- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have finally gotten around to reading The Givens’ book All Things New. I am the type of person who watches great movies, 7 years after they come out and I really want to talk to people about them, when the people who saw them when they came out have kind of forgotten about them. Better late than never. So far, my thoughts:
1. I really appreciate what the Givens are trying to do here. The theology around God, Christ and the Atonement are “untouchable” areas for debate and must be handled like a live land mine. I also appreciate that they are trying to address real problems within a faithful context and draw on faithful sources to help resolve some of these issues;
2. One common thread I’ve found with apologetics is that the author is relying on the fact that you (the reader) do not have all of the information that they have and are not familiar with the weakness of their arguments. I see the Givens doing that here. They shift all the criticism for a problematic penal substitution atonement theory onto early Christian fathers and avoid any discussion of its role in LDS doctrine;
3. So far they have totally ignored what I see as the elephant in the room, a cornerstone of the Protestant reformation and threat to LDS theology . . . namely that Jesus and Paul were critical of religion based on external requirements for salvation. The renting of the veil of the temple was highly symbolic of the removal of an intermediary between the individual and God. Paul said your body (body of Christ) is the temple. Salvation does not come by the law and ritual, but is right in front of you and there for the taking. Obviously this is highly problematic for our whole structure around the need for a Church with proper authority and ordinances and prophetic intermediaries.
This was also highly problematic for the early church. The councils and theologians were trying to figure out how to tailor Christianity to suit the needs of a powerful Church who was becoming the official religion of the state. Obviously, it’s important for people to rely on the Church as much as possible and keep people in line with the state as well. Our Church began as a radical statement against the churches of the day and has become highly conservative and institutional with time.
I did not read the book. I am basing my comments on your observations. There is another thread that discusses this book found here:
https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9955&p=138469&hilit=all+things+new+givens#p138469 felixfabulous wrote:
2. One common thread I’ve found with apologetics is that the author is relying on the fact that you (the reader) do not have all of the information that they have and are not familiar with the weakness of their arguments. I see the Givens doing that here. They shift all the criticism for a problematic penal substitution atonement theory onto early Christian fathers and avoid any discussion of its role in LDS doctrine;
I suppose that there are different flavors of apologetics but I tend to agree with your assessment. I believe that most apologetics are intended for faithful members of the faith that might encounter some thorny issues and just need enough plausible deniability to personally set the issue aside (or onto the “shelf”). I had read Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling and came away from it thinking that JS did not teach that black people were cursed or that they could not hold the priesthood. After reading a quote from JS teaching this, I wondered how this could be so. When I went back to read the relevant part in RSR it said something like “aside from a single brief flirtation with the idea (that black people were cursed), Joseph never taught it.”Unfortunately, that single statement from JS was clear and confident (like everything else that JS was revealing at the time) and it was backed up by several works of scripture that came through JS (though if you make the case that JS translated these works rather than wrote them then you could claim that these were not “teachings” of JS). Perhaps the main point that Brother Bushman was making was that racism was not a central part in the theology of JS. I agree that it was not. However, there was conflicting evidence on both sides and I felt that Bro. Bushman had emphasized the one side while minimizing the other and that had me finishing the book with a misleading impression of what had been taught by JS.
I think that gets to the point of the impossibility or completely impartial history. At least apologist historians are clear about the side for which they work.
felixfabulous wrote:
3. So far they have totally ignored what I see as the elephant in the room, a cornerstone of the Protestant reformation and threat to LDS theology . . . namely that Jesus and Paul were critical of religion based on external requirements for salvation. The renting of the veil of the temple was highly symbolic of the removal of an intermediary between the individual and God. Paul said your body (body of Christ) is the temple. Salvation does not come by the law and ritual, but is right in front of you and there for the taking. Obviously this is highly problematic for our whole structure around the need for a Church with proper authority and ordinances and prophetic intermediaries.This was also highly problematic for the early church. The councils and theologians were trying to figure out how to tailor Christianity to suit the needs of a powerful Church who was becoming the official religion of the state. Obviously, it’s important for people to rely on the Church as much as possible and keep people in line with the state as well.
Yes, it can be awfully difficult to square a faith that seems to be so decentralized and personal relationship based with the needs of a church organization needing hierarchy and tight controls.I honestly do not believe that Jesus or his atonement are necessary for our religious structure to work.
We have a God that requires that we do certain things to please and appease him. He will reward those that perform well and punish those that fall short (with the bulk of these punishments and rewards coming after death). Our church leader is God’s personal spokesperson on earth. The End.
felixfabulous wrote:
Our Church began as a radical statement against the churches of the day and has become highly conservative and institutional with time.
Such is the fate of most religious movements…A few additional thoughts after making some more progress: 1. I really like the reexamination of sin, obedience and the penal substitution atonement theory. These things are highly problematic and deserve reexamination;
2. Richard Rohr says there is no non-stop flight from Order to re-order, you need to go through deconstruction to make that work. This book is trying to bypass deconstruction, or maybe do a gentle deconstruction by criticizing early Christians and LDS “culture.” I recognize why they are doing it, but I’m not sure it really works;
3. What ended up deconstructing and helping me reconstruct was non-LDS critical examination of the Old and New Testaments. This creates huge problems for LDS theology however, because so much of it is based on a literal biblical narrative. I’m not sure the Givens could go here, but appreciate what they are trying to do and think it is a needed good-faith effort.
felixfabulous wrote:
A few additional thoughts after making some more progress:1. I really like the reexamination of sin, obedience and the penal substitution atonement theory. These things are highly problematic and deserve reexamination;
This is the greatest value I find in the book. If there’s anything new, this is it. I have read testimonials where people say this section made all the difference.
