Greg Prince On Mormonism

[rockpond]

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).

This is rapidly veering off topic. Could we all agree that...

1. Everyone's experience with the church is different.
   
2. Some (if not many) members are not aware of all potentially controversial issues found in church history.
   
3. Many a faith crisis has been caused by members coming into contact with accounts that contradict the narrative they were taught in the church.
   
4. We ought to try to do something to counter #3.
   

If we agree on those points, I think that Brother Prince is doing a great service by working on #4.

[Ahab]

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.

Was he "bragging" or was he just sharing that with his friends who he thought would be interested in knowing about that?

A nuance, maybe, but a nuance can make a big difference.

[Bob Crockett]

This is rapidly veering off topic. Could we all agree that...

1. Everyone's experience with the church is different.
   
2. Some (if not many) members are not aware of all potentially controversial issues found in church history.
   
3. Many a faith crisis has been caused by members coming into contact with accounts that contradict the narrative they were taught in the church.
   
4. We ought to try to do something to counter #3.
   

If we agree on those points, I think that Brother Prince is doing a great service by working on #4.

I don't think it is off-topic. I object to DBMormon's posts for reasons I have elsewhere explained.

[Ahab]

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.

You know you've gone downhill when you've lost an argument with yourself, but isn't the rest of that just normal ???

Okay I thought so.

[DBMormon]

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).

That's great, but get out of the wasatch front like canada, Ohio, Michigan, ect.... people don't have a trained seminary teacher, Most are converts, and they have not had institute and other various ways to learn other then read, and well..... most people unfortunately don't read

[Bikeemikey]

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.

I dare say that despite all your date saying he is not far off from my experience of my fellow saints.

I also dare say that up until recently i was totally uninformed on many of these items.

[rockpond]

I also dare say that up until recently i was totally uninformed on many of these items.

I was, as well, until my late 30's.

[Danzo]

I think whether anyone is informed about these think has a lot to do with whether they care about church history or not.

I find it hard to believe that anyone interested in history would go long without finding out about them.

Those who don't care about history won't remember even if you told them.

[rockpond]

I think whether anyone is informed about these think has a lot to do with whether they care about church history or not.

I find it hard to believe that anyone interested in history would go long without finding out about them.

Those who don't care about history won't remember even if you told them.

Caring about history is not a prerequisite to church membership. But when presented with something that starkly contradicts that narrative received while growing up in the church, it can be (and frequently is) challenging to one's faith because of the way that much of our authority/theology is based on that narrative.

[CV75]

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.

How do the Lord's weak and simple express their nuances? It seems to me that they come to understanding by seeking correction, instruction and repentance, and by receiving knowledge by the Spirit (D&C 1: 23-28). So I think the gift of discernment is the only way the Lord can reveal any real subtle meaning, feeling, tone, or gradation about anything involved with the promotion faith.

I don’t see how awareness of and weaving through information that others don't know exists translates into “nuanced,” but I usually see the term being used in a way to appreciate ways to side-step the not-so-nuanced things described in D&C 1 and elsewhere. I can see how a person's superior knowledge in the right spirit can help him see, and perhaps even create, nuances that he can then use to minister others without imposing his superior views and appreciation on others, but I don't see it discussed often in this light.

[Danzo]

Caring about history is not a prerequisite to church membership. But when presented with something that starkly contradicts that narrative received while growing up in the church, it can be (and frequently is) challenging to one's faith because of the way that much of our authority/theology is based on that narrative.

I think many people learn the narrative and fail to realize why it is important, and what are the important things and what are the unimportant things.

Most of the problems seem to focus on the character of Joseph Smith, which has very little importance to the church. Sure we like to think he was a great guy, but is it really important? Even Joseph smith didn't seem to think so. "I never said I was perfect but there is no error in the revelations" or something like that.

The revelations, that is the important part, but the truth of those can only be known by revelation.

