Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

[deacon blues]

Darn it. I can't make my comments come out right. Must be time to go to bed.

[Keewon]

Emower: The problem comes when we start trying to apply the word "truth" to things like whether Givens has it right or not. And, harking back to my scientific education, its not science unless it is falsifiable. Now I will support the argument all day long that the book of Abraham as Joseph described it is falsifiable. But Givens' state of mind, whether he understands that falsifiable nature of the book, and the utility of the approach he takes and offers to others is no longer the domain of "truth."

jfro18: What I'm saying is that truth isn't meaningful to the individual anymore because truth has changed from facts to feelings.

And maybe I'm super jaded from working with political people over the last 7 years and then church stuff, but "truth" is a squishy word to people now.

I absolutely agree with these comments. The word "truth" seems to be all but indistinguishable functionally from opinion, gut feeling etc in modern discourse. I believe this squishiness is all the more reason to hold onto the close connection of "truth" with facts, which many people still give at least lip service to. In this time, when the term "fake news" is so readily bandied about and even the possibility of coming to a common understanding in an increasingly polarized world seems increasingly remote, I am reminded of the words of Carl Sagan:

“I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us - then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. .. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.”

Many LDS church members grow up thinking of "truth" in terms of "Truth" (capital "T") in the sense of D&C 50, that if something "edifies" that means it's true, and if it doesn't edify it may be "true" but isn't the "Truth", and more importantly is "not of God". I'm guessing there is some of this attitude in some people's willingness to bend or hide simple facts if those facts get in the way of a more important underlying reality like the revealed origins of the BofA. What does it matter (they ask) if JS got some details of the story wrong? The revealed truths of the BofA, and the divine origin of those truths, are far more important. And in a world of conflicting messages, the most important thing (they argue) is learning to hear and follow the Shepherd's voice.

I can see their point. But the story becomes more complicated when you realize that it's not just one or two data points, but pretty much the entire body of scientific evidence, that contradicts JS's explanations. It makes sense not to worry about a piece or two that don't seem to fit a particular jigsaw puzzle picture, but what if the pieces fit just fine into a picture that's not the same as the one on the box?

*****
P.S. Can someone tell me how to embed people's names in the quotation marks? I know I'm doing this wrong...

[jfro18]

Many LDS church members grow up thinking of "truth" in terms of "Truth" (capital "T") in the sense of D&C 50, that if something "edifies" that means it's true, and if it doesn't edify it may be "true" but isn't the "Truth", and more importantly is "not of God". I'm guessing there is some of this attitude in some people's willingness to bend or hide simple facts if those facts get in the way of a more important underlying reality like the revealed origins of the BofA. What does it matter (they ask) if JS got some details of the story wrong? The revealed truths of the BofA, and the divine origin of those truths, are far more important. And in a world of conflicting messages, the most important thing (they argue) is learning to hear and follow the Shepherd's voice.

When you're raised to believe that facts that make you uncomfortable are from Satan, it makes you fight all the more to make it work or to flat out ignore data that contradicts your beliefs. That is an amazing force and I've come across in discussions with people over the last year - they will flee when they know the facts are not on their side.

I can see their point. But the story becomes more complicated when you realize that it's not just one or two data points, but pretty much the entire body of scientific evidence, that contradicts JS's explanations. It makes sense not to worry about a piece or two that don't seem to fit a particular jigsaw puzzle picture, but what if the pieces fit just fine into a picture that's not the same as the one on the box?

Yep. When I talked with DW about these issues I tried to make this point - apologists love divide and conquer because it's easy to brush away singular issues as just "We'll sort it all out later," but when you see it altogether the pattern that is left is undeniable.

P.S. Can someone tell me how to embed people's names in the quotation marks? I know I'm doing this wrong...

Click the quote logo in the upper right of the post and it will auto appear If not, you can type "quote=Keewon" in brackets [ and ] and just replace the username... I think.

[Not Buying It]

I get that Givens is useful for some questioning members. He is an alternate voice, a deviation from what is heard from the pulpit. He does legitimize some issues the Brethren would rather pretend don't exist. I understand why some of you are OK with him or even accepting of him. And to be honest, I have no information whatsoever about Given's state of mind, and whether he is sincere, and whether he is motivated to any extent by attention or money. or if he thinks the things he is teaching are true. If I take a behaviorist approach and only focus on things I can directly observe, regardless of what is going on in his head there are some things I find deeply troubling about him:

• Terryl Givens takes an intellectually dishonest approach to explaining the Book of Abraham. In my view, that is not up for debate. Any argument that ignores or spins"The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." is intellectually dishonest.

