Greg Prince’s Interview & New Mormonism

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

I don’t know. 40 years ago my aunt divorced her non-believing husband (I believe at the instruction of a church leader). The same leader suggested she high tail it to Zion (Utah) and raise her brood among the saints. So she did. This was the 1970’s divorce was not tolerated. She talks of years of exclusion, snubbing, and rejection from the very Zion people she had hoped for. Today, every ward is full of divorced people or the children of divorced people. I have even seen divorced couples, who have remarried remain in the ward or Stake, and some how we all make it through. Less guilt and less shame.

I think the last part of your statement is key. Today every ward is full of divorced people or people related to divorced people. We tend to fear what we don’t know and when there’s one sister in a ward that’s divorced we fear her, some may even fear becoming like her should they associate with her, so she gets pushed out to the margins. These days she’s our sister, our mother, our daughter, our best friend… she’s someone we know, someone we love independent of the other label, and she’s far from being alone. Some of the stigma wears off. It’s the same with black people, the same with gay people, the same with transgender people, the same with people that are not of the traditional orthodox mold or whatever mold our community happens to accept. A label places someone in an “out” group, love erases the label, but sometimes the transition takes a long time.

Are there any members of the church left that don’t know at least one person that’s had some form of faith crisis? Maybe we’ll have to get to the point where every ward is full of unorthodox people before we’re truly welcoming but for now we seem to be content with creating an environment where it’s not tolerated, where people in that category are excluded, snubbed, and rejected. It’s a bit of a catch 22. The unorthodox have to stay in order for us to work toward a more welcoming environment but people aren’t going to want to stay in an environment that isn’t welcoming.

I realize that not every ward is like this, the change has already started, but some wards are.

GBSmith wrote:

Were I to approach a recommend interview with this sort of nuanced approach including disbelief in the historicity of the BoM, I’d be turned down and likely would be taken off the list for callings other than nursery.

DarkJedi wrote:

Not so. The Book of Mormon isn’t included in the TR questions. I don’t recall ever being asked if I believe the BoM to be true, not have I ever been asked if I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. I do not believe the BoM is a historical text (neither is the Bible, which I do think is mostly translated correctly, for that matter). My answers to almost all of the questions (which is always a simple yes or no) is nuanced but I hold a temple recommend and a fairly substantial calling.

Maybe not for a TR but GBSmith raises a valid point. I don’t know what the unwritten order of things is with respect to divorced people. At one time I heard that they could never serve in certain callings but I believe it’s handled on a case by case basis… but the divorced have to go through that extra vetting. I’ve got a good friend you could talk to about single men over 30 serving as ordinance workers in the temple. And these are “faithful” “believing” orthodox, card carrying members of the church. I bet it would be real hard for some bishops (right now at least) to not have concerns over what calling to give to someone that openly and unrepentantly expresses their unorthodox thoughts… and not out of concern for the unorthodox member, more out of concern for them being in any position where their voice might influence others. No judging, it’s understandable, leaders fear what an “unbelieving” member might do should they be in a position with any influence.

So maybe not in the context of a TR but that’s not the time or the place where I typically get antsy sitting on my thoughts and opinions. The TR is only once every 2 years and lasts 5 minutes. I’m thinking more about SS and PH/RS. Those things that seem to last forever some Sundays. :angel:

When reading conference talks as the lesson during PH (fun) I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say “I don’t agree with Elder ______, I think…” Maybe I have on occasion but it’s usually followed by 5 comments intended to prove loyalty and move the conversation back to approved answers and then the person that disagreed with Elder _________ gets released as gospel essentials teacher and get called into GBSmith’s nursery.

mom3 wrote:

This past Sunday I cracked open my nuanced convictions in RS, and guess what some of the TBMs thanked me, nodded along, and whispered “me,too.”

Emphasis added. There may be people that agree but there’s a strong environment where people feel like they’ve got to sit on their real thoughts or whisper, whisper when thoughts are outside the prescribed boundaries. There’s a reason people worry about coming out and it typically isn’t because they are afraid people will treat them the same.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

whispered “me,too.”

Quote:

There may be people that agree but there’s a strong environment where people feel like they’ve got to sit on their real thoughts or whisper, whisper when thoughts are outside the prescribed boundaries. There’s a reason people worry about coming out and it typically isn’t because they are afraid people will treat them the same.

True.

Quote:

The unorthodox have to stay in order for us to work toward a more welcoming environment but people aren’t going to want to stay in an environment that isn’t welcoming.

Nibbler I was going to mention the same thing but you beat me too it. That’s what people who wanted the Priesthood Ban had to do.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I’m not conflating the two but on the basis of this discussion I think the majority of active members do.

