What is up with this disclaimer?
The Church acknowledges the contribution of scholars to the historical content presented in this article; their work is used with permission.
This seemingly responsible attribution is notably free of
any authorizing language. Nothing whatsoever along the lines of
reviewed and approved by the First Presidency.
The essays were, or course, reviewed and approved by the brethren. Evidently the experiment has backfired so completely, that the brethren must no longer be responsible. All attribution and responsibility for the essays is on the shoulders of unnamed scholars, neutering the content from ecclesiastical authority or duty.
Feels like the Gospel Topics Essays are officially the block for eventual disavowal and removal. They're dead. De-emphasis in Sunday church discussions is no less justified than sections of
Mormon Doctrine. They are questionable scholarly works, not influenced or blessed by church leaders.
As if this attribution to unknown scholars offered insufficient wiggle room, the phrase, "their work is used with permission" was also added.
Why?
No scholars were named. Everyone knows the research was commissioned by the church. Permission was never in question. Moreover, the Church - not scholars - OWNED the research, the assembly and the publication of the essays. The content does NOT belong to scholars, it belongs to the Church. Period.
Newsroom wrote:Three weeks ago, the Church completed a series on the topic of plural marriage (polygamy), which has recently been the subject of a large number of media stories. Below is additional context for those essays.
Much of what you'll find in the essays on polygamy has been published in diverse sources and known among long-term and well-read members, historians and Church leaders for many years. The Church has now gathered this information into a single location as a convenient means of placing these resources in the hands of all members.
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... pics-pages
What "used by permission" accomplishes quite neatly, however, is to more firmly establish an additional buffer layer between the brethren and these acknowledged-but-unnamed scholars.
Not dissimilar, indeed exactly like, another body of commissioned works -- artwork. Doesn't this evoke an image of well-meaning, but wholly inaccurate depictions of Joseph reading his translation from the plates? The essays, used by permission, have been demoted to take-it-or-leave-it works of art. They are not official. They are not binding. They cannot be used against church leaders. Any duplicity, trickery, deception or falsehood in the essays can never, ever, be attributed to church leaders. They are the unofficial opinions of well-meaning scholar-artists, and should never be regarded as more than such.
Lastly, I cannot help but suspect that these slow-motion obfuscations of the essay covering Joseph's polygamy (the app still won't access that essay, anywhere, and the essay is one link further on the website, and now with the scholar-artist caveats) must be a deliberate, calculated strategy to de-emphasize his faults on this celebratory year. Praise to the man.
