Validity of quotes

[nocomment]

I am relatively new to the forum, but I would like to bring up some thoughts regarding quotes:

When supporting a point of view, why not quote from an official church source (please reference as well):

- General Conference
- Worldwide leadership training broadcasts
- Church Magazines
- LDS website and Gospel Library
- Institute and Seminary manuals (these will often include quotes from other sources)
- Scripture
- Books officially published by the church eg Jesus The Christ, Articles Of Faith, Doctrines Of Salvation

I dont think commentaries, books by general authorities, stake conferences, media personalities etc provide doctrinal proof. There is certainly no harm using them as a point of discussion, and they are an interesting read.

There is enough fascinating material from official sources to keep the Last Days forum going for some time. Sometimes even these quotes are hard to absorb and care is needed when interpreting.

What does everyone think about this, love to get your feedback.

[MercynGrace]

I am relatively new to the forum, but I would like to bring up some thoughts regarding quotes:

When supporting a point of view, why not quote from an official church source (please reference as well):

- General Conference
- Worldwide leadership training broadcasts
- Church Magazines
- LDS website and Gospel Library
- Institute and Seminary manuals (these will often include quotes from other sources)
- Scripture
- Books officially published by the church eg Jesus The Christ, Articles Of Faith, Doctrines Of Salvation

I dont think commentaries, books by general authorities, stake conferences, media personalities etc provide doctrinal proof. There is certainly no harm using them as a point of discussion, and they are an interesting read.

There is enough fascinating material from official sources to keep the Last Days forum going for some time. Sometimes even these quotes are hard to absorb and care is needed when interpreting.

What does everyone think about this, love to get your feedback.

There was a time when I would have agreed with you. Having taught in so many positions in the church for so long, I have always tried to stick to approved resources. Over the last year, however, I have noticed that the gospel doctrine manual quotes from many of the same sources used on this forum (journal of discourses, books by general authorities and church scholars, etc) While I am not necessarily going to introduce unofficial sources in my class on Sunday, if a source is used in an official publication or discourse then I consider it "approved" in terms of doctrinal accuracy and use it outside the classroom without hesitation.

Off the top of my head, for example, Elder Holland's book, Christ and the New Covenant (I think that's the name) is quoted numerous times in the Sunday school manual. Your list would exclude that.

Just something to consider.

[nocomment]

Agree with you totally, if these quotes are contained within official church publications, then there is no problem at all. Again it would be great if people referenced properly

[NoGreaterLove]

I have found the priesthood manual is quoting from several sources that are not on the list you presented. I think the church was not ready before to hear some of the teachings and prophecies, but now there seems to be alot more in the manuals.

[ithink]

Welcome to the forum nocomment.

Why would you ask for this nocomment? For example:

D&C 109: 7, 14
7 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith;
• • •
14 And do thou grant, Holy Father, that all those who shall worship in this house may be taught words of wisdom out of the best books, and that they may seek learning even by study, and also by faith, as thou hast said;
2.
D&C 88: 118
118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

What do you think are the "best books" nocomment? Can that phrase mean mean only scriptures? Maybe, but probably not because the Lord uses different words when He refers to the scriptures, in the scriptures.

Not only that but consider the fact that when someone has a problem with their "testimony", shall we say, they are not directed to the general leaders of the church, the are directed to guys like Nibley, when he was around, and to organizations like "FAIR", and so on -- which clearly are not "official" church sources.

As for proving anything, it should be evident after a moment's reflection that there is only one thing can be proven -- and that one thing is that nothing can be proven at all.

[nocomment]

My original post was referring to doctrinal matters only. I did state other sources are great for discussion, (refer to my post "What we might expect in the next 25 years - W. Cleon Skousen"). These other sources often add support to what is already known. But at times they introduce information that is speculative at best (still interesting though), and unless they are quoted in church publications why bother using them to reinforce a point of view.

Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, p. 398
(H-2) The Scriptures Give Authoritative Information about the Last Days
Anyone who undertakes a study of the last days should use the scriptures as his primary source. To one who seeks in righteousness with a humble heart, the scriptures will speak clearly of the events of the last days and of the path one should follow in these days. President Harold B. Lee warned the Church in general conference of possible dangers in giving other sources priority over the scriptures:

"There are among us many loose writings predicting the calamities which are about to overtake us. Some of these have been publicized as though they were necessary to wake up the world to the horrors about to overtake us. Many of these are from sources upon which there cannot be unquestioned reliance.

"… We need no such publications to be forewarned, if we were only conversant with what the scriptures have already spoken to us in plainness." (In Conference Report, Oct. 1972, 128; or Ensign, Jan. 1973, p. 106.)

