Deseret News | Reader comments: LDS Church announces new Historian's Press

Reader comments
LDS Church announces new Historian's Press

Rich | 12:00 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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

Matt | 12:57 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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?

JD | 1:03 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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.

Comments continue below

Stan | 1:06 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

So True Rich.

Attention Matt: | 1:55 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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."

Fletcher | 2:15 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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.

Kent Larsen | 2:18 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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.

More Attention Matt | 2:23 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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...

JHaake | 2:35 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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.

RE: Matt | 2:50 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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.

Decker | 3:29 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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

Bob Mullins - Logan Utah | 3:40 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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.

fdg | 4:38 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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

Travis | 5:28 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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.

Roger | 5:31 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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.

To JHakke | 5:47 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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?

To Roger | 6:48 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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."

Lynn | 7:18 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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.

Taylor Seltzer | 7:40 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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.

St. Thomas | 7:45 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

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.

MLD | 7:47 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

One conspiracy theory is as good as any other.

John Lambert, Sterling Heights | 7:54 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

I am very excited about this development. I just hope that the Joseph Smith papers end up in as many University libraries as have the Swendenborg Collection. I also look forward to seeing George Q. Cannon's journal.
On the claim that this is going to involve editing, well, I am not sure such people would believe it even if there were holograph papers of every page. The Jornal of Wilford Woodruff only contained images of a few pages, but most people do who think about that project do not think that Signature Books engaged in major editing of it.

To Roger | 7:55 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

Why the accusation? It is time to set assumptions and accusations aside. Agree with Lynn. Let the products speak for themselves. Why would the Church and Larry Miller spend all the time and money - to hide documents - that are now already accessible to the public? That is what you can a lose/lose trap. The fact that they are planning to make the documents accessible and provide context - seems like they aren't trying to hide anything. On the contrary. Sounds like they are transparent and confident that Joseph will stand up to scrutiny that is clearly inevitable.

Hear ye hear ye | 8:05 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

All the LDS Church history has been in the open for
years.
The problem is that only non-Mormons have been reading them.
While printing all their history
I hope they don't start printing up those
$3 dollar bills again.

pppptt! | 8:22 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

who cares!

who is hiding | 9:25 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

The LDS Church has already published volumes of history, discourses, tracts, newspapers, editorials, commentaries, journals, etc. To those making negitive comments about this historical work BEFORE it's even published, please read what's already in print. That will keep you busy for...THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.

Raymond | 10:05 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

The most damaging publication I ever read was Bushman's biography of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.

Although Bushman tries to invoke historical skepticism to obscure the definitive nature of his points, it comes through loud and clear that Joseph Smith Jr. SECRETLY practiced "polygamy" for 10 to 12 years.

If it is of God, it does not need to be hidden. God has nothing to hide, and neither should his servants. Jesus said so, "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God" (John3:20-21)

The more the Church hides its history and its doings, the more they testify against themselves that they are NOT of God.

Jon | 10:24 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

Raymond,

Did you not attend seminary? Or did you sleep through it? I'm always astounded when people are shocked to hear that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy or that it was done in secret. Come on. It's pretty common knowledge that polygamy wasn't practiced out in the open until Brigham Young. How else could the RLDS (Community of Christ) get away with claiming that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy?

A Student | 10:58 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

As a student at USU in the Religious Studies program, I am thrilled at the publishing of this volume. So many of these papers are in fragile condition and in need of protection to avoid further wear and tear on the documents. To have a group dedicating thousands of hours and great cost to allow the public to have access to these. I look forward to owning and using this great work to find further insight into the beginnings of the Church and the life of Joseph. People may criticize, but the Church takes its role as a keeper of records very seriously.

FAKE!!!! | 11:08 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

so is this real history or fake morman history?

UV mike | 11:51 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

I wonder if the church will include Brother josephs divination, or "borrowing" of Masonic temple rituals, or the duping of the prophet by the Kinderhook plates?

It is sad that the church will pick and chose what to print. Instead of printing everything.

It is not the current church that is censoring, it is the church from over a hundred years ago that probably decided to burn all "controversial documents".

To Raymond the Prophet | 11:54 p.m. Feb. 25, 2008

Thank you so much for your insightful arrogance as one who would command God. Like so many before you you seek to counsel Him instead of receive council at His hands. By the way if God has nothing to hide why does it often mention in the Holy Scriptures God's "mysteries"? (FYI the definiton of mystery: A profound secret; something wholly unknown, or something kept cautiously concealed; something which has not been or cannot be explained; hence, specifically, that which is beyond human comprehension.)

P.S.- If God can keep things a "profound secret" or "cautiously concealed" then I guess it is okay for His servants too also, despite what your arrogance and ignorance tell you!

Secrets = evil? | 12:36 a.m. Feb. 26, 2008

Um, then perhaps Raymond would like to explain why Jesus himself did secret things too, like healing people (Matthew 9:30, Mark 5:43, Mark 7:36)? or not allowing people to know who he was (Matthew 16:20)? or keeping certain revelations and teachings private (Matthew 17:9, Matthew 24:3, Luke 10:23)? or keeping his movements unknown (Luke 9:10, John 7:10)?

Welcome Change I hope | 7:29 a.m. Feb. 26, 2008

I hope the church can begin to tell the truth about their history. For example, don't print a 3 page plus history on the life of Parley P. Pratt in the Ensign and then leave out who killed him and why. Just because he was murdered by the husband of his 12th wife does not mean you should not tell the whole story.

This may be the start of doing the right thing. Didn't the church call the PBS broadcast on the Mormons this last year a "Welcome Change". Hasn't our church suffered enough with it's well deserved reputation of white washing it's history.

Roger | 9:10 a.m. Feb. 28, 2008

Don't get your hopes up to high just remember a lepard dosn't change its spots.

no one | 6:20 a.m. June 26, 2008

How about leave the church alone they didn't do bad thinghs to you.If you don't like the lds belivers than leave it alone.If you a christian why you doing this and don't read what they print.I think you a bad people lot of sins you judge other but who will judge you?Why don't you clean your inside cup before you clean others cup?

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.