rockpond Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: First, I said: "Prince's assessment of the historicity issue sounds perfunctory, even lazy." Second, per churchistrue: "He doesn't get into the details of why he doesn't believe the BOM isn't historical, but alludes to DNA and other scientific/historical issues like that." Third, I am open to correction. Which part of his interview goes into detail regarding "the historicity issue" and provides a balanced, informed assessment of it? Okay. I know. But again, I think his assessment of the historicity issue - rather then central point of contention for those "who can no longer make the historical viewpoint work" - sounds perfunctory, even lazy. He is not addressing the significance of the issue. He is not addressing the merits of the arguments as to why historicity is important. Instead, he sneers at such things, and at the persons talking about such things ("It’s a hill they’re willing to die on. And I’m sitting there thinking that’s a stupid battle; you missed the whole point."). We can have faith in Christ without caring about whether He ever existed? Or whether He was the literal Son of God? Or whether He taught that He is the sole means of salvation? Or whether He performed miracles? Or whether He atoned for our sins? Or whether He died and was resurrected and ascended into heaven? Or whether He is the Savior of the World? Whether these things are historical (they happened) or not (they're fictional) does not matter? If they are not "rooted" in historicity ("the historical actuality of persons and events, meaning the quality of being part of history as opposed to being a historical myth, legend, or fiction"), then what should they be rooted in? According to you, Prince is saying that "faith is something that transcends" all of these things. I do not accept that. I have faith in Christ precisely because He lived. Because He is more than just an admirable person (real or fictional). Having faith in a fictional Christ makes no more sense to me than trying to rely on an imaginary life preserver while drowning. It may make you feel like you have something to rely on, but in truth you really don't. Regarding the historicity of The Book of Mormon, I will again quote Elder Oaks: "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived." Thanks, -Smac The point of the interview was not to discuss Book of Mormon historicity, so the discussion doesn't delve into it. There are many things that he did not provide a balanced, informed assessment of... shall we make a list? I don't think he can be criticized for not exploring issues that weren't a part of the interview. As for the significant of historicity... it isn't significant to him so why would he address it in a podcast about his beliefs? He's explaining the paradigm that works for him.
hope_for_things Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 Just now, rockpond said: The point of the interview was not to discuss Book of Mormon historicity, so the discussion doesn't delve into it. There are many things that he did not provide a balanced, informed assessment of... shall we make a list? I don't think he can be criticized for not exploring issues that weren't a part of the interview. As for the significant of historicity... it isn't significant to him so why would he address it in a podcast about his beliefs? He's explaining the paradigm that works for him. Yes, and I would add that this doesn't mean Prince hasn't thought deeply about these things. He just didn't talk about them in depth in the interview. He did talk about history vs. theology though. smac97 has a lot of theological propositions in his post, but none of them are provable historically by looking at the evidence. You can trace the evidence for many of those theological points by looking at the historical development of ideas within the early formation of church communities. But that doesn't tell you if any of those ideas about Jesus represent factual historical events or not.
The Nehor Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Based on your extensive historical knowledge of the crucifixion and the physics of the atonement, and how driving some nails in flesh is the first cause leading to the forgiveness of sin? Is it possible that your historical belief is really a religious belief in history- something you BELIEVE "actually happened" but are at a loss or prove how it worked? I mean you can believe in literal golden plates and all, but how about an angel delivering them? What is the historical evidence for angels? Where does the "myth" end and "actually happened" begin? If Joseph Smith was so deluded that he thought he was seeing angels and reported it as such then I see no reason to believe him about anything else. Someone comes along afterwards and redefines the story in terms the only witnesses would not agree with but still want me to treat that redefined story seriously in some way? By that standard my spiritual experiences at least equal those of Joseph's so if I believe this redefinition I have no reason to listen to that yahoo. I should start my own church. 1
