Patrick Mason on Mormon Stories

[Kenngo1969]

On 10/1/2022 at 3:20 PM, Teancum said:

... If BY really instituted the priesthood ban and that was not of God that is a BIG mistake  that took 140 years to fix.  His successors seemed oblivious. ...

All of them?  I don't know that President David O. McKay was "oblivious," and I doubt President Spencer W. Kimball was, otherwise we wouldn't have OD-2.

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Do you think the GAs have the same sentiments you reflect above?

I don't know, though a part of the reason I find Mason more appealing the the Q15 is because I can see from things like this that Mason does reflect these sentiments. Part of my estrangement from the Q15 is that I'm not sure how they feel about heterodox beliefs, and some of what they say suggests they are not very thrilled by people claiming to be good members who hold heterodox beliefs. Part of me wonders if that estrangement will continue to grow until I decide to disaffiliate, and I'm not sure the Q15 would be worried about my disaffiliation (beyond the obvious "I'm a very small fish in a very big pond").

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

So what do you make of this statement by Elder Renlund at GC this past weekend:

This is one of those times when I really wish there was a more open feedback mechanism for getting clarification from what the Q15 says, because I would like to better understand exactly what Elder Renlund means by this. IMO, this kind of statement is what makes us a conservative (small "c" meaning prefers old traditions over new changes) church. Being conservative means that changes (like the repeal of the priesthood and temple ban) take longer (often a lot longer) than seems necessary. One history (I believe it was one of Ed Kimball's) claimed that, before the '40s, the brethren had not even considered the possibility that there was something wrong with the priesthood ban. G. A. Smith's letter (whatever his intentions for dissemination were) seems to agree with Elder Renlund's statement that we have already received revelation and we should continue under the old revelation without actively seeking new revelation. It took 1 to decades for Pres. McKay to get to the point of asking and allegedly being told "no" by God without further explanation. For some reason J. F. Smith and H. B. Lee seemed content with the current state of revelation, leaving it to Pres. Kimball (who allegedly claimed that his successor would be unwilling to consider change) to seriously consider whether new revelation was needed, and then receive it. I know it's a pure hypothetical, but I cannot help but wonder how much sooner could we have received that revelation if we had been less "God doesn't want us to seek new revelation on something He has already provided revelation on" and more "Are we sure we have fully understood God's prior revelations (or even asked ourselves if stuff attributed to God might not be from God), because maybe we don't know or understand things as clearly as we think we do." I would really be interested in Elder Renlund's take on that example, which is a bit beyond (and a lot more nuanced than) the relatively simple examples he used in his talk. But there is not feedback mechanism, so I can only ask these questions in anonymous open forums like this one.

[CV75]

19 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@CV75 The idea of loyalty superseding lack of testimony comes from the Be One Celebration in 2018, when Pres. Oaks said that he never received a testimony of the (now disavowed) reasons for the priesthood and temple ban, but he determined to be loyal to the brethren. I infer that this loyalty includes not speaking of one's lack of testimony because I am not aware of anything said by Pres. Oaks before '78 (or 2013 when the Race and the Priesthood essay came out or even 2018) expressing his lack of testimony. There's a lot that goes into the history of race and the priesthood, but it sure seems like there was very little tolerance for contrary opinions about racial issues during many of those years.

President Oaks' full remarks from the LDS Church's 'Be One' celebration - Church News (thechurchnews.com)

“I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray — as promised from the beginning of these restrictions — that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple.”

He says he observed, studied, and could not feel the truth of reasons for the ban then given. He learned that the Lord rarely gives reasons -- and from this I infer that he concluded the reasons given were human rationale. He learned that the Lord gives commandments and directions to his servants – and from this I infer that believed the ban was commanded or directed. Integrating these two inferences, it seems he determined to be loyal to these fallible servants and a God who rarely explains, and not leverage his empathy and longing for others, or his harbored questions, into criticism of either.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Can you provide specifics?

Not off of the top of my head.  

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Teancum said:

Your are totally ignoring the points I have been making.  You like others have invented your own Mormonism, restored gospel, or whatever you want to call it. If it works for you more power to you but it is not the Mormonism the authorities teach.  Nor is Patrick Mason's.

We all invent our own interpretation, only some of us assume it is the same as others. 

