There is some discussion on another board regarding a 20 year plan to gradually makeover the Mormon Church including spiritualizing the translation of the Book of Mormon into simply a revelation that is not supposed to be taken literally. It is supposed to keep the 20 somethings from bolting the church as the truth becomes impossible to ignore in the internet age. I can't imagine my Mormon family accepting such an attempt. I certainly don't believe they would consider to fund the church the way they are funding it now. Right now all I hear from Mormons is the Book of Mormon is a true history of people who lived in Ancient America. Wouldn't such an attempt just leave the LDS Church in the same precarious position the Community of Christ is in now? If they want religion there are plenty of other preachers out there who won't have to compromise in this way.

I agree, there are a lot of Mormons who believe in the book of Mormon and to throw the claims of historicity under the bus would be cataclysmic. But it should also be recognized more that very few if anyone has ever really ever converted into Mormondom because of the truthfulness of a book. No matter how many GC talks say that the foundation is the BOM and how wonderful and marvelous it all is, the truth is people convert because of the promise of free land, money, connections, escape from Europe (19th century), pretty women, possible escape from the 3rd world (today).

I'm not sure why the CC disavowed the BOM other than it was a failed attempt to recruit baptists/evangelicals into the rosters of the faith.

I can totally see this happening. A slowly softening of the "literal" nature of the BOM, that the BOM is a "inspired book of moral stories" opposed to a literal history.

We've already seen the church do something similar with the Pearl of Great Price, changing it from a literal translation of the scrolls to an "inspired by" and the membership has simply accepted that argument.

I haven't had direct conversations with my parents about it, but as far as I know, they're just fine with that, they're still strong members.

Keep in mind that the church does it's best to keep things like this vague. They'll simply slowly stop mentioning the "literal history" stuff less and less and start introducing the idea of it being a "moral fabel" more and more. This will give the "old members" the ability to hang on to what they want, while giving the younger members a way out too.

It's how the church has always done things. The temple ceremony is pretty much unrecognizable from how it started. The BOM is pretty huge, but the LDS church is nothing if not flexible.

Inferring that the Book of Mormon isn't a literal history while claiming it is inspired, makes a liar out of god or Joseph Smith and co.. My bet is on the latter. Whether it is done slowly over time or all at once is irrelevant to the truth of the matter, it will only help minimize the impact to membership.

Some will cut and run. But, the Mormons will continue to fool those who want to be fooled---like my family.


My elderly mother and a few of her TBM friends have been troubled by the BoM issues and constantly look to the Mopologist point of view to make them feel it's all okay. They are stuck on this "others" thing now that the DNA fiasco is in their faces.

Nothing would make my mother happier than to have the leaders of her one true church announce that they don't have to take the BoM literally or historically or as anything but a super duper spiritual metaphor. The relief would be seismic. Yes she would accept it. Eat it up in fact. She would not have to continue to rationalize.

The Mormon church is not in a position to come clean. For me the 20 year plan is smart. I learned a long time ago that perspective changes. In art perspective means that the further away an object gets, the details merge together and are blurred. Color changes. Things get smaller. If they keep getting further away over a twenty year period there is only distant memory to remember what it even was and your memory can always be questioned. And Mormons will question your memory: "I'm not sure that we ever taught that . . .'

The church has reinvented itself several times over 200 years. People have accepted such changes many, many times. They will again.

The question, from my perspective, is whether the changes can be engineered fast enough to stop the losses that are occurring now. If not, then the herd will adopt the new Mormonism that emerges 10-20 years from now but already be a much smaller herd.

What has changed? The church has already lost a big chunk of its core, the internet makes it easy for everyone to document the process of change, and Utah is no longer isolated. As late as the 1940s and 1950s Utah was unusual enough and disconnected enough that it was difficult for a lot of people and families to sever their ties.

That is not the case anymore.

As an interested outsider looking in, I think the slo-mo makeover will be accepted. As others have noted, the church has been morphing since its inception. The central narrative is how the church is perceived in the evolving context of history.

This is by no means a comprehensive analysis, but my immediate impression is that the initial appeal was that it was a shiny new religion in faddish wrapping paper. It hit all the right buttons for people looking for hope and the next new thing.

In Utah it evolved into an us-against-the-world beacon for those who felt disenchanted and marginalized by the world at large. It became a haven for those who were willing to sacrifice freedom for the strength in numbers of others swearing fealty to the church.

Eventually, through the mid-1900s and probably into the '80s, it enjoyed a status of being a little quirky, but very wholesome. They were hardworking, humble, and as honest as the day was long. Every Mormon was an Osmond, and everybody loved the Donny and Marie. I know I did.