smac97 Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: What is a "truth claim" and how do you define it? That's a fair question. I define "truth claims" pretty much the same way Wikipedia does: Quote A truth claim is a proposition or statement that a particular person or belief system holds to be true. The term is commonly used in philosophy in discussions of logic, metaphysics, and epistemology, particularly when discussing the doctrinal statements of religions. I tend to think of the LDS Church's "truth claims" as a somewhat narrow set: God exists. God has certain attributes (perfect, benevolent, creative, etc.). God is the Father of our spirits and has a parent/child relationship with us. Jesus Christ is His Son. God has a plan for us, which includes coming to earth to obtain a body, learning and growing, etc. Jesus Christ plays a central part in the above plan, in that He is our Savior and Redeemer. God communicates to His children through the Light of Christ, through the Holy Spirit, and through prophets. Joseph Smith is the founding prophet of this dispensation. The foundational events of the Restoration as described by Joseph Smith (the First Vision and subsequent angelic visitations, the discovery of the Gold Plates and the translation of them, the restoration of the priesthood, the establishment of God's church on the earth, further revelations, etc.) are substantively true. The LDS Church is a preparatory or provisional form of the Kingdom of God, and is as described in D&C 1. The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, and its origins are substantively as described by Joseph Smith, the Witnesses, etc. The priesthood is the power of God and is held in trust on the earth by the Presiding High Priest, Thomas S. Monson, and those who serve with him. I think there is a fair amount of "wiggle room" for how we understand and interpret these truth claims. But outright rejection of one or several them (e.g., the "Inspired Fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon) is, to me, problematic. 45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Based upon what theory of truth? I don't know what this means. 45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Correspondence? Coherence? Evidential? Reasoning, yes. Evidence, yes. The Spirit, yes. Faith, yes. 45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Belief in historicity is based on faith. It is itself a religious belief! I acknowledge that. But it is not a blind faith. 45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Honestly for your statement to stand up to serious scrutiny you need to back it up with an answer to that. An answer to what? Thanks, -Smac 3
Chaos Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 ChurchisTrue, we are glad you are here but I think you have been given warnings about using our board to advertise your own blog. It is not personal, we have a long standing policy of not allowing cross-posting. If you wish to open a topic, create a discussion for this board rather than requiring posters to go to your site to be able to join a discussion. Future cross-posting will be locked.
churchistrue Posted October 10, 2016 Author Posted October 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, Chaos said: ChurchisTrue, we are glad you are here but I think you have been given warnings about using our board to advertise your own blog. It is not personal, we have a long standing policy of not allowing cross-posting. If you wish to open a topic, create a discussion for this board rather than requiring posters to go to your site to be able to join a discussion. Future cross-posting will be locked. What would be a more appropriate way to introduce the subject? I provided a few paragraphs with context and what I thought was an interesting premise and questions to discuss, and referenced my site for further reading as well as a podcast site for the full four hour interview.
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 1 hour ago, churchistrue said: On internal peace and the communion with the infinite exclusive of religious faith? I don't know the answer to that. I guess it could be argued each religious faith does it for different people in different ways. For me, Mormonism is best. On Spong. Agree, but when it comes to Christian voices in that category, my favorite by far is Marcus Borg. I think he has the same message without the sometimes over-critical, faith destroying tone Spong has. For Spong, it's ludicrous to believe in the empty tomb. For Borg, believe or don't believe in the empty tomb, but let's come together and talk about the message of what the resurrected Christ means. The key is not internal peace and communion with the infinite alone it is TRUST in a personal God which will get you through anything and always has your back, even when "bad things happen to good people". But that sort of trust and the joy it produces can only be based on testimony, not historical evidence.
Ed Goble Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, churchistrue said: Some of you might have listened to the four hour interview with John Dehlin on Mormon Stories. I wrote up a summary with the key points of the article, addressing this "metaphorical" take on Mormonism. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/greg-prince-on-new-mormonism/ The gist of what Prince is saying is that he believes Joseph had a powerful experience with the divine. And that he had a gift/inspiration in how to share that experience with his followers through a set of symbols: ie Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, priesthood doctrine, etc. None of this should be taken literally, or at least we shouldn't fret about whether or not portions of this can be proven "false" in the literal, historical record. They key is what it does for people that read the scripture and follow the religion. Early criticism of this, is that this view is untenable within Mormonism. The brethren will never go for it. Even if they did, everyone would lose their testimony and leave the church. This brand of Mormonism doesn't have any "staying power". Nothing to convince people it's good to stay and engage with the church. I disagree. This is how I approach the church, and it works for me. Thoughts? The bigger issue is for people to stay in the Church obviously, and it is another tool in the "middle way" toolkit. More power to whoever will choose to stay if they can find a way to do so. Edited October 10, 2016 by Ed Goble
rockpond Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, Ed Goble said: The bigger issue is for people to stay in the Church obviously, and it is another tool in the "middle way" toolkit. More power to whoever will choose to stay if they can find a way to do so. And that, I believe, is what Prince is pleading for.