I have never had a teacher, leader, bishop, SP, fellow FAIR member chide me for believing false doctrine. The few people who have called me out for believing a “different gospel” have generally been former members, former believers. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by Calm

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Not off of the top of my head.  

So the women in your RS group are all "nuanced" and not "orthodox" but you have no examples? 🤔

Edited October 3, 2022 by Teancum

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So the women in your RS group are all "nuanced" and not "orthodox" but you have no examples? 🤔

You can believe that I'm making it up or that I'm telling the truth.  It doesn't really matter either way.

 

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

You can believe that I'm making it up or that I'm telling the truth.  It doesn't really matter either way.

 

 

We often imo don’t pay close attention to the nuances of others once we have decided they are not in conflict with our own views (think of the views as being in the same neighborhood, but not the same house).  I think this is why so much miscommunication happens…once we make the judgment we are on the same page or at least in the same book, we assume everything that is said is the same way and automatically fill in or rewrite info that is potentially contrary.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

You can believe that I'm making it up or that I'm telling the truth.  It doesn't really matter either way.

 

 

 All I asked for were some specifics. I would have thought it would have been easy for you given your comment.🤥

Edited October 4, 2022 by Teancum

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

We often imo don’t pay close attention to the nuances of others once we have decided they are not in conflict with our own views (think of the views as being in the same neighborhood, but not the same house).  I think this is why so much miscommunication happens…once we make the judgment we are on the same page or at least in the same book, we assume everything that is said is the same way and automatically fill in or rewrite info that is potentially contrary.

I gave some fairly stark examples from Mason.  Do you run into these in your RS group in your ward?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

 All I asked for were some specifics. I would have thought it would have been easy for you given your comment.🤥

I understand why you would ask but why assume I’m lying because I can’t remember specifics on the spot?

I don’t take notes in RS when sisters share stuff. It doesn’t happen every class, and not all women share stuff anyway.  Neither do we all view things the same way.  But I do know that I wouldn’t be concerned about sharing my “made up version of Mormonism” in RS for fear of causing an uproar. I wouldn’t be concerned because of previous thoughts shared in class by other sisters that have lead me to believe my views are not substantially different.

Likewise, BD (though you’ve also accused her of having her own version of Mormonism) has never shared anything on here that I think would create any waves in a church class, either.

Same with the stuff that Cal has shared.  

But if I was going to lie about that, I’d just make up examples from my RS class and post them.  It’s not like you’d know either way.

So you can believe of me whatever you want.

Edited October 4, 2022 by bluebell

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I understand why you would ask but why assume I’m lying because I can’t remember specifics on the spot?

I do not think I accused you of  lying.  I said:

 

Quote

So the women in your RS group are all "nuanced" and not "orthodox" but you have no examples?

 

So I just was surprised you had no example since you said they were all "nuanced." 

 

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don’t take notes in RS when sisters share stuff. It doesn’t happen every class, and not all women share stuff anyway.  Neither do we all view things the same way.  But I do know that I wouldn’t be concerned about sharing my “made up version of Mormonism” in RS for fear of causing an uproar. I wouldn’t be concerned because of previous thoughts shared in class by other sisters that have lead me to believe my views are not substantially different.

Likewise, BD (though you’ve also accused her of having her own version of Mormonism) has never shared anything on here that I think would create any waves in a church class, either.

Same with the stuff that Cal has shared.  

But if I was going to lie about that, I’d just make up examples from my RS class and post them.  It’s not like you’d know either way.

So you can believe of me whatever you want.

I did not accuse you of lying. Please drop that accusation. I was just surprised because you seemed to insist there were a lot of unorthodox views in your RS group.  So I asked what they were. And  I was looking along the lines of larger issues like the BoM is not an actual account of real people, JS put a lot of his own ideas into the book, JS sinned with plural marriage, D&C 132 is not scripture or should be removed, etc.  It would seem such examples would be recalled.

 

You can bristle if you want over my position that you, Cal, etc may have your own  version of Mormonism.  But unless you can show me where the authorities agree with such views I don't view it as official Mormonism.  Nor do I think Mason's view on a number of issues represent what the authorities teach.  Till then it is simply his views and not that of the Church leadership. And they are the ones that seet do doctrine and policy.

[Rain]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I do not think I accused you of  lying.  I said:

 

 

So I just was surprised you had no example since you said they were all "nuanced." 

