new narrative

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
User avatar
Archimedes
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:22 am

Re: new narrative

Post by Archimedes »

On a serious note, the church has already done this "new narrative" thing with the Book of Abraham. It is chock full of problems and demonstrably proven false, but somehow it is still there in the Canon of Scriptures, a "revealed" work.

Funny thing though, nobody every quotes the Pearl of Great Price any more in church. And if you can find any references to it in the Correlated Lesson Manuals, please notify the Correlation Committee immediately!
"She never loved you; she loved the church, her one true love. She used you to marry the church by proxy."

-- unknown reddit poster
Corsair
Posts: 3080
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:58 am
Location: Phoenix

Re: new narrative

Post by Corsair »

I tend to trust Bill's reports and I can see how and why the institutional church would do this. The Pearl of Great Price is a minefield of testimony breaking material. The facsimiles are just screaming "Joseph made it up" and I note that they are never mentioned or referenced in church. A couple of "safe" scriptures can be quoted like Abraham 3:22-23, but it's just weird with only a little bit of research.

Genesis has one creation story, but Mormons have the six day story on Abraham, Moses, and the temple ceremony. All four accounts have distinctly different events on different days. A Bible literalist might tell you that these are six "creative periods" that somehow line up with actual cosmology and geology. But the four narratives from the Mormons don't line up at all.

Abraham chapter 1 is non-historical foolishness. The story of the founding of Egypt is just wrong on multiple points in that chapter. It's a mess that rarely gets any attention. Biblical scholarship already is skeptical about the reality of Abraham. The PoGP makes the existence of Abraham even less likely due to the silly details that Joseph added in his narrative.
User avatar
Yobispo
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:35 pm

Re: new narrative

Post by Yobispo »

Archimedes wrote: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:31 am On a serious note, the church has already done this "new narrative" thing with the Book of Abraham. It is chock full of problems and demonstrably proven false, but somehow it is still there in the Canon of Scriptures, a "revealed" work.

Funny thing though, nobody every quotes the Pearl of Great Price any more in church. And if you can find any references to it in the Correlated Lesson Manuals, please notify the Correlation Committee immediately!
I don't know - the whole council in heaven, the "noble and great ones" bit is straight outta BoA. They have to dig deep to replace that part of the story with other scriptures.
User avatar
deacon blues
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:37 am

Re: new narrative

Post by deacon blues »

I’m reminded of a Sunday School lesson about how to boil a live frog: you turn up the heat slowly and the frog never notices the change until it’s too late— he’s cooked. The irony is.......it was used as an example of how sly and subtle the devil is.
Last edited by deacon blues on Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
God is Love. God is Truth. The greatest problem with organized religion is that the organization becomes god, rather than a means of serving God.
User avatar
Archimedes
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:22 am

Re: new narrative

Post by Archimedes »

Yobispo wrote: Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:15 amI don't know - the whole council in heaven, the "noble and great ones" bit is straight outta BoA. They have to dig deep to replace that part of the story with other scriptures.
Don't forget how quickly the doctrine of Eternal Progression got thrown under the bus by GBH: "just a couplet." "we don't teach that any more." "nothing to see here folks, move along."
"She never loved you; she loved the church, her one true love. She used you to marry the church by proxy."

-- unknown reddit poster
User avatar
wtfluff
Posts: 3699
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:20 pm
Location: Worshiping Gravity / Pulling Taffy

Re: new narrative

Post by wtfluff »

deacon blues wrote: Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:53 am I’m reminded of a Sunday School lesson about how to boil a live frog: you turn up the heat slowly and the frog never notices the change until it’s too late— he’s cooked.
Funny how this boiling frog "lesson" has been debunked for a very long time, yet folks still use it all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog



And again, the clay-like nature of the church "narrative" or "doctrine" is not anything new.

Multiple versions of the first vision: The founding story of the entire movement changed how many times?

How many changes have there been to the book of mormon and the doctrine and covenants?



The doctrine and narrative on the LDS Corporation changes whenever the board of directors decides it needs to be changed. How do you define "continuing revelation" if not: Changing doctrine/narrative whenever needed.
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. -Frater Ravus

IDKSAF -RubinHighlander

Gave up who I am for who you wanted me to be...
User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2284
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: new narrative

Post by Palerider »

wtfluff wrote: Wed Aug 01, 2018 12:28 pm
The doctrine and narrative on the LDS Corporation changes whenever the board of directors decides it needs to be changed. How do you define "continuing revelation" if not: Changing doctrine/narrative whenever needed.
Ahhhh....

I've been looking for a great example of the difference between "revelation" and "situational ethics". 8-)
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington
User avatar
deacon blues
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:37 am

Re: new narrative

Post by deacon blues »

wtfluff wrote: Wed Aug 01, 2018 12:28 pm
deacon blues wrote: Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:53 am I’m reminded of a Sunday School lesson about how to boil a live frog: you turn up the heat slowly and the frog never notices the change until it’s too late— he’s cooked.
Funny how this boiling frog "lesson" has been debunked for a very long time, yet folks still use it all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog



And again, the clay-like nature of the church "narrative" or "doctrine" is not anything new.

Multiple versions of the first vision: The founding story of the entire movement changed how many times?

How many changes have there been to the book of mormon and the doctrine and covenants?



