Greg Prince On Mormonism

[DBMormon]

Greg Prince seems to walk the line beautifully between a nuanced view and leading with faith.

Recently on http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com

He discusses how belief in a historical belief in the BOM versus a belief in it being divine

He speaks of the recent changes in the church and their affect on Faith Crisis

He talks of David O McKay

And he offers suggestions for those struggling with faith.

We sit down with Greg Prince and discuss Faith Crisis, the difficult issues and his book "David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism"

Greg is a well known persona in Mormon Thought. He is well informed, well spoken, and offers flexible alternative ways to see the gospel while still leading with Faith.

His Books

David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism

Power from on High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood

Power from on High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood

Edited July 16, 2013 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

I don't know what the terms "nuanced view" and "Faith Crisis" mean any more. I don't recall Prince using the term "faith crisis" in his book, but it was a long one. I didn't think the book was all that ground-breaking, but it was a very good read.

[DBMormon]

I don't know what the terms "nuanced view" and "Faith Crisis" mean any more. I don't recall Prince using the term "faith crisis" in his book, but it was a long one. I didn't think the book was all that ground-breaking, but it was a very good read.

nuanced meaning he is aware of and weaves his way faithfully through all the information that most members don't even know exists

Faith Crisis as in he had suggestions for those who struggle with the historical issues.

[canard78]

nuanced meaning he is aware of and weaves his way faithfully through all the information that most members don't even know exists

Faith Crisis as in he had suggestions for those who struggle with the historical issues.

I sometimes wonder about nuance. There are certain things things that don't have much room for nuance... Much as I wish otherwise.

Gold plates. Either they existed or they didn't, not much room for nuance. If they didn't then someone is probably being economical with the truth.

Angelic priesthood ordinations. Either they appeared and ordained, or they didn't. Is there any room for nuance? If they didn't then does that simply make Joseph and Oliver a liar.

Lee, McKay, Brown and the priesthood ban. Either Lee opposed it or be didn't. This one at least has a little room for nuance. Given Lee appears to have opposed it, there's at least some room to consider personal opinion causing his error of judgement.

But the first two??

[canard78]

I don't know what the terms "nuanced view" and "Faith Crisis" mean any more. I don't recall Prince using the term "faith crisis" in his book, but it was a long one. I didn't think the book was all that ground-breaking, but it was a very good read.

Hi Bob, I don't think I ever see you comment on anything other than DB's posts. Are you actually his alter-ego?

[DBMormon]

Hi Bob, I don't think I ever see you comment on anything other than DB's posts. Are you actually his alter-ego?

Weird isn't it?

[cdowis]

"nuanced" -->>

Joseph Smith was a prophet but the BOM is not historical -- a 19th century production inspired by God.

[canard78]

"nuanced" -->>

Joseph Smith was a prophet but the BOM is not historical -- a 19th century production inspired by God.

That's one view (and I recognise you're not recommending it).

As much as I'd like to adopt that one, there are too many unresolved issues. Golden plates and priesthood ordinations for example. If the BOM is a 19th century production and if the visions/angels are just fables to teach a principle then there's a whole lot of deception that needs to be considered. Much as I'd like there to be, it's actually quite difficult to adopt that position fully without also having to accept that Joseph was a con-artist and I don't think he was.

I'm working on it - really working on it, but I can't quite find a way to make your described "nuance" fit.

Maybe it really is a sudden-death proposal - all in or all out. No nuance.

[Buckeye]

I'm very excited for this. Thank you DB. Of all notable church scholars, Greg Prince is the one I most identify with. He also seems to be fairly active in the "faith crisis" circuit of late, though maybe not as much as the Givens.

[cdowis]

Canard,

I merely observe the presence of the "nuanced" view and consider it an apologetic issue. You seem to understand why it doesn't make sense.

Edited July 16, 2013 by cdowis

[SeekingUnderstanding]

"nuanced" -->>

Joseph Smith was a prophet but the BOM is not historical -- a 19th century production inspired by God.

Or maybe this:

"nuanced" -->>

Joseph Smith was human like the rest of us, made lots of mistakes (including some really big ones - like the rest of us), didn't always get the will of the Lord down just right (like the rest of us). And yet God still worked through Joseph to bring forth a Marvelous work and a wonder. A work that leaves us with an expansive view of salvation and the universe that speaks to the hearts and souls of millions - inspiring them to be their better selves.