I think that was part of Prince’s point. More of us need to not conflate the two, it’s part of the problem. FWIW, I think DFU’s talk about faith this GC intimates some of this idea.

Quote:

No argument there but true faith in the divine doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It is part of who the believer is and how he/she lives their lives. Stop for a second and think where you’d be given the current state of your faith assuming the true faith you mention. If you didn’t have friends of family in the LDS church, would you still attend and actively participate?

Are you framing this from and LDS point of view? My activity in the LDS church is not based on family, friends, or activities. That can be partly proven by my 10 years of inactivity. Likewise, I was somewhat active in another church before joining the church, and while that church did not have the “community” atmosphere of the average Mormon ward, I liked it because it was what I was used to (and nothing else was “required” outside Sunday morning). I also was spiritually uplifted by the >1 hour Sunday service. At one time my LDS participation was tied to family, friends, and social activities as well as some spiritual activities, but I wouldn’t say it is any more. I could pretty much walk away if I chose, my wife has been through it before so I don’t know how big a deal it would be for her now. I am comfortable with my present activity and comfortable with the church in general, but I was pretty comfortable at home all those Sundays as well. I also recognize the Spirit and truth in other churches and belief systems (particularly Buddhism). I agree, faith does not exist in a vacuum without a religion or belief system just like the church doesn’t exist without the gospel. But other churches also exist because of the gospel, and other belief systems espouse individual expressions of faith in the Divine, although the deity is different from mine. One could believe in and practice the gospel of Jesus Christ and not attend any church and that person would still have faith. One could conceivably be Buddhist and Christian, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive (but the Christians would mind more than the Buddhists). There is something to be said for orthopraxy.

Quote:

Agreed, the specific questions aren’t there but are part of the question if you have a testimony of the restored gospel.

I disagree that a belief in the BoM or JS as a prophet are implied in the question about the restored gospel. Nuanced or not, taken very literally the question only asks about the gospel. I do have a firm testimony of the restored gospel, I believe in Christ and I believe Christ, I have repented and do repent, I have been baptized and received the gift of the Holy Ghost. I believe in the “plan of happiness.” That is the gospel (see gospel topics on LDS.org).

That said, I agree that most members think that question implies a belief in the BoM and JS. They just happen to be mistaken. As previously stated, that’s OK, my answer to the question is yes either way and they’re in no position to argue with the answer.

I get your point and agree – we can’t go around publicly expressing our doubts, disbeliefs, and unbeliefs and expect to be given every respect we might think we deserve. Perhaps it has something to do with where I live and who my leaders are – but I assure you that my leaders know I have doubts, disbeliefs, and unbeliefs and even the details of some of them, they know I don’t love, love, love the church, they know I know they’re not always (or ever) inspired – and yet they willingly and actively send me out to represent them monthly even when they don’t actually have to. Unlike you, GBSmith, I do believe there is a place for me in the church and I believe my leaders believe that.

Just an example to illustrate the point. Our SP is up in arms that our HT percentage has dropped to an all time low. We’ve spent hours talking about this in stake PEC and stake council as well as going to ward councils to gather information and input. At the last meeting, one of the more orthodox high councilors (I am not the only less orthodox one, but I am probably the most unorthodox one) said that one of the elders quorum presidents told him that he has a hard time getting people to accept the assignment to home teach and the HC emphatically and firmly stated he didn’t understand that because we all hold the priesthood and it’s our duty damn it (OK, he didn’t say damn it but it would have been really good for effect ). I said I I understood, and it’s simple – we’re all volunteers and we all have our agency. The SP said, thank you Brother Jedi, and the discussion ended. Granted, that’s not saying “The Book of Mormon is clearly not historical and the Lamanites don’t and never did exist,” to an orthodox member it’s not really all that far off.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

When reading conference talks as the lesson during PH (fun) I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say “I don’t agree with Elder ______, I think…”

Of course it doesn’t have to be phrased in exactly this way. A comment can be started off with, “I think…” and be framed by saying things we do believe without enumerating the things we don’t believe.

DarkJedi wrote:

…one of the elders quorum presidents told him that he has a hard time getting people to accept the assignment to home teach…

That’s interesting because I’m starting to hear this more and more and it was unheard of not that long ago, specifically because in the past I always heard home teaching presented as a requirement. I don’t know whether that’s an indication of a recent uptick in people that want to opt out or whether the phenomenon is more visible. It could also be an indication of people being more open about their feelings. Maybe in the past people opted out by accepting an assignment with no intention of doing it.

