I just dusted off my copy of the Givens' Crucible of Doubt for some reason this morning. On pages 80-82, they give their hypothesis of how church history can be whitewashed for 150 years, but then have the church make amends and become more transparent, without it faulting the truthfulness of the church or casting doubt that the Brethren do indeed have oracles that do indeed work... some of the time, anyway.

I purchased the book some months ago thinking I needed to give the 'other side' one last fair chance before I made up my mind. This was after reading the CES letter and the church essays all the way through and making contact with RfM for the first time.

I think I was disappointed, but I've noticed even more now why that was so. The book uses the right amount polite victim-blaming and coaxing to persuade the reader into infinite generosity with church history and the Brethren's faults.

Even in admitting that we were wrong about so much, they do it in a way that feels like we were never wrong. After all our persecutions and the Martyrdom of Joseph Smith we were only acting out of passion, cultural prejudices, and presuppositions that carried us to exaggeration and and innocent whitewashing of church history in an true believer vs. persecuting gentile fashion.

They left me with some questions though. Who was Leonard J Arrington? They mention his "reforms initiated and then aborted," under his "professionalization of the church history department." (p. 81) What? Why was that stopped? Did that have anything to do with the Brethren?

They go on to say that "transparency and completeness have become the new norm" today (p. 81). The Brethren are not trained in professional church history, but they are figuring it all out. "That [the peculiarities of the Mormon past] are slow making their way into lesson manuals and Church history curricula is certainly true. That they are now coming to infuse Latter-day Saint websites and official publications––and will do so with increasing effectiveness––is equally apparent." (p. 82).

Finishing that chapter, I'm left with impression that the Givens still believe in the Brethren's infallibility in a way. Even though they spend the whole chapter explaining how the Brethren can be wrong sometimes, their thesis is that we are still under an obligation to hear to assume that their words are the words of the Lord first, and then privately––if we wish and if we have sufficient connection with the holy spirit––we can work out what is of man and what is of God.

My question to the Givens is: if the church, specifically the Brethren and the superstructure of believing members that hang on to their every word, can be wrong, if "hindsight shows some policies and practices to have been less than immutable," if "cultural prejudices and presuppositions" can afflict a system that's supposed to be sea-worthy, then why bother with it at all?

It's a good question. The particular problem is that the organizational structure offers no effective internal check on those "cultural prejudices and presuppositions" that the leaders have.

The only option is to vote with your feet. Leave.

So even if the LDS Church changes its stripes on being somewhat more transparent about history, relaxes its tone or even policies toward LGBT individuals, there will always be another issue where the backwardness of the leaders presents an insurmountable barrier to change--at least in the near to medium term.

And if they can be wrong in hindsight, just like me, why should I be slavishly obedient to them?

snowball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And if they can be wrong in hindsight, just like
> me, why should I be slavishly obedient to them?

beautifully sums it all up.

And in my opinion, which helped me question and leave the church, a rational God would NOT want me to blindly obey but to use my mind and follow my own conscience if I feel strongly about something.

Its seems to defeat the purpose of restoring the God's church on earth and having living prophets if they can't teach us correct principles and they lead us to falsehoods.

Isn't that book just another exposition of the doubt your doubts crapola?

Doubt is only useful and productive if it leads to sincere investigation and discovery. Not squashing more sh!t onto your mental shelf.

My questions for the Givens are many.

Among them:

Can you tell me the date and time when the leaders of the church stopped teaching false doctrines?

Can you show me the official church statement in which they acknowledge errors of the past and "covenant" (their word) to be totally honest and forthright with the membership?

Can you provide sufficient evidence that the big 15 really understand, empathize, and care about the struggles of members face when they find out they have been lied to by the leadership they trusted?

Fiona has stated that she and Terrell find the church "so beautiful that even if it were false they would continue believing in it". Do the Givens think that is an ethical position to take, and if so, is it ethical to ask others to do the same?

Do the Givens really think that a person can choose what to believe as if they were choosing from a menu? Can someone say "I'll take the Mormon infallibility with a side dish of Norse mythology" and really mean it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2015 10:20AM by generationofvipers.

generationofvipers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Fiona has stated that she and Terrell find the
> church "so beautiful that even if it were false
> they would continue believing in it".

Reply: It is false, and you do continue believing in it.

"Fiona has stated that she and Terrell find the
church "so beautiful that even if it were false
they would continue believing in it".

I'm sorry, Fiona and Terrell, but that goes against my sense of integrity. So, although you think beautiful lies are worthy things to spread, go ahead. It tells me a lot about who you two are.

"The Crucible of Doubt: Reflections on the Quest for Faith" - it's the "Quest for Faith" part which I am referring to.

I remember as a youth sitting in Seminary and the theme of the lesson was that the "gospel" was part of a greater journey of truth, and the that finding truth was the ultimate goal. That really resonated with me. I had my doubts, but I could really get on board with searching and finding truth.

The Givens are on a "quest for faith" not truth. They really love the "gospel" and associated culture, etc., and they're trying to help people find enough reasons to stay the course. Of course, they're going to have to dig for some rationalizations to make that work.

