The notes, cross references, and explanations are NOT scripture. My New Testament teacher at BYU talked about the process used when those were added. He was a true Greek scholar, on par with Hugh Nibley as far as scriptural understanding and ability is concerned. He was also deeply involved in preparing the New Testament.
Those additions were overseen by Bruce R. McConkie. If he didn't agree completely with an addition, if it didn't fit HIS understanding, it didn't get in. From what I can see, the topical guide is even like that.
They simply study aids, tools to help you find more information.
There are problems with saying yes or no to the JST portions. First of all, the Church does not accept them as authoritative. Second, not all of it is in there, only what the editors thought was most important.
The Church officially states that since it does not own the original manuscripts, that we cannot use the JST as authoritative scripture. That is why we still use the KJV.
I should state that Bro. Griggs, my NT teacher, complained that he strongly disagreed with many of the Greek notes in the New Testament, but that he was overruled.
I know people who completely ignore the chapter summaries in all of the scriptures. I try to. They are the interpretations of other men and women, not part of scripture, yet they influence our understanding of the scriptures when we read them. I see the same thing in all of the other additions to the scriptures. Cross references and notes can help us find information and understanding, but if we are not careful, they will shape our knowledge and hide the truth from us.
This is a very interesting post! I never really thought much about it past McConkie's involvement in it. I suppose I just assumed it was authoritively guided as they are directly tied with our scriptures.
Is there any complete collective information about the project of adding these cross-references and/or chapter summaries?
I don't know of anything collected about the additions to the scriptures. I know that my grandfather (who was born in 1892 and had a very long history in the Church) was very upset when the new edition of the Bible came out. He felt like someone was trying to sneak things in, which they were.
As I said before, the interpretations, notes, chapter headings, etc were all coordinated by Elder McConkie. Therefore, his point of view is what colored all of it. I am sure that other people had their input as well.
The problem is that despite some appearances, Elder McConkie was not the ultimate authority on the Restoration. Many of his thoughts, teachings, etc were not in complete agreement with what the early Prophets taught.
No, I cannot right now give you examples. I just know that I am very wary about what he taught and believed.