“But you’ve got to” or “you’ll go to hell if you don’t” isn’t the best motivator. I hope “new” Mormonism lands in a place where people feel more okay with being themselves.

[Anonymous]

Any talk about New Mormonism on a large scale is likely going to lead to retrenchment from the GA’s in conference. Just like the MIddle Way groups in Utah were met with local censure…

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

…one of the elders quorum presidents told him that he has a hard time getting people to accept the assignment to home teach…

That’s interesting because I’m starting to hear this more and more and it was unheard of not that long ago, specifically because in the past I always heard home teaching presented as a requirement. I don’t know whether that’s an indication of a recent uptick in people that want to opt out or whether the phenomenon is more visible. It could also be an indication of people being more open about their feelings. Maybe in the past people opted out by accepting an assignment with no intention of doing it.

“But you’ve got to” or “you’ll go to hell if you don’t” isn’t the best motivator. I hope “new” Mormonism lands in a place where people feel more okay with being themselves.

I think the same is true of callings in general. Thirty-five years ago when I joined the church turning down a calling was practically unheard of. Now when we discuss callings the question of whether the individual will accept almost always comes up, and relatively many do refuse. I agree that I’d rather have someone just refuse than accept and not do it. There are those who still believe that refusing callings is sacrilege, and they’re probably still the majority (although I do wonder sometimes because it comes up so frequently). I think the idea is just trickling down to home teaching. I have heard retrenchment talks (none by the stake leadership) but you are right Nibbler, they fail to motivate – and I think that’s even more true among Millennials and perhaps even Generation X.

The idea we’re all volunteers isn’t actually new to me – many years ago in the bishopric my bishop told me that, although I doubt he expected the current evolution because he was talking about not overburdening people.

Silent Dawning said:

Quote:

Any talk about New Mormonism on a large scale is likely going to lead to retrenchment from the GA’s in conference. Just like the MIddle Way groups in Utah were met with local censure…

Yet here we are living the Middle Way. I think the fear on the part of the leadership was that they were groups, which could lead to schism. Of course we still do get retrenchment on the part of GC talks from time to time.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

There are those who still believe that refusing callings is sacrilege, and they’re probably still the majority (although I do wonder sometimes because it comes up so frequently).

Wasn’t there a talk during general conference a week and a half ago about not refusing callings?

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

There are those who still believe that refusing callings is sacrilege, and they’re probably still the majority (although I do wonder sometimes because it comes up so frequently).

Wasn’t there a talk during general conference a week and a half ago about not refusing callings?

I believe so. I tried to tune it out. What I caught of it was the same old same old. Those Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak minded.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Yet here we are living the Middle Way.

Yes, but in the closet, and carefully guarding our identities. Personally, I rarely come out to the local people because I know it will only limit my options. Not enough acceptance of what other think.

Good think this site has helped me be myself while also integrating with my Ward acceptably.

[Anonymous]

Looking Hard linked to some questions John Dehlin posted about New Mormonism, and I wanted to give my two cents on these. His questions:

Quote:

To me, New Mormonism is basically the Mormon equivalent to Reform Judaism – without the schism. It basically says, “We’ve built all these buildings, communities, power/influence, families, financial investments, etc…..let’s not throw it away! Let’s adjust our beliefs/vocabulary to preserve the Mormon tribe. Mormonism doesn’t have to be literally true. It only needs to be good enough….and it is! So let’s preserve it, and do our part to make it better.”

That’s my interpretation of what folks like Greg Prince, Gina Colvin, Dan Wotherspoon, Thomas McConkie, Richard Bushman, Terryl and Fiona Givens, Patrick Mason, Grant Hardy, Maxine Hanks, Dialogue Journal, BCC blog, and others are saying/doing. I think we can consider dubbing them “Neo-Apologists” for the sake of conversation.

I think this is a gross mischaracterisation of New Mormonism for a few reasons that are apparent (to me at least) in the interview with Greg Prince. John is conflating several different viewpoints into one here. He’s mixing:

– Tribal preservationists. I don’t think Prince, et al give two hoots about the Mormon tribe for itself. Richard Bushman might, but Prince doesn’t. I’m not sure about Wotherspoon. That’s something John often talks about, the community being a good influence for people. But what I hear Prince and others saying is that the church is only there to point us toward Christ, not that the church fulfills any function outside of that, at least not in the New Mormonism.

– Church is “good enough” vs. true. This group of people are those who believe that the church’s works, the service we render others in the church, justifies whatever misinformation people believe that keep them in it. To me, this is perhaps more closely aligned with Clayton Christensen’s view of the church (although he does also share a Mormon worldview).

