Published anti-Catholicism from a Mormon in place of business!

[RebeccaJ]

The book Mormon Doctrine contained two basic problems. First, the book regardless of its title was not doctrine. Second, the church leadership were very critical of the book when it was published. The second edition contained major changes and Bruce McConkie was put on the carpet for the book. The title of the book contained the problem.

However, we need to remember that Doctrine is found in the sriptures of the lds church. Leaders and members can publish books but it is not necessarily doctrine when the book is published.

Now I do know old timers who still basically look to Mormon Doctrine for answers. But they shouldn’t. The book is not doctrine.

This is a myth. I worked for Deseret Book and any doctrinal type book published by them MUST be approved by a committee that includes current mormon apostles. These books are not willy-nilly published in a vacuum. Despite the disclaimer at the front stating that the books are not doctrine, they are approved directly by LDS church leaders. So, since the definition of doctrine is “teachings”, I don’t know how anyone can truly make a separation of these publications from church teaching. Because, if it weren’t church teaching, IT WOULDN’T BE PUBLISHED.

 

[b_justb]

Lehl:

The play was just starting, but I promptly got up, yanked off my kids’ costumes and threw them to the floor, and pulled them out the door and left.

My oldest was a main character.

It made quite the scene,

You are my new hero!

 

[zerinus]

This is a myth. I worked for Deseret Book and any doctrinal type book published by them MUST be approved by a committee that includes current mormon apostles. These books are not willy-nilly published in a vacuum. Despite the disclaimer at the front stating that the books are not doctrine, they are approved directly by LDS church leaders. So, since the definition of doctrine is “teachings”, I don’t know how anyone can truly make a separation of these publications from church teaching. Because, if it weren’t church teaching, IT WOULDN’T BE PUBLISHED.

I haven’t worked for Deseret Book! But I don’t accept what you say. If you try to publish a book by any reputable publisher, on any subject, they are not going to just publish your book willy-nilly. It has to be checked, double checked, peer-reviewed, and assessed to ensure that it is of the right standard of scholarship, or artistic merit, etc. to be suitable for publication; otherwise nobody would want to buy the book, and the publisher would incur a loss (and damaged reputation). I know of many people who have written a book (not LDS) who have never been able to publisher it, because none of the publishers they have applied to for its publication have accepted it. That is the normal procedure for all reputable publishers, not just Deseret. If you are a popular and established author with a good reputation, you might be able to get away with that; otherwise you can’t escape that ordeal. If you are an unrecognized author, and wrote a book and wanted to guarantee that it would be published, you would have to do it at your own expense, and accept the risk of losing your money if it is not sold.

Deseret Book is in a special situation because it is actually owned by the LDS Church, so it has to be a doubly careful about what it publishes; because whatever it publishes would somehow be associated with the Church. You could not publish an anti-Catholic book through Deseret for example! If somebody wrote an anti-Catholic book, I am sure that there are many publishers in the country who would be willing to publish it; but you couldn’t publish it through Deseret, because that is not what the Church would want to be associated with. But to suggest that everything that Deseret Book publishes has to be “vetted by General Authorities for doctrinal correctness;” and therefore anything that it publishes must be “official LDS doctrine,” is simply not true.

zerinus

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

I haven’t worked for Deseret Book! But I don’t accept what you say.

An odd statement, similar to “I’ve never seen an elephant but I don’t believe your description of one based upon your personal experience.”

Deseret Book is in a special situation because it is actually owned by the LDS Church, so it has to be a doubly careful about what it publishes; because whatever it publishes would somehow be associated with the Church.

And of course Zerinus can give us maybe ONE or TWO books from the Deseret booklist which illustrates how NOT everything “it publishes must be” LDS party line.

Do you think he will find one, one little title? Let’s wait and see…

Robert

 

[RebeccaJ]

I haven’t worked for Deseret Book! But I don’t accept what you say. If you try to publish a book by any reputable publisher, on any subject, they are not going to just publish your book willy-nilly. It has to be checked, double checked, peer-reviewed, and assessed to ensure that it is of the right standard of scholarship, or artistic merit, etc. to be suitable for publication; otherwise nobody would want to buy the book, and the publisher would incur a loss (and damaged reputation). I know of many people who have written a book (not LDS) who have never been able to publisher it, because none of the publishers they have applied to for its publication have accepted it. That is the normal procedure for all reputable publishers, not just Deseret. If you are a popular and established author with a good reputation, you might be able to get away with that; otherwise you can’t escape that ordeal. If you are an unrecognized author, and wrote a book and wanted to guarantee that it would be published, you would have to do it at your own expense, and accept the risk of losing your money if it is not sold.