 

 

I did not accuse you of lying. Please drop that accusation. I was just surprised because you seemed to insist there were a lot of unorthodox views in your RS group.  So I asked what they were. And  I was looking along the lines of larger issues like the BoM is not an actual account of real people, JS put a lot of his own ideas into the book, JS sinned with plural marriage, D&C 132 is not scripture or should be removed, etc.  It would seem such examples would be recalled.

 

You can bristle if you want over my position that you, Cal, etc may have your own  version of Mormonism.  But unless you can show me where the authorities agree with such views I don't view it as official Mormonism.  Nor do I think Mason's view on a number of issues represent what the authorities teach.  Till then it is simply his views and not that of the Church leadership. And they are the ones that seet do doctrine and policy.

I think it depends on the ward/stake you are in.  I have never been in such a conservative of a ward or stake as I am now.  There are some real feathers ruffled sometimes when you bring some things up, but I know from experience that if I say something about much less controversial things I always have someone show appreciation later.

I used to think my stake president was like this.  There are so many things he has said over the years including telling us in ward conference that we will most likely need to bring guns to church in the future to keep us safe.  But my husband is now on the high council and we are finding through that association  the SP is more open to things than we expected.

I also know 2 of my friends have been given temple reccomends even though 1 drinks coffee and 1 drinks coffee/wine. They did tell those giving the interviews. Maybe they were told to give those things up, but they didn't share those parts?  I don't know.

But I do think that many more people have more nuanced views than might be expected and where we are will depend on how open that is.   

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I do not think I accused you of  lying.  I said:

 

 

So I just was surprised you had no example since you said they were all "nuanced." 

 

 

I did not accuse you of lying. Please drop that accusation. I was just surprised because you seemed to insist there were a lot of unorthodox views in your RS group.  So I asked what they were. And  I was looking along the lines of larger issues like the BoM is not an actual account of real people, JS put a lot of his own ideas into the book, JS sinned with plural marriage, D&C 132 is not scripture or should be removed, etc.  It would seem such examples would be recalled.

 

You can bristle if you want over my position that you, Cal, etc may have your own  version of Mormonism.  But unless you can show me where the authorities agree with such views I don't view it as official Mormonism.  Nor do I think Mason's view on a number of issues represent what the authorities teach.  Till then it is simply his views and not that of the Church leadership. And they are the ones that seet do doctrine and policy.

So you didn’t accuse me of lying but used the emoji with the growing nose because…..you thought it was cute and you’ve never seen Pinocchio?  

 

[Teancum]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So you didn’t accuse me of lying but used the emoji with the growing nose because…..you thought it was cute and you’ve never seen Pinocchio?  

 

Honestly I did not realize that was a growing nose emoji.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I think it depends on the ward/stake you are in.  I have never been in such a conservative of a ward or stake as I am now.  There are some real feathers ruffled sometimes when you bring some things up, but I know from experience that if I say something about much less controversial things I always have someone show appreciation later.

I used to think my stake president was like this.  There are so many things he has said over the years including telling us in ward conference that we will most likely need to bring guns to church in the future to keep us safe.  But my husband is now on the high council and we are finding through that association  the SP is more open to things than we expected.

I also know 2 of my friends have been given temple reccomends even though 1 drinks coffee and 1 drinks coffee/wine. They did tell those giving the interviews. Maybe they were told to give those things up, but they didn't share those parts?  I don't know.

But I do think that many more people have more nuanced views than might be expected and where we are will depend on how open that is.   

My ward is kind of odd because it's in Utah and in a conservative area but the biggest "cringe" statements that we get (in SS at least) are from the ultra orthodox members.  They are the ones constantly trying to tie the BOM to our current political situation in every comment or going off about the evils of this belief or that belief, and those have been the only times that I've ever seen (and I definitely might have missed other stuff because I wasn't looking in the right place when it happened) where a member of the bishopric almost stood up to get the person to stop talking.

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Honestly I did not realize that was a growing nose emoji.

That, combined with the "hmmm that seems questionable" emoji that you used in your first response to me, impacted my interpretation of your posts.  I apologize if I misunderstood.

[MustardSeed]

I will state that religious beliefs are very nuanced IMO.  We are ALL living our personal versions of Mormonism if that’s how we wanna say it, we are all living our versions of “contributing members” of any group we are a part of. 

