Terryl Givens.....
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:23 pm
....An Approach to Thoughtful, Honest and Faithful Mormonism
http://mormonstories.org/?p=2018
This was a great podcast but unless you really want to devote the time to it I imagine you will pass. It is more than four hours.
I appreciated that Givens readily admits the many problems we discuss here and does not try to dodge them. But it also seems to me that he has to jump through a lot of hoops to maintain a literal belief in the restoration, Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc. He allows that polygamy may have been a major debacle and even that parts of D&C 132 may not be all that inspired, while other parts are. He states that revelation in the Church is likely few and far between ( at least the type of big earth shattering revelation that opened up the restoration). He stated that while we say we have an open canon in practice it is really not all that open. He admits that the Church has really dumbed down (My words) what it teaches and promotes and that the Church is bleeding members. He believes that in the age of the internet unless the Church takes steps to be more open about things it will continue to lose members.
I hope I am summarizing this well. I have listened to this going to and from work over the past week.
But what really struck me is this. The dichotomy between chapel and internet Mormons is very real. Givens simply has to downplay so much of what the Church teaches as literal and what most members in the pews think is literal as well. Does Givens think most TBMs in the pews would agree that the Prophets get a lot wrong, that God given a grand revelation then mostly lets things go on their own even if big errors creep in. For example he uses Adam God and Blood atonement as BYs big attempt to be a revelator that really failed because the teachings did not stick. So BY became a colonizer and really not a Prophet revelator. But I doubt BY viewed himself that way or many or most who followed him. And what damage was done by these teachings-Mountain Meadows, other atrocities, FLDS type groups today?
Of there is much more and I think I liked Givens. But it becomes more and more clear to me that those who become well read and know of the problematic issues in the Church have to really modify their thinking to still believe it is a true restoration. And I am doubtful many of their views would be welcome in Gospel Doctrine class.
What is interesting in all this is that in one of his books he takes the all or nothing approach-either Joseph Smith was a prophet and this is a restoration or it is an awful fraud. How he lands on the positive affirmation of that position based on what he said and how much he modifies is really beyond me.
Course who am I to criticize? My butt is still in the pew every Sunday even though I have serious doubts about the truth of it all.
http://mormonstories.org/?p=2018
This was a great podcast but unless you really want to devote the time to it I imagine you will pass. It is more than four hours.
I appreciated that Givens readily admits the many problems we discuss here and does not try to dodge them. But it also seems to me that he has to jump through a lot of hoops to maintain a literal belief in the restoration, Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc. He allows that polygamy may have been a major debacle and even that parts of D&C 132 may not be all that inspired, while other parts are. He states that revelation in the Church is likely few and far between ( at least the type of big earth shattering revelation that opened up the restoration). He stated that while we say we have an open canon in practice it is really not all that open. He admits that the Church has really dumbed down (My words) what it teaches and promotes and that the Church is bleeding members. He believes that in the age of the internet unless the Church takes steps to be more open about things it will continue to lose members.
I hope I am summarizing this well. I have listened to this going to and from work over the past week.
But what really struck me is this. The dichotomy between chapel and internet Mormons is very real. Givens simply has to downplay so much of what the Church teaches as literal and what most members in the pews think is literal as well. Does Givens think most TBMs in the pews would agree that the Prophets get a lot wrong, that God given a grand revelation then mostly lets things go on their own even if big errors creep in. For example he uses Adam God and Blood atonement as BYs big attempt to be a revelator that really failed because the teachings did not stick. So BY became a colonizer and really not a Prophet revelator. But I doubt BY viewed himself that way or many or most who followed him. And what damage was done by these teachings-Mountain Meadows, other atrocities, FLDS type groups today?
Of there is much more and I think I liked Givens. But it becomes more and more clear to me that those who become well read and know of the problematic issues in the Church have to really modify their thinking to still believe it is a true restoration. And I am doubtful many of their views would be welcome in Gospel Doctrine class.
What is interesting in all this is that in one of his books he takes the all or nothing approach-either Joseph Smith was a prophet and this is a restoration or it is an awful fraud. How he lands on the positive affirmation of that position based on what he said and how much he modifies is really beyond me.
Course who am I to criticize? My butt is still in the pew every Sunday even though I have serious doubts about the truth of it all.