Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
"I don't know what it was."IHAQ wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:09 amThe anecdote in question, told by Givens himself.https://leadingsaints.org/ministering-t ... yl-givens/TERRYL: Yeah. Yeah. And then I think at least in my experience more fruitful and productive often than trying to answer the question as to interrogate the question itself. I remember my earliest experience that I can remember in which I was asked to engage a person in a moment of faith crisis. She was a missionary. She was about to leave about to finish her mission. And she’d made the decision she was going to leave the church and the mission president gave her permission to come [00.30.00] over to my home and speak with me because I guess he knew my writings he thought I might be a person with relevant background to help. And we talked and went back and forth for quite a while. But the moment of radical change occurred when it finally dawned on me to ask this question she was disturbed by something. That’s it. Yeah nice, I don’t know what it was, let’s say it was did Joseph Smith really, you know marry somebody without telling Emma? Or did he really marry a 14 year old girl? And I remember [00.30.30] I turned to her and I said, I asked, the question why does that matter to you? What’s at stake in that question? And I remember she just stopped and she thought for a minute and then she said I’m not sure. And it’s like she realized that yeah there’s something inherently disturbing or concerning about her question but is that relevant to the question of whether Temple Ordinances are valid? Whether we really lived in a pre-existence world? Or whether the priesthood [00.31.00] power is real and efficacious? And she suddenly realized that there might be a disconnect between her preoccupation with this question and the real grounds of her faith and commitment to Jesus Christ.
The reason I think this story is highly credible is because I know for a fact that John Dehlin tends to take things very personally. It is one of his flaws. I don't want to pick on him, and I do appreciate all the cool things he has done. At the same time, I think this whole neo-apologist campaign is frankly BS.jpatterson wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 9:55 pmI feel comfortable describing myself as a personal acquaintance of both Terryl and his amazing wife Fiona. I have dined at their home, I correspond regularly with the both of them and was among the very first to receive the galleys of their Crucible of Doubt book. I initiated their Mormon Stories interview several years ago in which they discussed the book with John.
John had a personal falling out with Terryl in particular--having something to do with some comments that were passed along to him that Terryl made in reference to John's excommunication. I don't know that the comments were ever fully corroborated, but I know for a fact that this incident directly lead to John's "neo-apologist" line of criticism against the Givens. John was super pro-Givens when he was supposedly trying the "middle way" and was doing all of his "middle way" interviews (Bushman, Givens, Philip Barlow, etc). Then when John and the church began souring on each other, John started being more critical of the Givens (mostly privately...he was not super on board with the Crucible of Doubt interview and did it mostly because I wanted to). Then around his excommunication, and the critical comments that traveled to him through the grapevine, he decided the Givens were harmful neo-apologists who are actively doing people harm.
When he got wind of those critical comments, he went directly to the private Facebook group of his closest friends and advisors (of which I was a member at the time) and declared that the Givenses, in his view, were actively harming people. That prompted my exit from said Facebook group and John and I had a personal falling out that lasted several months (including him telling me I wasn't being honest with myself and others because I was still trying to make the church work in my life). We later hashed it out and, while we didn't see eye to eye, we became cordial again (of course, that didn't last much longer)
John is smart enough and has had enough interaction to know that Terryl is infinitely more compassionate and nuanced than the anecdote suggests. Terryl's famous "Letter to a Doubter" is as much evidence of that than anything. That, in addition to the 10+ hours Terryl has spent on his podcast and all of his writing, is evidence enough that Terryl has compassion for people who doubt. For god's sake, Terryl himself has at least one child who as at least mostly inactive (if not has actively left the church by now).
Worst case scenario it may be that Terryl sometimes allows his inner academic to come through in some of these settings as I know he can at times become emotionally exhausted by addressing the same doubts and concerns over and over and over and over again. He's been doing it non-stop for decades now. I'm perfectly comfortable judging Terryl on the whole of his record rather than based on one solitary anecdote that is being told in passing and very much out of context.
John knows full well this line of criticism is unwarranted, but good for downloads and website hits. That's all he's about at this point. Anything that drives the bottom line.
Forgive me, Dr. Moore, but you seem to be assuming that this is or should be obvious to everyone. I am not comfortable assuming that Givens sees this forest in the same light you do, and that he is therefore culpable for not showing the forest you see to this sister missionary. I believe that Givens sees a different forest, not just different individual trees. It is, however, not an easy thing to show someone else a whole forest. The individual trees will be under discussion, regardless. If the way he approaches a question about an individual tree impacts the way someone CHOOSES to make out the forest, then we can, I believe, allow for the possibility that the questioner was amenable to seeing the forest in that way. The questioner's viewpoint is key here.Dr Moore wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 3:27 pmIf someone digs enough into Joseph Smith and church history, yeah there will be some questions that don't matter -- in isolation.
But there's a forest here, not just trees.
Givens shouldn't be scoring points by accusing someone of over-focusing on trees. Some people can't describe their forest without talking about individual trees along the way.
Makes sense. I believe in the multi-forest.Kishkumen wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 3:39 pmIt is, however, not an easy thing to show someone else a whole forest. The individual trees will be under discussion, regardless. If the way he approaches a question about an individual tree impacts the way someone CHOOSES to make out the forest, then we can, I believe, allow for the possibility that the questioner was amenable to seeing the forest in that way. The questioner's viewpoint is key here.