My siblings share similar sentiments with me about our first family, but we all have nuanced viewpoints because we are all different human beings.  
 

I deeply dislike when my husband, or my family, or my clients or other members/ex members tell me what I believe.  None of us know ANYTHING for absolute surety.  You work out your path, I’m working out mine. And If you really wanna know what I believe ask me. Don’t make assumptions based on my drivers license or my temple recommend, or lack of. 
IMO. 

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I will state that religious beliefs are very nuanced IMO.  We are ALL living our personal versions of Mormonism if that’s how we wanna say it, we are all living our versions of “contributing members” of any group we are a part of. 

My siblings share similar sentiments with me about our first family, but we all have nuanced viewpoints because we are all different human beings.  
 

I deeply dislike when my husband, or my family, or my clients or other members/ex members tell me what I believe.  None of us know ANYTHING for absolute surety.  You work out your path, I’m working out mine. And If you really wanna know what I believe ask me. Don’t make assumptions based on my drivers license or my temple recommend, or lack of. 
IMO. 

The family is a good analogy.  Siblings often have different views of what their family life was like, though they all came from the same home and were raised by the same parents.  Likewise, parents likely did things differently over time, affecting each child in different ways.

I know that I'm not raising my 8 and 9 year olds the same way that I raised my 20 year old, though many things are still the same, and my general beliefs have not changed.  

[Rain]

36 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I will state that religious beliefs are very nuanced IMO.  We are ALL living our personal versions of Mormonism if that’s how we wanna say it, we are all living our versions of “contributing members” of any group we are a part of. 

My siblings share similar sentiments with me about our first family, but we all have nuanced viewpoints because we are all different human beings.  
 

I deeply dislike when my husband, or my family, or my clients or other members/ex members tell me what I believe.  None of us know ANYTHING for absolute surety.  You work out your path, I’m working out mine. And If you really wanna know what I believe ask me. Don’t make assumptions based on my drivers license or my temple recommend, or lack of. 
IMO. 

This is so true it makes me laugh.  Politically some people think I am exactly like they are - on both sides!  

[Tacenda]

Speaking of nuance, I play pickleball with a group of women weekly and they are very active believing members. One was tired of the latest thing with children being able to choose their sex. We all agreed it wasn't good to introduce the idea at that young age. Let them figure it out in their older years. Not when they're three, for crying out loud.

The one mentioned that her toddler grandson wanted painted fingernails and she told him, "Boys don't wear nail polish!". And she was pretty stern, to me I think she went over board and out of all the women, I thought she would be more liberal, apparently not, she's the gal that accidentally swears, damn or hell, which she'll do sometimes, this other gal doesn't like it, but during our conversation walking to our cars the gal that seemed strict about swearing brought up that she's very empathetic of the LGBTQ out there and supported them when they decide for themselves when they were past adolescence, because in adolescence even heterosexuals could be turned on by the same sex without them being LGBTQ.

I was pleasantly surprised that she was open for that, she mentioned members in her family are LGBTQ and I shared that it was the same with with my extended family. Her husband is on the High Council too. So I'm thinking she is a huge helper overall not a harmful person. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by Tacenda

[Rain]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The family is a good analogy.  Siblings often have different views of what their family life was like, though they all came from the same home and were raised by the same parents.  Likewise, parents likely did things differently over time, affecting each child in different ways.

I know that I'm not raising my 8 and 9 year olds the same way that I raised my 20 year old, though many things are still the same, and my general beliefs have not changed.  

My siblings have some drastically different views of our parents! 

Edited October 4, 2022 by Rain

[Calm]

