Terryl Givens – letter to a doubter

[Anonymous]

http://terrylgivens.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Letter-to-a-Doubter.pdf

Terryl Givens is both empathetic and concerned about those who struggle in their faith. Thought some might like this.

[Anonymous]

Thanks DB,

I especially liked this part:

Quote:

Here and hereafter, a multitude of non-Mormons will constitute the Church of the Firstborn. As a mighty God, our Heavenly Father has the capacity to save us all. As a fond father, He has the desire to do so. That is why, as Joseph taught, “God hath made a provision that every spirit can be ferreted out in that world” that has not deliberately and definitively chosen to resist a grace that is stronger than the cords of death.

It is both comforting and frustrating to imagine the LDS church as a somewhat eccentric offshoot of the Church of the Firstborn.

It is comforting that God will never give up on any of his children. That he has established links of light and love (and will continue to do so in the hereafter) with many individuals that may never be called Mormons. It is frustrating that we seem to spend a fair amount of our time proclaiming to ourselves and others how right we are (with the assumption that others must eventually become more like us if they are to receive their divine inheritance in full).

IOW, I rejoice in how I view this expansive view to be compatible with Mormon Doctrine (Perhaps that this view may even be a uniquely Mormon possibility). OTOH, I chafe and struggle that this view does not seem to be compatible with the majority of my Mormon experience.

Perhaps therein is found the blessing – the tension between two things and the freedom to choose that which most resonates with us. As Brother Givens references:

Quote:

We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.

Among the things that act upon us is also the collective narrative of our church community. Yet even against such strong headwinds remains the freedom to direct one’s own journey. The tension never goes away – unless your path is to go with the flow. But I suppose if we really are to become the “Sons of God,” then tension is one of the forces that will make it so.

[Anonymous]

I bookmarked this article. I keep Grant Hardy pieces, Gregory Prince, etc.

As much as his thoughts did support my feelings about faith and our religion, I see where it (and he acknowledges this) left gaps. In our house we have an ongoing “preponderance of evidence” challenge. Which basically says – yes an item or issue taken one at a time can be wrestled with, but when the list gets so long and intertwined there lies the problem.

To me Terryl Givens supports the one at a time approach. I liken that to chewing and swallowing one meal item at a time. This keeps you from choking, etc. For other members though, the landslide that the internet can cause just wipes them out. When I say internet I am not listing “Mormon Think” or ex-Mo only site. I believe fair and farms can cause the same landslide. It’s so easy, and fast with a click of a button to read a ton of info, and find your heart and hopes choking. This choking is a challenge that even Bro. Givens can’t stop. I wish for that suffering that a simple 14 page document could do that, but I think other efforts will need to be made to complete the bridge building effort he is trying to do. I applaud him for his desire and willingness to be an active assistant.

[Anonymous]

While I appreciate the article, and I think it will work for many, it still comes from a literalist believing perspective, as if once we realize that the limited geography model is plausible, then the doubts will go back into the bottle and we’ll be true believing again.

but what happens when we go past doubt, and realize that the core principles: a living, personal god, literal resurrection, and any degree of historicity of the Book of Mormon are for some so unlikely as to be implausible? Personally, I don’t have doubts. I simply don’t believe the stories have any literal truth in them at all. Should I reserve hope and faith, that however unlikely, there may have been nephites and lamanites, that christ literally visited the americas? is it necessary to believe any of it to see that it has value, particularly as Givens says, to support the community of saints?

i think there is value in community, and community often uses myth and stories to teach and share values. i think that value rapidly diminishes when we literalize the myths, and then force the mind to accept the implausible as truth. While I have faith and testimony, the reality is that I don’t know that god lives, that jesus is the christ, that the book of mormon is true, that the true church was restored, and that we have a living prophet today. Faith recognizes that knowledge eludes us. These five principles of the testimony glove are about as provable as the idea that there is a teapot floating in space around the earth somewhere between earth and mars — however likely or unlikely, impossible to prove or disprove. i only know that i do not know, and likely never will.

But that is entirely ok.

[Anonymous]

I think the real issue is not so much about what exactly is true or not as much as the expectations set by Church publications, lessons and talks, scriptures, and the LDS culture that all of this is supposed to be true and absolutely needs to be accepted by all active members. Why is it that practicing Catholics can know about the Inquisition, the past selling of indulgences, etc. without feeling like they need to leave their church quite the same way so many Mormons typically feel once they find out about some of the inconsistencies and unflattering Church history? Basically it looks like most practicing Catholics don’t have nearly the same level of expectation that their leaders, accepted scriptures, and Church history should be perfect to begin with.

