Official sites are sites supported by LDS officials unless said official sites are consider unofficial by said officials.At that point such sites are unofficial unless officially referenced for official purposes by officials who can do so officially.This should not be misconstrued as an indication that official sites can be unofficially recognized as official nor should it be implied that unofficial sites cannot contain official information, but are not officially allowed to be offical despite their official contents due the their unofficialness.Official sites will be official and recognized as official by officials of the LDS unless there is an official reason to mark them as unofficial either temporally or permanently, which would make the official content officially unofficial.This is also not to imply that recognized sites, often used here by haters cannot contain official information, it just means that content, despite its official status, is no longer official and should be consider unofficial despite the same information being official on an official site elsewhere.Even then the officialness my be amended due to the use of the unofficial information which may determine the officialness of anything be it official or unofficial depending on how and where it is used officially or unofficially.
Wait a minute. As Elz noted, we're told all the time by Mormons that even what past Lds "prophets" have said isn't "official" (unless it becomes "scripture")...and who knows how long you have to wait for that to happen!
Why are present statements made by Mormon PR guys "official" & past statements made by Mormon "prophets" & "apostles" deemed by Mormons to be "unoofficial?"
Why do PR guys trump your past leaders as "voices" of the Lord? (And where is that "biblical" -- or even any claimed written "sacred" work of the Mormon church?