is why, when serious issues arise, they may typically have an official First Presidency Letter read in all congregations by the bishopric, or published in the Church magazines, or both. Sometimes such "official declarations" rise to the level of Scripture, and are added to the Canon, leaving no doubt of their status.

You may consider caution in such matters to be "semantics," while I may consider your lack of caution to be carelessness. Having myself caused a change in one Gospel Topic essay, I understand very well the process by which such materials are created and approved, and (as I have said) I approve of it. I think it inappropriate and reckless to give it more authority and permanence than it in fact has, even as I welcome such essays and hope to see more. The problem with your automatic assumption is that, if everything is official, then nothing is official -- everything having been leveled to one undifferentiated mass of expression. You may want to ask yourself whether there are gradations of importance and accuracy in materials provided to the Church History Dept by outside historians. Taking the long view allows for the usual oscillatory and unpredictable changes in research conclusions based on current and future data, rather than locking us into only one possible take on things.

Like I said, I've no concerns with calling my collection of sources "approved" sources rather than "official" sources. Either is still of value for the purpose of my project. I'm looking to summarise what history has been acknowledged on an official or approved platform or publication.

FWIW, LDS.org is an "official" website of the church:

https://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

Official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons).

The news room is also the official place for news:

www.mormonnewsroom.org/

Official Newsroom of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Before you say anything, I recognise that even though the websites are official church websites, not all of the content is official church views, policies and doctrines.

E.g:

mormonsandgays.org is an official church website, but:

Those who speak from the heart on this website do not necessarily represent in every word or detail the policies or positions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but all of them speak with authenticity because they reflect what has happened in their own lives and the experiences of those they love. The Church leaders featured here reflect the sentiments and teachings of the highest Church authorities — the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

On that basis it might be that the brethren have approved that the essays be listed even without personally agreeing with the content of some of them.

The essays are on an official platform and therefore serve the purpose of my project.