pam Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 As I love Church History, I have started a file on many of the items that have been submitted to this forum. However some have no references as to where they got their information including Today in Church History. Could everyone start posting their references as well? Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenRaines Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 I would think that church history claims for good or bad should have references or be deleted. If no reference then it is hearsay or rumor. Just my two cents worth. Ben Raines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted March 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest queries Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Even wikipedia doesn't remove potentially erroneous material, they simply state that it's questionable and references are needed. Is this site not in favor of the free exchange of ideas, regardless of source? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted March 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 If the source happens to be from an Anti mormon source..no we are not in favor of free exchange of ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Even wikipedia doesn't remove potentially erroneous material, they simply state that it's questionable and references are needed. Is this site not in favor of the free exchange of ideas, regardless of source? Actually, I'd rather cut through the crap and get to the truth. Reliable sources are a good way to find it. That way in discussing things we can all be on the same page, and can refer to the material cited in the claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted March 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 I think anytime someone posts something as "fact" there should be references to back it up. As John Doe states...then we are all on the same page...we know where the information came from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honor Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Even wikipedia doesn't remove potentially erroneous material, they simply state that it's questionable and references are needed. Is this site not in favor of the free exchange of ideas, regardless of source?Much of the things that float around about church history come from personal journals that different saints kept at the time. Those can't exactly be taken as fact either, but it sure would help to specify what is actual doctrine vs documented opinion from the time or just complete rumor. I can only imagine the number of disagreements that could have been avoided about church history and much much more, had there been actual backing for an argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted March 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 I agree Honor. I could post entries from my great great grandmothers journal. They would be her experiences and can't be proven as fact. However, posting that let's people know at least where the source comes from.I think you said it more eloquently than I did. but it sure would help to specify what is actual doctrine vs documented opinion from the time or just complete rumor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest queries Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 I'm not at all opposed to citing sources, I think that's a great idea. I get riled however about the thought of removing things because we don't like where they may or may not have come from or what they might say. If you remove my post because I don't cite my source, or because you disagree with it, you're telling me that my words aren't as valid as your words because they didn't come from the same place yours came from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenRaines Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Rules of the site say no posting of Anti-LDS material. That will be edited. Reference or not. It was a suggestion, not a rule, that items stated as fact but without reference be removed. If it were a rule then that is how it would be handled. Ben Raines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted March 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Okay so let's go over the rules:1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere. 9. Please do not share any "true" or "faith promoting" stories, unless you can verify the source. 10. Do not post any copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you.Some of the reasons I would like sources documented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted March 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 I'm not sure why this is becoming such a huge deal. I like Church History but I would like to know where the information is coming from. Plain and simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elphaba Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 · Hidden Hidden The Happiest States of America - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com Link to comment
KeithLBrown Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 I am a strong believer that regardless of what subject we are discussing we should always be ready, if asked, to give the sources of the information we are sharing. If, for example, the information that we are sharing is strictly our opinion, then why not make a statement such as "In my [humble] opinion. . ." At least by saying that, those to whom we are talking to or those who are reading what we have written will know immediately that what has been said is not necessarily fact, but indeed our opinion on the subject. We need to realize that though there may be some that will do their own homework to check the validity and credibility of what they hear or read, there are many others who take what they hear or read as absolute truth. This is exactly how a lot of rumors and misinformation get spread oftentimes causing unnecessary confusion, dissention, misunderstandings, and offenses.Here on LDS.Net and anywhere that we discuss the Church and its teachings, we need to be as accurate as possible in the information that we share. It should be, and indeed must be, our goal to first and foremost edify those who will partake of what has been said. We need to keep in mind that we are Christ's disciples [students] and when we speak about Him and His Church in particular, we are speaking on His behalf. He is indeed the author of truth and not the author of confusion.Certainly, no one is saying that we cannot have our opinions about things, but at the same time, people visiting our site need to understand that we should not and cannot allow anti-Mormon thought and doctrine to creep in and cause confusion and uproar among the masses. With that in mind, we have an obligation to stand a vigilant watch and be on guard for anything that speaks out against the Church, and in those cases, yes, I strongly support deleting said material at once.With that being said, may I make a humble suggestion? If we read something that is not blatantly obvious that it was written against the Church, but it still leaves questions in our minds as to what is meant by what is being said, why not give the individual that wrote it a chance to clarify what they have written and/or ask them straight forward to supply their references. That way, less people will tend to think that their comments and/or posts are being deleted simply because we do not agree with what they have said. The beauty of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that the Church is perfect, the Saints are not. There are times when we will all disagree on things, but a large part of learning and growing is having to ability to not only know when to speak, but also knowing when to listen to what