Back when I was in college, the most conservative, traditional, dogmatic (at least in my view) member of the ward became bishop of my home ward.  I had known him for 6 years by that time.  He and his family were very active, always giving their testimonies on the first Sunday, giving talks, etc and his son was my age, so I got some insight into how he raised his kids.  I thought the ward was in for a strict time, lots of scolding, talks about wearing church dress for the full Sabbath, no watching TV, no caffeine, etc.  I was quite worried about my mom’s friend who was in the process of converting as he was an astrologer and I was certain the bishop would be calling him to repentance for pushing a devil inspired practice and insisting if he wanted to be baptized, he would need to find a new job and requiring him to swear off using the practice altogether, burn his books essentially.  Well, apparently the bishop was quite sweet about it, asked sincere questions and eventually told my mom’s friend he could continue after baptism to practice as long as he avoided any fortune telling, but instead just used astrology as a therapeutic tool for self reflection.  I was shocked that bishop was willing to view astrology as functioning like a Rorschach test more or less, helping people open up and talk about themselves, their hopes, their issues.  It never occurred to me that he wouldn’t use his perceived power as a leader to try and dictate to others even what they should believe.  There was some other stuff the bishop did, not as drastic, but enlightening about what kind of believer he really was, and it wasn’t the bullet point checklist of traditional ideas I expected from the way he had previously expressed himself.  If that man can have a nuanced view, I figure anyone and everyone in the Church likely has one as well.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

That, combined with the "hmmm that seems questionable" emoji that you used in your first response to me, impacted my interpretation of your posts.  I apologize if I misunderstood.

No problem.  Sound like I contributed to the misunderstanding.

[smac97]

On 10/1/2022 at 6:51 AM, Teancum said:

I finished the three episodes of the Dehlin interview of Patrick Mason.  I mostly enjoyed them.  Patrick seems like a great fellow, genuine, sincere and an all around nice and decent person.  I may get a book or two that he has written.  For those who have read his books which two would you recommend first?

On another note, while I enjoyed the podcasts I do feel that Patrick has molded Mormonism in many ways to is own personal views in order to make it work for him. 

I think pretty much everyone does that to one extent or another, including critics.

On 10/1/2022 at 6:51 AM, Teancum said:

Maybe that is fine for him. And maybe it bugs me to much because I did try to do that for quite sometime but for me it did not seem honest.

I'm not sure if this is a question of honesty.  Reasonable people can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things, and still be generally "honest."  The issue is, I think, less about "honesty" and more about presuppositions one brings with them and uses them as the "lens" through which the evidence is viewed.

On 10/1/2022 at 6:51 AM, Teancum said:

I also wonder how many believers here would agree with his nuanced views.  Here is a list with time stamps.  Not all are his beliefs.  Some are just things going on with him.  I would appreciate it if some of the believer could opine on some of these positions.  Are they tenable?  Do you agree with them personally, etc. 

1. General authorities know what Mason does. (1:29)

Sure.  Some of them, I suspect, know more than "what Mason does."

2. Mason says that banning Blacks from the priesthood was a sin on Brigham Young’s part. (1:30)

 

Too conclusory, I think.  I think we can say that there is no known revelatory provenance for the priesthood restriction.  Nothing in the records of the Church.  Mason, though, goes beyond that and labels it as a "sin."

 

3. Unnamed high-ranking general authority tells Mason that Mason will not be stopped from giving firesides declaring that banning Blacks was a sin. (1:31)

 

I tend to be a bit skeptical about quotes from anonymous "high-ranking general authorit{ies}."  That said, I don't see this as particularly noteworthy.  I also think that Mason is seen as someone who is trying to grapple with the history of the Church honestly.  I think it is kinda weird for a historian to declare this or that a "sin," particularly where there is no stewardship in view.

 

4. Deseret Book published Mason’s book “Planted” in which Mason says that Brigham Young sinned with the priesthood ban. (1:33)

 

I would like to see the precise quote in the book.

 

5. Mason says that the Church should apologize (for racism, sexism, etcetera). (1:44)

 

Plenty of people think that.  Plenty of people think otherwise, and plenty of others don't care one way or another.  I think Mason, being an academic, is perhaps influenced by prevailing social/academic trends, a big one of which is the imputation of collective guilt, and the concomitant call for collective apologies.

 

6. Mason says that members should be allowed to criticize the leaders (though it shouldn’t be personal and should be done with a spirit of love and by giving the benefit of the doubt). (1:51)

 

The devil is in the details here.  I think the best approach was laid out by Pres. Oaks in his 1987 article, "Criticism."  To the extent Mason varies from Pres. Oaks, I'll go with the latter.  

 

7. Mason says that Elder Holland was wrong to give his talk at BYU encouraging faculty to take up metaphysical muskets to defend the Church. (1:54)

 

Meh.  I think the histrionics about this were way overdone, to the point of absurdity.  Including on this very board (see, e.g., here, here, here, here).

