Greg Prince Mormon Stories Interview

[SunbeltRed]

Has this been discussed yet?

I really like Greg Prince, and I am simultaneously confused by him. I do appreciate his perspective and I'm glad that he remains an active and engaged member. At the same time, like most apologists and neo-apologists, the answer seems to be that people should stay in the church, help make a difference from within. It's not a bad plea, but here's the problem; to make any bit of difference from within you have to play the game on some level. Accept callings, pay your tithing, spend the countless hours doing the boring meaningless stuff, and at this point I refuse to live my life in a way where I will part with my money, time, resources for an organization I disagree with on key fundamental issues and will take every opportunity it has to pit my family and friends against me. No dice.

Overall, I think Brother Prince is a good guy and I would love to have dinner with him someday.

Anyone else listen? Thoughts?

[fh451]

Yes I did and have some of the same concerns that you do. If the church were more than, say, 0.000000001% people like Greg Prince, then it might be a more tolerable place for many of us. But it isn't. The only reason the church tolerates him is that he pays more tithing than all the members in some third world countries combined. I can appreciate his view, but it is shared by nobody in leadership, and even he can be a little condescending when referring to those of us who left the church. He seems to be convinced that most of us haven't done our homework sufficiently, and if we had just studied it the right way (like him), we'd still be in enjoying all the benefits that organized religion and the associated social interactions provide. His position is one of pretty significant privilege in the church, so he doesn't really see any personal down side. Or maybe he sees it, he just doesn't experience it.

fh451

[Corsair]

I'm with you also on this. I am confident that Greg Prince is a great guy and an excellent scholar. His historical research is wonderful and brings an excellent perspective on David O. McKay. His history of medical research is groundbreaking. But Brother Prince did not really address all of the issues around Lester Bush's article on race and priesthood. Lester Bush was treated poorly by leadership despite being a catalyst for arguably the biggest doctrinal/policy change in the 20th century for the LDS Church. But Greg Prince has a testimony that let's him put this aside and view the gospel according to the LDS church as the place for him.

He did not make a compelling case for why we should stick with the church and I agree he was a little dismissive of those that leave. I see this in other apologists like Patrick Mason. They don't like to acknowledge that someone might want to leave for reasons that make sense to them and the argument for why we should faithfully stay in the LDS church is not well described. I fully accept that they feel that the spirit has spoken to them. But they cannot make the case why the LDS gospel should be universally compelling to us also.

[SunbeltRed]

fh451 and Corsair:

Great observations. I also felt that he was dismissive of those who can't believe it and/or abide it any longer and choose to leave. He tried to be nice, but since he hasn't really had a crisis of faith, he can't really get those who have and conclude the church is no longer for them.

And you are absolutely correct Corsair, he did not make a compelling case for Mormonism, it was a lot of aww shucks and doesn't matter to me. The brethren are just guys trying their best (despite that THEY tell you to be 100% obedient and never question them) and just good old boys dontch know?

Prince talked about a Mormon church that doesn't exist and never will. I was glad to hear him acknowledge the crisis of youth leaving, and I don't think Prince has the answers ether of how Mormonism will be compelling to them in their lives.

[Red Ryder]

I listened to most of it. I think the Mormonism he attached himself to is a hybrid of the 60's and 70's remnants intermixed with a sense of white male privilege sprinkled with a faux sense of mormon fame.

I can't pinpoint it exactly but have met many men throughout the church who have a few similar personality traits.

[Corsair]

I listened to most of it. I think the Mormonism he attached himself to is a hybrid of the 60's and 70's remnants intermixed with a sense of white male privilege sprinkled with a faux sense of mormon fame.

I can't pinpoint it exactly but have met many men throughout the church who have a few similar personality traits.

These are the guys who will make the best leaders going forward while continuing the existing narrative. They will make as few changes as possible and can reasonably described as "church broke" even though they will probably deny it if presented with that description. Many of them are really nice people like Greg Prince, Patrick Mason, my Stake President, and even lots of general authorities. Joseph Wirthlin and L. Tom Perry seemed like thoroughly kind men for example. Many others do not end up quite so kind within their commitment to the institutional church. I have heard conflicting reports on Thomas Monson, for example.

[Mormorrisey]

Actually listened to it with Sister M. She didn't know what to make of it, because Prince was saying stuff that I say, and she doesn't process that particularly well, so to hear someone else talk this way was disconcerting to her.

On the other hand, while I enjoyed listening to Prince's nuanced approach to belief, and how he is able to express it in HIS Sunday School classes, when I try to do it, the literalists in attendance quickly move to correct me. I guess when you contribute hundreds of thousands in tithing income your carpet to get called on is not that large. But it IS a problem, when I can't imagine Prince will be called to say these things in General Conference, given how literalists like Oaks, Nelson and Ballard are sitting on the stand. So while I'm happy that he is advocating these ideas, I share many of them, and it will make life a LOT easier for me having to go to church to have some of these ideas floating about, I have no confidence that they will be accepted by 90% of the members. And that is what makes going to church for NOMs very difficult. So he can sit on his throne making pronouncements on how members need to share his views, good luck to him on getting them accepted by the general membership.

[SunbeltRed]

So while I'm happy that he is advocating these ideas, I share many of them, and it will make life a LOT easier for me having to go to church to have some of these ideas floating about, I have no confidence that they will be accepted by 90% of the members. And that is what makes going to church for NOMs very difficult. So he can sit on his throne making pronouncements on how members need to share his views, good luck to him on getting them accepted by the general membership.

Yeah, this is the problem. He makes a big stink about if people would just study like him and accept his views then all will be well. But members don't and members won't, and I would probably catch a lot of flak at church if expressed my non-literal view of things.

[Emower]

What I felt from him and a lot of others is a lack of empathy for people with views different from him. He was a nice guy and had some nice views, but his attitude still views me as a malfunctioning member of the church. Somehow I need to be fixed, and that immediately annoys me.

[Hagoth]

I think the church tolerates such people because they help keep other people in the church and they generate the kind of placeholder answers that the highest leaders seem at a loss to provide. They are encouraged to write scholarly articles and give firesides about nuancing doctrine and choosing to believe, but their messages will never be openly pitched to the membership at large in any official way.