The importance of the first vision, isn't that Joseph was special (although he probably was), it is that we can receive and know the same things he did.

This is why the church didn't disappear when Joseph died, or Brigham.

It was never about them.

[Bob Crockett]

That's great, but get out of the wasatch front like canada, Ohio, Michigan, ect.... people don't have a trained seminary teacher, Most are converts, and they have not had institute and other various ways to learn other then read, and well..... most people unfortunately don't read

I grew up in the sticks in Washington state and didn't have trained seminary teachers. Indeed, I ditched one entire year and most of the rest of the years. Most of my ward consisted of converts.

As to "most people unfortuately don't read," I wonder then what you propose when your various issues are answered in Primary, Sunday School and Seminary manuals.

I think you don't give the Saints enough credit for reading or believing. I think the manuals are about 98 percent adequate and you don't give them enough credit for what they do reveal.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Stone holm]

Have not attended any of his seminars or listened to any of his podcasts, but have read the book, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. I am not sure "nuanced" is the right word. I believe honest and pragmatic might be a better word. There are so many members going around living in a bubble which denies that public relations, culture, politics inside and outside the Church, and other matters have any influence upon the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. The book takes an honest clear headed look at the situation and acknowledges such influences without throwing into question the fact that the Church is true. It is unnecessary for us to develop a "cult of personality" about our General Authorities for the Church to be true, we don't have to have the Church operating in some kind of fairy tale fashion. The Lord works with human beings, he doesn't come down and micromanage every action of the GAs or censor everything that comes out of their mouths. With regards to David O. McKay and the extension of the Priesthood, he took a somewhat legalistic approach. He realized that the ban may not have had a Divine origin per se, but may have been the result of our culture. At the same time, he realized that if he was going to overthrow decades of tradition and practice in the Church that he needed to have a direct revelation to do so -- especially when so many leaders had hardened their hearts on the matter. Its like when a legal tradition develops around an incorrect interpretation of a statute and the incorrect interpretation is left in place decade after decade, under such circumstances the Courts may very well say -- this may be wrong, but at this point until the legislature changes it, we feel it has become the settled law. In this case, possibly there was an error, but it had been left in place a long time so that if it was to change, the Lord had to change it. Then again, maybe we just had to have some more leaders die off. In any case, what is being argued is that the Lord works through imperfect people and an imperfect organization with imperfect leadership -- that does not mean it isn't true, it means its real.

[canard78]

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.

This last part made me smile. I think the same is true of all of us. I'm part of another forum where everyone tends to agree. It's a very positive, uplifting place... but has very low traffic because where's the fun in always agreeing

[Stone holm]

This last part made me smile. I think the same is true of all of us. I'm part of another forum where everyone tends to agree. It's a very positive, uplifting place... but has very low traffic because where's the fun in always agreeing

Oh my

[Bob Crockett]

I'd say "nuanced" has lost any meaning on this Board, along with lots of other jargon, like "paradigm." "Nuanced" never had much real meaning in the first place, but to use it to mean that one can believe without believing sort of tortures the inconsequential.

[Stone holm]

I'd say "nuanced" has lost any meaning on this Board, along with lots of other jargon, like "paradigm." "Nuanced" never had much real meaning in the first place, but to use it to mean that one can believe without believing sort of tortures the inconsequential.

But "nuance" has such a sophisticated tone and "paradigm" sounds so scientific.

[DBMormon]

I think you don't give the Saints enough credit for reading or believing. I think the manuals are about 98 percent adequate and you don't give them enough credit for what they do reveal.

reading non-Sunday materials that focus on Doctrine and history.... I think I am right on.

believing - I have never said the saints don't believe AKA "have faith"... They believe plenty

Manuals are 98% adequate if we are talking spirituality and edifying.... agreed.

If we are talking about being open about our history to give people the full picture, I would say they are 50% effective at that

[Bob Crockett]

In an Al Sharpton sort of way. Using big words when they only confuse rather than elucidate. But I digress.