• Terryl Givens has taken it upon himself to encourage people to stay in the Church

• Terryl Givens gets money and attention for taking it upon himself to encourage people to stay in the Church

• Terryl Givens is aware the narrative is fundamentally flawed (or he wouldn't be doing what he is doing) yet encourages people to make decisions based on that flawed narrative

• Terryl Givens obfuscates and spins those flaws to keep them from dissuading people the Church is true

• Terryl Givens misrepresents the nature of the Church as being far more tolerant of alternative viewpoints than it actually is

Even if I don't know what is going on in his head I can observe what he is doing. And what he is doing is harmful in my view, and this quote I found on the internet somewhere illustrates why, he has made himself part of the machinery that perpetuates this:

nkiqqhslois21.jpg (43.41 KiB) Viewed 9074 times

[Ghost]

This is a great thread. All of the responses are very interesting.

Yes, I also appreciate this discussion.

I sure was impressed with Givens's By the Hand of Mormon when I read it soon after its release. I've wondered in recent years how differently I might look at it now were I to read it again.

[The Beast]

It sounds like he's saying wall-jello is now the standard for doctrinal exegesis and that you should just be open to going along with whatever flavor they're tossing out today, curious sure, but more importantly, intellectually submissive.

When someone brought up the fact that the main problems still exist, like the embarrassingly bad translations of the facsimiles, Givens said:

The process was not what we thought, but has no bearing on the validity of the product.

If I'm following where he's going with all of this and other statements on the AMA, Givens seems to be saying that Joseph believed what he was translating was correct, and even though it wasn't that's okay because he was channeling information from an outside source to restore what the papyri really SHOULD have said.

Just deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole in order to continue believing. Whatever it takes....just keep believing.
Isn't that the classic ploy of all con men?

You've just got to be intellectually flexible enough to keep making the required paradigm shift. Unfortunately for me, I shifted so much I stripped my transmission altogether and had to scrap the car.

[Emower]

• Terryl Givens is aware the narrative is fundamentally flawed (or he wouldn't be doing what he is doing) yet encourages people to make decisions based on that flawed narrative

I think this is what I disagree with. I dont think Givens knows or accepts that the narrative is fundamentally flawed, in fact I would argue that the reason he is doing what he does is because he does not believe the narrative is fundamentally flawed. What makes this even more complicated is that everyones version of what fundamentally flawed means, is different. the bar for being fundamentally flawed for me was much lower than what it is for Teryl.

Also, I really disagree with your quote. Again, fundamentally immoral has a much different meaning depending on your upbringing, your country of origin, your DNA, your social class, etc.

[Not Buying It]

• Terryl Givens is aware the narrative is fundamentally flawed (or he wouldn't be doing what he is doing) yet encourages people to make decisions based on that flawed narrative

I think this is what I disagree with. I dont think Givens knows or accepts that the narrative is fundamentally flawed, in fact I would argue that the reason he is doing what he does is because he does not believe the narrative is fundamentally flawed. What makes this even more complicated is that everyones version of what fundamentally flawed means, is different. the bar for being fundamentally flawed for me was much lower than what it is for Teryl.

Also, I really disagree with your quote. Again, fundamentally immoral has a much different meaning depending on your upbringing, your country of origin, your DNA, your social class, etc.

One of the great things about this thread is it is an honest to goodness discussion, not just more noise in the echo chamber. I for one think it is great to see some differing opinions.

You may well be right - Givens may not see the narrative as fundamentally flawed, he may see it as fundamentally right once you get past all the noise. And yet, he realizes there are problems - he wouldn’t have to write a book about the BoA if he didn’t realize there are problems. Perhaps he doesn’t conceptualize them as problems, but he realizes the BoA can’t stand on its own, and he feels the need to write a book to prop it up. In other words, he realizes the narrative is flawed as it currently stands, and the reason for his book’s existence is to revise the narrative.

And I personally like the quote. While in some sense rightness or wrongness of an action does vary from culture to culture, I kind of think there are universal wrongs, and withholding information to trap people in a belief system they might otherwise choose to reject is one of those wrongs.

[Emower]

And yet, he realizes there are problems - he wouldn’t have to write a book about the BoA if he didn’t realize there are problems. Perhaps he doesn’t conceptualize them as problems, but he realizes the BoA can’t stand on its own, and he feels the need to write a book to prop it up. In other words, he realizes the narrative is flawed as it currently stands, and the reason for his book’s existence is to revise the narrative.