smac97 Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: The point of the interview was not to discuss Book of Mormon historicity, so the discussion doesn't delve into it. It sure would be nice to see someone "delve into it." 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: There are many things that he did not provide a balanced, informed assessment of... shall we make a list? I don't think he can be criticized for not exploring issues that weren't a part of the interview. Look at how churchistrue summed things up: "Greg Prince, in a podcast interview at Mormon Stories with John Dehlin, articulated what I have referred to as New Mormonism. New, as contrasted to the old version–the fundamentalist type Mormonism that some feel is being proven false by 'CES Letter type issues', ie Book of Mormon historicity, multiple First Vision Accounts, Book of Abraham translation, etc." "Describing LDS scripture and catechism as a set of symbols attempting to connect believers with God (and a little bit here on Book of Mormon Historicity)..." "John asks if he believes an angel delivered gold plates to Joseph Smith that were an ancient record of Native Americans..." "An interesting answer to the issue some have in accepting alternate explanations. Joseph didn’t say that’s what he was doing. So why should we interpret it that way?" "Prince referenced Christian scholar Denise Hopkins who called the Book of Mormon 'Joseph Smith’s book length midrash on the Bible.'" "On whether there were gold plates, he says he doesn’t know if an angel delivered the gold plates; that is 'inaccessible'. But he believes the witnesses that there is an artifact there. They touched it, felt it." "John argues that the artifact might not be ancient. Prince: 'whatever'. There is solid evidence that there was some kind of artifact, and that Joseph and others genuinely believed it was ancient plates." "Focus on Book of Mormon shouldn’t be historicity, it should be the power of the book..." "Prince’s personal beliefs on BOM historicity..." It sounds like historicity was a topic amply and prominently featured in this four-hour interview, and yet Prince apparently fails to treat it with much seriousness. Instead, he resorts to ridiculing those people who do treat it seriously: Quote People get absolutely unglued if they perceive any threat to a non-historical Book of Mormon…It’s a hill they’re willing to die on. And I’m sitting there thinking that’s a stupid battle; you missed the whole point. When John Dehlin - to his credit - tries to press Prince to address the ramifications of the "Inspired Fiction" theory he (Prince) is presenting, Prince's response is . . . less than impressive: Quote John argues that the artifact might not be ancient. Prince: “whatever”. There is solid evidence that there was some kind of artifact, and that Joseph and others genuinely believed it was ancient plates. Quote There’s an artifact, him, and a new text. That’s the process. John, being an unbeliever and having been recently excommunicated, will understandably want to explore the reality or fiction of the Plates. The Plates matter. A lot. From an evidentiary standpoint. From a historical standpoint. If there were real plates, then were they authentically ancient? Or were they fabricated? Or did they never exist at all? If the Plates were authentically ancient, where did they come from? How did Joseph Smith find them? Is there any chance that their origins comport with what Joseph Smith claimed? If the Plates were fabricated, who did that? Joseph Smith? By himself? Or was there a conspiracy to fabricate them? Why did Joseph go through all that hassle? If the Plates never existed at all, how did Joseph persuade the Three Witnesses to attest to a miraculous event as to the Plates? Were these men colluding with Joseph, or were they sincere? Were they sincere-but-deceived (by Joseph)? Sincere-but-collectively-deluded/insane? Did Joseph Smith threaten them into giving their testimony? Did he drug them? And what about the Eight Witnesses? Where they deluded/insane? Drugged? Threatened? If the Plates were fabricated or never existed, then where did we get the text of The Book of Mormon? Was it fabricated too? Is is fictional? If so, why did Joseph Smith spend his life declaring the text to be a translation of an actual ancient record? Was Joseph lying about all of this? Was he deluded/insane? Did Joseph write the text by himself? Or did he have help? If so, who helped him? If the Plates were fabricated or never existed, and if Joseph Smith was either lying and/or mentally insane, don't these things matter as far as determining whether the LDS Church is what it claims to be? These are all rather reasonable, first-order-of-business-type questions that naturally arise with the "Inspired Fiction" theory being espoused by Prince. And yet Prince does not address any of that. Instead, as to the issue of the reality of the Plates, he says: Quote John argues that the artifact might not be ancient. Prince: “whatever”. There is solid evidence that there was some kind of artifact, and that Joseph and others genuinely believed it was ancient plates. Quote There’s an artifact, him, and a new text. That’s the process. "Whatever." "There's an artifact, him, and a new text." And per churchistrue: "He doesn't get into the details of why he doesn't believe the BOM isn't historical, but alludes to DNA and other scientific/historical issues like that." Taken together, this seems rather perfunctory. Lazy. 