Mormon Stories’ New Campaign

[Kishkumen]

In September of 2020, professional Mormon apologists Terryl and Fiona Givens were invited to speak at a Mormon church fireside for the Sunderland England Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. During this fireside Terryl Givens was asked to recount an experience he once had with a Mormon missionary woman who was doubting her testimony because of troubling things she learned about Mormon church founder Joseph Smith, Terryl's recounting of the story was as follows:

"I was fortunate that there was a mission president in our area who knew us and our work. And there was a sister missionary who decided that she was going to leave the church. She was finishing her mission the next week and she'd made the decision to go home and leave. And her companion of course deeply distraught over this and asked the mission president "Could we go talk to brother Givens?" And he gave them permission to come and stay as long as they needed so they stayed long into the night. And I listened to one after another question and then finally it occurred to me to ask this one question. And I said to her in regard to one question in particular about Joseph Smith, and I said "Sister" I said, "Why does the answer to that question matter?" And it changed everything. It just caught her up short. And she thought for a minute and she said, "I don't know" (Terryl chuckles). "I don't know."

Many (including myself) were disturbed by Terryl Givens' story/response - particularly since it was directed at currently doubting Mormon church members. We were primarily puzzled, shocked, and somewhat disturbed that the Mormon church's leading professional apologist - who has spent many years writing books for, and speaking/ministering to doubting Mormons - would provide such a glib and seemingly uninformed response. That said, we understand that belief issues are complex, and take Terryl at his word that he sincerely does not understand why troubling aspects of Mormon history, including newly-discovered details about Joseph Smith's life, would matter to a questioning or doubting Mormon.

Consequently, I am launching a new social media campaign with which I could use your help. The goal of the campaign is to help educate Terryl, Fiona, other Mormon Church apologists, and the Mormon church leadership about as to why "Informed Consent" is crucial to both active Mormons and Mormon investigators.

The campaign is kind of a non-sequitur to the anecdote, in my opinion. Does he even know the question Givens was asked? Maybe it did not matter. If the person agreed it did not, then perhaps Givens’ pointing that out isn’t the offensive act JD represents it to be.

[DrStakhanovite]

I find myself sympathetic to Givens as described by Dehlin here. I’m not really a fan of the man’s work but he is one of the few public apologists out there that actually strikes me as an authentic and sensitive human being. I’m not convinced that the question “Why does the answer to that question really matter?” was either glib or uninformed. I’d even go so far as to say that the question would be a good one in a therapeutic context.

I don’t want to be cynical, but I’m getting that professional wrestling vibe here. My gut tells me that Dehlin is just setting up the next story arc for his ministry.

[Kishkumen]

I find myself sympathetic to Givens as described by Dehlin here. I’m not really a fan of the man’s work but he is one of the few public apologists out there that actually strikes me as an authentic and sensitive human being. I’m not convinced that the question “Why does the answer to that question really matter?” was either glib or uninformed. I’d even go so far as to say that the question would be a good one in a therapeutic context.

I don’t want to be cynical, but I’m getting that professional wrestling vibe here. My gut tells me that Dehlin is just setting up the next story arc for his ministry.

I agree completely. Have to say that I personally found this distasteful. Too much brand promotion in this move, in my opinion. It would be nice if JD could have been a little less transparent by finding an anecdote that actually worked. Any thinking person is going to ask what the question was because the nature of the question does matter. Don't make out Givens to be a schmuck in this ham-fisted and unfair way. Good grief.

[Physics Guy]

This part sounds okay to me.

I said, "Why does the answer to that question matter?"

That might well have been a sensitive and insightful question to ask. It's the next part that bugs me.

And it changed everything. It just caught her up short. And she thought for a minute and she said, "I don't know" (Terryl chuckles). "I don't know."

This sounds way too much like the smug apologist chuckling about how silly the doubter was to have all those doubts when the apologist's brilliant one-line silver bullet brings her up short because she just doesn't know. I mean, blazes. Whether or not you can find a snappy comeback right away on your feet has nothing to do with how severe your faith crisis is. That kind of glib readiness is more of a curse than a blessing, I think, anyway. I can believe that in that precise moment this doubting missionary didn't know exactly why that answer mattered, but that given some time to reflect, she'll be able to put her finger on why it does indeed matter—and it may well make her angry.

Having said that, this is a story at Nth hand, and you all may quite well be right that Dehlin is not to be trusted in how he frames things like this.

[Kishkumen]

That might well have been a sensitive and insightful question to ask. It's the next part that bugs me.

And it changed everything. It just caught her up short. And she thought for a minute and she said, "I don't know" (Terryl chuckles). "I don't know."

