Editorial Standards
A publisher is only as trustworthy as the rules it will not break for a good story. These are ours — the sources we hold to, the way we quote, the opponents we strengthen rather than caricature, and the nine-point review every article passes before it goes out.
The Core Commitment
Steelman first, then answer
We state every objection in its strongest form before we respond to it — the version its most capable advocate would recognize, not a version built to be knocked down. On officially unresolved questions we follow one rule without exception: map all positions, join none. Where faithful scholars genuinely divide — the origins of the priesthood restriction, the nature of the Book of Mormon “mark” — we present each reading at full strength and decline to canonize any of them ourselves, because the Church has declined to.
This is not neutrality for its own sake. A reader who suspects we are hiding the hard part will not believe the reassuring part either. Owning the strongest objection is what earns the right to answer it — and the answer, when it comes, is measured against the same standard we apply to everyone: the canon read whole, the record read honestly, the context kept intact.
Two Instruments
How a claim and an article each get tested
We run two separate checks. The Doctrine Test classifies a claim — where it sits among five destinations. The Nine-Principle Review, below, stress-tests the article — whether our own treatment of the subject holds up. Every published piece carries both, in public, on the page.
- 1
Centered on Christ
Is the content meaningfully connected to the Savior?
In practice — The through-line of every article resolves at Christ — not as a bolt-on conclusion, but as the point the evidence was always reaching.
- 2
Scriptural & prophetic authority
Do scripture and official statements speak for themselves?
In practice — We quote the text before we characterize it — the hard verse in full, the official statement verbatim.
- 3
Multiple witnesses
Is any conclusion built on an isolated statement?
In practice — Conclusions rest on several independent sources, never a single lifted line.
- 4
No speculation
Does the material go beyond what is established?
In practice — Where the record is silent we leave it silent — and say that the silence is the answer.
- 5
Spiritual edification
Is the tone sober on subjects involving harm?
In practice — Real people harmed by past teachings are named as people, not deployed as exhibits.
- 6
Doctrinal balance
Are fragments kept with their balancing truths?
In practice — A hard passage never appears without the counterweight the canon places beside it.
- 7
Clarity
Is the truth communicated plainly?
In practice — The answer arrives early and compresses, at the end, to a single sentence a reader can carry.
- 8
Accuracy
Are the hard facts owned — including the ones that cost?
In practice — The quote that hurts the tidy version is in the article, stated at full strength.
- 9
No distractions
Does anything overshadow the gospel’s core?
In practice — Tangents route to their own studies; the page in hand keeps to its one job.
Principles drawn from published teachings including D. Todd Christofferson, “The Doctrine of Christ” (Apr. 2012); Neil L. Andersen, “Trial of Your Faith” (Oct. 2012); Dale G. Renlund, “Your Divine Nature and Eternal Destiny” (Apr. 2022); Boyd K. Packer, “The Pattern of Our Parentage” (Oct. 1984); and Russell M. Nelson, “Hear Him” (Apr. 2020) — all available at churchofjesuschrist.org.
Sourcing Discipline
Where our facts are allowed to come from
Our house sources are the Church’s own and Scripture Central’s — because a defense of the faith built on the faith’s own record cannot be waved away as spin. We go beyond them only for primary historical documents, and only with a flag.
| Source | Status | How we use it |
|---|---|---|
| churchofjesuschrist.org | House source | Scripture, official statements, Gospel Topics essays, the Handbook, current curriculum — quoted directly. |
| scripturecentral.org | House source | Textual and historical scholarship, presented as scholarship and mapped alongside alternatives. |
| Primary historical records | By exception, flagged | Journal of Discourses, pre-1971 Conference Reports, first-person letters and minutes — cited as primary records, with their evidentiary weight named (e.g. a decades-later recollection is flagged as hearsay). |
| Secondary / advocacy sites | Not a source | Not cited as authority — in either direction. Claims are traced to the primary record they rest on, or they are not made. |
Quotation & Language
The rules that keep us honest on the sentence level
The under-fifteen-word rule
Secondary-source quotations run under fifteen words, one per source per article. Scripture is public domain and quoted freely. The discipline forces us to paraphrase and to make the argument in our own voice — not to lean on someone else’s.
Why it matters — a page built from long quotations is a scrapbook, not an analysis. Ours has to stand on its own reasoning.
Words we use — and don’t
We write “misleading,” never “disinformation.” We never use “cult” in our own voice. We lead with the demonym “Mormons” for searchers, and bind the full name — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — once per page, as the Church asks.
Why it matters — the vocabulary is the tone. Precision words persuade; loaded words only signal which side wrote the page.
No folklore shield
When a teaching was held by real authority over real time and did real harm, we do not retreat to calling it “folklore.” We name it a reported teaching, held long enough and by enough authority to matter — and then show how the canon corrected it.
Why it matters — minimizing the past is its own kind of dishonesty. Owning it is what makes the correction credible.
Every number carries its tag
Verified, modeled, projected, and estimated figures are labeled as such and never blurred together. Nothing is fabricated to fill a gap; a gap is reported as a gap.
Why it matters — one invented statistic discredits every real one beside it. The tags are how a reader can trust the count.