I was curious about the source of the recent essays the church is publishing on their website under the topics section. The following email is the response I received from the church.

You submitted a Question on ***:
Who is the author of this document? Who is it approved by? I am a member of the ***** Ward in the *********** Stake. I am studying this subject, but I never take open documents without a name and authorization to it as gospel truth. If you can help me with my questions it is appreciated. Regards, ******** referring-url:http://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

LDS Response Team responded on **** as follows:
********:

Thank you for your question about our newer article on the Book of Mormon Translation. This article is one of several newer topics that have been written for the various topics on our Gospel Topics page - the link for that page is found at the top of our home page of LDS.org - first click on "Teachings" and then on "Gospel Topics". At that page you will see a link labelled "Browse Alphabetically" - in this fashion you can find and read any of the several hundred topics we currently have. Eventually all of these topics are planned for rewrite much as the newer topics just rewritten such as the one on "Book of Mormon Translation".

The Public Affairs Office of the Church was asked to research each new topic, and they were told to use the newest and most accurate historical research on the subject. (Many of our Church sources that have traditionally been used for these subjects are based on information that is decades, if not a century, old). In the decades since, much new information, new documents, new evidence, has been published, including some of the information we have found ourselves in our own records while publishing the Joseph Smith Papers over the last 6-8 years. So, the Public Affairs staff does the research and writes up a first draft, and then this is sent on to members of the Priesthood Committee, which includes several members of the Quorum of the Twelve (I actually do not know which ones...) plus other General Authorities, and they finalize the articles. These articles are approved by the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, and since we publish them on LDS.org they do represent official Church "opinions" on these subjects - to the best of our present knowledge. You'll notice that they are well foot-noted.

Actually, *******, you should not take them as "gospel truth" - they merely represent the most accurate historical knowledge we currently have - and they were specifically written to help counter the rising anti-Mormon critics who have multiplied on the Internet and who have become familiar with some of this information. The critics have selectively published and discussed some of the data, to what they consider their advantage, without honestly or accurately or completely taking into account all the data now out there. This is what we have tried to do.

I hope this helps you! God Bless!
Response Team Volunteer - RK

Let us know when you get called in to account to management for posting this info on an "anti-" site...

Ah, the anti-Mormons again. It is always the anti-Mormons' fault.

..."a tanker-load of tepid turd-truths."
..."massive manipulation and mal-intent."
..."spuriously-spawned sputum."
..."full coach of crap."
..."Warren's Revenge."
..."I don't know that we teach that."

Next stop for LD$Inc.......the Jerry Springer Show.

What better way to counter the anti-Mormons than to anonymously post "opinions" to settle the matter! After all, we wouldn't want to tempt The Lord by asking for clear revelation - that's why we have faith! Carry on!

Is that last paragraph real? Doesn't sound official, but ad hoc. Someone unravelled if they really sent that to you.

I assure you the names are all that are removed.

You don't deserve an answer!

So Monson has been replaced by the Public Affairs Office? I've always wanted to know. Who will be the new prophet? Scott Trotter? Michael Otterson?

the thing I have learned about TSCC is you need to read what they say slowly. Don't read the one verse they have you turn to. Read the 4 or 5 before and after to see the context. They admit everything in writing.

"There are some things that the Book of Mormon is not. It is not a text of history, although some history is found within its pages. It is not a definitive work on ancient American agriculture or politics. It is not a record of all former inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, but only of particular groups of people." -Russell M. Nelson. NOT A TEXT OF HISTORY?!?!

"Although the primary purpose of the Book of Mormon is more spiritual than historical, some people have wondered whether the migrations it describes are compatible with scientific studies of ancient America." 2nd paragraph, Book of Mormon and DNA Essay. BoM isn't historical. PRIMARY PURPOSE...SPIRITUAL THAN HISTORICAL!!!

"And that is what happens when they join with us—they have many opportunities to transform their talents, compassion, and time into good works. Because we have no paid local clergy in our worldwide congregations, our members perform the work of ministry themselves. They are called by inspiration. Sometimes we volunteer; sometimes we are “volunteered.” We see assignments not as burdens but as opportunities to fulfill covenants we gladly make to serve God and His children." Dieter F. Ucthdorf- "Come, join with is" October 2013. GAs GET PAID!!!

They say it. You just need to look for it.

"The critics have selectively published and discussed some of the data, to what they consider their advantage, without honestly or accurately or completely taking into account all the data now out there."

Sorry, it's the church that is selective. The critics would be more than happy for every single piece of "data" to be exposed.

So exactly which data has been covered up by the critics?

The critics have nothing to hide because all the data is in their favor.

The Church is being cagey and manipulative in their reply. Take the following statement:

"The Public Affairs Office of the Church was asked to research each new topic, and they were told to use the newest and most accurate historical research on the subject. (Many of our Church sources that have traditionally been used for these subjects are based on information that is decades, if not a century, old)."

The top criteria for a person who is doing historical research is ALWAYS to try their level-headed honest best to decide if the research is ACCURATE while the age of the source is not the prime concern in the least. This statement implies that new information is better than centuries old information, 'Why, silly us, we did not understand that about doing research, that first and foremost we should not lie. See we were just using the old info and now the Church can do this up right in these essays because now we know how to do research correctly, at least as right as it can be for now'.

Yeah, right.

Also, the way the first sentence is worded---"they were told" (those writing the essays) will provide the Black Suits a nice big loop hole when, not if, they are caught using more of their blatant lies, leaving out information, twists and turns, etc.in these essays. The Men in Black will say, well, "they were told" by us to find the "newest and most accurate historical research". Looks like they made some mistakes. But, after all they are just humans and humans make mistakes.

NEVER will they own up to the true fact that some of them, the Black Suits, that reviewed this research as the article says, should have caught the mistakes and incompleteness of the essays from the get-go.

And, the merry-go-round goes round and round and round.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2014 02:36PM by presleynfactsrock.

"These articles are approved by the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, and since we publish them on LDS.org they do represent official Church "opinions" on these subjects - to the best of our present knowledge".

Note that it is official "opinion", not official doctrine, policy, history, or anything definite, but just opinion.

Also note the phrase "-to the best of our present knowledge". They left themselves an enormous out with that one.

"The Official Opinion of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Church, Subject to Change"

(thus saith the Lord, who is only speaking as a man)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2014 11:43PM by steve benson.

I have saved the current essays in pdf format to my hard drive to have for future reference when the church does make the changes we all know will happen.

"Fascinating."

I think the answer is fairly honest. The 'volunteers' are also blind as to who in the twelve approved these. And they admit that the essays will be revised at some point in the near future.

It sounds like a canned answer! Something you get e if you fax or write political leaders.

"The critics have selectively published and discussed some of the data, to what they consider their advantage, without honestly or accurately or completely taking into account all the data now out there. This is what we have tried to do."

So....they ADMIT they have selectively published without honestly or accurately taking into account all the data out there! Cool!

Did you REALLY expect a list of authors?

Did you REALLY expect any kind of real answer?

This reply was pre-written, and electronically e-mailed at the push of a button.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1429705



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2014 11:14PM by steve benson.

No, Thank you for keeping us educated!

How long does it take to partially respond to your question and offer all sorts of unrelated information. I guess that's apologetics. Appropriate response should read:


"Thank you for your question, the authors of these documents are numerous, including x, y, & z. It was approved by x, y, & z."


It's hard to be succinct when you're trying to hide something.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2014 11:54PM by cultivate.