new narrative

[blazerb]

Over on reddit, Bill Reel is reporting that the church is mapping out the change in narrative that needs to take place over the next decade or two in order to keep the church relevant. "Translation" will become "revelation," etc. If this is true, I'm kind of sick. The narrative has always changed, but it has done so naturally. The leaders at each point could always claim they were teaching what they knew the best they could. This was likely not always true. I'm thinking of Joseph Fielding Smith and the earliest first vision account and the account of the seerstone. But, it was plausible that the majority of upper leadership just did not know details that they did not share.

If this report is true, it means that the upper leadership is fully aware that what they are teaching is "not sustainable" as Bushman put it. They would be planning a change slow enough not to cause much disruption among long time members but significant enough that it can't be done more quickly. This bothers me a lot.

Any thoughts?

[dogbite]

Revelation doesn't help them. It remains unsupportable in facts and the writings of history will be an even bigger disconnect. Because a translation error is easier to blame on the man. A revelation error goes straight to God.

Their path forward is to make things less literal, not try and excuse it with shifting the semantics a bit.

[jfro18]

I just don't see it doing anything to stop the bleeding.

If you try to reinvent the church in order to account for the historical problems, you basically concede that the early leaders can't stand on their own which makes their stance as the one true church that much weaker.

It will give current doubters some wiggle room *if* they wanted to stay in anyway, but it will also give more ammo to all of the critics to point out exactly where they were right about the church and why they are nothing more than a Christian fan-fiction church.

I'll be curious to see what they do. Clearly this has been slowly happening for years, but this of course implies a more direct change coming up in the near future. Would be interesting to see how they try to downplay the fact that the Book of Abraham is a complete fraud and Joseph Smith used Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon that could not have possibly been available when Lehi left.

But at the end of the day, facts do not matter, so what different does it make?

[Red Ryder]

They've been doing this since 1830!

They've been doing this with every turn of leadership. Hinckley just had the longest stint.

Now it appears Gong is the savior who will lead this latest shift in doctrinal narrative tectonics.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

[Palerider]

There are some really good attributes in the church. They are based in true biblical Gospel doctrine as taught by Christ.

Church leadership should salvage what they can and just step up, get it over with and admit there is sufficient evidence to throw great doubt on the claims of Joseph Smith and the veracity of the BofM. Take your medecine.

I remember a seminary lesson one time on stopping smoking. The teacher asked if you had to bob a dog's tail would you do it an inch at a time or just make one chop and get it over with? (I know, kind of a gruesome analogy, this was the 60's what can I say.)

Tell the membership the church is going to embrace what is good and Biblically founded and shuck the rest. Those members who want to support and see the church continue will do so. Nothing can be done about the rest, except to show the church no longer deals in bending and spinning the truth.

They will be a much better church for it and have the knowledge that God approves of their honesty. "Do what is right let the consequence follow."

Hec, I might even go back.

[Palerider]

If this report is true, it means that the upper leadership is fully aware that what they are teaching is "not sustainable"...

Any thoughts?

Yes.

It means they intend to continue practicing duplicity and that their cowardice is more evident than ever.

[wtfluff]

They've been doing this since 1830!

They've been doing this with every turn of leadership. Hinckley just had the longest stint.

Now it appears Gong is the savior who will lead this latest shift in doctrinal narrative tectonics.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

This.

Part of the church's "problem" is the fact that it was founded modernly, and we have ample documentation of all the changes that have already been made, which is also ample proof of the church's dishonesty.

[Reuben]

Currently, the church demands a lot of loyalty based on the literal truth of its claims. If the claims were only metaphorically true (e.g. because they speak to the human condition or Mormonism's collective hopes about God), then leaders would have no grounds for demanding anything. "Always follow the prophet because we find meaning and purpose in his stories" is a non-sequitur.

So Bill's hearsay has got me wondering. If it's true, then will the church be backing off on its demands for loyalty? Letting members approach God on their own terms?

Hahahahahahaha no. Of course not.

A "revelation" that's not necessarily a translation of a historical record still comes straight from God. Joseph wrote what God wants us to know, and the current prophet does the same. There's nothing metaphorical about that. Fall in line, soldier. Our authority is still from God and is therefore absolute.

More wiggle room, but not more freedom. At least, that's probably how the Q15 would want it. What would actually happen, though?

If the Book of Mormon isn't a translation, it lies on a continuum between "It sprang from Joseph's fertile imagination" and "God wrote it." More like each verse is at a different point on this continuum. I can't imagine that many Mormons would consider each verse to have been written by God himself. So would each Mormon go cafeteria on the Book of Mormon verses? A little Mosiah for me, thanks, but Nephi doesn't sit well? And would they start doing that with more prophetic and inspired words?

Identifying Mormon doctrine is already like nailing Jell-o to the wall. If Bill is right, how would that change the metaphor? Would it be like stapling fruit punch to the cat? Or would the Q15 somehow keep that from happening?