This sounds way too much like the smug apologist chuckling about how silly the doubter was to have all those doubts when the apologist's brilliant one-line silver bullet brings her up short because she just doesn't know.

Yeah, I can see the possibility. Of course, it is difficult to tell, as you acknowledge. As you note, because of the way Dehlin exploits the anecdote without providing complete information, it is difficult to tell exactly what is going on here. What he should know is that people can doubt his sincerity and motives just as easily as they can doubt the sincerity and motives of the people he is criticizing. The way he uses this anecdote without providing the question itself leaves the possibility open that Dehlin is the one being deceptive, whether he intends to be so or not.

This is why being careful matters.

Dehlin is not careful. He does not hit pause and think things through. His haste is his Kryptonite.

Maybe Givens was being cavalier (I doubt it, but I suppose it is possible). Maybe, however, he was not, and in that case JD is being pretty unfair to him.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don’t want to be cynical, but I’m getting that professional wrestling vibe here. My gut tells me that Dehlin is just setting up the next story arc for his ministry.

This is exactly what’s happening. Usually when a new market opens up you have a bunch of ambitious types duking it out to get a toehold in the, uh, market. As a result one or two companies figure it out, and then dominate. JD won the battle for the exMo, progMo, NuMo niche market and is just commercializing the process now. His ministry understands how to monetize THRIVE using social media and the such. When he finishes his complex some day there’s gonna be so much fuckin’. Anyway. Super excited!

- Doc

[dastardly stem]

Dehlin's doing a show set on exploiting people's emotions. He has no desire nor obligation to be accurate or thoughtful--helpful or productive (well, only to the point of not totally exposing himself). He needs people to feel angst and if ever they stop feeling it, his business dies. Him pretending sincerity is a necessity.

I think its important to keep this in mind when evaluating his projects. I'm pretty sure he knows he has virtually nothing to educate Teryl and Fiona on. But he's playing religion. It doesn't matter if he has anything to educate on. He only needs to give the impression--sneak the idea into his audiences' minds.

Now I'm not saying this to convict him as being all that calculated. There's certainly a degree of sincerity in seeing people who hurt and giving them notice, getting them in touch with each other, or professionals, and giving them an articulate narrative to tell in order to make sense of their hurt. There's sincerity there. We're all complicated characters in this drama, and he's no different.

To be clear, I think he wants to do something good and isn't far off his goal, most of the time.

[IHAQ]

Putting the Mormon Stories angle to one side for a moment...

If a doubting Mormon has a troubling question, to the extent they are considering exiting the church, then of course the answer matters. Givens response seems to be an admission that either a. he didn't know the answer, or b. he knew the answer was problematic with regards to the claims of the church or the claims of the Joseph Smith being a prophet. Here's why answers matter...because being truthful matters. Not answering questions, avoiding answering questions, is avoiding the truth. Givens basically told the sister missionary to stick her questions on a shelf. It really was a glib response (assuming it's been relayed accurately) and the sister missionary who had just devoted 18 months of her important youthful years at her own cost to promote the church, deserved a much better response than she got.

What is also telling is that the Mission President couldn't handle the question either. He had to bring in a church spin doctor, who likewise avoided answering the question in an attempt to keep the young woman active, rather than attempting to genuinely answer her question.

[The Stig]

This is why being careful matters.

Dehlin is not careful. He does not hit pause and think things through. His haste is his Kryptonite.

[Gadianton]

And there was a sister missionary who decided that she was going to leave the church. She was finishing her mission the next week and she'd made the decision to go home and leave. And her companion of course deeply distraught over this and asked the mission president "Could we go talk to brother Givens?"

How would the outcome have been different if it were "Could we go talk to brother Midgley?"

This sounds way too much like the smug apologist chuckling about how silly the doubter was to have all those doubts when the apologist's brilliant one-line silver bullet brings her up short because she just doesn't know.

It could be right from Rusty's diary, eh?

This is a tough one because Givens isn't the personification of explosive rage and vengeance. One of the problems with going after old-school FARMS is that they make it convenient for the critics because it's been a lot of "bad people making bad arguments". It's much easier to take the high ground. As I pointed out long ago, the new MI might be a higher caliber of people, but ultimately if they persist, they do so for the benefit of the corporate church. If the corporate church is a problem, then where do you go from there? Postmodern arguments for the Church are just as annoying to me as historical arguments.

But there's another dimension, because postmodern arguments are likely to be diversity friendly and so people really have got to figure out what it is that's wrong with Mormonism. I'm convinced that Mormonism is so money driven, that going LBGQ and eventually even women and the priesthood isn't out of the question. Then what?