Edited July 16, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[cdowis]

Very nice.

This is a nuanced view that I have recently learned to accept it. It helps to explain alot of things.

For example, there is a church produced film where it was suggested that JS problems bringing home the plates for the first time was caused by his bragging to his (treasure digging) friends. I had always wondered about that.

Edited July 16, 2013 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

Hey DB, my favorite so far, out of all your podcasts is with Waterman. It touched me so much. It is so true that we need to get back to the pure religion. More Christ centered, we go by dogma or policies vs. real doctrine. And if we are the church (little c) of Jesus Christ and the church has made that font larger now, let's truly go by that being the larger in our religion. Like he said in the interview, some people go to church because they feel they have to and don't even want to be there. And it's because they feel that dogma, they are thirsty for the Jesus Christ. And how he mentioned that thing with the temple, how in the ancient temple it had the beggars just outside the temple. Now with the City Creek Mall, it is a buffer against the poor beggar. I also like his saying that we need to be little Saviors doing for others as he would. Yes, we can't probably heal outright the lame, blind etc. But we can do little things or big, whichever but we never know what that little thing would lead to . And oh, how that would further the work of the Lord.

[USU78]

nuanced meaning he is aware of and weaves his way faithfully through all the information that most members don't even know exists

Faith Crisis as in he had suggestions for those who struggle with the historical issues.

CFR

[canard78]

Canard,

I merely observe the presence of the "nuanced" view and consider it an apologetic issue. You seem to understand why it doesn't make sense.

There are some aspects that allow room for nuance. Modern day leaders like Elder McConkie, or Elder Lee drawing conclusions from scripture and their preceding leaders can have nuance.

I agree that it's difficult to find any room for nuance in a statement of 'I had gold plates that were given by an angel' or 'I was ordained to the priesthood by the resurrected John the Baptist.'

I guess in the end I have to make a choice. The evidence of the history books or the evidence of the heart.

[rockpond]

Greg Prince (his writings and various podcast discussions) were a key element in helping me make it through my faith crisis. I look forward to hearing this latest interview. Thanks.

[Sleeper Cell]

Hi Bob, I don't think I ever see you comment on anything other than DB's posts. Are you actually his alter-ego?

Is this a reference to “the four stages of mental illness?”

Stage 1: Talks to yourself

Stage 2: Answers yourself

Stage 3: Argues with yourself

Stage 4: Loses arguments with yourself.

[rockpond]

Or maybe this:

"nuanced" -->>

Joseph Smith was human like the rest of us, made lots of mistakes (including some really big ones - like the rest of us), didn't always get the will of the Lord down just right (like the rest of us). And yet God still worked through Joseph to bring forth a Marvelous work and a wonder. A work that leaves us with an expansive view of salvation and the universe that speaks to the hearts and souls of millions - inspiring them to be their better selves.

As Terryl Givens has said: Do we really believe the Lord when He stated: "Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Joseph Smith, I am well pleased with your offering and acknowledgments, which you have made; for unto this end have I raised you up, that I might show forth my wisdom through the weak things of the earth." D&C 124:1

[canard78]

CFR

CFR that he knows the information or that he knows the information that other members don't know about?

If the second, just attend a variety of SS lessons around the world.

This Sunday a lifelong member was surprised to find the law of tithing existed among the modern saints before President Snow. He thought LS had restored it.

In SS, the teacher, on the topic of the priesthood said "there were some dates in the priesthood restoration, I don't really know them as I don't have an interest in history. The manual says the quorum of the 70 was sorted by 1835 so I guess that was when they finished organising the priesthood structures as we have it today."

I was even chatting with someone who is considered well versed in Mormon history. He'd never heard of Zina, 3rd RS president of the church and polyandrous wife to both Joseph, Brigham and her original husband Henry Jacobs with home she had her first two kids.

I'm not sure how you'd safely ask people about some of the key issues they didn't know without hurting them.

[canard78]

Is this a reference to “the four stages of mental illness?”

Stage 1: Talks to yourself

Stage 2: Answers yourself

Stage 3: Argues with yourself

Stage 4: Loses arguments with yourself.

Nice

[DBMormon]

CFR

I can't speak for today, but step back 5 years ago, In Ohio wehre I am from 95% of members are not aware that

- Joseph translated mostly with a seer stone and not the nephite interpreters

- That said, they also don't know Joseph was a scryer and that's how he found said

- They are unaware that Joseph married/sealed woman who were already married to other men - and that some evidence in at least one or two involved intimacy

- They are unaware of the full context of the Book of Abraham, what facts surround the critical examination of it.

