Mormon Stories’ New Campaign

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

The trouble is, we don't know----and apparently neither does John Dehlin----what questions this missionary brought to Givens and which one(s) prompted him to ask her why that question is significant.

That matters a lot as to how we judge Givens' response. If she was confessing that her bishop had raped her, or her father beats her mother, or her family goes hungry to pay tithing....well, then, yes, Givens would deserve a smackdown for such a trivializing response.

I don't think any of us believe her questions were anything of that nature, and were probably more along the lines of troubling church history. In which case, maybe it deserves the smackdown and maybe it doesn't. It may even depend on that individual woman, since different things carry different weight for different people.

If, let's say, she was asking a series of common troubling questions along the lines of Joseph's polygamy/polyandry, the Kirtland bank scandal, the Book of Abraham papyri, and then threw in: "And why were church meetings all changed to Sunday and then reduced to two hours??" I think we'd probably all agree that a logical response would be: "Why does that matter?"

That's very likely exaggerating the insignificance of her question, but (in the interests of full disclosure) I sort of "pulled a Givens" with my own sister, whom I love dearly and who is probably the most loving, non-judgmental, Christ-like Mormon you could ever meet. She was thrown BADLY by the Gospel Topics essays. She would never read the CES Letter, and only read the essays because they were published by the church, but she was appalled by what they reveal about Joseph's behavior.

I didn't exactly say, "Why does this matter?" but I might as well have. She loves the church, she loves her ward community, she loves Relief Society, so DOES it matter---for her---what the church founder did 200 years ago? He's dead. He's been dead for centuries. It's a very different church than it was in Joseph's day, and Mormons don't worship Joseph anyway (or at least they aren't supposed to). So, does it matter, really? I was honestly asking and, for my sister, she realized it doesn't matter. It's not why she's a member and it has no effect on her faith.

The moral of the story is: When in doubt, ask your apostate sibling!

So that's what I'm overlaying onto Givens' anecdote, but, again: We don't know and neither does John Dehlin, yet he rips a Givens a new one, despite having no idea what the man was even responding to. It's possible Givens was merging a couple of anecdotes together of more than one person that he's spoken with. That would be an ethical way to maintain confidentiality and avoid the woman in question hearing that story and realizing that Givens is spreading her business around as a faith-promoting anecdote.

But we don't know. And neither does Dehlin.

With Bushman, I can see more of a reason to criticize him. And this may apply to Givens too, even though you have to squint a little to see it. But Bushman has straight-up said the orthodox narrative is false and unsustainable, yet he continues to claim that he believes it.

I can see a problem with that. It's dishonest and self-serving, especially when the success of their book sales relies on Deseret being willing to give them the imprimatur of carrying them in church-owned bookstores.

But, again, we know what Bushman said. It's on video, and it lacks any explanation as to how and why Bushman can say it's a false narrative, but then continue to claim he believes it. We don't have any idea what Givens was responding to. And neither does Dehlin, which makes the one-sided, Yelling At An Empty Chair and Pretending It's Givens episode really unfair.

[jpatterson]

I 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.

[Philo Sofee]

This is quite an informative thread. Thanks to all who have contributed to it...

[Lem]

...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.

Thanks for the feedback, and you bring up a good point that several have continued to ask, but to which I don't think I saw a response; what was the full context? From the OP, it seemed that he was quoting Givens, but then stopped:

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."

The quote ends there and Dehhlin begins his assessment. He does indeed take a very negative view, but I still have some reservations. To me using her story, chuckling and repeating "I don't know" is still difficult to interpret as empathetic and understanding of the woman's questions, in spite of people's comments otherwise, particularly without some context. For those of us not so familiar with Givens, is there a full transcript or audio where one can see the full context? For example, what did Givens say next? Did he give any further explanation?

[IHAQ]

The anecdote in question, told by Givens himself.

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.

https://leadingsaints.org/ministering-t ... yl-givens/

[Lem]

The anecdote in question, told by Givens himself.

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.

https://leadingsaints.org/ministering-t ... yl-givens/

[bolding added]
Thank you, that's very helpful. Re the bolded part, yes, it very much does matter whether "Priesthood power" was instituted by a con artist who fed his insatiabilities by way of immoral and unethical behavior.

It seems as though my original assessment was correct, then...

That's what bothers me about this story. As it is told, it focuses on abruptly stopping the questioning by asking an odd question. We don't know how the Sister missionary ultimately responded, we only know that her momentary confusion is used to make a point about how questions don't matter. To me, that is an abuse of a very difficult and intimate process. Why focus on that? It seems to me that the only reason to focus on it is to imply that these questions people have ultimately don't "matter." That's a very dismissive approach to take, but one that seems focused on keeping members in, not on forwarding truth....

[IHAQ]

It seems as though my original assessment was correct, then...

That's what bothers me about this story. As it is told, it focuses on abruptly stopping the questioning by asking an odd question. We don't know how the Sister missionary ultimately responded, we only know that her momentary confusion is used to make a point about how questions don't matter. To me, that is an abuse of a very difficult and intimate process. Why focus on that? It seems to me that the only reason to focus on it is to imply that these questions people have ultimately don't "matter." That's a very dismissive approach to take, but one that seems focused on keeping members in, not on forwarding truth....

Givens is simply telling people to put their questions on the shelf, rather than addressing the question the person has. And he's built a career on it. To take liberties with a famous sci fi film and Sir Alec Guinness...Givens is waving his hand mysteriously and saying "These are not the questions you're looking for...."

[DrStakhanovite]

Edited this post, didn't like it and I want to try again later.

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

I took one for the team and watched the Mormon Stories Givens episode, so that you don't have to.