Quote:2. Richard Rohr says there is no non-stop flight from Order to re-order, you need to go through deconstruction to make that work. This book is trying to bypass deconstruction, or maybe do a gentle deconstruction by criticizing early Christians and LDS “culture.” I recognize why they are doing it, but I’m not sure it really works;
3. What ended up deconstructing and helping me reconstruct was non-LDS critical examination of the Old and New Testaments. This creates huge problems for LDS theology however, because so much of it is based on a literal biblical narrative. I’m not sure the Givens could go here, but appreciate what they are trying to do and think it is a needed good-faith effort.
Indeed Givens is an apologist – a defender of the faith. And I think he tries very hard to stay within the boundaries of accepted Mormon thought. For a long time we didn’t talk much about grace – but it doesn’t mean it wasn’t part of our theology or that it wasn’t a real thing with only one interpretation or application. Givens is also a scholar, and while he does exhibit some of his scholarly knowledge and expertise in this book (and the similar books such as
The Christ Who Healsand The God Who Weeps), his real scholarship is exhibited in his more academic style writings. He knows what early Christians taught because he’s spent a long time researching those teachings. In these books that are written more for the masses a more in-depth examination of those topics would be boring and unwelcome (a criticism I have heard about even what is included). From a certain point of view, the other books ( Crucible of Doubt, The God Who Weepsand The Christ Who Heals) culminated in All Things New. The themes are there in the other books, All Things Newputs it all together. One other thought I have regarding the deconstruction idea. I hear what you’re saying and don’t disagree. But not everyone who reads this book has been as fortunate as you and I to have had the experience with deconstructing our own faith. In fact I don’t think this book is written for us, although we can enjoy and benefit from it. I believe it’s written for those who have never doubted (or at least don’t admit they doubt). We can’t deconstruct for them because that’s not where they’re at.
felixfabulous wrote:
2. Richard Rohr says there is no non-stop flight from Order to re-order, you need to go through deconstruction to make that work. This book is trying to bypass deconstruction, or maybe do a gentle deconstruction by criticizing early Christians and LDS “culture.” I recognize why they are doing it, but I’m not sure it really works;
I think that works like this can move the doctrinal range (Overton window) a little. I similarly think that Eugene England had some moderate success in moving this doctrinal range. I have similar observations as you that when apologists try to shift the window they tend to do so by making it seem that the position that they are arguing for has been the true position of church leaders all along but 1) converts have brought in false traditions of their fathers or 2) church members and church culture have just misunderstood things. This allows readers to adjust their thinking while still feeling loyal to the church.felixfabulous wrote:
3. What ended up deconstructing and helping me reconstruct was non-LDS critical examination of the Old and New Testaments. This creates huge problems for LDS theology however, because so much of it is based on a literal biblical narrative. I’m not sure the Givens could go here, but appreciate what they are trying to do and think it is a needed good-faith effort.
I had a similar experience with the book “misquoting Jesus.” Now I can’t help but ask who is the narrator and how does the narrator know what is being described? For a good portion events, the narrator is describing events that he was not present to witness. This means at best that these descriptions were the result of hearing it described by someone who was there, and at worst it could be a collection of stories that were passed around over and over among the early followers of Jesus. From what we have observed with the stories that came from the early days of the restoration, it seems likely that such stories were embellished to fit and bolster a faith promoting narrative. To be sure, it makes it hard for me to take every detail on the page as “gospel truth.”The New Testament/Jesus scholarship really shifts the ground and brought up big questions that are extremely uncomfortable for most orthodox Mormons, but I think are important. I think the Givens are gently getting people there, which is good and you are right, it’s not meant for the people who have been through a total deconstruction, but rather for people who want to stay squarely in the boat and explore different corners. I think there have been and are others who are also trying to subtly shift, or perhaps broaden, this window of understanding. Roy mentions Eugene England (about whom Givens did a recent podcast), but Leonard Arrington, Stephen Robinson, Brad Wilcox, and even Richard Bushman also come to mind as well. And I do think the early influx of Protestants influenced the theology of the church, particularly after Joseph Smith (but it happened during his lifetime as well). I really don’t think Joseph believed in Calvinism, although he may have taken some truth from Calvinist ideals and some of those things were expanded by other church leaders who brought in their Protestant traditions. I have said this before – I’m not sure Joseph would recognize our current theology were he to come sit in a SM or GC.
I think guys like Givens, et al, are subtly trying to point that out. And if we look at the basic idea of Come Follow Me when it was first introduced, current church leaders seem to be on board with it. We can look at other trends as well – the recent re-emphasis on Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer (or Healer if you’re Givens) and even more than passing references to grace as something other than “after all we can do.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.