Follow us @WheatnTweet!
Q&A with Fiona and Terryl Givens
By: Mormon HereticWhat a week! I had the pleasure of attending sessions with both Ron Paul and Terryl Givens. Now I have to choose whether to write about Ron Paul, or Terryl Givens. Tough choice. Given that political discussions often devolve into ideological (and often irrational) arguments, I’m just not in the mood for Ron Paul this week. So sorry Jon and Cowboy, I know I promised, but I’m going to save it for next week. This post is about The God Who Weeps.
Terryl and Fiona Givens
This is the name of Terryl and Fiona Givens latest book. I was lucky enough to receive an invitation from Deseret Book to participate in a Q&A with the authors. When I got there, I was surprised at how small and intimate the setting would be. I would estimate that there were about 20 bloggers gathered around a conference room table at the Deseret Book headquarters office. (I actually went to the bookstore first; they were kind enough to point me to the building next door.) I was at a bit of a disadvantage during the Q&A: I hadn’t received the book yet, so I didn’t know anything other than the title, so it was pretty much impossible for me to ask any sort of intelligent question, so I simply decided to play the role of reporter and take as many notes as I could, as fast as I could, trying to get the essence of what Terryl and Fiona were trying to say. I want to give some overall themes that impressed me. These aren’t exact quotes of what they said, but are paraphrases very close to what they said. (A Rational Faith recorded the audio, so you can hear their exact words.)
God is Infinitely Vulnerable
Terryl Givens said that there is a lot of rhetoric in the Mormon cultural universe about exaltation, that we will be gods in our own realm. In Moses 7, Joseph Smith describes exactly what the process of becoming like God is. God is Weeping. How can the God of Heaven weep? Enoch becomes privy to the perspective that God has. Suddenly his heart turns and God weeps. It is clearly what meant what is needed to participate in divine nature. You don’t have to study history. Open the Pearl of Great Price, and and you can know that the Mormon teaching of deification to become god is infinitely vulnerable, not powerful.
Fiona continued that line of thought. She said that the scriptures lay out clearly that to be God is to be vulnerable. God wins power by his weakness. This turns everything on its head. In the book, we used two examples: Ruth and Mary> Ruth makes herself vulnerable with Boaz. She does it to become vulnerable. When Boaz recognizes what she did, he is stunned that she is so vulnerable.
Mary, the mother of Christ, is an even more powerful example. If you read the story with a more careful textual reading, the angel Gabriel creates fear. It will be harrowing. Mary could have said that she is a virgin and not married. Is there a way to explain? I may be stoned to death. No good thing can come of this. How does she respond? She makes herself vulnerable. Gives birth to a son who makes his entire life vulnerable.
A blogger from A Rational Faith asked why the church seems to be retreating from the teaching of becoming like God. Fiona responded that President Hinckley was walking away from the idea of Kolob and women being endlessly pregnant to create eternal offspring. She said she doesn’t want to be a god giving birth forever. Terryl said that Hinckley was not being evasive, but cautious in his response to Larry King. He noted that the King Follett sermon has been canonized, rescinded, canonized, rescinded. We are free to embrace the doctrines of that sermon, or to reject them.
The book is written to both the faithful and the doubters.
Terryl said that he wanted to write a book in which there was space both to believe and to doubt. He said that there is nothing completely convincing about Mormonism, but there is something compelling. We should consider the book to be a prose hymn of beauty and reasonableness. People should be free to believe or to doubt God.
There is a difference between Mormon Culture and Doctrine, but many conflate the two.
Terryl said that we need to sift culture from theology. Joseph Smith is a universalist. D&C 76 is universalist. People rejected it at the time it was given. Hyrum Smith interpreted the vision as universal, that we can progress through the kingdoms, as did Talmage and BH Roberts. It was not until the 1970s, that it became not universal. We should be trying to recoup the original vision.
He went on to say that doctrines get obscured by Mormon culture, giving the example of Testimony bearing. Little children shouldn’t bear testimony except in primary because they act like mannequins. We shouldn’t blame continued testimony bearing on the Brethren or the institution. We are short changing Mormon theology by intruding on it with cultural malpractice.
Fiona said that she wants to bifurcate culture from theology. We should be empowered to change theology. We need to agitate for change. We should change. Cultures can change. Cultures are malleable. We should feel empowered to change it.
They get bored in Sunday School too. We don’t have to be quiet in church.
