Mormon Stories’ New Campaign

[Dr Moore]

I wonder if John might not be getting caught up with the surge in TikTok views, mistaking numbers for engagement. The younger audience is easy come easy go, but probably amounts to a lot of voices egging him on with antics like the Givens' missionary dismissal story.

[Kishkumen]

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/

"I don't know what it was."

There you go: Givens himself does not remember what the question was. I want to thank jpatterson for providing his own view of Givens' treatment of doubters. My bottom line on this situation is that it is very difficult to tell from our vantage point what was appropriate in that moment. Givens is clearly providing an example to address the issue I was discussing. Does the question itself actually matter, and how appropriate is it to raise that issue with the questioner? Evidently, in this particular circumstance, as Givens relates it, the missionary benefited from considering this issue. Whether we would agree, whether this is true . . . . so many points here are open to one's interpretation. How we interpret the situation from these accounts really depends on our own point of view, as is obvious from the development of this thread. I personally see no reason not to give Givens the benefit of the doubt based on what I know of him. I sympathize with the position he is in. If, on the other hand, you view Joseph Smith as a simple con artist, then of course you can fasten on this telling of the story and feel validated in believing that Givens dismissed a vital question. Still, "I don't know what it was" is a hole in the story all the same.

[Dr Moore]

If 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.

[Kishkumen]

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.

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.

Moreover, I think it is strategically a bad decision. Look, the weakness of the Mopologetic position was that the behavior of the Mopologists clearly conflicted with the self-avowed values of LDS believers. Why do you think the Mopologists ended up being marginalized? There were a number of reasons, and there is no simple answer to this question, but I would bet that the dreadful behavior of the Mopologists that alienated so many people made them vulnerable to being marginalized. Dehlin himself was a victim of Mopologetic bad behavior.

So what sense does it make for him to turn around now and complain about the apologists who live up to LDS standards of Christian behavior? Do we see the Givens sending out cyber spies to track the behavior of people like Dehlin? Do the Givenses have any connection to the Committee for the Strengthening of the Membership? Have they published hit pieces?

What exactly is Dehlin's beef? That he found out Givens criticized him in private?

Look, Givens was really ticked off at me for being critical of his work By the Hand of Mormon. The first time I met him I thought his eyes would bore a hole through my head. Yet within a couple of hours he approached me voluntarily to engage me in a positive and friendly way. Honestly, I was taken aback by the way he lived up to the best LDS values. Would anyone have blamed him for maintaining a negative stance toward Kishkumen? No. Kishkumen is an apostate who has criticized the Brethren, in the justifiable view of many LDS people. But he reached out anyway.

Everything I know about both of the Givenses (Terryl and Fiona) leads me to respect them, whether I agree with them or not. Is T. Givens perfect? No. But he is not a Mopologist, to use our board vernacular term. He is not susceptible to the same kind of criticism and opposition. Attacking Givens over that story is a huge stretch; attacking Bushman in a similar way is a huge stretch.

Anyone who does not see that does not understand that it is, contrary to the beliefs of many on both sides of the question, possible to come to very different conclusions about Mormonism with the same set of data. Interpretation does make a difference. Personal epistemology makes a big difference. Personal priorities and personal experiences do make a difference. And they do so in religion perhaps more than in other areas of life. For this reason I allow for huge differences of opinion on Mormonism, and I only feel to be really critical of those who demonstrably treat other people uncharitably as they wrestle with these questions.

[Kishkumen]

If 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.

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.

[IHAQ]

Givens himself does not remember what the question was.

But he remembers all the other details, including his precise response and her reaction. Sorry, don't believe him.

[Dr Moore]

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.

Makes sense. I believe in the multi-forest.

[Kishkumen]

But he remembers all the other details, including his precise response and her reaction. Sorry, don't believe him.

OK. Knowing the precise question wasn't the point of his story. It is only important to us because we want to judge his handling of the situation.

[kairos]

So anyone know why TG stays in the church? Strong belief in the restoration warts and all? Money? Prestige?
Humiliation if he were to leave?
Has he given an answer ?

Just askin
k

[Lem]

There seems to be some idea here that disagreeing with what someone says means one disrespects them as a person. That's not true, at least for me. I really do disagree with the way Givens handled this anecdote, both in the event and in the retelling. I think it is a harmful approach, but I can think that and still respect Givens as a human being. I disagree far more with how Dehlin seems to be capitalizing on it, in his new tiktok approach, but Dehhlin's misuse is a separate issue.