Deseret Book is in a special situation because it is actually owned by the LDS Church, so it has to be a doubly careful about what it publishes; because whatever it publishes would somehow be associated with the Church. You could not publish an anti-Catholic book through Deseret for example! If somebody wrote an anti-Catholic book, I am sure that there are many publishers in the country who would be willing to publish it; but you couldn’t publish it through Deseret, because that is not what the Church would want to be associated with. But to suggest that everything that Deseret Book publishes has to be “vetted by General Authorities for doctrinal correctness;” and therefore anything that it publishes must be “official LDS doctrine,” is simply not true.

zerinus

Of course a manuscript goes through a well defined process to get published. I did not say that Deseret Book uses a different process than other publishers. If you read what I said, you would see that I did not say that everything that Deseret Book publishes goes through this committee. Only DOCTRINAL publications. If you want to publish a doctrinal book, something that covers doctrinal teachings of the mormon church, it goes through this committee. NOTHING DOCTRINAL is published by Deseret Book without the approval of this committee. Of course, there are doctrinal books published at other publishers, I do not know what their procedures are. For example “Rough Stone Rolling”…not a Deseret Book publication. (Actually, what I think about this “outside the family” publishing, is that the church is distancing itself as far as possible from the publication. Especially when it is a GA doing the writing. Proactive CYA.)

The inspirational fluff goes through the usual publishing guidelines, and each my have additional steps based on the content, author, etc, but the inspirational fluff does not go through this committee.

 

[zerinus]

Of course a manuscript goes through a well defined process to get published. I did not say that Deseret Book uses a different process than other publishers. If you read what I said, you would see that I did not say that everything that Deseret Book publishes goes through this committee. Only DOCTRINAL publications. If you want to publish a doctrinal book, something that covers doctrinal teachings of the mormon church, it goes through this committee. NOTHING DOCTRINAL is published by Deseret Book without the approval of this committee. Of course, there are doctrinal books published at other publishers, I do not know what their procedures are. For example “Rough Stone Rolling”…not a Deseret Book publication. (Actually, what I think about this “outside the family” publishing, is that the church is distancing itself as far as possible from the publication. Especially when it is a GA doing the writing. Proactive CYA.)

The inspirational fluff goes through the usual publishing guidelines, and each my have additional steps based on the content, author, etc, but the inspirational fluff does not go through this committee.

I see that as part of the same process. Deseret is a Church owned publisher. Whatever it publishes tends to get associated with the Church (rightly or wrongly). So it naturally does not want to publish a doctrinal book that is completely off base, and would be considered by the rest of the Church as questionable and doctrinally unsound. It must have some kind of mechanism in place to ensure that that does not happen. But to conclude from this that whatever is published by the company amounts to “official Church doctrine incapable of error” is the wrong way to look at it.

zerinus

 

[why_me]

Also, the book Mormon Doctrine (First Edition) could have sneaked through the process. No one is perfect and mistakes are made. I do know that when that book was published it was immediately seen as going to far. And it was corrected in next editions. The title was a major problem.

I have my suspicions that because the author was McConkie, it was not checked as carefully as it would have been under a different name. I think the lds church goofed but the corrections have been made as far as I understand it.

 

[why_me]

And of course Zerinus can give us maybe ONE or TWO books from the Deseret booklist which illustrates how NOT everything “it publishes must be” LDS party line.

Do you think he will find one, one little title? Let’s wait and see…

Robert

As far I understand it, books have been sold without the party line. Bushman’s book for example is a case in point. I would recommend ‘Rough Stone Rolling’ by Richard Bushman as a definitive biography of Joseph Smith and it is published by Knopf.

It is now in paperback, published in 2005 and 2007, respectively.

 

[zerinus]

As far I understand it, books have been sold without the party line. Bushman’s book for example is a case in point. I would recommend ‘Rough Stone Rolling’ by Richard Bushman as a definitive biography of Joseph Smith and it is published by Knopf.

It is now in paperback, published in 2005 and 2007, respectively.