What the Church teaches and having most of the active members expect you agree with all this and act like it is completely unacceptable if you don’t are different things. Trying to explain away a list of specific problems doesn’t change this prevailing attitude that it is supposedly so important to accept all of this as a package deal so even if you can shrug off a few issues there’s always a good chance some other problems will eventually turn up that will often end up being treated as complete deal-breakers because to some extent the Church simply will not accept no for an answer. So even though I can disregard or redefine the idea that LDS prophets and apostles will supposedly never lead the Church astray the idea continues to live on in extreme form in the LDS culture and official teachings coming directly from the top down.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

W

but what happens when we go past doubt, and realize that the core principles: a living, personal god, literal resurrection, and any degree of historicity of the Book of Mormon are for some so unlikely as to be implausible? Personally, I don’t have doubts. I simply don’t believe the stories have any literal truth in them at all. Should I reserve hope and faith, that however unlikely, there may have been nephites and lamanites, that christ literally visited the americas? is it necessary to believe any of it to see that it has value, particularly as Givens says, to support the community of saints?

I so agree. It is not doubt any more when you are certain it is all fiction. I do not doubt the existence of Leprechauns I just know they do not exist.

I am starting to believe that we are all on the same path to some better enlightenment about the reality of what we are and where we came from. At some point we will all shed former beliefs and habits that restrain us and be able to press forward. It is just a matter of time. It may be God propelling us forward or it may just be the cosmic nature of the universe, but we will move forward. At least I hope we do because if we are still debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin 100 years from now we are doomed.

[Anonymous]

There’s an interesting perspective in this letter that, from a believer’s perspective, *gasp*, Bruce R McConkie might not have known what he was talking about in this area and Brigham Young might have been off on another planet entirely. I had to revisit my entire concept of what the church actually believes about itself in light of D Todd Christofferson’s talk at the spring conference and an LDS newsroom post solemnly affirming that doctrine is contained in the scriptures and not statements by well-meaning individuals (glossing over that some of those individuals were apostles and church presidents). Also that there is no official stated doctrine on much of anything, regardless of how much we are told to basically canonize general conference twice a year.

I’m having to revisit a lot of my base assumptions on some things, and it’s an interesting process. I’ve always been jealous of people who can be happy in the church because they can just dismiss certain statements by leaders and focus on the more meaningful stuff, and it makes me wonder if I can ever get there myself.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for posting the talk. The discrepancy between what he describes and real life in the church is huge. The surface tension needs to be popped so that people don’t need to discuss these things under assumed names on the internet. Thanks, again, to everyone who contributes here. I appreciate the wisdom.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Thanks for posting the talk. The discrepancy between what he describes and real life in the church is huge. The surface tension needs to be popped so that people don’t need to discuss these things under assumed names on the internet. Thanks, again, to everyone who contributes here. I appreciate the wisdom.

“assumed names on the internet”… uh, yeah.

I’ve spent some time in recovery groups, and the principle of anonymity goes beyond just trying to be discreet. Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of recovery, and in some very real ways, we are in a type of recovery.

I got a lot of crap from a prominent ex-mo for my Middle Way position and not using my name. He told me to ‘grow a pair’… nice guy.

I see no issue with the idea that we don’t use our names her if we so choose.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

Ann wrote:

Thanks for posting the talk. The discrepancy between what he describes and real life in the church is huge. The surface tension needs to be popped so that people don’t need to discuss these things under assumed names on the internet. Thanks, again, to everyone who contributes here. I appreciate the wisdom.

“assumed names on the internet”… uh, yeah.

I’ve spent some time in recovery groups, and the principle of anonymity goes beyond just trying to be discreet. Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of recovery, and in some very real ways, we are in a type of recovery.

I got a lot of crap from a prominent ex-mo for my Middle Way position and not using my name. He told me to ‘grow a pair’… nice guy.

I see no issue with the idea that we don’t use our names her if we so choose.

I agree this choice is up to the person, for some they are at risk of being shunned by family for their beliefs… it is a shame we can’t all be in the open but that is what happens around those who have an ingrained chip on their shoulder that is based in fasle belief and an unwillingness to love others as Christ would despite where their testimony is.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

I do not doubt the existence of Leprechauns I just know they do not exist.

