Greg Prince and metaphorical Mormonism

[Johnnie Cake]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Meh...the Church will maintain just fine with an inspired fiction model option.  Indeed, many Mormons hold to such a model and aren't sent packing, even if some have been sent packing.  The Church still goes. 

When a Mormon first thought, "huh...maybe the flood wasn't worldwide, maybe it wasn't at all...maybe it was just myth turned to scripture at some point", according to your thought, the Church would be gone today.  But there's plenty of room to read scripture as not literal history and still get meaning and purpose out of it.  Some might argue there is plenty more to get out of it if read in such a way. 

But Stemelbow, isn't that due to the fact that the church hasn't formally embraced the inspired fiction model? Can you imagine the fallout and implications were that to happen?  NO the church has no option but to continue down its current path.  A historical BoM model is the Hill the church will die on...while still allowing those on the fringe who require a more liberal viewpoint to remain as long as they don't speak up or share their points of view publically...at least that's what happened to me...my SP told me to keep quiet and not speak to anyone or else....well I chose the "or else option"

As long as the church takes no official stance..(irrespective of the evidence) there will always be wiggle room for multiple viewpoints

[Johnnie Cake]

20 minutes ago, cdowis said:

The choice is simple = accept the eyewitness account or reject it.  But in either case, the existence of witnesses is not metaphorical.  The individuasl who identify themselves as eyewitnesses exist in reality whether you accept their testimony or not.

Keep in mind that the so called witnesses didn't even write the statement that their names were printed beneath...Joseph wrote it

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I was saddened when Prince talked about both Juanita Brooks and Lester Bush and how he mentioned they were both shunned.  Both pioneering, it seems to me, ways to view tough topics which as it turns out the Church by and large accepts today.   I could imagine it.  Introducing new ways to approach difficult topics in the Church often brings some level of panic which often results in lashing out by many members. 

I think that's what comes here.  People in the Church hate the notion that a fellow member sitting amongst them thinks that the BoM is not good history, and may by and large represent scripture based on fictional stories. 

Yep... it's sad but I think that's the pattern.  Look at the September Six.  With where we have progressed today, would their writings even put them on the radar for discipline in present time?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

You're probably right.  Legal reasons surely didn't have anything to do with it because they would never do that.  It's old thinking for sure.  Also, the people I know who were silenced for informing other members about the essays during church - this was probably had something to do with some other reason.

I take it that you are not being sarcastic, and I suppose that "other reason" would probably be unrighteous dominion -- in which some busybody, who basically hates Joseph Smith's version of Mormonism, decides to persecute anyone who dares to follow the authentic LDS faith.  The places I have been in the LDS community always include members who would not tolerate that sort of humbug.

As to silencing, that is a term which I only find used in the old RLDS tradition -- where holders of priesthood are formally "silenced."  Do you come from the RLDS tradition, James?

[cdowis]

12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Keep in mind that the so called witnesses didn't even write the statement that their names were printed beneath...Joseph wrote it

Yawn.  

Edited October 11, 2016 by cdowis

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

But Stemelbow, isn't that due to the fact that the church hasn't formally embraced the inspired fiction model? Can you imagine the fallout and implications were that to happen?  NO the church has no option but to continue down its current path.  A historical BoM model is the Hill the church will die on...while still allowing those on the fringe who require a more liberal viewpoint to remain as long as they don't speak up or share their points of view publically...at least that's what happened to me...my SP told me to keep quiet and not speak to anyone or else....well I chose the "or else option"

As long as the church takes no official stance..(irrespective of the evidence) there will always be wiggle room for multiple viewpoints

I'd say every member is on the spectrum of seeing some level of scripture stories as metaphorical and thus most often fiction.  One end of the spectrum being every part of the scriptures are fiction while the other end sees everything found in the scriptures as literal.  I was a bit surprised some years ago when in Gospel Doctrine an older gentleman who I'd had thought was the epitome of a literal believer in the scriptures said, "it's not as if Jonah was really swallowed by a whale.  That's just a story set to teach us something..."  and he went on to explain what it taught us.  Someday someone might likely say, "it's not like there was some small band of people who came from Jerusalem and formed two mighty nations in a few short years.  Their story and journey were written to teach us something..."  That won't hurt the Church in my view.  It'll show we're in a more healthy place. 

As for your case, I'm sorry to hear it.  I know many leaders get carried away and if they didn't get the impression that they had to be so legalistic about it, they probably wouldn't be.  But as it is, much is just left to them to decide.  Ignorance fuels fear and in my view the leaders most fearful of members' views are the most ignorant regarding where they are coming from.  It's a problem we have to learn to face, more and more. 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I have to say that seems the opposite of accommodating an inspired fictional model.  People up and leave often, it seems, not because they make room for the inspired fiction model but because they can't make it work when compared to the teaching that they must accept the literal model.  Maybe with more acceptance of a inspired fictional model less will feel compelled to leave. 