Agreed.

And I personally like the quote. While in some sense rightness or wrongness of an action does vary from culture to culture, I kind of think there are universal wrongs, and withholding information to trap people in a belief system they might otherwise choose to reject is one of those wrongs.

Yeah, I can see that. And once I finish the book I am currently reading about morality and get some distance I might feel differently, but the book I am reading describes WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic) societies as having a much different view of morality because they view the world as full of separate objects and emphasize individual freedoms much more than much of the rest of the world. Here is an interesting quote:

The moral domain is unusually narrow in WEIRD cultures, where it is largely limited to the ethic of autonomy, (i.e., moral concerns about individuals harming, oppressing, or cheating individuals). It is broader - including the ethics of community and divinity - in most other societies, and within religious and and conservative moral matrices within WEIRD societies.

So, if you see Teryl as harming the ethic of autonomy by oppressing someone, then that would fall in the fundamentally immoral category. But other cultures see morality as much more community based, and if you see Teryl as trying to improve the community then possibly it wouldn't be immoral.

[Corsair]

By Givens' own admission we cannot rely on this doctrine to be "from Abraham" in any objective way. Let's have one peek at the contents of the Book of Abraham and ignore the ridiculous translation process. It's hard to ignore the text asserting historical "facts" that show how Joseph had no idea what he was talking about, yet seemed very confident in the book. Right in the first chapter we have Abraham 1:23

The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

There is so much historically wrong with this verse alone. It overtly implies that the story of Noah and the world wide flood was a literal event. The racist overtones in the story of Egyptus are astonishing and equally insulting to the known history of Egypt. The word "Egypt" is a Greek word, not Chaldean, so this story makes even less sense from a historical perspective. Neither Chaldea nor Greece existed at the time of Abraham. The next verses make everything worse, by the way.

Part of Terryl Givens' idea is that the Book of Abraham has some fantastic doctrine that is truly helpful and a new. In the Reddit AMA, Givens states:

I am personally drawn to theology. I want to know the big picture. LDS doctrine gives us that. It is without any question whatsoever the most compelling and intellectually coherent account of God's nature and purposes in the religious universe. I am overwhelmed with love and reverence for the overall conception to which restoration teachings introduce us. So I am personally unphased by the messiness of the process that got it to us. Rather like honey. Dont think too much about the process that produced it!.

(emphasis added)

We could have a long debate if the LDS doctrine truly is the most compelling and intellectually coherent account of God's nature and purposes in the religious universe. I have read a lot of philosophy from thinkers all around the religious and ideological spectrum. The BoA is nice, but I think that books like the Dao De Ching, the Didache, and the Upanishads have had a wider and more lasting effect on the world. They are quite compelling, also. Joseph Smith's description of how the universe functions has to compete objectively with them and then with David Hume and many others who spent a lot more time and effort coming up with a coherent way to understand the universe.

If Givens wants to simply use the Book of Abraham strictly as a work of doctrine, then Joseph Smith has to compete with Augustine, Aquinas, Athanasius, and Alexander and that's only the start of the alphabet of Christian thinkers. I think that J. R. R. Tolkien did a better job than the BoA of wrestling with free will, the problem of evil, and our relationship to God in "The Lord of the Rings". Givens' arguments in favor of the Book of Abraham have simply not shown me that this book of scripture is worth further consideration.

[Hagoth]

What does it matter (they ask) if JS got some details of the story wrong? The revealed truths of the BofA, and the divine origin of those truths, are far more important.

In such a case it would be useful for someone to give a list of the specific truths revealed in the BoA, and eliminate any that Joseph could have derived from other sources or that couldn't have just been products of his imagination. Are there any statements in the BoA that are falsifiable that have not been falsified? Are there any that have demonstrated predictive power? The astronomy in the BoA, for one thing, really falls flat in this regard.

[Hagoth]

I have been asking myself whether I will read Givens' book when it comes out. He hasn't yet made any claims that he has access to new information, so his book will really just be more fancy tap dancing around the same old problems. If any of you are aware of any breakthroughs the Givens is about to reveal, please let me in on it.

I think the real reason for this book is not that the BoA is a beautiful and explanatory revelation, but that it is the weakest link. Some people have said that the church should de-canonize the BoA and cut their losses. In a recent offline conversation Consiglieri helped clarify for me why that can't happen. He observed that the church cannot walk away from the BoA because that would be admitting that it's not scripture, and therefore not revelation, and therefore not a translation, even by their new definition of the word. It would be a domino falling in the translation of the Book of Mormon, the translation of which he calls the "tar baby" of the church.