 

 

8. Mason says that the work of addressing difficult specific problems in Church doctrine and history has not been sufficient. (2:03)

 

Pretty subjective, this.  And conclusory.  In contrast, consider these remarks by Richard L. Bushman:

 

Quote

I have been using the phrase “reconstruct the narrative” in recent talks because that is exactly what the Church is doing right now.  The Joseph Smith Papers offer a reconstructed narrative, so do some of the “Gospel Topics” essays.  The short First Vision film in the Church Museum of History mentions six accounts of Joseph’s experience and draws on all of them.  That is all reconstructing the narrative.  I got the phrase from a young woman who reported that she and her husband had both been through faith crises.  She had come back; he had remained alienated.  But both of them had to reconstruct the narrative.  We have to include, for example, the fact that that the first words to Joseph in the First Vision were:  “Your sins are forgiven.”  That makes us look again at his life and realize how important a part forgiveness played.  Similarly, we now have assimilated seer stones into the translation story.  A picture of a seer stone now appears in the Church History Museum display.  That would not have happened even five years ago.  The list goes on and on.

I consider Rough Stone Rolling a reconstructed narrative.  It was shocking to some people.  They could not bear to have the old story disrupted in any way.  What I was getting at in the quoted passage is that we must be willing to modify the account according to newly authenticated facts.  If we don’t we will weaken our position.  Unfortunately, not everyone can adjust to this new material.  Many think they were deceived and the church was lying.  That is not a fair judgment in my opinion.  The whole church, from top to bottom, has had to adjust to the findings of our historians.  We are all having to reconstruct.   In my opinion, nothing in the new material overturns the basic thrust of the story.  I still believe in gold plates.  I don’t think Joseph Smith could have dictated the Book of Mormon text without inspiration.  I think he was sincere in saying he saw God.  The glimpse Joseph Smith gives us of divine interest in humankind is still a source of hope in an unbelieving world.

And here:

Quote

Shortly thereafter Dr. Bushman copied me on correspondence to third parties in which he states

• A) that the "dominant narrative" quote has been used to imply that he has lost confidence in the basic history of the Church,
• B) that he was correcting that suggestion,
• C) that the statement does not accurately convey his belief or what he intended to say,
• D) that he meant that errors had crept into the accounting of the Church's early history and needed to be straightened out, and
• E) that the Church has "'reconstructed the narrative'" by publishing Saints.

And here (someone responding to John Dehlin's characterization of Bushman) :

Of the two, I think Bushman's assessment is more substantive and accurate.

9. Mason says that the first nine chapters of Genesis are not literal history. He points to fact that Brigham Young thought Genesis contained “baby stories.” (2:12)

 

Nothing new here.  From our own Robert F. Smith:

 

Quote

The late Pres Spencer Kimball said "The story of the rib, of course, is figurative."    Kimball, “The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, 6/3 (Mar 1976), 70, https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/03/the-blessings-and-responsibilities-of-womanhood?lang=eng  .   Elder McConkie agreed -- Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed. (1966), 242.  Moreover, the figurative nature of the entire Endowment applies as well to the tree, the fruit, the serpent, etc.

I suspect Mason is not asserting that the entirety of the text is ahistorical / fictional.

10. Mason says that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith treat Genesis as literal. [For example, the Book of Mormon mentions allegedly literal people who allegedly migrated to America from the Tower of Babel.] Either Joseph Smith or Nephite prophets assumed literalness incorrectly or they were writing metaphorically. (2:15)

 

So he disputes the historicity of the Tower of Babel altogether?  I've never been comfortable with absolutist, it's-either-all-one-or-the-other approaches to questions of historicity in ancient writings.

 

11. Mason is comfortable with the idea that Joseph Smith at least partially created the Book of Mormon from his own mind, even though Mason cannot say which parts of the Book of Mormon are from Joseph Smith’s mind and which are not. (2:18)

 

Not surprising.  The "Inspired Fiction" theorists seldom follow their own reasoning to its logical conclusions.

 

12. Mason says that there are lots of “19th-century-isms” in the Book of Mormon. (2:25)

 

Nothing new here.

 

13. The 19th century influences of the Book of Mormon causes Mason to accept the idea that Joseph Smith was an active participant in the creation of the Book of Mormon, either consciously or subconsciously. (2:26)

 

Nothing new here.