Maybe people are leaving and folks like me leave because the dichotomy set up by those less tolerant is unbearable.  Instead of seeing people leaving as the problem, maybe the problem is a lack of openness and acceptance? 

I think people are leaving for both reasons (some can't accept the Church's teachings regarding the origins of The Book of Mormon, some adopt the "inspired fiction" approach and find that its underlying reasoning eviscerates far more of the doctrines of the Church than just Joseph Smith's narrative about the origins of The Book of Mormon).  

And yes, some people in this second category leave because they do not feel "welcome" in a Church that teaches something they have rejected.  Some of that estrangement will be self-inflicted.  I have a good personal friend who has done precisely this.  He has not encountered any mistreatment for his doctrinal views, but he has left the Church anyway because he cannot square his rejection of the Church's teachings with maintaining activity in the Church.

And yes, some of this estrangement will be inflicted by other Latter-day Saints.  That is something we need to work on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep... it's sad but I think that's the pattern.  Look at the September Six.  With where we have progressed today, would their writings even put them on the radar for discipline in present time?

Sure.  I'd say hopefully the Church is taking these experiences as lessons.  It'll be interesting if in 20 years from now we look back at the notable excommunications of our day as egregious errors of past leaders. 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  I'd say hopefully the Church is taking these experiences as lessons.  It'll be interesting if in 20 years from now we look back at the notable excommunications of our day as egregious errors of past leaders. 

Yeah... when gay marriages are accepted and women have the priesthood, the excommunications of Kelly and Dehlin will look odd.

[Jeanne]

Excommunications of the Sept. Six year ago..seems so odd to me now.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I was saddened when Prince talked about both Juanita Brooks and Lester Bush and how he mentioned they were both shunned.  Both pioneering, it seems to me, ways to view tough topics which as it turns out the Church by and large accepts today.   I could imagine it.  Introducing new ways to approach difficult topics in the Church often brings some level of panic which often results in lashing out by many members. 

I think that's what comes here.  People in the Church hate the notion that a fellow member sitting amongst them thinks that the BoM is not good history, and may by and large represent scripture based on fictional stories. 

I'm saddened too, but I think this is common throughout human history.  Pioneers that push the status quo in whatever discipline, usually get a lot of push back.  Grateful for those who had the courage to do the right thing, whether in this church or outside it. 

[Kenngo1969]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Please pardon me, but I'm not holding my breath, on the edge of my seat, with 'bated breath, all aquiver, waiting for the Lord to call Greg Prince or any of his like-minded fellows as one of His Prophets, Seers, and Revelators!  

 

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

Doesn't religious history show us that it's usually NOT the establishment that leads us into the next dispensation?

 

13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Huh.   I thought we were living in the dispensation of the fullness of times.   Apparently, you know something I don't.

 

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

Maybe we don't refer to it as a dispensation, but aren't we waiting for one more big change?  (Second coming?)

Sooo ... you're positing that the Second Coming possibly is a "dispensation" in which the foundational events of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including physical experiences with tangible objects purporting to be from Book-of-Mormon times, as well as interactions with actual people purporting to be from those times, somehow will be "revealed" to have been, in some way, "metaphorically true"?

Mmm-kay.  To each, his or her own, I suppose.  When I was a boy, I loved, loved, loved such stories as Sylvester and the Magic Rock, Clifford, The Big, Red Dog, and Green Eggs and Ham and other Seussian tales. When I got a little older, I felt much the same way about The Hardy Boys Mysteries.  (Heck, to this day, I wouldn't mind losing myself within the pages of one or more of the last-named works: notwithstanding its readily-apparent character as fiction to my adult mind, Joe's and Frank's adventures beat my excruciatingly boring real life all to heck!)  

My fondness for these stories notwithstanding, however, and as much as I loved escaping into the worlds these authors created, The Book of Mormon is altogether different.  To me, its power is derived from the fact that, yep, there really was a mortal named Nephi with two (exceedingly annoying) older brothers; yep, there really was a Moroni who was faced with the unenviable tasks of chronicling the tragic downfall of his people, of protecting the voluminous records entrusted to him, and of saving his own skin until he could finish and hide his abridgment where, hopefully, it wouldn't be found by anyone before Joseph Smith found it; and so on.  See, e.g.:

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/encouragement-from-those-in-the-scriptures/

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/joseph-moroni-me/

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

No, that's not what I am positing.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

LDS Church is pretty much just a group of likeminded people trying to do good things.