We were always taught that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the church, but right now I think the BoA has reluctantly taken that role. If they can't defend its authoritative value, all of the cards in the house are at risk. B. H. Roberts said, “if Joseph Smith’s translation of the Egyptian parchment could be discredited, and proven false, then doubt would be thrown also upon the genuineness of his translation of the Book of Mormon, and thus all his pretensions as a translator would be exposed and come to naught." What an astute observation from a General Authority.

That's why Givens is doing this. He has nothing new to bring to the table; he is a manifestation of an institutional act of desperation.

[Keewon]

I think that J. R. R. Tolkien did a better job than the BoA of wrestling with free will, the problem of evil, and our relationship to God in "The Lord of the Rings".

Some FAIR scholars are starting to think that perhaps the Lord of the Rings wasn't fictional after all. How could the story be so deeply moving if it were just fiction? Gotta be the spirit saying "Gandalf really did exist!"

One amazing find in northern Ireland was a gravestone with the letters "BLB" on it. That has to be Bilbo, doesn't it? I mean, what else could it be? (Hat tip to "NHM")

Sorry... I'm feeling a bit snarky right now.

[Emower]

We were always taught that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the church, but right now I think the BoA has reluctantly taken that role.

No, I think the keystone of the church always has been and will continue to be the prophet and his authority to tell you what you are going to believe. They will never teach that, because saying it all rests on the BOM sounds less culty (I know, weird right?). But really, its kind of like Politics. No matter what happens, supporters will continue to support. The book of mormon, or the book of abraham can continue to be flimsy and falsifiable, but as long as the prophet continues to believe, everyone else continues to find a way to believe as well. If the prophet were to say, de-emphasize it, everyone would drop it like a hot pile of lima beans. Will that happen, no. I agree with you there. But the prophet is the keystone.

[moksha]

I got the impression that Fiona isn't much of a believer and is along for the ride. She actually made a disparaging remark about the GAs and said she prefers Harry Potter to the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps she finds the Dementors less scary than the Correlations Committee.

[asa]

We were always taught that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the church, but right now I think the BoA has reluctantly taken that role.

No, I think the keystone of the church always has been and will continue to be the prophet and his authority to tell you what you are going to believe. They will never teach that, because saying it all rests on the BOM sounds less culty (I know, weird right?). But really, its kind of like Politics. No matter what happens, supporters will continue to support. The book of mormon, or the book of abraham can continue to be flimsy and falsifiable, but as long as the prophet continues to believe, everyone else continues to find a way to believe as well. If the prophet were to say, de-emphasize it, everyone would drop it like a hot pile of lima beans. Will that happen, no. I agree with you there. But the prophet is the keystone.

I disagree. The keystone has I think always been and will continue to be personal revelation.While it is less discussed now that it use to be there is still an understanding that it is logically prior to prophets or scripture. Look at Nelson BYU address. The fifth point was the need for revelation to know if the prophet is a prophet . What do missionaries teach about how to know if the B of M is true ? Personal revelation. What started the whole ball rolling ? Personal revelation to a teenager. It is a point often ignored in conference talks and there is a recognition that at its heart is a potential for anarchy. Thus it is easier to succumb to the seductive call of “follow the prophet “ or as Joseph Fielding Smith use to argue the scriptures are the “standard against which all things are to be measured” but the only way we can “know” anything in this church is true ultimately is through personal revelation. The GAs might try to teach otherwise but they have a different agenda. Incidentally I know Givens personally and do not doubt his bona fides. While I often think he is too much of an apologist and is too circumspect in dealing with egregious and outrageous aspects of church history ,practice and doctrine he is a lot like Bushman ( who I also know). Both are well acquainted with the serious flaws in the institution and in many aspects of the traditional narrative but both believe in the divinity of the big picture

[Hagoth]

I disagree. The keystone has I think always been and will continue to be personal revelation.

Hi Asa!

No doubt personal revelation should be the keystone. The problem is that you are only allowed to claim revelation within very narrow guidelines. Your revelation aligns with what the GA's tell you? Great! Personal revelation is wonderful and essential! But what if your revelation isn't in tune with Dallin Oaks? It's from the devil. Ignore it and keep trying. Even Elder Holland gets bad revelation, or even worse, God intentionally lies to him to send him down the wrong path so he has to figure it out on his own. So they're telling you that your revelation MUST align with theirs, but at the same time that personal revelation isn't reliable, and that God intentionally makes it that way.