Please don’t think that what I am about to say is an attack or personal, but I am wrestling with this very issue:

“How do you KNOW Leprechauns don’t exist?”

I too believe that they don’t “exist,” or that what we agree is the meaning of the word “exist” means that there is no discernible presence or external evidence of Leprechauns on our plane of existence as far as we can currently detect or demonstrate, but since we have not discovered or experienced ALL states of existence, it is premature to say that they do not exist anywhere or anywhen carte blanch? So, what are you able to say when you state that you KNOW that something exists or does not exist? Is it presumptuous to be able to account for all possibilities, however remote or statistically improbable they are in the reality we experience – and to a limited extent – understand?

I really am interested in your perspective on this – not at all looking to start an argument. Thanks in advance for your input.

[Anonymous]

One of my biggest struggles comes not with church doctrine/dogma as much as breathing healthy air into the discussion. It is one of my delights with Terryl Givens, Grant Hardy and others, though I have never spoken with them, reading their material and thoughts encourages my thoughts. My joy or fulfillment in this faith is multi-faceted.So reading a broader brush stroke, active member enthuses me. But it’s very challenging to pass that love and enthusiasm over to traditional practicing people. I do know that every person sitting in my meetings isn’t stage 3 only nor are they card board, but our answers often seem so routine, and anything out of the ordinary – in a good sense – seems to throw things.

I guess what I’m trying to say – is that I would love it if thinkings/scholars of our church could present these insights to larger bodies of members or leaders. I think it would go along way in helping this divide that exists. I think scholars with these points of view could help traditional members realize that spirituality, truth, etc is broader than the line we draw in the sand.

Thanks for posting the letter DB.

[Anonymous]

I agree that anonymity is good for everyone here who needs and wants it! Sorry if I came across differently….

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

I agree that anonymity is good for everyone here who needs and wants it! Sorry if I came across differently….

Anonymity has its pluses and minuses. I’m a member of a DAMU forum that requires pictures and real names. It changes the nature of the discussion, I think. People are more civil in general, even though most may not have contact IRL. Also the atmosphere of fear was interesting in the beginning. Many were still active in the church and every time the possibility of a security “breach” was suggested some went running for the hills in case they were discovered, as though this were East Germany or something.

Another dynamic is that we tend to respond to attractive people, and my feeling is that the bright attractive people tend to get a lot of “you go girl/guy” type support and get reacted to more.

In general I think I prefer the accountability of the real names and pictures. Once on the other forum I actually posted my membership record number and dared the black helicopters to come, but they didn’t.

FWIW I need to put up a picture here but I’ve just been lazy. I sort of waver on whether I really have what it takes for another online “relationship”. The ones I’ve been using are out of date, since I had prostate cancer surgery a year ago and my beard suddenly started going white. The older pictures are depressing to look at because there is so much more gray now.

[Anonymous]

OK, I just read Givens’ letter in its entirety and can now comment.

There’s a lurking unspoken context in what he writes, and that context is that we have the ability to define what the “restored gospel” is for ourselves as well as how it works, because much of what he says is at complete variance with the official line in lessons and talks. Not as much the facts he presents about limited geography theory, etc., but the basic idea that apostles and prophets might not be just a little wrong and have some imperfections, but on occasion might have it about 95% wrong.

He talks a lot about community and memory, etc., but officially what the gospel is really about is authority, with the “saving ordinances” being the expression of that authority, because the hierarchy controls the ordinances.

I don’t disagree with what he says at all, but in order to follow this path you have to be willing to accept that you have not only the right, but the ability, to define what Mormonism is to you. You also have to prepare yourself to be completely self-sustaining in this approach, because you will get no support for it in church. It’s like being a scuba diver or an astronaut. To follow his approach you have to take all your own oxygen and food with you, because you’re not going to find it where you’re going.

There is no support for “doubt” out there, nor is there support for anything less than “follow the prophet”.

I was really surprised that these remarks were given in a fireside, so maybe change is coming, however slightly. I’m lucky enough to have a bishop who comes from a Sunstone-reading family, but our situation is like being trapped under the ice and finding small pockets of air in random places. You have to be mighty good at conserving your strength and holding your breath.

Sadly I think most just drown.

[Author]

Posts