The overwhelmingly vast majority of critical scholarship comes from LDS sources and member and scholars. Two excellent examples are the recent Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling by Bushman, and Massacre at Mountain Meadow by Walker, Turley and Leonard. You can claim all you want that LDS sources like to whitewash history but without LDS sources, there is practically no LDS history.you have to be careful because “official” LDS sources change over time and tend to edit and even omit things over time.
I am not a tanner fan as they tend to be really bad about proof texting but if you look up their references and read them in context you can get a true picture. LDS sources like to whitewash history in orwellian fashion.
The presentation the lds church gives at mormon.org barely scratches the surface. I would never recommend anyone join the Mormon church based on that information alone. I suggest they go through it in a couple evenings and then move on to more intensive study. Unfortunately the lds church does not have a presentation that I would accept as sufficient for potential new converts.If you want official LDS belief, the best place to get it is official LDS sites and sources.
If you want a fair and balanced look at history, you should look to scholarly books, both inside and outside the Church.
Okay - whatever. No offense nebula, but what you think is sufficient for new converts is hardly a concern of The Church of Jesus Christ’s proselytizing interests.The presentation the lds church gives at mormon.org barely scratches the surface. I would never recommend anyone join the Mormon church based on that information alone. I suggest they go through it in a couple evenings and then move on to more intensive study. Unfortunately the lds church does not have a presentation that I would accept as sufficient for potential new converts.
This is the problem typically with religious history. There is practically no Catholic history without Catholic sources. No one would keep a history of a religion which is not theirs.The overwhelmingly vast majority of critical scholarship comes from LDS sources and member and scholars. Two excellent examples are the recent Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling by Bushman, and Massacre at Mountain Meadow by Walker, Turley and Leonard. You can claim all you want that LDS sources like to whitewash history but without LDS sources, there is practically no LDS history.
What do you think of PMG – sufficient? Just curious.The presentation the lds church gives at mormon.org barely scratches the surface. I would never recommend anyone join the Mormon church based on that information alone. I suggest they go through it in a couple evenings and then move on to more intensive study. Unfortunately the lds church does not have a presentation that I would accept as sufficient for potential new converts.
i was making a distinction betwen “official” LDS sources and LDS sources. I agree that we MUST use LDs sources when looking at LDS history and doctrine. I stand by my original statement regarding official LDS sources as none of the ones you mentioned fall in that category.The overwhelmingly vast majority of critical scholarship comes from LDS sources and member and scholars. Two excellent examples are the recent Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling by Bushman, and Massacre at Mountain Meadow by Walker, Turley and Leonard. You can claim all you want that LDS sources like to whitewash history but without LDS sources, there is practically no LDS history.
Most websites are very biased one way or another. Some books:Does anyone know of a website where one could learn factual information about the LDS church?