There were several questions about speaking up unorthodox interpretations of scripture in church. Fiona said that we should be more bold. Even prophets can make serious mistakes on theology. Brigham Young was absolutely wrong about the Adam-God Theory. Prophets can make serious mistakes. She noted the idea that Catholics say the Pope in infallible but don’t believe it. Mormons say the Prophet is fallible but don’t believe it. This is cultural problem.
Mary Ellen Robertson of Sunstone said that she is one little voice in her ward. It is frustrating. How do we create cultural shifts without becoming targets? Most members don’t care about hearing the same lesson every 4 years.
Terryl echoed what Fiona said earlier with another example. B.H. Roberts had a faith crisis that is fairly well known. His whole life he had assumed that the scene of the Book of Mormon actions were in the western hemisphere. If you have assumption, you can’t begin to approach the problems in the Book of Mormon. Even prophets make bad assumptions. John Sorenson read the book on his own and gave a new interpretation that is much more accepted now. The Book of Mormon is in a limited geograpy and many of the problems disappear. We need to be more vigilant about reasonable interpretations.
He also related what Elder Oaks said in a Young Adult conference. A oung man liked Oaks’ talk, but said it doesn’t apply to his life. Oaks response is an apostle’s job is to give general counsel. Your job to see if it applies. If God wants us in lockstep, he would have created us with no mind.
Fiona said that she teaches Gospel Doctrine in her ward, and doesn’t use the manuals at all. When teaching the Old Testament, she was able to talk about the feminine divine for 9 months before she was asked to ease up on that. She lives in rural backwater community in Virginia, so may be able to get away with it more. She is tired of us lagging. She is everywhere in academic world. Ward members love it. She can be a little subversive, but is still teaching from the scriptures and can quote authoritatively. We need to take more control of scriptures. We need to be more self-empowered.
She noted that most of us take a book to church meetings. People are not demanding because we are a lay ministry, but this is a form of worship. Teachers may not be thought provoking. They may read the manual, but part of our worship is to accept all gifts. Responsibility rests with ourselves. Yes, your questions may discombobulate people. Some like darkness and shadow. We have a big umbrella. We should ask them if testimonies go off the rails. At same time, all of us in here are deeply searching.
The Mormon concept of Apostasy is wrong.
Fiona said that the Mormon view of the Great Apostasy is a cultural misperception that she hope this book corrects. Terryl noted that Handel’s messiah is an apostate work, yet embraced by many Mormons. A common practice of Mormon scholars is to look for parallels. The book full of parallels but it was not our intention not to corroborate Mormon beliefs. The intention was to add to Mormon beliefs.
Fiona said that God has inspired any number of philosophers. God is an economist. We will not produce Beethoven because we already have one. Fiona is a convert from Catholicism, yet had a Pentecostal experience. In contemplating joining the LDS church, she knew that if she took this step, she would never communicate with her family again, so she backed off. She felt like she was in a wilderness. She couldn’t return to the Catholics for fear of what she would lose. Shakespeare helped her, hit with power to give courage to take the step to join. She is a huge fan on extracanonical works. God can speak to us through many means in and outside our church.
It appears that Deseret Book is trying to appeal to a broader crowd.
It was nice to so so many blogs there: Doves and Serpents, Wheat and Tares, Times and Seasons, A Rational Faith, Mormon Stories Sunday School, Sunstone (to name just a few) were in attendance at this event. A blogger asked if there is pent up demand for a book like this, or was there risk taking to see if others interested in an exploration of theology. This isn’t the typical book that Deseret Book has sold in the past.
Terryl responded that he didn’t know. We will have to look at sales. Initial interest looks good, reviews are good. Deseret Book stands behind the book, and Terryl sees an absolute genuine good faith effort to promote the book, which is a wonderful sign. We hope people respond so Deseret Book goes in same direction for books like this.
Comments?
Vulnerability is authenticity. To be free of defense and ego is to be free of the noise of denial and rationalization. This sets the table for having intimacy with others who are also vulnerable. Intimacy and defense are inversely related. The limited geography model is defense it was created to defend DNA evidence that refuted prior church assumptions. The limited geography model is not an example of vulnerability it is an example of defense and rationalization. It doesn’t make BoM problems disappear, it merely obscures them so that plausibility (not probability) can continue to be reasonably but not creditably argued. The BoM is fiction. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t true in a larger sense or that Joseph was a fraud. I believe the BoM is divinely inspired fiction as is much of the Bible. Fiction is a much better teaching medium than dry facts. These two issues are incongruous as presented here.