 

14. Mason says that Joseph was not translating. The Book of Mormon was a product of revelation. (2:27)

 

I think Mason is being a wee bit obtuse here.  He is equivocating, as "translate" can have a variety of meanings.  See, e.g., here:

 

Quote

Before hiding the gold plates, Moroni, the last prophet of the Book of Mormon, wrote on the book’s title page that the book would be translated “by the gift and power of God.” This remains the best description of the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Here:

Quote

The Mechanics of Translation

In the preface to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith wrote: “I would inform you that I translated [the book], by the gift and power of God.” When pressed for specifics about the process of translation, Joseph repeated on several occasions that it had been done “by the gift and power of God” and once added, “It was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon.”

Here:

Quote

Meanings of the Word Translate

It would be informative to consider various meanings of the word translate. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives these definitions: “to turn from one language into another retaining the sense” and “to express in other words, to paraphrase.” It gives another meaning: “to interpret, explain, expound the significance of.” 4 Other dictionaries give approximately the same definitions as the OED. Although we generally think of translation as having to do with changing a word text from one language to another, that is not the only usage of the word. Translate equally means to express an idea or statement in other words, even in the same language. If people are unfamiliar with certain terminology in their own tongue, they will need an explanation. The explanation may be longer than the original, yet the original had all the meaning, either stated or implied. In common, everyday discourse when we hear something stated ambiguously or in highly technical terms, we ask the speaker to translate it for us. It is not expected that the response must come in another language, only that the first statement be made clear. The speaker’s new statement is a form of translation because it follows the basic purpose and intent of the word translation, which is to render something in understandable form.

Here:

Quote

The theory that Joseph translated in the sense that he deciphered or rendered Reformed Egyptian, the language of the Book of Mormon, into English does not correlate with eyewitness accounts. According to Professor Royal Skousen, “all [eyewitnesses believed] that Joseph Smith actually saw words in English, and there is evidence in the original manuscript to support this idea.” Two of many scholarly indicators are: 

1. There is no evidence Joseph wrote drafts. He dictated one time, straight through. When returning to the dictation, Joseph would begin exactly where he left off. Emma said, “When [I was] acting as his scribe, [he] would dictate to me for hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him” (Richard Lyman Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling [New York: Alfred A. Knorr, 2005], 105). 
2. Joseph spelled out complex names. “When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time” (John W. Welch, “The Miraculous Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens, 129 (citing Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History 9 [January 1916]: 454).

Still more. In Isaiah 29:10-12 and 2 Nephi 27:15-20, there is a prophecy about what a learned man and an unlearned man will do with the words of a book. “And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned” (Isaiah 29:10-12). Note the word read not translate.

The Lord then instructed His future prophet: “Thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee…. Wherefore, when thou hast read the words which I have commanded thee, and obtained the witnesses which I have promised unto thee, then shalt thou seal up the book again, and hide it up unto me, that I may preserve the words which thou hast not read, until I shall see fit in mine own wisdom to reveal all things unto the children of men” (2 Nephi 27:22).

Joseph did not learn to read Reformed Egyptian or any other foreign language. He did not translateby deciphering an unknown alphabet. He did not translate from one language to another. What he did was receive revelation in the only language he knew, English. “Joseph Smith and his scribes wrote of two instruments used in translating the Book of Mormon. According to witnesses of the translation, when Joseph looked into the instruments, the words of scripture appeared in English” (lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng). Joseph read out loud and his scribes wrote.
...
The word translate is going to continue with us; it’s scriptural. My hope is, however, that when you read or hear translate in your personal study, you will think received by revelation. When Joseph explained how he dictated the Book of Mormon, produced the inspired revision of Genesis, organized and corrected Matthew 23–24, or received the book of Abraham, he used the inclusive phrase “by the gift and power of God.” This statement includes any and all ways God chooses to communicate with His prophet—on any day, at any hour, in any year, on a mountaintop, in a wooded grove, via a burning bush, while pondering scripture at home. 

15. Mason thinks that God is doing a work through people who don’t understand their role in that work, so Joseph Smith could easily think that he was translating, when he wasn’t. (2:28)

More equivocation.  I think Mason is using "translate" in an overly restrictive way.

