Greg Prince On Mormonism

[ALarson]

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.

That's pretty much what was stated in the introduction part of the manual of Joseph Smith's teachings. However, Joseph's polygamy contributed to his martyrdom and many are not aware of this. It was also a big part of what went on during Joseph's last years of life and the events in Nauvoo. I just believe there could have been some great discussions about it and if more of this took place at church, there would not be so many who are shocked when they learn about it and in turn feel betrayed and leave or struggle.

I do get your point too, though. There is a fine line to walk here and I trust the church will handle it better and more forthcoming in the future. Again, I think this is admirable and I look forward to it.

[rockpond]

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.

I agree that it isn't about Joseph. But I think it is vastly oversimplifying to suggest that "most of the problems" are about his character. There's a lot more at play.

But, if most of the problems were about Joseph's character than that tells me we could probably to a better job of immunizing members against such an interpretation of his importance.

[rockpond]

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 point in all of these posts is that everything is fine? All is well in Zion? We don't need to do anything about the members we are losing due to historical issues?

[DBMormon]

I have said elsewhere that you misunderstand Wilcox.

You have also criticized him elsewhere on here as well

[Stone holm]

That's pretty much what was stated in the introduction part of the manual of Joseph Smith's teachings. However, Joseph's polygamy contributed to his martyrdom and many are not aware of this. It was also a big part of what went on during Joseph's last years of life and the events in Nauvoo. I just believe there could have been some great discussions about it and if more of this took place at church, there would not be so many who are shocked when they learn about it and in turn feel betrayed and leave or struggle.

I do get your point too, though. There is a fine line to walk here and I trust the church will handle it better and more forthcoming in the future. Again, I think this is admirable and I look forward to it.

Yes it did play a part in getting Joseph killed, however, I think the stupid idea of running him for the Presidency played a bigger role.

[Tacenda]

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.

Bob, are they studying Church History in Seminary this Fall? I heard they were. Also, don't you think they should introduce some not so widely known history, younger than Seminary age? Possibly start while much younger like in the Primary years, where it's probably going to be accepted a little easier. I am in Primary with the 9/10 group, and the manual isn't including much of the controversial stuff that's going to eventually hit them later. Or is this not what is needed in your opinion? If not, do you have a better idea?

[Danzo]

I agree that it isn't about Joseph. But I think it is vastly oversimplifying to suggest that "most of the problems" are about his character. There's a lot more at play.

But, if most of the problems were about Joseph's character than that tells me we could probably to a better job of immunizing members against such an interpretation of his importance.

Perhaps Doctrine and Covenants section 3 should be studied more closely

[Bob Crockett]

You have also criticized him elsewhere on here as well

I'd say that I have rethought my view on Wilcox after citing directly to him to refute your interpretation of him. I have little patience with CES youth speakers as lightweight nonsense -- a lot of milk but no meat -- but since I know him somewhat I read through some his stuff.

Wilcox, in his most recent book, equated God's salvation and "being saved" to the mere act of conversion and baptism. After that comes the hard work. He differentiates this from the evangelical notion. I have cited this to you to suggest that you might not have understood Wilcox.

But this thread is about Givens. I am not so sure about his writings. I'm not convinced. I tend to trust LDS scholars more steeped in scriptural exegesis or the craft of historical rigor rather than English rhetoric. The jury is still out with me.

[rockpond]

Perhaps Doctrine and Covenants section 3 should be studied more closely

Agreed. Though, as noted, many of faith crises that I see go well beyond just issues with Joseph's character.

[rockpond]

I'd say that I have rethought my view on Wilcox after citing directly to him to refute your interpretation of him. I have little patience with CES youth speakers as lightweight nonsense -- a lot of milk but no meat -- but since I know him somewhat I read through some his stuff.

Wilcox, in his most recent book, equated God's salvation and "being saved" to the mere act of conversion and baptism. After that comes the hard work. He differentiates this from the evangelical notion. I have cited this to you to suggest that you might not have understood Wilcox.

But this thread is about Givens. I am not so sure about his writings. I'm not convinced. I tend to trust LDS scholars more steeped in scriptural exegesis or the craft of historical rigor rather than English rhetoric. The jury is still out with me.