– Neo-apologists. To me, this is the same as the FARMS, FAIR crowd, but there’s a world of difference between that group and these folks. Apologists’ only task is to point out how there’s a possibility, no matter how remotely small, that the church’s version of history or worldview could be accurate. These guys aren’t defending the church’s version of events or histories or historicity of Mormon scriptures, or any of that. They are saying that those things are not the point of religion; they are distractions and they are not only irrelevant, but to the extent they are unlikely, they are antithetical to the purpose of religion, namely to help us experience the divine and to let go of the control associated with literal belief and to instead let God take the wheel. I consider this one a slur designed to discredit people like Prince.

John then points out three questions about this approach which I will summarize:

Quote:

1) Does staying in the church, whatever our reasons, make us complicit in the harm done to LGBT, women, etc.? Is it a noble choice to stay in or merely a position of privilege (e.g. being close enough to norms to “pass”)?

I don’t think that’s fair, although I am also concerned about those things. I don’t support everything the US does, but I haven’t moved to Canada yet.

Quote:

2) Will the church quash New Mormons?

John seems to think we’re heading into a more open era. Personally, I am very skeptical on this front. Lord, save us from your followers.

Quote:

3) Is New Mormonism sustainable and is the church sustainable if it allows it? There are actually a lot of questions mixed together here: does this approach erode individual testimony in the church to the point that the individual functions so separately from the church that they no longer “need” anything unique from the church?

Maybe. Does the church need dogmatic types to be able to do missionary work and be a compelling place to join? I don’t think so–I think the focus on a community of service is compelling enough combined with the church enabling one to come to Christ, insofar as it can stay out of the way of personal faith–which to me remains to be seen. Is the elitism necessary to evoke enough enthusiasm and stickiness in the church? It’s a valid question. A few years ago I would have said that this was an important sociological tool to recruit converts. Now I think that a “best in class” designation is sufficient and more realistic.

[Anonymous]

I am going to grab Hawkgrrl’s 1,2 & 3 and add my thoughts. Below those I am attaching an email response I sent to my husband about John’s facebook post.

Quote:

1) Does staying in the church, whatever our reasons, make us complicit in the harm done to LGBT, women, etc.? Is it a noble choice to stay in or merely a position of privilege (e.g. being close enough to norms to “pass”)? I don’t think that’s fair, although I am also concerned about those things. I don’t support everything the US does, but I haven’t moved to Canada yet.

2) Will the church quash New Mormons? John seems to think we’re heading into a more open era. Personally, I am very skeptical on this front. Lord, save us from your followers.

3) Is New Mormonism sustainable and is the church sustainable if it allows it? There are actually a lot of questions mixed together here: does this approach erode individual testimony in the church to the point that the individual functions so separately from the church that they no longer “need” anything unique from the church? Maybe. Does the church need dogmatic types to be able to do missionary work and be a compelling place to join? I don’t think so–I think the focus on a community of service is compelling enough combined with the church enabling one to come to Christ, insofar as it can stay out of the way of personal faith–which to me remains to be seen. Is the elitism necessary to evoke enough enthusiasm and stickiness in the church? It’s a valid question. A few years ago I would have said that this was an important sociological tool to recruit converts. Now I think that a “best in class” designation is sufficient and more realistic.

1 This idea of complicity bugs me. I get the insinuation but many people remain connected to jobs, families, schools and more even though those institutions have a dark side. Think Mother Teresa vs. Pedophile Catholic Priests. Both under the same umbrella. Her good couldn’t be darkened by their bad. More directly think of the many good Catholics who still attend, serve, and minister in their church. The present Pope comes to mind.

2 I mentioned earlier what is “New Mormons”? We are no where near what we were in many practices and teachings from our founding days. David O. McKay was a New Mormon of his time. I submit Dieter Uchtdorf is a New Mormon in our time. As long as their isn’t an insurrection with New Mormon badges and what not no quashing will happen.

3Yes. Adding to Hawkgrrl’s thoughts, in the past decade I have worked extensively with other faith communities, much like Roy does. Their members are dedicated to “shining the light of Jesus” in other ways. With no less zeal, effort or enthusiasm. This month I am working with a religious coalition for homeless in our community. This team has been at it for 13 years. They love church, bible, and serving the needy. I can easily see the LDS church moving that direction and no one would bat an eye.

The following is my email response to John’s thoughts. You are welcome to read them or just ignore.

Quote:

John perplexes me. And eventually I just let him go. But today I will play.

1st – I always admire his use of StayLDS for his personal purposes. Yes he and Brian set it up. John has probably posted 2 times in the full run of the site. Okay maybe 10, but you’d have to look hard to find him leading StayLDS. Ray and Hawkgrrl both state that he has nothing to do with it. If memory serves they had a big break up when you were early on in your process. But it sure is convenient for him to use when he is facing church courts or counter balancing an opinion. I think he was more active on NOM than StayLDS.