16. Mason thinks that scripture has errors and contradictions. The Book of Abraham isn’t a one-to-one correspondence with an ancient text. (2:30)

 

Nothing new here.

 

17. Mason says that the jury is out whether the Book of Mormon is history and whether the characters in the Book of Mormon were historical people. But Mason talks like they were historical characters in the same way that you talk about any fictional character doing or saying things. (2:32)

 

Nothing new here.

 

18. Mason does not like polygamy. (2:34)

 

Nothing new here.

 

19. Mason does not think that he has to believe in polygamy because he thinks that scripture, including D&C 132, can be in error. (2:35)

 

This one seems a bit hard to swallow.

 

20. Mason hopes that he would have rejected any advance Joseph Smith made to marry his twelve-year-old daughter. He doesn’t want to call any of Joseph’s behavior in regard to polygamy sacred. (2:41)

 

Nothing new here.

 

21. Mason doesn’t “want to put lip stick on a pig” in regard to Joseph’s polygamy. (2:42)

 

Nothing new here.

 

22. A lot of Joseph’s polygamy looks like sin to Mason. But Mason still believes the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. God can work through morally revolting people. (2:44)

 

I don't think Joseph was a "morally revolting" person.

 

23. Mason believes that Mother Theresa was closer in moral living to Jesus that Joseph Smith was. But Mason thinks that Joseph was a prophet because God “mysteriously and inextricably” revealed truths to him. Being a moral exemplar is not required to be a prophet. (2:45)

 

Yeesh.  Mason is not impressing here.  There are all sorts of criticisms leveled against Mother Theresa.  That he is idealizing her as a juxtaposition to the "morally revolting" Joseph Smith makes him (Mason) look like a pretty facile and populist thinker.

 

24. Mason thinks that while the Church heals some people it also hurts people, and he wants the Church to be better. Mason thinks that God works through the LDS Church, but not only through the LDS Church. (2:56)

 

Nothing new here.

 

25. Sniffling and wiping tears from his eyes, Mason says that he is so sad that the Church has hurt people. (2:57)

 

Nothing new here.

 

26. Still sniffling, Mason says that sometimes the Church goes backwards. (2:58)

 

Nothing new here.

 

27. Mason says, “We can’t even see Zion yet. It’s not even on the horizon. We have a long way to go.” (2:59)

 

Oh, I don't know that we're all that bad.

 

28. Mason says that Christ is not a capitalist. (3:01)

 

Are the Latter-day Saints saying that He is?  "My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36.

 

29. Mason says that it’s time to put the Church’s wealth to use helping people. (3:02)

 

Per Pres. Oaks' remarks a few days ago: 

 

Quote

Recently, the Church of Jesus Christ reported for the first time the extent of its humanitarian work worldwide; 2021 expenditures for those in need in 188 countries totaled $906 million, with members also volunteering over 6 million hours of labor. This is beyond what Latter-day Saints do in callings, in member-to-member service and individually with innumerable charitable organizations.

Did Mason mean "it's time to put more of the Church's wealth to use helping people"?  Or is he doing a bit of populist pandering here?

30. Mason hopes that there is pressure on the Church to do more with its wealth. (3:03)

 

More populism.  Meh.

 

31. Mason says that the Church should have a policy of reporting sexual predators when it is legal to do so. (3:05)

 

More populism.  I don't think he has given this one much thought.

 

32. Mason says that Mormon scripture has racist passages, and that God doesn’t inspire racism. (3:12)

 

Nothing new here.

 

33. Mason rejects all scripture and all prophetic teachings that conflict with the life of Jesus. (3:14)

 

Weird.  And populist.  And pandering.

 

34. Mason says that prophets don’t have a good track record of foretelling the future, but that’s ok because the main jobs of a prophet are to show God’s fundamental relationship with the world, call people to repentance, and witness the name of Jesus. (3:15)

 

Populist.  And pandering.

 

35. Mason says that racism in the Church is a failure of prophetic witness. (3:17)

 

Not sure what this means.

 

36. Mason says that the Church needs to figure out its theology of gender and sexuality. (3:19)

 

Populist.  And pandering.

 

37. Mason says that the Church needs to figure out what it means to have a prophet, and what the role of a prophet is. (3:20)

Meh.

Thanks,

-Smac