“…there is nothing completely convincing about Mormonism, but there is something compelling.” Great quote!
Like this comment?
0
Thank you for this great review. I wish I could have been there. I’m excited to read this book. We need some fresh air in the Church and more space for a wide variety of thinking. Hopefully, books like this will help.
Like this comment?
0
Can’t wait to read the book. Thanks for the summary of the Q&A!
Like this comment?
0
Only a Mormon would label both meetings “sessions”. Loling….
Like this comment?
0
I read the book, I loved the book, I’m recommending it to my friends and family. This is the gospel written as I understand it.
I loved it the way I love C.S. Lewis.
Like this comment?
0
“So sorry Jon and Cowboy, I know I promised, but I’m going to save it for next week.”
This is an ironic comment, because it actually seems to be intentionally soliciting pot shots rather than trying avoid them. At any rate, carry on.
Like this comment?
0
Cowboy,
Yeah, I was tempted to comment on the “irrational” part but refrained. Enjoyed reading the OP though.
It will be interesting what MH has to say about the “crazy cook” Ron Paul. I thought he thought that he was crazy? Why did he go to something with RP in it then? I guess I’ll find out next week.
Like this comment?
0
28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?
29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?
30 And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever;
31 And thou hast taken Zion to thine own bosom, from all thy creations, from all eternity to all eternity; and naught but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation of thy throne; and mercy shall go before thy face and have no end; how is it thou canst weep?
32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;
33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood;
34 And the fire of mine indignation is kindled against them; and in my hot displeasure will I send in the floods upon them, for my fierce anger is kindled against them.
35 Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.
36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren.
37 But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?
38 But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them.
39 And that which I have chosen hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins; inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be in torment;
40 Wherefore, for this shall the heavens weep, yea, and all the workmanship of mine hands.
Perhaps it’s just because we like that word “infinite” when we are talking about God, but I don’t see that these scriptures justify that God is “infinitel vulnerable”. Yes, God is weeping in these scriptures…but he is also “pissed off”. Is he therefore “infinitely pissed off”?
Regarding the apostasy, God had some sharp words on the subject, if Joseph Smith had anything to say on the matter. Can God use other Christian insights to teach a principle? I don’t know. I just know that the message he allegedly provided was all of the “creeds were an abomination in his sight” (could “creed’s” be a reference to Catholocism?). Consider D&C 123:7:
7 It is an imperative duty that we owe to God, to angels, with whom we shall be brought to stand, and also to ourselves, to our wives and children, who have been made to bow down with grief, sorrow, and care, under the most damning hand of murder, tyranny, and oppression, supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity.
Is it possible to interpret these teachings in such a way that there is still redeeming value from the “creeds”? Perhaps we can strain those teaching’s make a logical argument about what “God didn’t say”…but I would say that the inferential cues I can take from what are supposed to be God’s own statements (or Joseph Smith’s) would point away from that conclusion.
The Given’s have a nice contemporary way of interpreting things, and an even more polite way of denigrating their fellow Mormons by criticising “culture”, but I would argue that they actually have to go outside of the doctrines and teachings to make a case for “how God is”, because the actual literature doesn’t seem to justify their case.
Like this comment?
0
I have just finished reading new e-book, Damned Good Company. The book is a chronicle of “God Experts” throughout history and one chapter is devoted to J Smith. Claim is that wife of first financial supporter of Smith, who helped him translate the golden tablets left evidence that Smith was caught in fraud by her. Supposedly well documented. Is this based in fact?
Like this comment?
0
Thanks for the comments everyone. Cowboy, I find Givens’ argument about “God is vulnerable” as out of the box. I agree with you that God does not seem vulnerable in many cases, so I guess I will have to read the book to get his argument.
Bon, I’m not sure how to describe an event with thousands and an event with dozens. Sorry my Mormonism shows through there. ;)
Donna, from your description, it sounds like the author is referring to Lucy Harris, wife of Martin Harris. Martin financed the Book of Mormon, helped translate, and then lost the 116 pages. Many have speculated that Lucy has something to do with losing the pages. I’ve never heard anything of her uncovering a fraud, so it seems like the author is reaching on that point.
Like this comment?
