Bushman admits the Dominant LDS narrative is not true

[_Sanctorian]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&t=57m20s&v=MA0YS8LWWX4

At the 57 minute mark, Bushman says the church must change because the narrative is not true. It will be hardest for the older members, but necessary for the church.

[_SuperDell]

Will he be excommunicated for calling church leader liars?

[_huckelberry]

what narrative? how not true? church change how? Is not some thoughtful comment possible to help those of us uncertain as to whether we want to listen to some long presentation, about (?)

[_Chap]

Yup - what does Bushman mean by " the Dominant LDS narrative "? Does he say anywhere else in that video?

Do any of his audience give any indication of what they think it means?

[_Sanctorian]

what narrative? how not true? church change how? Is not some thoughtful comment possible to help those of us uncertain as to whether we want to listen to some long presentation, about (?)

The question was posed by someone in attendance along the lines of "the dominant narrative, which I consider the orthodox view, which we learn in Sunday school and taught by missionaries is not what it seems. Do you think the church has to maintain this view in order to be strong or can it change?" (not an exact quote)

To which Bushman replies, "I think for the church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominate narrative is not true. It can't be sustained. So, the church has to absorb all this new information, or it will be on very shaky ground. And that is what it is trying to do. And it will be a strain for a lot people, older people especially." (exact quote)

I wish I had some thoughtful comment for you, but all I can say is I agree with Bushman. The trick will be can the church survive even if it does change?

[_Chap]

Hmm.

It would seem to me that there might be two aspects to this 'dominant narrative'

1. Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God (based on such things as the First Vision, and his receipt of direct personal revelations for the church he founded).

2. The Book of Mormon is true: there really were Nephites and Lamanites in ancient America, and the stories told about them in the Book of Mormon are substantially true.

I can imagine dispensing with the second, just about, but hardly with the first! A Book of Mormon that is 'inspired fiction' might be thought to have some value, but a fictional prophet? Not so much.

[_Dr. Shades]

If the dominant narrative is false, can it really be said that the church is true?

[_moksha]

If the dominant narrative is false, can it really be said that the church is true?

The good the Church does remains despite any falsehoods perpetrated and maintained. That portion of truth is independent of the rest.

[_Jersey Girl]

Holy cats, that was remarkable!

[_Jersey Girl]

ETA: Look at the first lengthy comment below. The poster ticks off a list of statements and gives the video times for them.