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: As for the significant of historicity... it isn't significant to him so why would he address it in a podcast about his beliefs? Perhaps because it's a rather important topic to his intended audience. He is espousing an "Inspired Fiction" theory, the core premise of which is the rejection or disregarding of the historicity of The Book of Mormon. I can't help but think that Prince insults our intelligence by advancing a theory that requires us to reject The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, what the Witnesses claimed it to be, what virtually every prophet and apostle of this dispensation have declared it to be, and that the LDS Church has declared and now declares it to be . . . and yet in four hours of talking about this he can't be bothered to address the substance of what he is telling us to reject? That the topic is "stupid" and we should simply trust him on that? I don't think so. 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: He's explaining the paradigm that works for him. He is doing more than that. He is attempting to persuade others to his point of view. Thanks, -Smac 3
rockpond Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: It sure would be nice to see someone "delve into it." Look at how churchistrue summed things up: "Greg Prince, in a podcast interview at Mormon Stories with John Dehlin, articulated what I have referred to as New Mormonism. New, as contrasted to the old version–the fundamentalist type Mormonism that some feel is being proven false by 'CES Letter type issues', ie Book of Mormon historicity, multiple First Vision Accounts, Book of Abraham translation, etc." "Describing LDS scripture and catechism as a set of symbols attempting to connect believers with God (and a little bit here on Book of Mormon Historicity)..." "John asks if he believes an angel delivered gold plates to Joseph Smith that were an ancient record of Native Americans..." "An interesting answer to the issue some have in accepting alternate explanations. Joseph didn’t say that’s what he was doing. So why should we interpret it that way?" "Prince referenced Christian scholar Denise Hopkins who called the Book of Mormon 'Joseph Smith’s book length midrash on the Bible.'" "On whether there were gold plates, he says he doesn’t know if an angel delivered the gold plates; that is 'inaccessible'. But he believes the witnesses that there is an artifact there. They touched it, felt it." "John argues that the artifact might not be ancient. Prince: 'whatever'. There is solid evidence that there was some kind of artifact, and that Joseph and others genuinely believed it was ancient plates." "Focus on Book of Mormon shouldn’t be historicity, it should be the power of the book..." "Prince’s personal beliefs on BOM historicity..." It sounds like historicity was a topic amply and prominently featured in this four-hour interview, and yet Prince apparently fails to treat it with much seriousness. Instead, he resorts to ridiculing those people who do treat it seriously: When John Dehlin - to his credit - tries to press Prince to address the ramifications of the "Inspired Fiction" theory he (Prince) is presenting, Prince's response is . . . less than impressive: John, being an unbeliever and having been recently excommunicated, will understandably want to explore the reality or fiction of the Plates. The Plates matter. A lot. From an evidentiary standpoint. From a historical standpoint. If there were real plates, then were they authentically ancient? Or were they fabricated? Or did they never exist at all? If the Plates were authentically ancient, where did they come from? How did Joseph Smith find them? Is there any chance that their origins comport with what Joseph Smith claimed? If the Plates were fabricated, who did that? Joseph Smith? By himself? Or was there a conspiracy to fabricate them? Why did Joseph go through all that hassle? If the Plates never existed at all, how did Joseph persuade the Three Witnesses to attest to a miraculous event as to the Plates? Were these men colluding with Joseph, or were they sincere? Were they sincere-but-deceived (by Joseph)? Sincere-but-collectively-deluded/insane? Did Joseph Smith threaten them into giving their testimony? Did he drug them? And what about the Eight Witnesses? Where they deluded/insane? Drugged? Threatened? If the Plates were fabricated or never existed, then where did we get the text of The Book of Mormon? Was it fabricated too? Is is fictional? If so, why did Joseph Smith spend his life declaring the text to be a translation of an actual ancient record? Was Joseph lying about all of this? Was he deluded/insane? Did Joseph write the text by himself? Or did he have help? If so, who helped him? If the Plates were fabricated or never existed, and if Joseph Smith was either lying and/or mentally insane, don't these things matter as far as