0
THANK YOU for sharing this. I have been complaining/agitating or whatever you want to call it for over 25 years about how members have blurred the lines with doctrine, culture, and church. I was labeled a troublemaker and was not liked in my various wards. I have advocated for change and of course get nowhere. Members can’t see or don’t want to see how they conflate doctrine and culture. It is more problematic in certain states. I know people who have visited during Sunday meetings and said it was like being at a funeral. I was called a blasphemer because I did something that a rumor said we were not to do. I was released from the Primary Presidency after 6 months because I went against the status quo. Some members told me it was the best Primary ever in the history of the Ward, but others convinced the Bishop I was doing something wrong. Needless to say my current Ward does not like me because I am outspoken about certain issues and I demand that the Ward function like a true LDS Ward should. My Ward has a lot of problems.
Like this comment?
0
For decades, I played mind games with church doctrine to stay sane and active at the same time. In the end, I just plain wore down. Occam’s razor. My life is not filled with so much anxiety. For many, I think it is great that people like Givens is around to add his perspective to public thought about the church. I hope it helps many.
Like this comment?
0
I think it is great that this book gives us a chance to look at the gospel from a new angle. I think it is great that the universalism of the early restoration is being reexamined and in an academically rigorous way. Inspiration books and talks are great, but without a variety of ways to approach the scriptures, we might miss something vital, that we need. Heavenly Father is not just the Father/God of Mormons. He “owns” us, but we do not own Him, and we do not have a unique claim on His love. He does not disown the billions who have not heard the gospel. He will judge them by the light and knowledge they had, and we will be judged according to that which we have. If we only believe in Christ, without believing Him, believing His teachings and following His example, do we really suppose He will claim us as His own?
I am working on my second post about the LDS canon and LDS intellectuals, focusing on the reviews and perspectives of The God Who Weeps. This has given me some great additional insight. I am choosing not to read the book until I am done writing this group of posts, (I am sure I will DI a review of my reading at some point in the future) because I am more interested in how *we* as a community handle intellectual works that are not canonized. I am grateful to have so many rich posts and comment threads to “mine.” What I thought might takes 10-12 hours to research and write has already doubled, and I am only 2/3 done. Lol. It is a good problem to have. :-)
Like this comment?
0
by LDS leaders out of the deaecds and deaecds of constant sermons and living life and conclude that they’re evil or at least not inspired, especially when actions are taken out of context. The church doesn’t have a horrible past, it has an overwhelmingly positive history of lifting and inspiring people lives, not to mention spreading and administering the atonement’s salvation. Calling the church horrible, to me, would be alot like saying America is the great satan because we rebelled against our motherland, massacred the natives, stole land or bought it at thieving prices, built our economy on imported human slaves, mostly educated only men, polluted and taught others to pollute, developed and sold weapons, and forced our culture of materialism, over-individuality, and self-supremacy on the rest of the world. Has America done these things? Arguably yes, and it’s fairly easy to paint the organization that way, especially out of context. But is America horrible, or is its history horrible? I don’t think so. Spreading freedom, hope, progress, and opportunity are the overall trends of America, despite coughs along the way. The church is very similar- it’s easy to see the good outweighing the bad, on a macro or a micro scale. In my own life, I’ve seen the gospel motivate me to do bucketloads of good things I likely wouldn’t have done without it, and I have never been motivated by it to do something bad. If God were to announce that church standing, activity, involvement, or obedience has zero post-mortal impact on anybody, I would still be strongly supportive of the Church because of the good impact I see it having on people here and now. The recipe God’s given us to finding more truth is studying, pondering, desiring, praying, listening, and living according to the best conclusions we’ve come to up to that point. Sometimes we don’t understand things and throw the issue away in feelings of frustration or betrayal before giving ourselves and the Spirit chance and reason to get on the same page. The more I have studied uncorrelated LDS history, the more I have come to appreciate God’s patience with us and the extent to which He’s willing to suffer us to imperfectly participate in the gradual salvation and perfection of ourselves and the church and the human family. Knowing Joseph as a shining hero motivates me to be better, but knowing his follies also helps me by forcing me to accept the reality of repentance and knowing that despite my personal weaknesses I can do great things. Reality is only cold if you want to look at it that way; reason enlightened with faith doesn’t require rationalizing anything away.
Like this comment?
0
Spreading freedom, hope, progress, and opportunity are the overall trends of America, despite coughs along the way.
As the saying goes. “We love you so much we are going to bomb you to democracy!” Yep, that’s love alright.
Like this comment?
0
Jon, I encourage you to find a place to live without coughs along the way.
Like this comment?
0
I love you too, MH.
Like this comment?
0