For those wondering about Givens' delivery, especially The Infamous Chuckle, here's the video of the actual fireside where Givens originally relayed this story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq73pdjsqFQ

If you just want to see The Infamous Chuckle for yourself, it appears about five minutes into the MS episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nDJsbbugu4

Overall, the episode wasn't as ranting or disjointed as some of his other recent solo ventures have been....but that's about the only positive thing I can come up with to say about it....

Dehlin comes off as obnoxiously self-aggrandizing and tone-deaf. I don't know how many times he repeats that he's "counseled over 30,000 people!" Quite a feat, considering he got his PhD in....what? 2012? Just out of curiosity, I looked it up and, according to Psychology Today, the average full-time therapist sees 25 clients per week, or approximately 1,300 billable hours in a year. That would be about 11,000 billable hours in nine years and, of course, many of those are returning clients, not unique individuals.

I'm not saying Dehlin is lying about this point. I'm just saying that the church isn't lying either when (as Dehlin bangs on and on about here) they describe Helen Mar Kimball as "a few months shy of her 15th birthday."

Long story short, we don't have any documentation of Givens' original conversation with this sister missionary and he doesn't describe it in any further detail. Givens actually says he doesn't remember the specific question that prompted him to ask her why that particular question was important to her, but he seems to recall that she had been asking questions about the more unseemly aspects of Joseph's past.

The whole thing is basically a throwaway point in an hour-long fireside, where Givens is getting at something much closer to what I was getting at with my sister: Does this thing that's bothering you affect your faith? Does it affect whether or not you want to continue to be a part of the church?

What Dehlin doesn't seem to grasp, despite the fact that plenty of his guests have mentioned it on his show, is that, when confronted with disconcerting facts about church history, a lot of members are far more upset that the church never told them than about the substance of the facts themselves.

After all, if you can believe that an angel brought golden plates to a farm boy who translated them by the gift and power of God, why is it so hard to believe that a farm boy got divine inspiration by looking at a rock in his hat? It's not the rock-in-the-hat that bothers them. It's that they feel duped by the church.

As far as Givens' Infamous Chuckle, it sounds less like a chuckle and more like he's clearing his throat. Or perhaps like he's marveling at the absurdities of life and faith. It doesn't come across to me as dismissive, but your mileage may vary.

My jaw dropped, though, when Dehlin asks Givens---or anyone who might know---to identify the sister missionary so that Dehlin can talk to her. Like he really thinks Givens is going to call him up and tell him her name. Or that he thinks this former missionary would just be thrilled to be contacted out of the blue by John Dehlin because a half-remembered private conversation she had years ago has now been made public. Or that he thinks identifying her would even be appropriate!

Dehlin proceeds to act as if the missionary's question was, indeed, about Joseph's polygamy, despite Givens making it quite clear that he doesn't remember what the question was. (Sorry, I'm repeating myself. I just can't get over that the whole premise of the episode revolves around a hypothetical that Dehlin pulled out of his ass.)

The point of Givens' story was exactly what he asked the missionary: How does this affect your faith and your relationship to the church today? He doesn't come across to me as in any way being dismissive of the feelings some people have when they become aware of these historical problems. He in no way seems to be suggesting a new cliché for doubting members. The anecdote is a sub-point of a sub-point.

Biggest cringe moment: When Dehlin rails about Joseph not telling Emma about his mistresses. Well....I dunno, John...did you tell your wife about yours? It's always been my impression that keeping it a secret from one's spouse was part-and-parcel to the whole extramarital affair thing.

(Mind you, I don't judge Dehlin for the affair, per se. Since I don't buy that it was assault or harassment, I really don't consider it to be any of the public's business. He's certainly not the first man to cheat on his wife, and he won't be the last. I'm just saying that when it's been a part of the public conversation about you for a decade, you might want to give it a rest with the finger-pointing. And, yes, I realize there are significant differences, but it's still pretty hard to watch.)

Dehlin's overarching point is that BIC members and converts are not taught about these aspects of church history, but I'm not even sure how much steam that point has anymore, as the essays have been published on the church's website for at least five or six years now. Yes, the essays have a PR spin and, no, their content still isn't being regularly taught in Sunday meetings as far as I know.

But any member or potential convert who can use the Internet and read has pretty much found them by now if they want to. The fact that these aspects of church history actually might not bother some members seems to sail right over Dehlin's head. He's got a point to make and he's going to make it, regardless of whether Givens' anecdote actually fits the narrative or not.

The remainder of the episode is comprised of TikToks that Dehlin solicited, in which random people "explain" to Givens why his response to the-question-that-nobody-knows-because-Givens-doesn't-remember-it is really very, very important and Givens' "dismissal" of their concerns is gaslighting them.

TikTok seems to be the new market Dehlin is aiming for, and this episode struck me as a pilot for the idea of soliciting TikToks from audience members and then picking a few to feature on the show. I guess that's not a bad idea, if the audience members have any idea WTF they're responding to.

tl;dr We don't know the full context. Neither does Dehlin or his featured audience members. Givens doesn't even remember the full context. I think Mormon Stories has officially jumped the shark.

[dastardly stem]

Givens story sounds boring and old hat now. It's what I was told tons of times growing up and as a missionary--"Elder, does that issue really matter concerning your salvation?" The issues didn't necessarily go away with that though. You, as the questioner, just end up feeling a little guilty about the concern and then feel obligated to drop it.

Think about it, a younger lady asking a wise old apologist questions and at some point, he gets a revelation of sorts to say the same thing everyone else is saying about her questions--'just pretend they don't really matter, like me'. Would we really expect that she'd continue pushing her concerns in such a scenario? He walks away thinking he got a win, and she walks away, perhaps, to have to confront the haunting questions years later as they get stuffed into the back of her mind.

What a win!