determining whether the LDS Church is what it claims to be? These are all rather reasonable, first-order-of-business-type questions that naturally arise with the "Inspired Fiction" theory being espoused by Prince. And yet Prince does not address any of that. Instead, as to the issue of the reality of the Plates, he says: "Whatever." "There's an artifact, him, and a new text." And per churchistrue: "He doesn't get into the details of why he doesn't believe the BOM isn't historical, but alludes to DNA and other scientific/historical issues like that." Taken together, this seems rather perfunctory. Lazy. Perhaps because it's a rather important topic to his intended audience. He is espousing an "Inspired Fiction" theory, the core premise of which is the rejection or disregarding of the historicity of The Book of Mormon. I can't help but think that Prince insults our intelligence by advancing a theory that requires us to reject The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, what the Witnesses claimed it to be, what virtually every prophet and apostle of this dispensation have declared it to be, and that the LDS Church has declared and now declares it to be . . . and yet in four hours of talking about this he can't be bothered to address the substance of what he is telling us to reject? That the topic is "stupid" and we should simply trust him on that? I don't think so. He is doing more than that. He is attempting to persuade others to his point of view. Thanks, -Smac Randall is entitled to summarize the interview as he heard/viewed it. If you choose to listen to it, rather than just read snippets, you can form your own opinion. As for me, it seemed clear that it was a personal interview of Prince: his life, experience, testimony, beliefs, and opinions. It was not a discussion of Book of Mormon historicity and I think it's inappropriate to try to judge it against such a standard. He simply offered up his belief paradigm. And I feel that came across quite clearly in listening to the complete interview. What you are describing could occupy its a 4-hour podcast all on its own. 1
churchistrue Posted October 10, 2016 Author Posted October 10, 2016 Smac: I'm probably poorly explaining Prince's view, but I imagine he has a view like the following. Joseph had an encounter with the divine. That's the beginning and end of all the direct intervention God had in the restoration. Joseph was then left to create symbols to help his followers create that same interaction with God he had. The Book of Mormon, LDS doctrine and teachings, LDS church organizational structure and priesthood, etc. All those are symbols Joseph used to help his followers (and us) connect to God. There isn't a need for those symbols to match up with actual, verifiable history and science, even though as part of a naturalistic world, they are couched and defined in those terms. He's using as his building blocks, not necessarily the "anti-Mormon" historical issues related to the Book of Mormon, but Biblical and religious theory in general. The Old Testament is best explained this way. The New Testament is best explained this way. The disciples had some sort of powerful connection with divinity in their encounter with Jesus Christ, but they likely didn't know how how to express it fully, either. And that's why you have NT theology evolving from Mark to John. I think he probably doesn't want to damage faith, but he would probably favor naturalistic explanations for everything outside those brief "encounters" with Deity, that various prophets/scribes/mystics/gurus have had in human history. Joseph Smith and Mormonism excels because of the a) powerful initial experience Joseph had and b) his ability to create symbols that helped his followers gain that same access. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 1 hour ago, James Tunney said: I guess my problem with this line of reasoning is that one could gain a "testimony" based on a religious fraud and that wouldn't matter. For me, this is the essence of the problem for the church and why historicity matters. If J.S. invented his experiences or had an experience but then invented the remainder, I would have a problem with this. Perhaps one has a spiritual experience at a particular church and the church merely acts as a mechanism for the religious experience, but does that justify all the time and money requirements? Does it justify missionary work? If it isn't what it claims, it's hard to ask someone to sacrifice so much. It's a problem for any believer- what your theology is is irrelevant I have asked you before why you believe the bible? To me it sounds like myths and legends- no reasonable person could possibly believe it based on "reason" The problem is not Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon- it is Christianity itself!! What about one man dying- even IF he WAS a God suddenly forgive your sins? Yes of course I believe it but not based on history- but on testimony alone. How do I don't know Christianity is a fraud? The church has sure made a ton of money over 2000 years not to mention the TV Evangelists alone. Ever see some cathedrals in Europe?? And the Nicene Creed? As virtually dictated by Constantine?
