Church Admonishes to Use Only Approved Sources

[_mentalgymnast]

You’re right. It was a paraphrase rather than a quote. So here’s the relevant quote:

Questions about our Church history and beliefs do arise. Where we turn to find the correct answers requires great care. There is nothing to be gained in exploring the views and opinions of the less informed or disenchanted. The best counsel was given by the Apostle James: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God” (James 1:5).

Asking of God is to be preceded by careful study, for we are under scriptural mandate to seek “out of the best books words of wisdom” and to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). There is a rich abundance of these books, written by heaven-inspired Church leaders and recognized, safe, and reliable Church history and doctrine scholars. With that said, none surpass the majesty of the revealed word of God in canonized scripture. From those thin pages thick with spiritual insights, we learn truth through the Holy Ghost and thereby increase in light.

What context do you think the material you quoted adds?

When we study, we should do so not only through study...but also by faith. That as I look at and read source material and writings of biographers, associates of the 'primaries', and other historical and/or scientific topics/references that are available...I am more "open minded" and thorough as I try to keep a balance between competing/conflicting ideas/theories/presuppositions, etc.

I've found that it is a good thing, for me, to keep the door open to "light and truth" from various avenues/sources...including the "rich abundance of...books, written by heaven-inspired Church leaders and recognized, safe, and reliable Church history and doctrine scholars [and]...the revealed word of God in canonized scripture" referred to in the talk by Elder Ardern.

It feels right to do so.

As I've aged and matured, I've found that it's not always wise to put all my eggs in one basket, however. There is truth and goodness to be found from so many places. Including nuggets of truth/insight and goodness that show themselves, now and then, on this board.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

Elder Ardern redefines "best books" as being those that are church approved.

This appears on my list of sound reasons for no longer being LDS.

And a sound reason it is.

[_zeezrom]

One of the scariest things I did in my life was begin to look outside the church approved library at church history. As I looked off that cliff into the abyss, I knew this could put my marriage and relationship with my friends and family on the line.

[_DoubtingThomas]

I can't count the number of times I have argued with apologists that the church discourages reading from non-church approved sources, only to have them come back at me and challenge me to find a place where they actually come out and say this point blank.

Up to this point, I have had difficulty finding such a source. I mean, the messaging is all over the place, but it has been difficult to find somebody actually coming out and saying it.

The search is over.

but apologists can point to other church authorities like Elder Snow for example.

For me FAIR helped me to open my mind. For example, I went from believing in a Global Flood to a local flood because of FAIR. I learned about Adam-God, and many other controversial topics for reading FAIR. I thank FAIR for getting me out of my bubble, with time my open mind led me to agnosticism.

[_mentalgymnast]

I thank FAIR for getting me out of my bubble, with time my open mind led me to agnosticism.

Why agnosticism?

Regards,
MG

[_Fence Sitter]

There is a rich abundance of these books, written by heaven-inspired Church leaders and recognized, safe, and reliable Church history and doctrine scholars.

And where might one find a list of "safe and reliable Church history"?

That's right, no list exists, and any member found reading anything historical that makes him or her question her testimony has de facto not been reading "safe and reliable church history" regardless of the source. Even the essays are not "safe and reliable" in that sense.

I am dumbfounded by his use of the term "reliable history". What he really means is "faithful history".

The actual message here isn't to encourage members to be selective of what they read, it is to make them fearful of reading anything at all that will challenge their faith, regardless of whether that faith is based in "reliable history" or not.

When a member reads something that negatively affects his faith, it will be his fault for doing so. Because, of course, members should know beforehand whether or not something they are going to read is "safe".

/boggle

[_mentalgymnast]

There is a rich abundance of these books, written by heaven-inspired Church leaders and recognized, safe, and reliable Church history and doctrine scholars.

And where might one find a list of "safe and reliable Church history"?

I think, at least from my experience, that you go out and you shop around to find 'safe and reliable church history'.

Joseph Smith said that it was through the proving of contraries that the truth is made manifest. So from that perspective the field is white and ready to harvest as far as looking/searching for that which one considers to be "reliable". The "list" may vary somewhat from person to person. One of the first books I read on Joseph Smith after having read No Man Knows My History, was a book written by Donna Hill titled Joseph Smith: The First Mormon. Well written book. Balanced and didn't shy away...at least from what I can remember...from some of the more controversial aspects of his life.

My list became fairly long.

Most of the books I've read I would consider to be reliable in the sense that I've been able to get a fairly well rounded view of Joseph and those that he surrounded himself with. It would have been difficult to do so without searching out enough source material to get a "reliable" foundation of knowledge in order to make choices/decisions along the way.

I think that there are a lot of church members that would see the Givens' books, Grant Hardy's book, Rough Stone Rolling, and others that could be mentioned, as fairly "safe". One person's view/definition of "safe" is going to be different than another person.

When I listened to this Conference talk my take away was, "Be careful" and "Be wise". And to keep balance.

Regards,
MG

[_Kishkumen]

One of the scariest things I did in my life was begin to look outside the church approved library at church history. As I looked off that cliff into the abyss, I knew this could put my marriage and relationship with my friends and family on the line.

That tears me up, zee. It’s so messed up.

[_Lemmie]

One of the scariest things I did in my life was begin to look outside the church approved library at church history. As I looked off that cliff into the abyss, I knew this could put my marriage and relationship with my friends and family on the line.

That tears me up, zee. It’s so messed up.

You're not kidding. Sorry, Zeezrom, that must have been brutal to get through.

It certainly explains why that phrase from Res Ipsa's quote is so upsetting: "...these books, written by heaven-inspired Church leaders and recognized, safe, and reliable Church history and doctrine scholars."

Safe and reliable? Who separates historical and and scholastic authors into categories like that?

[_consiglieri]