Second – I adore the way he uses and throws people away. When he was creating “New Mormonism” he regularly had all those same people on his podcasts. I remember him posting Bushman and Givens photos on facebook with triumphant comments like – “Look Whose In The House.” or shots of him standing in rooms chatting with these Neo-Apologists (as he now calls them) and loving to be grouped among them. Sooo – now they are out, wash his hands of them, etc. Will Joanna Brooks eventually make it on the list. Or maybe Natasha Parker if she moves wrong or signs a Deseret Book Contract. BCC did. Kristine Haglund did. You could, too.

Subsidizing is interesting to me. Bushman published RSR through Oxford press. It only moved under Deseret Book after it had taken faith transitions by storm. You and I attended a conference with Mason, Bushmans and some one else. All the funds went to the event organizer, pizza, etc. The church didn’t get a dime. Firesides are free. Yes the books sell, and it makes it an entanglement, and I too struggle with it. But Givens has published for ages outside of Deseret Book. It just doesn’t make a full black and white. Then who subsidies all of John’s retreats? Did Mormon Stories foundation funds help him through his latest academic degree? Did they provide him with free case studies he could draw on?

I have no idea what “beautiful Mormon tribe” he see’s.

I can’t even figure out why he is doing a blog with Mason if he see’s him as such a benighted fool.

He is becoming his own paradox to me. I guess that is the real challenge of leadership.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I also liked this about the Book of Mormon:

Quote:

I don’t see it is an ancient history. I just don’t see that it has a leg to stand on as being history. I’ve heard of hybrid explanations. None of them carry any water with me. I’m content to go with what Denise Hopkins the Professor of Hebrew Bible told me. It’s a book length midrash on the Bible. And I’m fine with that

Midrash, long parable, whatever. I’m fine with it too. It is a book mostly about Christ and it can bring people closer to God and increase faith. That’s great. It doesn’t need to be anything else. The problem is that we hear so much about the BoM being more than that, even in this most recent GC. I don’t dislike the BoM, but I think we need to stop the rhetoric.

…because we’ll eventually settle there, but after how many more bloody battles about historicity? I wish so much that we could lay off it a little. I wish Elder Holland would say in GC what he said to PBS.

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

1 This idea of complicity bugs me. I get the insinuation but many people remain connected to jobs, families, schools and more even though those institutions have a dark side. Think Mother Teresa vs. Pedophile Catholic Priests. Both under the same umbrella. Her good couldn’t be darkened by their bad. More directly think of the many good Catholics who still attend, serve, and minister in their church. The present Pope comes to mind.

I agree with what you’re saying here, if I understand it correctly it’s a mixture of don’t throw the good out with the bad and it being an issue of public image, but on the other hand the analogy doesn’t work for me.

Edit: I’m recanting most of my rant. It can be summed up in once sentence:

… but right now it looks like being against gay marriage is all we want to be know for.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Not to beat up on your analogy mom3. :angel: If we want to fight the perception our message to the world (from the top and from regular Joes) has to be more than preventing gay people from getting rights or pouting when they finally get them.

Not beat up at all. I agree with the PR problem the leadership has created. I guess in my halls I hear some other rumblings. Maybe not as loud, but I have a series of women who may not shout loudly in opposition to the church but they do whisper and nudge. From that seat I wonder if complicity is the correct word. There are wards and pockets where LGBT people attend and find love. Yes it’s not a landslide but someone somewhere isn’t just sitting back and letting things happen. Complicity implies that to me and I sense some less calm waters below the loud yells of standard members.

I also think the organization needs help, helping itself. John knows this. Everyone of those Neo-Apologists has grieved over LGBT issues. Dan Wotherspoon recently commented that he and his wife bore testimony in Sacrament Meeting about loving LGBT people. Terryl Givens has gone on record the same way.

I can’t find it now, but someone on here posted the comment that this will change faster if more non-traditional members stayed. I agree. Just because we stay doesn’t imply complicity to me.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

1) Does staying in the church, whatever our reasons, make us complicit in the harm done to LGBT, women, etc.?

On the contrary, we need understanding people who remain active in their wards and branches. Being LGBT, especially when you’re still coming to terms with your sexuality, it can be very easy to internalize negative messages from church, and it helps to hear someone speak up when TBMs say hurtful things. And even after you’ve come to terms with who you are, it helps to know that you’re not alone, that there are people who care and don’t see you as diseased.

[Author]

Posts