Reader comments
LDS Church announces new Historian's Press

This is good news for those of us who seek and can handle the truth.

Attention mormons: Please read this paragraph carefully:

"Some of the 'Papers' will include high-definition photos of original documents and a side-by-side typed script. Others will simply have a typed script."

Why not include photos of ALL the documents?

You can bet there will be quite a bit of "editing" going on.

Not everything that is true is faith promoting.

Pathetic. Why even bother with this excerise?

This ia great news. I have sometimes felt that the Priesthood/RS manuals were overly "correlated". Perhaps this will be a good way to get into the "meat" of the gospel; provided that these, too, aren't run through the censorship, err rather, correllation committee.

So True Rich.

Please read the following paragraph closely:

"[The endorsement by the Records Commission] conveys the commission's conclusion that the staff and procedures of the Joseph Smith Papers meet the NHPRC's rigorous scholarly standards for transcription and annotation and that the edition will be accurate and professional."

The National Historical Publications and Records Commission will be reviewing the transcription and annotation. I would expect them to rescind their endorsement if there were "quite a bit of editing going on."

To Matt:
There are many practical reasons not to just include photos of all the documents. The primary being you can fit a lot more into a book if you use a typed version, especially if you want the pictures to be at a resolution that is legible. Secondly, the hand writing may be hard to read and smeared and faded due to age. To be able to make it readable in a book you would have to do a lot of work on the photo to make it clear enough to read.

And of course there will be some editing. But that is not necessarily bad. People didn't have computers were they could go back and edit thing easily. Also, if you have done any sort of research you know words on a paper with no context are of little worth. And obviously, the Church will try to put papers in a context that is the most favorable. But that by no means makes this pathetic.

FWIW, Book Publishers generally DO NOT own their own printing facilities. Its unusual enough to make the question seem quite odd to anyone familiar with book publishing.

If I understand correctly, the Church and Deseret Book have long shared the Church's printing facilities, but even there I'll bet that Deseret Book often goes elsewhere (to one of the many commercial printers) when their plans for a particular book make it necessary.

Do you mean editing for errors like your spelling of "excerise" ? Yes, I would note the error given that the word is spelled "exercise".

Talk about pathetic...

It is too bad Elder Jensen didn't elaborate a bit more on the dozens of elderly couples called to "serve" a mission of taking OUT the bits and flecks of history the church feels wouldn't be faith promoting. Yes, history editing missionaries exist. Knowing one such couple called to such a noble purpose, I'd expect this new revealed history 100% faith promoting and entirely approved for the consumption of the membership of the church.

Why doesn't your church produce it's founders papers and letters in a 30 volume set? Then we can compare who is hiding what. Ignorance is bliss isn't it Matt.

Yes but will it tell the truth or the sanitized version of Church history?

The Church has owned for many years, their own presses, all over the world. Magazines, church handbooks and many other important things in relation to the Kingdom are published there.

Now, if you're talking aboout a bindery for sewn books, the Church does own Deseret Book, last I checked.

Matt: does it even matter what we publish to you? Would you bother reading it when published?

Nevertheless, as stated, we as a Church are commnded to publish, and so we shall obey the commands of the Lord and His Father.

Matt; it seems that when ever the LDS church does something that is good you always seem to find the negative. If you detest the Mormons so bad why bother? Unless you are trying to blame everyone but yourself for the problems you have.Maby you should wait and see what comes of this printing befor you make a judgment of it

JHaake: Exactly what do you claim they're editing, and for the purpose of which publications? Obviously, the Sunday School manuals are not intended as scholarly investigations of Church history. Suggesting that the LDS Church is trying to delete certain details out of its history is quite different from saying that some of its publications ignore the more controversial issues.
Please specify which you mean, and provide verifiable evidence. If you can't produce solid evidence from a reliable source for what you claim, then it's hypocritical to criticize the Church's scholarship.

It is sad to see a major religious organization cower before the duty of exposing truth. To hide the truth is expected of large corpoations like the cigarette companies, but those who hold to a Christian believe should feel honored to seek and share truth. Is God not truth.

JHaake,

Not sure what your information sources are. Please provide details. Images of the papers are already out there but not with historical context. Why would we assume that Elder Jensen would have the manuscripts edited?

What do you mean cower before the duty of exposing truth? Producing a 30 volume history of the church hardly seems like cowering to me. If the LDS Church wanted to hide the truth, as you are suggesting, why would they bother undertaking this project? Your argument is inconsistent. "Those who hold to a Christian [belief] should also be consistent."

Amazing to me that so many are passing judgment on something they know nothing about. Maybe if you want to know more you should make an appointment with Elder Jensen and ask to see the documents. It is largely a waste of time for us to argue one way or the other until the project produces results.

The church wouldnt do this unless it came from Jesus to go ahead with it, it must be time, and i think its a good thing.

Matt and JHaake, the only way you can prove your claims are to view the materials after they're published and then point out to all of us what's missing. Unless you can do that, your "arguements" are specious and have no weight, and thus, you reveal more about youselves than about the Church or its history. Put up or shut up.