[jfro18]

At the end of the day they want you to believe the exact same things you believe now, but with a shifting foundation as to how it all came to be.

I just don't know how you do this and maintain any credibility, but the idea is to turn the church history into play-doh that you can shape into whatever narrative you want as long as you still write the tithing checks.

Have a problem with the gold plates never being used? It's OK, he didn't translate them anyway - he simply had revelation as to the contents.

Does it bother you that the Book of Abraham is a 100% proven fraud? Well, even though Joseph told us it was written by the hand of Abraham, he actually meant in a spiritual sense.

A lie is a lie no matter how many times you reshape it, but with the abundant amount of info out there it's a savvy move for church leaders to move to a create-your-own-adventure church history.

[slavereeno]

It disturbs me if the point is to keep members paying and adoring the leadership. I would be more interested in major policy shifts that would move it from cult to religion... No more interviews, no garments, optional tithing etc...

[Red Ryder]

It disturbs me if the point is to keep members paying and adoring the leadership. I would be more interested in major policy shifts that would move it from cult to religion... No more interviews, no garments, optional tithing etc...

Hey hey hey Slavereeno! Slow down dude.

We've got to take this 2 decades at a time!

No interviews by 2040.
Discretionary tithes by 2060
No daily garment wear by 2080?
Ok realistically make the garments optional by 2100. It's probably going to take an extra 20 years to normalize to "monogamy panties"!

[slavereeno]

Hey hey hey Slavereeno! Slow down dude.

every time I get a letter from our missionary son I get rather impatient...

[blazerb]

They've been doing this since 1830!

They've been doing this with every turn of leadership. Hinckley just had the longest stint.

Now it appears Gong is the savior who will lead this latest shift in doctrinal narrative tectonics.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

This seems different to me, at least since 1844. Assuming that the report is true, this time church leaders are planning the narrative change years in advance. This would be a new level and disturbs me more than what I have seen in the past.

I am not so bothered by a narrative change. If the leaders came out tomorrow and ripped the adhesive bandage off, I could respect it. I might spend some time wondering why they did not do it years ago, but it could always be claimed that the upper leadership finally came to understand some difficult points. Unanimity was finally achieved. In this case though, it appears that the leadership understands and just wants to keep the small folk in line by carefully changing the story a little each year. This would be just the sort of cynicism GBH always decried. Ugh.

[Hagoth]

Revelation doesn't help them. It remains unsupportable in facts and the writings of history will be an even bigger disconnect. Because a translation error is easier to blame on the man. A revelation error goes straight to God.

Their path forward is to make things less literal, not try and excuse it with shifting the semantics a bit.

But the underlying sneaky part is that they are also changing the meaning of "revelation." As evidenced by RMN and the November policy, a revelation can even be a policy written by lawyers. Just take something that is completely mundane and have one of the Q15 call it a revelation and, presto, it is revelation.

[Archimedes]

Same as it ever was.

No matter what, in the current church and a near future Church with slight narrative change, there will still be a bunch of old white men with their heads stuck in the 1930s, between you and the salvation of you and your family. Church leaders will still think they are the mouthpiece of the lord, inasmuch as that is needed to maintain control of a flagging group of True Believers.

Pile on the bureaucracy old dudes. That way even more people will see how empty the sepulchres are that the LDS church has built. It's just layer upon layer of corporate entities, with nobody at the helm to be held legally or morally responsible.

What's the old saying about lipstick on a tapir?

[Brent]

Think about one of your loved ones. Would they survive/tolerate the church simply saying "oops."

Nope. The first sign will be subtle, as simple as changing vocabulary:

"When Joseph translated the Book of Mormon" Becomes "When the Book of Mormon was revealed to Joseph...":

"The process of translation" becomes "the process of revelation"...

Simple. Just change the terminology and let it mean whatever it needs to mean to the individual. The Sam Young business is a classic example--the church is worried about kids...does that mean they're doing something or just that they're thinking about doing something?

Change the words let it mean what the listener decide the meaning. No fanfare. Just change the words. Pay attention during conference, if they mention JS or the BoM see if they change the words so TBM folks can keep the personal meaning.

[moksha]

What's the old saying about lipstick on a tapir?

Think it was something about getting more dates at the Y.


Rest assured that apologists in 2050 will contend that the Church always said revelation and never translation. They will even cite a reference from a 2019 issue of Mormon Interpreter.

[jfro18]

One thing I do love is that the church would rather call the Book of Mormon a 'revelation' than change the narrative to 'it was translated by sticking a rock in a hat.'

Doesn't that tell you all that you need to know about how they feel about the true church history?

[Not Buying It]

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

[Archimedes]

What's the old saying about lipstick on a tapir?

Think it was something about getting more dates at the Y.


Rest assured that apologists in 2050 will contend that the Church always said revelation and never translation. They will even cite a reference from a 2019 issue of Mormon Interpreter.

LoL.

How old will Daniel Peterson be in 2050 anyway?