President Lee further counseled the Saints, giving "the sure word of prophecy on which you should rely for your guide. …

"Read the 24th chapter of Matthew—particularly that inspired version as contained in the Pearl of Great Price. (Joseph Smith 1.)

"Then read the 45th section of the Doctrine and Covenants where the Lord, not man, has documented the signs of the times.

"Now turn to section 101 and section 133 of the Doctrine and Covenants and hear the step-by-step recounting of the events leading up to the coming of the Savior.

"Finally, turn to the promises the Lord makes to those who keep the commandments when these judgments descend upon the wicked, as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 38.

"… these are some of the writings with which you should concern yourselves, rather than commentaries that may come from those whose information may not be the most reliable and whose motives may be subject to question." (In Conference Report, Oct. 1972, p. 128; or Ensign, p. 106.)

[NoGreaterLove]

use the scriptures as his primary source.

I agree as will most on this forum. You will notice it said primary. This would mean we have to prioritize the statements we read in a particular order. The scriptures always take precedence, but that does not mean we can not supplement the scriptures by using other literature, especially that written by prophets and apostles who have an insight that we may not have being especial witnesses of Christ.

There are among us many loose writings

I would not call the writings of Joseph Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, Hugh B. Brown, Orsen Pratt, etc. loose writings. Cleon Skousen, maybe. But that is only because he does not have stewarship that allows him to prophesy to the world for them.
My rule of thumb is to know the scriptures like the back of my hand and then use other sources to supplement it. If the other source does not seem to fit, I place it in the back of my mind and sit on it for awhile. I have noticed if I do this, Heavenly Father will either prove or disprove it as some future time by the scriptures.
So I am a believer of using other material to quote from as long as it is in line with the scriptures.

[MercynGrace]

Agree with you totally, if these quotes are contained within official church publications, then there is no problem at all. Again it would be great if people referenced properly

Actually, NC, I should be a little more clear. If for example, the manual quotes "Christ and the New Covenant", then I feel fairly confident using the entire book as a source, not simply the paragraph excerpted for a lesson.

If the manual quotes a Nibley article, then I feel that is tacit approval of the entire article not merely the one quote used.

Again, I wouldn't use those sources in class but on this forum I absolutely would.

[nocomment]

I would not call the writings of Joseph Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, Hugh B. Brown, Orsen Pratt, etc. loose writings.

They are great writers, but as a counterpoint Bruce R. McConkie statements on such topics as the great and abominable church, the lost tribes etc have been out of step with the rest of the church. Orson Pratt was excommunicated at one point for his stance against polygamy, he was later rebaptised and recalled as an apostle (he would have been in line to become the 3rd prophet had this falling out not occurred)

This takes nothing away from them, it just means at times they speak as men and at other times in an official capacity.

Most of the time what is written is fine, this is evident by the fact church publications frequently reference them. Keep in mind that church publications go through a stringent approval process to check accuracy.

[ithink]

I see what you are saying, but to make a restriction like you are suggesting isn't in our best interest -- in my opinion. What I was trying to say was that the Lord himself directed us to all good books, which clearly is an indication that there is more to life that what is in the canon. A lot more, and may I suggest that if we stay in the canon alone, we will not get some of the answers we desire.

For example, have you had a hard look at the facsimile's in the PofGP? Look at the comments, and note the words "if the world can figure this stuff out, so be it". We have permission to go anywhere we can to sustain and support the gospel, and so we should.

[nocomment]

Agreed, I am happy to consider any info posted on the forum. All I'm saying is we should carefully consider what we push as fact. If you're going to make a stand on a point of doctrine, revelation, prophecy etc back it up or state it as opinion only.

[Bridgey]

I think a lot of what we discuss here isn't always talked about by the GA's. For one reason or another they have chosen to remain quiet at this point in time on many of our subject matters (conspiracy's if you like). They have only recently spoken out about the economy. I'm not knocking them, as the church's efforts for the eternal welfare of others is much more important, but I like the idea of exploring what's out there and using the spirit to determine what is truth and what is not. For example much of the stuff our forum member Bella talks about (Project Bluebeam, new age religions) is facinating but next to impossible to prove using GA quotes or even the scriptures. But I'd rather know about it than not.

I do agree though that if we are trying to persuade others to our line of thinking, it is good to say where we got our quotes.

Forum's are meant to be about opinions, debates, discussions and freedom of speech. That's what keeps them enjoyable.

[nocomment]

That was my original point too, I have never requested that we dont discuss the other stuff. I dont think I have explained my point of view too well judging by the responses so far. Thank you everybody for your feedback it was well worth it. Rather than flog a dead horse, I'm going to move on to other topics.