What if you actually get personal revelation that Joseph Smith, the living prophet or the Book of Mormon are NOT true? That was my problem. Every time I tried to get confirming revelation I got just the opposite. Was God revealing truth to me or was he tricking me into going down the wrong path What if I got the "correct" answers? Why should I accept them automatically without considering that God was messing with me, dropping me into a hole to see if I had what it takes to climb back out?

I can only speak for myself, but the only conclusions I can draw from the sum of my personally revelatory experiences is that either: a) the church, it's leaders, and its book are not true, or b) that this yes/no warm/prickly system of epistemology just doesn't work as advertised, at least not for me. And when I listen to the caveats and qualifiers that others seem to put on their testimonies, the leaps of logic they often make in getting from point A to point B, I get the strong impression that I'm not alone.

Here's what I meant by my keystone observation. I was referring of course to Joseph Smith's statement that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. I even remember a seminary teacher physically building an arch out of wooden blocks labeled "priesthood," "prophesy," "atonement," etc. The keystone said "Book of Mormon," and when he yanked it out the whole thing came tumbling down. B.H. Roberts said “if Joseph Smith’s translation of the Egyptian parchment could be discredited, and proven false, then doubt would be thrown also upon the genuineness of his translation of the Book of Mormon, and thus all his pretensions as a translator would be exposed and come to naught."

Following that logic the veracity of the Book of Mormon is, in a way, contingent on the veracity of the Book of Abraham, so let's just test the arch by assuming that contingency and placing the BoA in the keystone position. The evidence tells me that Brother Robert's fears about Joseph's translation of the parchment have been resoundingly confirmed. Personally, I think the apologetics for the BoA are abysmal to the point of being embarrassing for the church. They are not only weak, they are in some cases downright dishonest. A keystone of soft, crumbling sand.

That's why Givens is writing this book. He has no new evidence to bring to the table, but what he does have is persuasion and a talent for softening the blow and helping people find ways walk the faith tightrope that works for them despite the problems. And that is just what some people really need. People want to keep on believing what they believe.

[Red Ryder]

Maybe we should invite Terryl to participate in this thread. Anyone know his email address?

Oh and nice to see Asa here again!

[alas]

Guys, you are arguing over which one element of the church is the “key stone”. Now, step back. What exactly is a key stone? It is the top stone in an arch, which if removed, the whole arch falls. Only problem is that if you remove the stone next to the key stone, the whole arch falls. See, in an arch, each stone leans on the two stones at each side. Take any stone out, and the arch collapses. The key stone is simply the last one put in, so that the under construction arch no longer needs outside support. With the key stone leaning on the other stones, the arch supports itself. But each one of the seven or so angled stones is absolutely necessary to support the arch. So, what I am saying is that if you prove the BoA false, the arch collapses. If you prove the BoM false, the arch collapses. If you prove individual revelation false, the arch collapses. If you prove the prophet false, the arch collapses. The arch has about seven stones that lean on each other and if you take any of them out, the arch falls.

So, you are all correct that if the one element you called the key stone falls, the whole arch falls.

So, which stone was the last one put in place. Well, to me that would be when BY took over from JS and the concept of a prophet leading the church was transferred to him...so, a modern prophet or line of succession of prophets is the final stone put in place.

But if you remove the book of Abraham stone, the arch falls. If you remove the Book of Mormon stone, the arch falls. If you remove the Jesus stone, the arch falls. That is why there are so many of us on NOM who arrive here by different stones falling. My trust in a living prophet fell in 1970 when I decided the restriction on blacks having priesthood was just racial prejudice. But I hung around thinking the broken arch was still more true than the broken arch of some other churches. Others lost the modern prophet stone over LGBT issues, or they lost the BoA stone, or the prophet Joseph stone. But everybody here seems to have had a different stone fall first. Usually depending on which one they looked at and picked at first. Each stone in the arch is essential and if it falls, the stones on either side of it fall, and the whole arch comes down.

[Hagoth]

Alas, you're forgetting that this arch is also held up by magic.

So what if you kick out a few blocks? The remaining blocks just hang there in the air, supported by the power of sheer faith. I think the Givens approach is to help you feel ok with the idea that as long as you can keep a block or two in the air you can feel comfortable closing your eyes and visualizing the complete arch. With your eyes closed it's a pretty damn fine arch, you can feel really good about its archiness, you can see how it fulfills the ideal of archiness, even though the physical reality of it is severely lacking. If you really engage with it as you should it will be arch enough for you.