This is true.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It has no credible claim as far as facilitating my relationship with God

This is false.  

The problem is with the way you conflate things.  Yes, the LDS church is a group of likeminded people trying to do go things.  If I were channeling President Hinckley, I would say, "Isn't that wonderful".  

It can also facilitate our relationship with God, how great is that.  But facilitate doesn't mean to control or govern.  It just means that the church can be a conduit, it can help to provide us with tools and environments and structures to facilitate a relationship with God.  The relationship with God is the end goal, not membership in the facilitating structure.  People get these things too confused and put church membership which is just as a facilitator, in front of the God relationship.  

[champatsch]

What are Prince's underlying assumptions about Joseph Smith producing the text of the Book of Mormon in 1829? Does Prince think that JS was responsible for the wording of the text?

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  I'd say hopefully the Church is taking these experiences as lessons.  It'll be interesting if in 20 years from now we look back at the notable excommunications of our day as egregious errors of past leaders. 

In order to understand your prediction, tell us specifically who decides to hold an excommunication hearing  == the First Presidency, the Q of the 12, the PR department?  Who makes that decision, the "leader who will hopefully learn from the past egregious errors".

It appears that you think this whole thing comes from the top, from Salt Lake admin building.

Edited October 11, 2016 by cdowis

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, champatsch said:

What are Prince's underlying assumptions about Joseph Smith producing the text of the Book of Mormon in 1829? Does Prince think that JS was responsible for the wording of the text?

I don't recall him addressing that.

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, cdowis said:

In order to understand your prediction, tell us specifically who decides to hold an excommunication hearing  == the First Presidency, the Q of the 12, the PR department?  Who makes that decision, the "leader who will hopefully learn from the past egregious errors".

It appears that you think this whole thing comes from the top, from Salt Lake admin building.

Fair enough.  I think it likely the Sept 6 had some press from the top.  Dehlin seemed to.  Kate Kelly seemed to.  It happens.  Not all the time of course.  Normally, I'd guess it's local leaders pushing it. 

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, champatsch said:

What are Prince's underlying assumptions about Joseph Smith producing the text of the Book of Mormon in 1829? Does Prince think that JS was responsible for the wording of the text?

He compares it to a Midrash.  I don't think he has any alternative theories about the text coming from someone else, aka a the Spalding theory.  

[James Tunney]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

There is no legal risk for any church to teach any doctrine it chooses - at least not in the US. 

Not now. But it could change and this is what i think the religious freedom movement is about, at least in part.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Not now. But it could change and this is what i think the religious freedom movement is about, at least in part.

Yeah... it could change, we need to be vigilant.  Fortunately, we're still seeing the Supreme Court decide in favor of religious freedom.

[cdowis]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Fair enough.  I think it likely the Sept 6 had some press from the top.  Dehlin seemed to.  Kate Kelly seemed to.  It happens.  Not all the time of course.  Normally, I'd guess it's local leaders pushing it. 

I understand that there is a group from HQ that provides information to the local leaders about the activities of interest of specific individuals.  The local leaders then decide what to do with the information.

Edited October 11, 2016 by cdowis

[James Tunney]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I take it that you are not being sarcastic, and I suppose that "other reason" would probably be unrighteous dominion -- in which some busybody, who basically hates Joseph Smith's version of Mormonism, decides to persecute anyone who dares to follow the authentic LDS faith.  The places I have been in the LDS community always include members who would not tolerate that sort of humbug.

As to silencing, that is a term which I only find used in the old RLDS tradition -- where holders of priesthood are formally "silenced."  Do you come from the RLDS tradition, James?

This is why it is sometimes maddening in attempting to have a conversation on this board - the endless changing of definitions.

Maybe we should start out by having an agreement to define words a certain way prior to engaging? How about we define "translation" for starters?

Anyway, one person i know was threatened with a church court for inviting members to look at the essays on LDS.org. The bishop asked him to stop speaking about the issue (obviously not silencing?) and then he was referred to the stake president for several meetings where the subject of a church court was broached - i mean court of love, right?

Maybe it's just a rogue stake president and rogue bishop doing this but there are other anecdotes of which i am aware. But of course this would never happen in the first place and i must be mistaken, right?

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Not now. But it could change and this is what i think the religious freedom movement is about, at least in part.

The religious freedom movement is largely a chicken little situation, IMO. At least within the boundaries of the US. 

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

What are Prince's underlying assumptions about Joseph Smith producing the text of the Book of Mormon in 1829? Does Prince think that JS was responsible for the wording of the text?

He didn't address that directly, but I would assume yes.