- Unaware that 12 year olds didn't always get priesthood at that age. That young men were very rarely even involved in Priesthood

ect....

[DBMormon]

Is this a reference to “the four stages of mental illness?”

Stage 1: Talks to yourself

Stage 2: Answers yourself

Stage 3: Argues with yourself

Stage 4: Loses arguments with yourself.

If we are the same, I am in stage 3 and Bob is in stage 4, which is weird too!

[USU78]

I can't speak for today, but step back 5 years ago, In Ohio wehre I am from 95% of members are not aware that

- Joseph translated mostly with a seer stone and not the nephite interpreters

- That said, they also don't know Joseph was a scryer and that's how he found said

- They are unaware that Joseph married/sealed woman who were already married to other men - and that some evidence in at least one or two involved intimacy

- They are unaware of the full context of the Book of Abraham, what facts surround the critical examination of it.

- Unaware that 12 year olds didn't always get priesthood at that age. That young men were very rarely even involved in Priesthood

ect....

I daresay your 95% is made up.

I daresay you are guessing for most of this.

I daresay you have no idea what people do and don't know.

I daresay you've been watching a single indian walk singlefile.

[Bob Crockett]

Hi Bob, I don't think I ever see you comment on anything other than DB's posts. Are you actually his alter-ego?

This isn't about me; nonetheless --

I am a low-volume poster. I have been on this board for many years. I don't expect you to have followed all my posts.

I have fundamental issues with DBMormon's various claims and posts about what the Church is doing and what ordinary members think. At present, those posts interest me because I disagree with them. I tend to post in threads with which I disagree.

[Bob Crockett]

I can't speak for today, but step back 5 years ago, In Ohio wehre I am from 95% of members are not aware that

- [1]Joseph translated mostly with a seer stone and not the nephite interpreters

- [2]That said, they also don't know Joseph was a scryer and that's how he found said

- [3]They are unaware that Joseph married/sealed woman who were already married to other men - and that some evidence in at least one or two involved intimacy

- [4]They are unaware of the full context of the Book of Abraham, what facts surround the critical examination of it.

- [5]Unaware that 12 year olds didn't always get priesthood at that age. That young men were very rarely even involved in Priesthood

ect....

I realize this is probably beating a dead horse here, but I learned of all the above topics, except number 3, in seminary as a freshman when we studied church history that year and I was paying attention that year. In particular, we went into great depth as to claims that Joseph Smith was digging and peeping for money. My seminary teacher was a physicist and was teaching directly from the manual.

As to No. 1, translating with a peep stone, I recall that being discussed very well in my seminary class; as well I learned that Joseph Smith likely translated without even the plates being present.

As to the Book of Abraham, we touched on that somewhat lightly in seminary, but I picked up the entire controversy while attending a Church-sponsored Know Your Religion seminar in Chicago in the 1970s, taught by Reed Durham, when I was 19 years old.

As to the age of deacons for the priesthood, I learned that as a priest in my priesthood courses, when it was explained to me that Joseph F Smith went on a mission at age 15 as a priest. That came right out of the manual, that ages and delinations have not always been the same as today.

True, I did not understand that Joseph Smith married other men's wives until I read Tanner material on my mission and Brodie's work as well, but I also note that several books discussing this were available in the BYU bookstore in the 1970s. [i have resolved that by understanding that marriage and divorce was a rather iffy matter, particularly when the state of Ohio denied Mormon pastors the right to marry; as well, I question the quality of the Temple Lot affidavits attesting to connubial relations; as well as other issues. But it is a decent controversy.]

The problem with your analysis is that you seem to assume that the Church has a duty to do an entire data dump when somebody joins the Church. [Your analysis also poses things in the form of a question, so as to plausibly deny that these are your issues; but, you do it so often I think we can all see through that.] But Candace's eunuch in Acts didn't receive that treatment; I suppose that Phillip should have sat down with his convert and gone over claims made that the "disciples stole the body" and that Jesus was only a common criminal and all the rest of the well-documented anti-Christian sentiments at the time. But the Church gets the material out in its manuals. Maybe the primary manuals don't have it, but the seminary manuals have all that you mention above (except other men's wives, business).

Edited July 16, 2013 by Bob Crockett