Bruce R McConkie published the first edition of his book many years ago. At that time Deseret Book was an independent commercial publisher. It was not owned by the Church. It specialized in LDS publications, however, so I am sure it must have had some kind of committee to check for doctrinal correctness of the books it published. In Utah there are still several small independent publishers that cater for publishing LDS books; and all of them must have some kind of mechanism in place to ensure the books they publish are doctrinally sound; otherwise their books could be left on the shelf and people would not by them. That is the same procedure as with any other subject matter. If somebody wanted to publish a book on Islam, the publisher (whoever that is) has a commercial interest to ensure that it is doctrinally sound and acceptable to Moslems; otherwise he may find that he has no customers for his book. That does not make his book “official”. The same principle applies to LDS books. There are no Imprimatur and Nihil obstat associated with LDS books, including those published by Deseret.

zerinus

 

[Philothea53]

Yeah, I would say the mormon had some kind of committee in place! The presidency got involved!

exmormon.org/mormon/mormon193.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_R._McConkie

 

[RebeccaJ]

Bruce R McConkie published the first edition of his book many years ago. At that time Deseret Book was an independent commercial publisher. It was not owned by the Church. It specialized in LDS publications, however, so I am sure it must have had some kind of committee to check for doctrinal correctness of the books it published. In Utah there are still several small independent publishers that cater for publishing LDS books; and all of them must have some kind of mechanism in place to ensure the books they publish are doctrinally sound; otherwise their books could be left on the shelf and people would not by them. That is the same procedure as with any other subject matter. If somebody wanted to publish a book on Islam, the publisher (whoever that is) has a commercial interest to ensure that it is doctrinally sound and acceptable to Moslems; otherwise he may find that he has no customers for his book. That does not make his book “official”. The same principle applies to LDS books. There are no Imprimatur and Nihil obstat associated with LDS books, including those published by Deseret.

zerinus

Deseret Book was owned by George Q Cannon, who was a mormon apostle. You are correct in that people will not buy what does not interest them. But in the case of mormon religious books, it goes further than that. Most mormons will not buy what is not “safe”. Publications authored by apostles, publications from Deseret Book, most mormons see these as “safe”. So yes, Deseret Book works at keeping that “safety” in place. That “safety” was in place when George Q Cannon owned the pre-cursor to Deseret Book, based on the fact that he was an apostle. Perhaps the control of what was published was not there, and perhaps that is why the mormon church now owns Deseret Book.

But you cannot ignore who owns Deseret Book. What is “safe” for a mormon is what does not contradict what they learned in Sunday school last week. Deseret Book has published books that made it through this whole process, only to have the book pulled from shelves and future publication barred by the LDS church itself. If Mormon Doctrine, or any other Deseret Book publication fell outside the “safety zone”, it would not be on a Deseret Book shelf. Period.

The “safety zone” is defined by the mormch church. For a mormon, who or what else would? What is inside this safety zone is what has been defined by the mormon church. If a publication is not “safe”, it is not there! How can you reason that anything published by a mormon owned publisher is not endorsed by the mormon church itself. That is just ludicrous to believe it is not.

 

[zerinus]

Deseret Book was owned by George Q Cannon, who was a mormon apostle. You are correct in that people will not buy what does not interest them. But in the case of mormon religious books, it goes further than that. Most mormons will not buy what is not “safe”. Publications authored by apostles, publications from Deseret Book, most mormons see these as “safe”. So yes, Deseret Book works at keeping that “safety” in place. That “safety” was in place when George Q Cannon owned the pre-cursor to Deseret Book, based on the fact that he was an apostle. Perhaps the control of what was published was not there, and perhaps that is why the mormon church now owns Deseret Book.

But you cannot ignore who owns Deseret Book. What is “safe” for a mormon is what does not contradict what they learned in Sunday school last week. Deseret Book has published books that made it through this whole process, only to have the book pulled from shelves and future publication barred by the LDS church itself. If Mormon Doctrine, or any other Deseret Book publication fell outside the “safety zone”, it would not be on a Deseret Book shelf. Period.

The “safety zone” is defined by the mormch church. For a mormon, who or what else would? What is inside this safety zone is what has been defined by the mormon church. If a publication is not “safe”, it is not there! How can you reason that anything published by a mormon owned publisher is not endorsed by the mormon church itself. That is just ludicrous to believe it is not.

This is just speculative and fanciful talk that does not mean a lot to me.

zerinus

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

As far I understand it, books have been sold without the party line. Bushman’s book for example is a case in point. I would recommend ‘Rough Stone Rolling’ by Richard Bushman as a definitive biography of Joseph Smith and it is published by Knopf.

It is now in paperback, published in 2005 and 2007, respectively.

whyme:

The question was: name one or two titles published by DESERET which did not follow the party line.

Was Bushman’s book published by DESERET or was it published by A Knopf?

Robert

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Well, it’s been a couple of days and still NO BOOK from Zerinus which would back up his statement that Deseret does NOT (“simply not true”) publish only books “vetted by General Authorities for doctrinal correctness.”

No proof but lost of wild assertions.

Robert

 

[majick275]

whyme:

The question was: name one or two titles published by DESERET which did not follow the party line.

Was Bushman’s book published by DESERET or was it published by A Knopf?

