Regarding the supposed creation of a whole new Mormon narrative

Another gratifying interview this morning, with Professor John Turner of George Mason University.  He is a gracious and articulate man; his students are lucky to have him.

Our interview with Professor Turner is part of a very conscious and deliberate effort to make our film project about the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon a serious work that will tell its story frankly and intelligently.  Dr. Turner, not a Latter-day Saint, is a highly informed scholar of American religion and of Mormon history.

***

A vocal critic of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has revealed the existence of a formal plan, to be realized over the next ten to twenty years — his informants apparently differ as to the timetable — that will move the Church, among other things, from a literal understanding of the Book of Mormon as actual history to a metaphorical view.

This is said to be in accordance with a program laid out by Professor Richard L. Bushman, who has declared “the dominant narrative” of Mormon history to be “false.”

I commented on this alleged declaration almost precisely one year ago:

“Is the fundamental story of the Restoration, as the Church has taught it, false?”

For those who imagine that Professor Bushman regards the founding stories of the Restoration as metaphorical and that he is attempting to move Latter-day Saints away from the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the literality of the early revelations, I can only say that, as of my most recent conversation with him — which extended over two or three hours on Tuesday — this seems to be very, very far from the truth.

The above-mentioned critic has also revealed that Elder Gerrit W. Gong, who was called to the Quorum of the Twelve in March (and who has served as a General Authority since April 2010), is to play a central role in unveiling The New Non-Literal Mormonism.

I don’t want to exaggerate our closeness, but I’ve known Gerrit Gong for a very long time, and, prior to his call to full-time Church service, was even involved with him in a very significant presentation at Church headquarters.  With that as a background, let me simply say that you can color me very, very skeptical about the notion that Elder Gong is part of a plan to make Mormon claims metaphorical — and you can then double and triple that skepticism.

***

Part of the new, revised Mormon doctrine — if we’re to believe what this critic is telling us (which I don’t) — will be an understanding of the Book of Mormon as a revelation, rather than as a translation.

Well of course it’s a revelation.  The Church has never taught that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by ordinary human learning, with the help of grammars and dictionaries, but, instead, has always insisted that he was given “power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of God” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:29).

That, however, doesn’t mean that it’s non-historical.  It doesn’t mean that it’s not a translation.  It is a revealed translation.

This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp.