LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference

[Snow]

No, I'm saying some books have been "Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" which is different than "Published by Deseret Book Company."

For instance, look in the front of "Pure Religion."

The Church officially endorses this book.

Here is the text copied and pasted from the web site I found it in (I have the book, too):

Pure religion: The story of church welfare since 1930

by Glen L Rudd

Published 1995 by Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

See the "Published by?" That book is endorsed by the Church, making it different than other books that are not.

Miracle of Forgiveness is published by Bookcraft, making it not officially endorsed by the Church.

Jesus the Christ was published by Deseret Book Company.

So, again, if it is "published by" the Church, not a company owned by the Church, the Church "officially" endorses it.

I understand the publishing arrangements of the Church - the point I don't see is what "authorized" means. The Hymn Book is published by The Church of Jesus Christ so, in some sense it is authorized but what does that mean?

[Justice]

I understand the publishing arrangements of the Church - the point I don't see is what "authorized" means.

I was addressing this comment:

Anything that is published by Deseret Book is published by the Church. Are you implying the the Church publishes books but doesn't authorize them?

It seemed you were saying that whether it was published by the Church, or by a company owned by the Church, it was the same. I was saying that just because it's published by "Deseret Book Company" does not mean it is "Published by" the Church.

Your statement:

Anything that is published by Deseret Book is published by the Church.

...is not true. I was just pointing that out. Maybe you knew, even though you stated otherwise, and were just testing me. :)

As far as what it means, it means the First Presidency reviewed and approved the content of the book, so the Church is safe to put it's publish stamp on it.

Incidentally, the Church has not published very many books like this. The bulk of what they publish takes the form of manuals and such. But, books that have been authored by an individual? Very precious few.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Justice

[Snow]

I was addressing this comment:

It seemed you were saying that whether it was published by the Church, or by a company owned by the Church, it was the same. I was saying that just because it's published by "Deseret Book Company" does not mean it is "Published by" the Church.

Deseret Book is wholly owed by the Church so anything published by Deseret is necessarily published by the Church... of course the Church has various publishing businesses and uses them to release different kinds of material... however, I was more interested in the "authorized" part of it. Obviously anything that it published is authorized.

Your statement:

...is not true. I was just pointing that out. Maybe you knew, even though you stated otherwise, and were just testing me. :)

Since the Church completely owned Deseret, how is it not true?

As far as what it means, it means the First Presidency reviewed and approved the content of the book, so the Church is safe to put it's publish stamp on it.

Incidentally, the Church has not published very many books like this. The bulk of what they publish takes the form of manuals and such. But, books that have been authored by an individual? Very precious few.

[Justice]

Deseret Book is wholly owed by the Church so anything published by Deseret is necessarily published by the Church... of course the Church has various publishing businesses and uses them to release different kinds of material... however, I was more interested in the "authorized" part of it. Obviously anything that it published is authorized.

I have some speculation on what else "authorized" could mean. I didn't mention it because I did not research it.

The criteria involved in determining if a work can be published by the Church or by one of it's companies is surely different. I would think there are content screeners that are employed by a book company owned by the Church that have a certain set of standards to measure potential works to be published.

It would seem that for the Church to publish something, it would require the approval of the prophet and/or apostles, the leaders of the Church, who have been called of God, not employed by a CEO of a company. They would be acting in the calling of their Priesthood office, as opposed to being paid by a publisher. That would be a notable difference.

It is also quite possible, and a more significant difference if true, that tithing funds could be used to publish books approved by the Church. That would be a notable difference also.

This is just logical speculation, of course. I'd be curious to see if anyone knows or has researched what the difference(s) may be.

[Spartan117]

It would seem that for the Church to publish something, it would require the approval of the prophet and/or apostles, the leaders of the Church, who have been called of God, not employed by a CEO of a company. They would be acting in the calling of their Priesthood office, as opposed to being paid by a publisher. That would be a notable difference.

Isn't most of the material published by the church written by general authorities, like the Sunday School manuals? I had thought the church only published things like lesson manuals anyway? Is The Ensign published by the church?

[pam]

So because it may be published by the Church, does it mean it should be considered doctrinal? Are they mutually inclusive? (Journal of Discourses anyone?)

Of course not.

The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest.

Journal of Discourses

[Justice]

Isn't most of the material published by the church written by general authorities, like the Sunday School manuals?

Yes, as was the book I refer to, "Pure Religion." It was written by a member of the Seventy under the direction of the First Presidency. I believe they have committees made up of different General Authorities that are responsible for every word of every lesson manual, all under the direction of the First Presidency.

I had thought the church only published things like lesson manuals anyway? Is The Ensign published by the church?

Yes, the bulk of what the Church publishes are lesson manuals.

Yes, the Ensign is published by the Church.

I don't have a list of the books that have been written by individuals that the Church has published, but I'm thinking the total of them can be counted on your fingers, maybe even the fingers on one hand. That's not many, considering the Church is approaching it's 200th anniversary (April 6, 2030), and publishing has been one of it's largest works.

[Obolus]

I own David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, and it is one of the most intriguing books on the Church that I have ever read. The chapters on the Blacks and the Priesthood and Ezra Taft Benson are worth the purchase price alone, and the chapters about Correlation and The Building Crisis help to explain the reasoning behind several of the Church's current policies regarding handling auxiliaries and the (lack of) transparency regarding our fiscal records.

Also the chapter on Earnest L Wilkinson/BYU is pretty fascinating. If you want to understand the modern iteration of the Church, this book is mandatory reading.

It's a good thing McConkie's father-in-law was Joseph Fielding Smith, who was in the First Presidency at the time of MD's publication. Talk about having an ace up your sleeve.

[cwald]

All this debate seems quite silly to me to be honest. Since it's the official church policy that for something to become doctrine it has to be "presented to and accepted by the body of the Church." than it is should be quite clear what is and what isn't "church doctrine." This is probably why they had to change BKP talk from GC when he claimed that the proclamation to the family was "a revelation." They changed that reference in the written record to say something like " counsel" because in order for it to be considered doctrine and revelation, it would have to be approved by the church. So obviously, since they changed that part, even our own leaders do not believe that The Proclamation is doctrine.

So, I guess it just seems silly to me to argue for example that the temple ceremony is doctrine. As far as I know it has never been presented to the church?

[Echo2002]

I just did a search for David O McKay: The Rise of Modern Mormonism and there's no match for it at Deseret Books. Did the church refuse to publish it for some reason?

[Echo2002]

Never mind, I found it.

[mnn727]

What I mean, more specifically, is that if you open the cover of an actual book, and read the text describing it's publication, if it says "Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," then it's published and authorized by the Church. If it does not, then it is not.

Be very careful: There is a BIG difference between a book containing doctrine and a book being a source of doctrine -- For example SS manuals contain doctrine but are themselves NOT sources of doctrine even though published by the Church.

There are only 5 sources of Doctrine -- The 4 standard works and Declarations of the Prophet when signed by the F.P. and Q of 12 as being such (examples are Official Declarations 1 and 2 - which eventually became part of the D&C)

[Justice]

I didn't say anything about what is and what isn't doctrine. So, I took your advice and was very careful. I said if the Church puts it's publish stamp on it then it is authorized by the Church. It only makes sense. If they did not authorize it, they wouldn't put their publish stamp on it.