The doctrine and narrative on the LDS Corporation changes whenever the board of directors decides it needs to be changed. How do you define "continuing revelation" if not: Changing doctrine/narrative whenever needed.
The joke is on me😜
God is Love. God is Truth. The greatest problem with organized religion is that the organization becomes god, rather than a means of serving God.
User avatar
wtfluff
Posts: 3699
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:20 pm
Location: Worshiping Gravity / Pulling Taffy

Re: new narrative

Post by wtfluff »

deacon blues wrote: Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:11 pm
wtfluff wrote: Wed Aug 01, 2018 12:28 pm
deacon blues wrote: Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:53 am I’m reminded of a Sunday School lesson about how to boil a live frog: you turn up the heat slowly and the frog never notices the change until it’s too late— he’s cooked.
Funny how this boiling frog "lesson" has been debunked for a very long time, yet folks still use it all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog



And again, the clay-like nature of the church "narrative" or "doctrine" is not anything new.

Multiple versions of the first vision: The founding story of the entire movement changed how many times?

How many changes have there been to the book of mormon and the doctrine and covenants?



The doctrine and narrative on the LDS Corporation changes whenever the board of directors decides it needs to be changed. How do you define "continuing revelation" if not: Changing doctrine/narrative whenever needed.
The joke is on me😜
That wasn't meant as a jab at you Deacon. The "Joke" is on all of us. (We probably wouldn't be posting on this board had we not believed LOTS AND LOTS of things without investigating the truth thereof...)
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. -Frater Ravus

IDKSAF -RubinHighlander

Gave up who I am for who you wanted me to be...
User avatar
Archimedes
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:22 am

Re: new narrative

Post by Archimedes »

Oh, and don't forget those "floating mosaic tiles."

The narrative has indeed been changing for a very long time. It's just that here in modern times, the Church has very good PR and Legal departments to help smooth things along...
"She never loved you; she loved the church, her one true love. She used you to marry the church by proxy."

-- unknown reddit poster
User avatar
blazerb
Posts: 1615
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:35 pm

Re: new narrative

Post by blazerb »

Not Buying It wrote: Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:54 am I'm not convinced this is really going to happen - Bill Reel may be right, but I need to see some more proof than rumors he's heard from a couple of people. However, I saw a quote today that made me think of this discussion, and this is the approach the Church should take and never will:
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." - the 14th Dalai Lama
Even if someone preached that in GC, they would deny that science proved any belief wrong. The disproved belief would magically change from "doctrine" or "policy" to "folk doctrine." There would be a denial that any change took place.
Mackman
Posts: 291
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:03 am
Location: Mjchigan

Re: new narrative

Post by Mackman »

A little bit of a sidetrack is if many of us know the truth and the Q15 know the truth l: then how do you think God will judge us ???? My own feeling is that we did the best we could at worshiping him and Jesus given difficult circumstances we were placed in ! Anyone else ?
User avatar
Not Buying It
Posts: 1308
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:29 pm

Re: new narrative

Post by Not Buying It »

Mackman wrote: Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:25 pm A little bit of a sidetrack is if many of us know the truth and the Q15 know the truth l: then how do you think God will judge us ???? My own feeling is that we did the best we could at worshiping him and Jesus given difficult circumstances we were placed in ! Anyone else ?
If God is any kind of reasonable, moral being, then that Being will recognize we were all brainwashed into a crappy religious situation with all kinds of social and family entanglements and did the best we could to sort out how to deal with that. It's not my fault I was born Mormon, trusted my parents and leaders, and then when I figured out I'd been had took a couple of decades to figure out how to deal with it while hurting as few people as possible. If God isn't a reasonable, moral being, well, that Being and I have some fundamental philosophical differences and I wasn't going to make that Being happy anyway.
"The truth is elegantly simple. The lie needs complex apologia. 4 simple words: Joe made it up. It answers everything with the perfect simplicity of Occam's Razor. Every convoluted excuse withers." - Some guy on Reddit called disposazelph
User avatar
Palerider
Posts: 2284
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: new narrative

Post by Palerider »

Not Buying It wrote: Thu Aug 02, 2018 5:32 am
Mackman wrote: Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:25 pm A little bit of a sidetrack is if many of us know the truth and the Q15 know the truth l: then how do you think God will judge us ???? My own feeling is that we did the best we could at worshiping him and Jesus given difficult circumstances we were placed in ! Anyone else ?
If God is any kind of reasonable, moral being, then that Being will recognize we were all brainwashed into a crappy religious situation with all kinds of social and family entanglements and did the best we could to sort out how to deal with that. It's not my fault I was born Mormon, trusted my parents and leaders, and then when I figured out I'd been had took a couple of decades to figure out how to deal with it while hurting as few people as possible. If God isn't a reasonable, moral being, well, that Being and I have some fundamental philosophical differences and I wasn't going to make that Being happy anyway.
As the Lord said to Paul:

"It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

Paul knew on some very deep level that he didn't enjoy, even hated persecuting Christians but because of his religious beliefs and culture, he desired to please God by doing what he had been taught was right.

Once the Lord showed Paul his error he changed his ways.

We're not like Paul in the sense that we were TBMs hunting apostates down and having them thrown in jail or stoned. The Lord understands our situation. However it's my opinion that He will or does expect us to stop doing what He has shown us to be false and stop supporting an organization that has doctrines that He detests.

It would be great if the Church could see the beam in it's own eye and work on that rather than the mote in ours. Probably some if not many of us would go back. I would certainly consider it. But one of the biggest sins in this church is suggesting that the Brethren need to repent.

As we know, in their minds it is impossible for them to be "out of the way". They cannot lead us astray. Therefore they are in essence, perfect. I should think one day their eyes will be opened and they will see themselves as they really are.... :oops:
"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

George Washington
Post Reply