[Bob Crockett]

reading non-Sunday materials that focus on Doctrine and history.... I think I am right on.

believing - I have never said the saints don't believe AKA "have faith"... They believe plenty

Manuals are 98% adequate if we are talking spirituality and edifying.... agreed.

If we are talking about being open about our history to give people the full picture, I would say they are 50% effective at that

I'm not sure you have looked closely at the manuals. They are much more than merely being spiritual. I don't like reading the manuals but am required to do so for my seminary job. They are boring but they cover the waterfront.

Although manuals based upon a consensus view are likely to avoid tackling controversy, the current seminary manuals are more than adequate. I think Givens is a snob when he condemns them.

[DBMormon]

I'm not sure you have looked closely at the manuals. They are much more than merely being spiritual. I don't like reading the manuals but am required to do so for my seminary job. They are boring but they cover the waterfront.

Although manuals based upon a consensus view are likely to avoid tackling controversy, the current seminary manuals are more than adequate. I think Givens is a snob when he condemns them.

So your not a big fan of Brad Wilcox's or Robert Millet's view on Grace, Terryl Given's view on the manuals, and my view on everything. I would say I am in good company.

[Stone holm]

In an Al Sharpton sort of way. Using big words when they only confuse rather than elucidate. But I digress.

Don't you mean Cornell West?

[ALarson]

I completely agree with what DBMormon has stated regarding the fact that most active members are not aware of many issues with church history, etc. I also agree that the information is there for those who want to go looking for it and dig a bit deeper than what is in the SS, RS, and Priesthood manuals. However, I never learned what many state on here that they learned in seminary and I attended release time in Utah and Idaho. Probably just depends on the teachers we had. More could be included in the teaching materials and instructions.

A great example is the year we studied Joseph Smith's teachings. Polygamy was not to be mentioned and wasn't included in the lesson material. I'm not even sure if it was discussed much when we studied Brigham Young's teachings (information regarding his wives). Many active members still do not know that Joseph Smith lived polygamy let alone knowing about his polyandrous relationships. Who's fault is that? I guess you can blame the members, but one needs to look at the lesson materials along with the strict instructions to stick to these manuals when teaching.

I do believe this is being dealt with by the church leaders and an attempt is being made to more openly teach the entire church history. I look forward to this next era in the church. I feel there will be some great discussions in our classes.

Edited July 17, 2013 by ALarson

[Stone holm]

I completely agree with what DBMormon has stated regarding the fact that most active members are not aware of many issues with church history, etc. I also agree that the information is there for those who want to go looking for it and dig a bit deeper than what is in the SS, RS, and Priesthood manuals. However, I never learned what many state on here that they learned in seminary and I attended release time in Utah and Idaho. Probably just depends on the teachers we had. More could be included in the teaching materials and instructions.

A great example is the year we studied Joseph Smith's teachings. Polygamy was not to be mentioned and wasn't included in the lesson material. I'm not even sure if it was discussed much when we studied Brigham Young's teachings (information regarding his wives). Many active members still do not know that Joseph Smith lived polygamy let alone knowing about his polyandrous relationships. Who's fault is that? I guess you can blame the members, but one needs to look at the lesson materials along with the strict instructions to stick to these manuals when teaching.

I do believe this is being dealt with by the church leaders and an attempt is being made to more openly teach the entire church history. I look forward to this next era in the church. I feel there will be some great discussions in our classes.

While we did discuss poligamy, I am not sure how really important it is to focus on it currently since we do not currently practice it except in the case of deceased wives. But I agree the manuals are filled with such pablum that it becomes nauseous if a teacher insists on sticking to the manual.

[Bob Crockett]

So your not a big fan of Brad Wilcox's or Robert Millet's view on Grace, Terryl Given's view on the manuals, and my view on everything. I would say I am in good company.

I have said elsewhere that you misunderstand Wilcox.