Before the internet, few people had access to, much less knew of, the history the church took pains to downplay, hide, and deny. As more people happened upon Mormonism and its history, both inside and outside the church, members started to flee and nonmembers bolted their doors against the missionaries. Rank-and-file and leaders alike were increasingly faced with questions about doctrine and history. "You believe what!?" "Is it true Joseph Smith was a philandering conman?"

As a church under fire and caught with its pants down, where do you go from there? How do you hide your actions while the world is looking directly at you?

Just as I can watch a squirrel successfully move past a squirrel baffle on a bird feeder, we may very well be witnessing a redefined Mormon church years from now and ask, "How they hell did it do that?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2018 02:33PM by GregS.

If they do it slowly enough, most LDS folks will not notice.

Just think about how different the LDS Church has changed over the decades. Sometimes there have to be seismic shifts like Official Declarations 1 and 2, but those are reserved for crises.

The main objective of the LDS leaders is to maintain their control of the membership--especially financially and politically. This is where it gets risky, because if these "truths" are not taken literally then people may start to wonder whether all they are asked to sacrifice is worth it.

I don't know about all of you, but there were things I "had to do" as a Mormon that I did not like. Some of them were inconsequential like home teaching or going to young men's activities when I'd rather do something else. But some of them are things like priesthood interviews that are psychologically damaging and very uncomfortable. Have you ever been "chastised" by a priesthood leader?

Are people going to put up with this kind of treatment because of some spiritual translation? Maybe, but it's hard to see. I felt like I had to put up with things, because it was all true and if I wanted to go to the Celestial Kingdom I just had to bow my head and say yes.

I think they may figure out a way to do this, but it will not be easy to do it in a way that maintains the institutional leadership's power.

Many of your points were my thoughts too. Yes, as long as they play "boil the frog slowly so it doesn't jump," as they have been doing especially the past few decades, it will be accepted. And they basically have to. The truth is catching up to them. I think especially young adults who are struggling with raising families when wages are not keeping up with increased costs and they have larger and larger student loans to pay off, are wanting to do some research and assure themselves that they are giving 10% of their needed wages to an organization that is being honest with them.

But the albatross around their necks is not the Book of Mormon, it's the temple. They won't address the fact that it's a total masonic ripoff. Young people are asking, "where is the revelation or information about the revelation that Joseph received on the endowment and sealing?" They really want to believe that it wasn't all about JS not being able to keep his pecker in his pants, when that's what all arrows point to. So why are they going to give up the money and wear the ugly undies when they realize that all churches teach that we are the family of God and will be with our loved ones in the hereafter if we live a good life and try to take care of God's children. Or in other cases, if they accept God's grace. But they offer that without needing the nonsensical sealing.

Angie baby, you're a special lady
Living in a world of make-believe
Well, maybe

I can see the appeal of playing make believe and dress up. But what do you do if you’re no longer six?

Your arm’s off? It’s just a flesh wound. You can’t fix stupid. If the BoM was a pious fraud, then the whole church is a charade. It’s all going along to get along, to avoid admitting that they and their generations had been had by a con man. And by con men. What’s going to happen to correlation? Being taught knowingly made up stuff is going to get old. Well, maybe not. Mormon crazy, you know.

It’s so nice to be insane
No one asks you to explain



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2018 11:38AM by babyloncansuckit.

I don't think most of the mormons who have stuck around thus far really care one way or another what doctrines the church embraces or discards. It's their way of life.

The thing that is the biggest hazard for the mormon church at this point, is having something to offer the congregants. It gives less and less and asks more and more if it's members. That is what drives people away. People will find another way of life if the previous one becomes more and more dreadful.

+1

Watching a TBM fully engrossed in preparing for a long, tedious Mormon trek in the gruelling blazing Idaho sun gave me pause at this kind of devotion. The continual phone calls reminded me how much this devotion was connected well to "human connection and interaction." On the Trek some TBMS would be telling beloved family tales of pioneer hardship and participation while crossing the plains, other TBMs would be playing instruments to accompany communal singing praising these pioneers while still other TBMs were being called to oversee the tremendous task of feeding the brood.

Tribalism and community along with a spiritual reward drive the Mormon clan now as it did decades ago.

Can these two ever die say from fact, truth or boring correlation thereby causing the death of Mormonism?

Only time will tell.

If leaders want the youth to stick around, then they will need to reverse their hateful policies regarding gays. Younger people have gay friends and have less hatred towards them. It's a generational issue.

What the Church will do is accept the "revealed extended parable"
explanation of the Book of Mormon as acceptable for members to
believe if they wish. In the past this was considered a heresy.

What the Church WON'T do is put that position forward as the
Church's position. They will trumpet over and over how
"Marvelous" and "wonderful" and "true" and "inspired" it is, but
won't weigh in officially on its historicity as a requirement for
faithfulness.

The current church is already different than the one my TBM siblings started out in 70 to 80 years ago.