churchistrue Posted October 10, 2016 Author Posted October 10, 2016 16 minutes ago, rockpond said: Randall is entitled to summarize the interview as he heard/viewed it. If you choose to listen to it, rather than just read snippets, you can form your own opinion. As for me, it seemed clear that it was a personal interview of Prince: his life, experience, testimony, beliefs, and opinions. It was not a discussion of Book of Mormon historicity and I think it's inappropriate to try to judge it against such a standard. He simply offered up his belief paradigm. And I feel that came across quite clearly in listening to the complete interview. What you are describing could occupy its a 4-hour podcast all on its own. All this came out as answers to Delhin's questions about his faith. So, he was defending his faith in Joseph Smith in these answers. Dehlin wasn't arguing with him coming from a believing standpoint, asking why he doesn't believe in BOM historicity. He was coming at him from a non-believing standpoint, putting him on the defensive why his faith in Joseph was valid. So, that's why Prince didn't go deeper into that. The questions and answers were focused on areas they had in contrast. 1
Gray Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 4 hours ago, churchistrue said: Some of you might have listened to the four hour interview with John Dehlin on Mormon Stories. I wrote up a summary with the key points of the article, addressing this "metaphorical" take on Mormonism. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/greg-prince-on-new-mormonism/ The gist of what Prince is saying is that he believes Joseph had a powerful experience with the divine. And that he had a gift/inspiration in how to share that experience with his followers through a set of symbols: ie Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, priesthood doctrine, etc. None of this should be taken literally, or at least we shouldn't fret about whether or not portions of this can be proven "false" in the literal, historical record. They key is what it does for people that read the scripture and follow the religion. Early criticism of this, is that this view is untenable within Mormonism. The brethren will never go for it. Even if they did, everyone would lose their testimony and leave the church. This brand of Mormonism doesn't have any "staying power". Nothing to convince people it's good to stay and engage with the church. I disagree. This is how I approach the church, and it works for me. Thoughts? I've always been very impressed with Greg Prince, I'll have to check this out. I don't think fundamentalist Mormonism is sustainable in the long term. But it's hard for a lot of people to let go of fundamentalism. It's a security blanket. But I think in the end fundamentalism ends up eating itself. If you read the scriptures literally, you missed the whole thing.
rockpond Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, churchistrue said: All this came out as answers to Delhin's questions about his faith. So, he was defending his faith in Joseph Smith in these answers. Dehlin wasn't arguing with him coming from a believing standpoint, asking why he doesn't believe in BOM historicity. He was coming at him from a non-believing standpoint, putting him on the defensive why his faith in Joseph was valid. So, that's why Prince didn't go deeper into that. The questions and answers were focused on areas they had in contrast. I agree.
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: That's a fair question. I define "truth claims" pretty much the same way Wikipedia does: I tend to think of the LDS Church's "truth claims" as a somewhat narrow set: God exists. God has certain attributes (perfect, benevolent, creative, etc.). God is the Father of our spirits and has a parent/child relationship with us. Jesus Christ is His Son. God has a plan for us, which includes coming to earth to obtain a body, learning and growing, etc. Jesus Christ plays a central part in the above plan, in that He is our Savior and Redeemer. God communicates to His children through the Light of Christ, through the Holy Spirit, and through prophets. Joseph Smith is the founding prophet of this dispensation. The foundational events of the Restoration as described by Joseph Smith (the First Vision and subsequent angelic visitations, the discovery of the Gold Plates and the translation of them, the restoration of the priesthood, the establishment of God's church on the earth, further revelations, etc.) are substantively true. The LDS Church is a preparatory or provisional form of the Kingdom of God, and is as described in D&C 1. The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, and its origins are substantively as described by Joseph Smith, the Witnesses, etc. The priesthood is the power of God and is held in trust on the earth by the Presiding High Priest, Thomas S. Monson, and those who serve with him. I think there is a fair amount of "wiggle room" for how we understand and interpret these truth claims. But outright rejection of one or several them (e.g., the "Inspired Fiction" approach to The Book of Mormon) is, to me, problematic. I don't know what this means. Reasoning, yes. Evidence, yes. The Spirit, yes. Faith, yes. I acknowledge that. But it is not a blind faith. An answer to what? Thanks, -Smac Thanks for your reply Bro Smac! Quote "I don't know what that means" Yep that is the problem, sorry Notice Wikipedia in that article does not define truth, it simply says there are many ways of looking at it and then goes into different religious faiths It does not answer the question I don't think the question can be resolved without a basic understanding of the terms. I feel your arguments against what you call the "inspired fiction" view (which I do NOT hold) are flawed because you do not understand theories of truth, and why proponents of similar views find your posts frustrating and irrelevant to the arguments they are making. Just a point to help your arguments. I would suggest you read articles like these: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_theory_of_truthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth The last is probably the closest to the one I hold. Edited October 10, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