I read this book by Jonathan Haidt that hypothesizes that the human psyche is like a rider on an elephant. The rider is the conscious mind and the elephant is the subconscious and it wants stuff. The rider thinks he's in control of the elephant and is sometimes, but then the elephant just does what it wants and the rider goes into damage control mode and makes up rationalizations for what the elephant does or wants. Many times our rider is just a lawyer for our elephant and our conscious mind goes into overdrive being its rationlizer and excuse maker.

I've been to one of Givens' seminars and they are bright, sincere and truly empathetic people, but they are not on a journey of truth. If you're on a journey for truth, you will find that the Givens' reasoning falls short.

God bless the Givens...their brand of apologetics is so hilarious. It's the equivelent of saying that a serial rapist is much better because they don't rape as much anymore. Oh and it's "beautiful"!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2015 11:04AM by DWaters.

"Dear member, our past prophets were "men of their time" who said stupid things, but our present prophets are great men who say great things. Just don't ask in 50 years about our present prophets, who will then be "men of their time" who said..."

My RS pres brought me this book when she heard I was taking a break from church. A permanent break, most likely.

When I read the book, all I kept thinking was that they were talking about a completely different church. They sound like two people who are desperately trying to figure out how to make the church work for them. They have some good insights, but those can apply to any religion.

After reading this, I decided that everything good in the church can also be found outside the church. All of the good can even be found outside of religion. All it did was solidify my decision to walk away.

Thanks, Terryl and Fiona! :)

Agreed. Listening to their Mormon Stories interview I wondered how their views help anyone struggling with the church. They're not offering resolutions compatible with actual church teaching. I don't know which church they were attempting to explain, but it isn't the one I grew up in.

God is not an author of confusion. But since he keeps changing his mind so it's hard to tell what he approves of these days. No wonder the poor church has a hard time keeping up with and explaining his little games.

They both left the church. There is an update interview on mormonstories podcasts.

Do you have a link for this?

Podcasts #495 & #496

I can't link from this device. =)

I see nothing that indicates they've left the church.

Sorry! I had them confused with Teryn & Jason Givens.

I do recall listening to Fiona on Ordain Women where she was supportive of their cause...

Thanks for the fact check.

In both those podcasts they are discussing Crucible of Doubt. There is nothing about them leaving the church.

I'm pretty sure that if they ever leave, the whole "Bloggernacle" will be talking about it!

I know them in real life. They are both very nice people - humble, sincere, kind. They believe in the church despite all it's flaws, for some reason.

In spite of all that, I can't stand their books. Too much garble and apologetics and high-falutin big words and nothing original or heartfelt, if you ask me. I don't have patience for their extreme mental gymnastics and look the other way attitude.

A whole lot of "fluffernuttery" -- using fluff and nuttery to take the cold, hard edges off of the facts.

Yes, exactly. My father recently bought me 'The God Who Weeps' (for my birthday - eyeroll) and I could barely get through a dozen pages. It's mostly quotes and long passages from other sources, all very boring and lecture-y sounding.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2015 06:11PM by anonnyonny.

What a HAPPY BIRTHDAY gift! You made God cry. =(

Sounds like my family.

Happy Birthday! (Hope you had some fun!)

Yeah it's a good thing my skin is tough as armor or I would have been offended. I just feel sorry for my father; he means well and he's trapped in this stupid cult that has him worrying about my eternal salvation because I'm not one of them.

God should weep, he should be horrified and devastated over this shitty world he created and left us to fend for ourselves (unless you live in the US and you lost your keys).

I have not been interested in their work, but I am interested in this question with respect to their position.

Do they openly state Mormonism is not what it represents, but we like it anyways?

Admiting it is blather.

Attaching to and defending blather is a whole lower level of character and intellect.

I have not read the book, but forgetting the past won't work. They did way, way, way too much damage to too many people along the way. It is also obvious that it is LD$ Inc not the COJCOFLDS.

We need an LDS chruch "war crimes" tribunal and then I might come back - but I doubt it.

What's so "beautiful" (Fiona's word) about a church that lies to its members, marginalize gay people and discriminates against women, all while guilt-tripping the entire membership and dumbing down it message to the lowest common denominator?

+1

Don't forget, always demanding more, more MORE, or you'll get it! They're like the Mob!

This wikipedia article seems to cover it well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_J._Arrington

I have the mentioned "Story of the Latter-Day Saints." It has a lot of surprising history revealed... multiple first visions, Nauvoo/later Polygamy, Danites, etc. I've got lots of note tabs in it. You know, the stuff the new essays have talked about. So for a few years, Arrington printed more history than some of the big 15 thought appropriate.

I listened to an interview with Givens about this book on MS with Dehlin. I found most of the viewpoints shared by Givens would likely get you kicked out of the church or at least shunned a bit if you truly expressed those views the way Givens does in his book. Other than that, Givens offers more shit shoveling down the saint's throat to stay and pay 10% to the church. No thank you.

"Fiona has stated that she and Terrell find the
church "so beautiful that even if it were false
they would continue believing in it"

Interesting. That's not something that would normally be said by a person who thinks the church is true.

Fiona is in obvious pain. I've been there.