others have to say, and to listen with open hearts and open minds. Again, our goal Brothers and Sisters is to edify one another, not tear each other apart.I don't believe that being asked to supply our references/sources is asking a great deal of anyone. Even when I give talks in Sacrament meeting at Church, I always write out my talks in full and include all references. That way, if someone asks for a copy of my talk to read later, they have all of the sources of information that I used in the talk. Even if I share a story from my own life experiences or from another source, I make it a practice to state where the information came from. I have found in my experiences that one word taken out of context can give an entirely different meaning to a subject and thus become the root cause of unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding. At least if a person has a reference point it helps to alleviate a lot of the doubt and confusion that could otherwise be caused.This is just my two cents worth on the matter. Thank you for listening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elphaba Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 As I love Church History, I have started a file on many of the items that have been submitted to this forum. However some have no references as to where they got their information including Today in Church History.Could everyone start posting their references as well? Thank you.I can understand everyone wanting a reference to the source of the information, but, for me, it's not always possible.When I write one of my posts/books, I use information from many difference sources, and from many pages within each. If the books are enough of a reference, then I don't see a problem with that.But if I have to back up every paragraph with the book and page number, so the reader can find it quickly, I won't be able to do that. It's too easy to get them mixed up, and frankly, I don't want to spend that much time on them. I am willing to not write posts that I can't back up with that kind of reference, which would solve the problem in my case.Again, if just the books used suffice as a reference, I don't see a problem with that. More specific references would be very difficult.Elphaba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 I'm not at all opposed to citing sources, I think that's a great idea. I get riled however about the thought of removing things because we don't like where they may or may not have come from or what they might say. If you remove my post because I don't cite my source, or because you disagree with it, you're telling me that my words aren't as valid as your words because they didn't come from the same place yours came from.The problem isn't that someone doesn't like something, or where it comes from. The problem being addressed by this thread is that very often there is no record or citation made on this site at all about where a thing comes from. That is the problem: when we don't know or don't say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 I think the problem arises when someone comes in and starts to bring up hearsay they read on some other site as fact, and asks us questions about it, obviously trying to stump us and confound us. I think that in cases such as that, they should provide their source of information. I think that anytime someone makes claims about the church that are unknown to us, they should be ready to tell us where they got their information. There have been a few scholars and history readers here who know the information they are sharing, and I take that at face value based upon my knowledge of their research, but I also think they should be able to cite references if someone asks for them. I don't think this applies to every time you say something about church history, just when you make claims that are new or unusual that are not generally accepted or known to be true by the average member of the church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goofball Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 I concur. Post the source. If it is your opinion say so. Leads to less confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest queries Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 I totally agree with all of you. Sources should be cited. I never have taken issue with the idea that we need to know where purported facts are coming from.When I replied on this thread, there were three posts. One said, cite your sources. The other two were in relation to this:I would think that church history claims for good or bad should have references or be deleted. If no reference then it is hearsay or rumor.This is what I have a problem with. Ben and Pam so helpfully pointed out:1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere. 9. Please do not share any "true" or "faith promoting" stories, unless you can verify the source. 10. Do not post any copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you.If the rules of the forum are followed, then I strongly oppose the suggestion that posts be deleted for lack of reference. In fact I can't think of a good reason to delete the comment that another person took the time and effort to put forward. That is all I am saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 I can't think of a good reason to delete the comment that another person took the time and effort to put forward. That is all I am saying. If your post is lies, then I don't care how much time you spent writing it. Let's face it, some people come here with agendas to 'expose Mormonism for what it is'. Okay, fine. Just do it with reliable factual information, not made up garbage you read on an anti-LDS website and didn't bother to fact-check to verify its truthfulness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest queries Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 If your post is lies, then I don't care how much time you spent writing it. Let's face it, some people come here with agendas to 'expose Mormonism for what it is'. Okay, fine. Just do it with reliable factual information, not made up garbage you read on an anti-LDS website and didn't bother to fact-check to verify its truthfulness.Um... wouldn't that fall under rule #1, no anti-LDS posts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Yep. This request just clarifies that rule. Some people like to blur the lines, claim they came up with these questions all by themselves. All we're asking is that when people come here claiming we believe in something, or that something happened in past days, they back that up with references so that an informed conversation can proceed. I don't know why this request is becoming so much bigger than it needs to be, it's an easy concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted March 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 There are many instances in our Church History that have become controversial or are constantly brought up by those who have no other agenda but to try and prove the Church is a bunch of crock. We also have many investigators who use this site to get answers to questions. I want to be able to provide THE most accurate information we can. That's why I feel it's so important to provide references when at all possible. Or as goofball suggested; if it's opinion then state so. I honestly get tired of a bunch of copy and pastes that provide no such information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Look, it sad to even read this as a post. Spend the time and effort in purchasing CHURCH HISTORY published by Elder Roberts and the JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES. Anything that is latter of the first two, it comes from Church News. Now, have a nice day.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.