smac97 Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: Randall is entitled to summarize the interview as he heard/viewed it. If you choose to listen to it, rather than just read snippets, you can form your own opinion. Nah. The consensus appears to be that Prince does not meaningfully comment or the historicity issue. Whether through happenstance or deliberation, the four-hour interview just does not cover that topic. I am befuddled by that. I cannot comprehend why someone as informed and intelligent as Prince would choose to A) only give superficial attention to the obvious and important issues arising from his proposal (that we can/should reject/disregard the historicity of The Book of Mormon), and B) ridicule those who focus on one of the key issues of his proposal (the historicity of The Book of Mormon) as acting foolishly ("It’s a hill they’re willing to die on. And I’m sitting there thinking that’s a stupid battle; you missed the whole point."). Nevertheless, that's what he has apparently done. I'm not sufficiently interested in his personal opinions to go wading through four hours of audio to confirm that. If and when Prince commits his thoughts to paper or website, I'd be happy to read it. 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: As for me, it seemed clear that it was a personal interview of Prince: his life, experience, testimony, beliefs, and opinions. It was not a discussion of Book of Mormon historicity and I think it's inappropriate to try to judge it against such a standard. As you like. Again, if and when Prince reduces his thoughts on the subject of historicity to the written word, I'd be happy to read wha the has to say. 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: He simply offered up his belief paradigm. And I feel that came across quite clearly in listening to the complete interview. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. He's not just "offer{ing} up his belief paradigm." I think he's presenting it with the intention of persuading others to accept it. Even churchistrue is presenting it that way (emphases added): Quote Greg Prince, in a podcast interview at Mormon Stories with John Dehlin, articulated what I have referred to as New Mormonism. New, as contrasted to the old version–the fundamentalist type Mormonism that some feel is being proven false by “CES Letter type issues”, ie Book of Mormon historicity, multiple First Vision Accounts, Book of Abraham translation, etc. It’s the brand of Mormonism that Patrick Mason refers to as being the kind of sustainable Mormonism that will endure in the future. ... I highly recommend listening to the podcast interview in entirety. The interview was four hours long, so queue it up on your podcast list for your gym workouts this week. This post will focus on the last half–the portions that deal directly with New Mormonism. ... This is where I see New Mormonism taking the church. There’s no need to defend the unsustainable brand of Mormonism that is vulnerable as historical information comes to light. LDS scholars like Richard Bushman, Patrick Mason, Terryl Givens, and Grant Hardy will take Mormonism to a higher and much firmer plateau. ... Prince feels that some people, specifically Kate Kelly, push too hard at the brethren for change, and it can cause the opposite effect. He promotes a gentler method that assumes positive motivations in the brethren. He sees change happening, though due to bureaucracies involved with leading an organization of 15 million members, that change may not be as rapid as everyone wants. I see three challenges of populating this version of Mormonism. ... 3. Receive endorsement from the brethren and/or local leaders or enough active membership so that members engaging Mormonism under this new paradigm can feel authentic engaging with the church with this belief system. "New Mormonism taking the Church." The Church's position as given by Joseph Smith, as ensconced in the scriptures, as taught by past and present prophets and apostles is an "unsustainable brand" that should not be "defend{ed}." Prince's version of "New Mormonism" will - as churchistrue sees it - require "endorsement from the brethren." So with respect, I'll have to disagree with you when you say that he "simply offered up his belief paradigm." Churchistrue is telling us that Prince is advocating for a new and different "version of Mormonism." And in this version, the Latter-day Saints can/should either reject or disregard the historicity of The Book of Mormon, and that even discussing historicity is "stupid" and "misse{s} the whole point." Thanks, -Smac 1
stemelbow Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 I want to read the Arrington book. I recall reading McKay's biography and really enjoying it. It feels like that was 10 years ago, but I may be off. I liked a lot of what he had to say. I'm pretty much in agreement. Arguing in the face of reality get's too exhausting for me. Accepting that Joseph had an encounter with God and built it from there, never thinking it was ever a finished product as it seems we often want it to be, seems far more pleasing to me.
Gray Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Yeah, I don't believe any particular religion has a corner on the market for internal peace. I'm also not sure that internal peace isn't just as achievable outside religion all together. Thanks, I have some books of Borg, I haven't read yet, but looking forward to it. I liked the interview with Spong because he was so straight forward about some of the challenges inherent in Christian religious thinking. He's a man that has conviction, but he isn't shy about pointing out flaws in religion that are common in our culture today. I loved his interview. Thanks for your blog and what you do. Borg is great. I recently got into Spong, was very impressed with him. I'd also recommend the "Interfaith Amigos".
