And So It Begins! Is the Church preparing the Members?

[_Daheshist]

Is the Church now throwing "hints" that the Book of Mormon may not be "historical" after all? That may be the case!

If the Brethren came to the realization that the Book of Mormon CANNOT be history (which it can't). What would they do?

a) Get up in General conference and say, "Sorry everybody! It ain't true! The Book of Mormon is not history, which means the whole thing was a fraud. So...golly...sorry about that! Everybody go home. We hope you can find another religion or church. Take care!"

b) Ignore all evidence and continue to insist the Book of Mormon is history in the face of all the evidence that says it is not historical.

c) Begin to slowly and subtly "prepare the Members" to begin to accept the Book of Mormon as an "inspired parable"? This must be slow...like the frog in the pot. Heat up the water too fast, and the frog jumps out. You must begin very slow, with subtle "hints" and become more frequent as time goes on.

I think at least some of the Brethren have opted for "c". Elder Nelson of the Twelve said in General Conference in 2010:

"You can invite a friend to read the Book of Mormon. Explain that it is not a novel OR A HISTORY BOOK." (Ensign, Oct 2, 2010)

And so it beings.....

[_Drifting]

"You can invite a friend to read the Book of Mormon. Explain that it is not a novel OR A HISTORY BOOK." (Ensign, Oct 2, 2010)

And so it beings.....

I think at some point you may start to see a subtle distancing (a la the Book of Abraham) but not yet.
Whilst you have members of the FP going to Guatamala addressing people as Lamanites and Conference speakers testifying of its accuracy and truthfulness, it remains firmly claimed as historical.

If the Church does try to shift it will start with message missionaries give investigators.

[_Fiannan]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Vj5wSN4zzfg/S ... mb_ass.jpg

Sorry, couldn't think of any better response to the ideas of this thread.

[_Yoda]

You can invite a friend to read the Book of Mormon. Explain that it is not a novel OR A HISTORY BOOK." (Ensign, Oct 2, 2010)

Hmmm...I think that your OP might be wishful thinking, Darrick. I interpreted the statement from the Ensign as more of an ackknowledgement that the Book of Mormon is not a history book in the same way that the Bible is not a history book. It is primarily, as you stated on another thread, a second testimony of Christ.

I do, however, find it interesting that the introduction regarding who is considered Lamanites was subtley changed without any type of announcement.

You are right that the Church does make changes subtley, and very seldom to the Brethren come out and admit that things are blanketly wrong. Even when the changes to the temple were made, there was no type of formal announcement. I think it would have been nice if they had called a special meeting for all endowed members and explained the differences, and why they were happening.

[_RockSlider]

I think it would have been nice if they had called a special meeting for all endowed members and explained the differences, and why they were happening.

haha ... sure.

only reason: "the Brethren have instructed"

question that reason and you are on the fast track to apostasy

Always been that way, suppose it always will

[_Yoda]

I think it would have been nice if they had called a special meeting for all endowed members and explained the differences, and why they were happening.

haha ... sure.

only reason: "the Brethren have instructed"

question that reason and you are on the fast track to apostasy

Always been that way, suppose it always will

If I recall correctly, you were a temple worker, right, Rockslider? I would be curious to know what temple workers were told regarding the changes. It would have to be discussed, since there are differences in the script for memorization purposes, if nothing else.

[_Daheshist]

Let me remind ya'll that the RLDS leaders started a very subtle program beginning in the mid 1960s to present the Book of Mormon as non-historical. The process is still continuing today.

[_KevinSim]

I interpreted the statement from the Ensign as more of an ackknowledgement that the Book of Mormon is not a history book in the same way that the Bible is not a history book. It is primarily, as you stated on another thread, a second testimony of Christ.

That is the way I took it too. The stories related in the Book of Mormon did actually happen, just as the stories related in the Bible did actually happen, but it isn't the primary purpose of either the Book of Mormon or the Bible to relate the history of either the Jews or the Nephites, respectively.

[_Drifting]

I interpreted the statement from the Ensign as more of an ackknowledgement that the Book of Mormon is not a history book in the same way that the Bible is not a history book. It is primarily, as you stated on another thread, a second testimony of Christ.

That is the way I took it too. The stories related in the Book of Mormon did actually happen, just as the stories related in the Bible did actually happen, but it isn't the primary purpose of either the Book of Mormon or the Bible to relate the history of either the Jews or the Nephites, respectively.

Kevin, if you believe the flood literally happened circa 2,300 bc (as the Church teaches) then you need to read the Rainbow thread...

[_bcspace]

A history book wouldn't be written to convince people Jesus is the Christ seems to be the context in this case. Therefore nothing begins as is the claim.