NOM

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 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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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".

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

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...)

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...

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.

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 ?

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.

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....