James Tunney Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: It's a problem for any believer- what your theology is is irrelevant I have asked you before why you believe the bible? To me it sounds like myths and legends- no reasonable person could possibly believe it based on "reason" The problem is not Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon- it is Christianity itself!! What about one man dying- even IF he WAS a God suddenly forgive your sins? Yes of course I believe it but not based on history- but on testimony alone. How do I don't know Christianity is a fraud? The church has sure made a ton of money over 2000 years not to mention the TV Evangelists alone. Ever see some cathedrals in Europe?? And the Nicene Creed? As virtually dictated by Constantine? I don't believe in the bible. I think it's myth just like the book of mormon is myth. For me, a lack of historicity and concluding these works are works of fiction led me out. I guess I wonder how you can make it work.
rockpond Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, Gray said: I've always been very impressed with Greg Prince, I'll have to check this out. I don't think fundamentalist Mormonism is sustainable in the long term. But it's hard for a lot of people to let go of fundamentalism. It's a security blanket. But I think in the end fundamentalism ends up eating itself. If you read the scriptures literally, you missed the whole thing. Large scale adoption of Prince's paradigm is not without significant challenges (you've even got Dehlin, the excommunicated "apostate", pointing that out). But holding to the status quo of the church's current paradigm certainly has significant challenges as well. But if you "stay tuned" through the entire interview, it's clear that Prince really, really wants everyone to stay in the church.
rockpond Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: Nah. The consensus appears to be that Prince does not meaningfully comment or the historicity issue. Whether through happenstance or deliberation, the four-hour interview just does not cover that topic. I am befuddled by that. I cannot comprehend why someone as informed and intelligent as Prince would choose to A) only give superficial attention to the obvious and important issues arising from his proposal (that we can/should reject/disregard the historicity of The Book of Mormon), and B) ridicule those who focus on one of the key issues of his proposal (the historicity of The Book of Mormon) as acting foolishly ("It’s a hill they’re willing to die on. And I’m sitting there thinking that’s a stupid battle; you missed the whole point."). Nevertheless, that's what he has apparently done. I'm not sufficiently interested in his personal opinions to go wading through four hours of audio to confirm that. If and when Prince commits his thoughts to paper or website, I'd be happy to read it. As you like. Again, if and when Prince reduces his thoughts on the subject of historicity to the written word, I'd be happy to read wha the has to say. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. He's not just "offer{ing} up his belief paradigm." I think he's presenting it with the intention of persuading others to accept it. Even churchistrue is presenting it that way (emphases added): "New Mormonism taking the Church." The Church's position as given by Joseph Smith, as ensconced in the scriptures, as taught by past and present prophets and apostles is an "unsustainable brand" that should not be "defend{ed}." Prince's version of "New Mormonism" will - as churchistrue sees it - require "endorsement from the brethren." So with respect, I'll have to disagree with you when you say that he "simply offered up his belief paradigm." Churchistrue is telling us that Prince is advocating for a new and different "version of Mormonism." And in this version, the Latter-day Saints can/should either reject or disregard the historicity of The Book of Mormon, and that even discussing historicity is "stupid" and "misse{s} the whole point." Thanks, -Smac I understand not wanting to go through 4 hours of audio if it isn't something that interests you. But I wish you would consider that the tone, delivery, and context of his "hill they wish to die on" comment is possibly quite different than how you are interpreting it in written, excerpted form. As for the rest, I simply disagree with your characterization of the interview. And I've listened to it. You have not.
hope_for_things Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 16 minutes ago, Gray said: Borg is great. I recently got into Spong, was very impressed with him. I'd also recommend the "Interfaith Amigos". Thanks, I hadn't heard of them before, just watched a TED talk that they gave though, I'm intrigued. 1
James Tunney Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: Large scale adoption of Prince's paradigm is not without significant challenges (you've even got Dehlin, the excommunicated "apostate", pointing that out). But holding to the status quo of the church's current paradigm certainly has significant challenges as well. But if you "stay tuned" through the entire interview, it's clear that Prince really, really wants everyone to stay in the church. He does want people to stay and I think he is really trying to give people who don't believe in historicity a way to do so. However, I think the church would have to basically discount almost everything Joseph Smith did and said in order to get to where Mr. Prince is. Joseph Smith was a literalist in many things that have been proven to not be the case. One would have to basically use the "speaking as a man" justification on almost everything for Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and the rest for that matter.
Recommended Posts