Robert

signature books publishes most of the “other side” type books written by Mormons.Bushmans book rough stone rolling was published by Knopf though. Deseret is only going to publish “faith promoting” stuff.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Well, it’s been a couple of days and still NO BOOK from Zerinus which would back up his statement that Deseret does NOT (“simply not true”) publish only books “vetted by General Authorities for doctrinal correctness.”

No proof but lost of wild assertions.

Robert

All along the watchtower…

 

[RebeccaJ]

This is just speculative and fanciful talk that does not mean a lot to me.

zerinus

It’s alright zerinus, I understand that is hard to accept the truth when it doesn’t match to your own beliefs.

This is no speculation. Deseret Book has a marketing department like any other retailer. Deseret Book is owned and managed by mormons, who employee mostly mormons. Their stated and public mission statement is to “support the mission of the COJCOLDS”. Their mission statement also states that they will be profitable. So it should be no surprise, and it is not speculation. I worked there. I sat in meetings where these things, and more, were discussed. And honestly, the people who work there have their hearts in the right place, just it all felt a bit grimy at the end of the day. At least to me.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Also, the book Mormon Doctrine (First Edition) could have sneaked through the process. No one is perfect and mistakes are made. I do know that when that book was published it was immediately seen as going to far. And it was corrected in next editions. The title was a major problem.

I have my suspicions that because the author was McConkie, it was not checked as carefully as it would have been under a different name. I think the lds church goofed but the corrections have been made as far as I understand it.

McConkie only wrote what mormon leaders have taught. His mistake was violating the 11th commandment of the mormon church, “thou shalt not commit publicity”. The publicity here being of the sort that people read his book and found the racist, anti-Catholic, and other assorted “we don’t teach that” teachings that were in fact “doctrine” at some point in the mormon church. And the mormon leadership had a PR nightmare.

 

[zerinus]

You are talking a lot of irrelevant drivel and platitudes, stating the obvious, which has nothing to do with your original claims and assertion. Your original assertion had been that because the books published Deseret are vetted by a committee, therefore it is “official LDS doctrine”. I explained to you that that does not necessarily follow. Now you have changed the subject and are talking about something completely different, stating the obvious which I never denied.

It’s alright zerinus, I understand that is hard to accept the truth when it doesn’t match to your own beliefs.

Accept what truth? That Deseret is a Church owned publisher, managed and owned by LDS Church, and staffed by faithful LDS members? When did I deny that? How ridiculous can you get?

This is no speculation. Deseret Book has a marketing department like any other retailer.

It does? How amazing! How did you manage to make that great discovery?

Deseret Book is owned and managed by mormons, who employee mostly mormons. Their stated and public mission statement is to “support the mission of the COJCOLDS”. Their mission statement also states that they will be profitable. So it should be no surprise, and it is not speculation. I worked there. I sat in meetings where these things, and more, were discussed.

Now that is an amazing discovery! You must have been working for the secret service too part time to be able to discover that great mystery.

And honestly, the people who work there have their hearts in the right place, just it all felt a bit grimy at the end of the day. At least to me.

Deseret is owned and staffed by LDS, nobody is denying that. It is the publishing arm of the LDS Church, nobody is disputing that. It is staffed and run mainly by faithful LDS members, nobody is questioning that. Their “hearts” are bound to be “in the right place,” no arguments about that. And that proves exactly what? All the major churches have a church owned publishing arm. The Catholic Church I am sure must have one too—staffed and run by faithful Catholics “whose hearts” are bound to be where? In the wrong place? That proves exactly what?

zerinus

 

[why_me]

McConkie only wrote what mormon leaders have taught. His mistake was violating the 11th commandment of the mormon church, “thou shalt not commit publicity”. The publicity here being of the sort that people read his book and found the racist, anti-Catholic, and other assorted “we don’t teach that” teachings that were in fact “doctrine” at some point in the mormon church. And the mormon leadership had a PR nightmare.

Not exactly. The problem with the book was its title. The title was a huge mistake because it created confusion among the members. I have already stated that the abominable church expression contained in the book of mormon was speculated on by members. Some said the catholic church, others said communism etc. Much speculation was offered. Point of fact, no revelation was ever given as to what that church was. And even today, no one knows. However, because of that book’s first edition, some members still say the catholic church. But in reality most likely it refers to any organization that fights against the word of god. At least, I have heard this speculation rather recently. Also, as you know, mormons have an unfortunate way of listening to everything people in authority say without a questioning or critical mind. And it is here that we also have a problem with the first edition of Mormon Doctrine. It was accepted uncritically until the leadership understood the problems in that book.

But Mormon Doctrine is not mormon doctrine.