This thread is about Greg Prince, not Givens.

[canard78]

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....

In the late 1980s, 90% of people would believe a statement if it was accompanied by a statistic, even if unsourced.

These days it's the reverse. 90% of people will be sceptical of a statement if an unsourced statistic accompanies it.

[DBMormon]

I'd say that I have rethought my view on Wilcox after citing directly to him to refute your interpretation of him. I have little patience with CES youth speakers as lightweight nonsense -- a lot of milk but no meat -- but since I know him somewhat I read through some his stuff.

Wilcox, in his most recent book, equated God's salvation and "being saved" to the mere act of conversion and baptism. After that comes the hard work. He differentiates this from the evangelical notion. I have cited this to you to suggest that you might not have understood Wilcox.

But this thread is about Givens. I am not so sure about his writings. I'm not convinced. I tend to trust LDS scholars more steeped in scriptural exegesis or the craft of historical rigor rather than English rhetoric. The jury is still out with me.

Weird, In my interview with Bro. Wilcox, I shared with him many of the things I took away on the subject of Grace and he seemed in agreement.

Maybe you should really give the podcast a chance, it could be enlightening.

Perhaps you will rethink your views on Givens and me as time goes on.

[Calm]

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.

And he has posted on a variety of threads in the past, but with repetition of topics it is not surprising if he is limiting his posts to newer topics like it appears many oldtimers are (if they are posting at all).

[Calm]

That's great, but get out of the wasatch front like canada, Ohio, Michigan, ect....

I wasn't raised in Utah, have primarily lived in CA, IL, and KS. But pretty much learned the same stuff as Bob.

[Calm]

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

This has been demonstrated to me in my personal life over and over again with a very wide range of individuals and not only on history subjects.

[Calm]

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 would agree. I do, however, find it very sad that when confronted with a historical issue that does trouble them, that many don't remember that they didn't put much personal effort into studying history and give the Church the benefit of the doubt while they do more research rather than letting the shock they may be feeling override all else and send them into a negative paradigm, especially one that assumes the only 'real' sources are anti ones, otherwise they would have learned about it before in Church.

[Calm]

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.

Very close:

In a sermon preached a little over a month before he was martyred, he declared, “I never told you I was perfect—but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught” (The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [1980], 369).

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1996/04/joseph-the-man-and-the-prophet?lang=eng

[rockpond]

I would agree. I do, however, find it very sad that when confronted with a historical issue that does trouble them, that many don't remember that they didn't put much personal effort into studying history and give the Church the benefit of the doubt while they do more research rather than letting the shock they may be feeling override all else and send them into a negative paradigm, especially one that assumes the only 'real' sources are anti ones, otherwise they would have learned about it before in Church.

Totally agree.

[Calm]

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.....

Please don't bold your comments, makes it harder to read, not easier. Assuming this was intentional, if not...ignore. Edited July 17, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

along with lots of other jargon, like "paradigm."

Say it isn't so, I love that word...

[DBMormon]

I wasn't raised in Utah, have primarily lived in CA, IL, and KS. But pretty much learned the same stuff as Bob.

It would be interesting to take a survey with questions like that. But then you may open up issues for those who don't know. Obviously wards and stakes will be different, I have no stats for my assumptions but will stand by them unless someone has data otherwise.

[ERayR]

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.

Don't you just love the way some presume to know exactly what the rest of us know or do not know?

[ERayR]

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.

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

So because you were ill informed it is the Churches fault? Why can't I just once see one of you post: I didn't know that but it was probably that I didn't pay attention or just wasn't looking too deeply. It would be so refreshing to hear just one of you take responsibility for your own ignorance.

[Bob Crockett]

This thread is about Greg Prince, not Givens.

So sorry. I did like Prince's book. He is highly qualified. And, on the scale of 1 to 10 in terms of master of the English language for published authors, he is about a 7 for me (with Givens a 9; Bagley a 2, for example). Really a great book, but not much new. I'd be surprised to learn that he has been lumped into a "nuanced" "faith crisis" mission of some sort.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[ERayR]

This thread is about Greg Prince, not Givens.

Really who is Greg Prince that I should listen to him?