Weren't the Givens recently sent to the UK, to give a super special fireside for the wavering members? I believe the plan was to try to sooth the questioning to keep them from leaving.

If that's not an official apologist for the church move, I don't know what is!

Yes. Terryl stood up and firstly said that what they had to say was sanctioned by the First Presidency and therefore what they had to say could could be quoted as an official, safe source.

For me, it was a godsend, until I got back to reality in the church and realised that what they were selling was not actually reality.

Then I got really angry. As I said before, this is what I always imagined when we talked about the savoury smooth talking tongue of the adversary.

It won't last. What they are selling is not what the brethren are selling. Most of my friends are now out, resignation letters in.

We're not buying it, sorry.

Can anyone say 'big fat fraud?'

Not only was that sentence written terribly, it also said that God does not really exist in what science has proven. In other words, Givens is teaching the "god of the gaps" or the "incredible shrinking god" whose territory gets smaller the more we humans learn.

If the Givenses' ideas really are approved by the church leadership, they have endorsed the idea that God is growing ever smaller and weaker. You cannot make this stuff up.

its hot air isn't it?

Its beautiful hot air though. Not sure what Fiona is advocating - at points it felt both terryl and fiona were advocating moving on from joseph smith. a kind of restoration is still to come movement. keep looking for truth in other places.

it truly was bizarre but in a sense, it gave me slight hope that spiritual liberty was on the way from the mormon leaders.

and then general conference happened and it was back to business as usual.

i'm out now. i decided to try fiona's way. :)

Hooray for you! And thanks for sharing your personal experience from the fireside. If I recall correctly, they didn't let in any missionaries and wouldn't let in recording devices. Am I incorrect? Did they require an official invite to the fireside?

Yes. No missionaries and no TBM's - this was announced at every Stake Conference "if you are not doubting your faith, or are not reading anti-mormon material, then please do not go to this fireside."

I was like 'did they just announce that?' I'm guessing it peaked interest cos the place was packed out that evening.

It was also announced by stake leaders that "Elder Holland has sanctioned them as the best speakers to listen to when doubting your faith."

Yes, they also told people not to record or talk about the fireside after, unless it was to discuss it with another doubting member.

honestly, so many red flags went up that evening. there was a lot of emotional pain. the givens were there to just before midnight - fiona had a queue of sobbing men and women in front of her. i joined the back of the queue and was last out - that's how I know what time they left.

Terryl didn't let fiona answer my question - which was how was i to trust a word joseph smith said when he was lying to the saints about polygamy. he rushed her out.

I don't think terryl buys it - but fiona does. she's genuine, in my opinion.

The Q15 lost my respect this evening. they send a smart, compassionate women with no sanction or weighty calling or institutional respect to deal with the very emotional pain pulsing through the worldwide membership right now, by the Q15's actions over the past few decades.

What a bunch of cowards. these men do not speak for compassion and honesty, never mind for God. they can't even look their membership in the eyes.

utterly pathetic.

My opinion is that the self appointed Gods of mormonism (the Q15) are desperately clinging onto their thrones.

They know they are fighting for their legitimacy. They know now that their claim to 'absolute authority'on everything and anything, without questions, whether they speak rightly or not has been thoroughly proven false by a mountain load of evidence. time has proven what they say to be wrong at EVERY turn.

It looks like they are now trying to legitimise their positions by being 'keeper of the key's and ordinances' - a running theme aka Holland's super-angry talk last GC.

What a shame the temple has also thoroughly been debunked as a masonry rip off and a silencer of polygamous women.

If the temple is the best they've got, esp when the endowment is the single WTF-this-is-clearly-bull-i'm-in-a-cult moment in most people under the age of 30, I give them 10 years.

But then in 10 years most of them will be dead. Perhaps that's what they are hoping for? that they will not be dethroned and held to account by an angry mob of previously TBM mormons filled with a lifetime of regret and an empty bank balance on retirement.

Wow I did not know about the UK fireside. This is falling into place for me know. These people ARE the next release of apologists. 2.0? 3.0?

sunshine you write "It won't last. What they are selling is not what the brethren are selling." No matter. The BIG 15 love this type of shill work. At anytime they can disavow or embrace the lofty language of the Givens.

They've done two tours now - both throughout Europe.

Esp the UK, is imploding.

I know at least 25 individuals/large families/couples with children within a 200 mile radius who have not only walked but sent in resignation letters.

the stone is defo rolling in the EU.

just to add - we're not talking about benign members either. I'm talking about bishopric members, stake presidency members, RS presidencies, seminary teachers. I'm talking BIC, RM, time served members walking and taking children and family / friends with them.

I am a former Bishop, Elders Quorum President, Young Men's President, Scoutmaster and Seminary Instructor. When I was first told Joseph Smith was a polygamist, by someone I knew was not an "anti-mormon," I was 45. Freakin 45!

The shelf in my head could never hold the volume of information I began stacking on it thanks to John Dehlin, Youtube and THIS fabulous forum. I wanted truth and found it.

Well if they [TSCC] are pursuing strategies that involve the Givens, and Deseret Book is publishing the Givens' writings, they [TSCC] are "moving that direction."

I get your point about pursuing multiple strategies for multiple audiences. That's why the BIG 15 will always threaten and guilt TBM's in conference and at BYU devotionals. They will always work the self-righteous one-true-church angle because there will always be self-righteous members to cajole.

Sunshine states the Givens are touring Europe doing some type of rescue talks. That's puts my original question to rest for me. These are the new apologists.

The key, I think, is that the church has a long history of moving in different directions at the same time. The D&C denied and forbade polygamy even as JS practiced it. The church forswore polygamy in 1890 but then instructed certain groups to continue practicing it. The church opposes gay marriage but just created a website saying that SSA is genetic and that the church loves gays and lesbians. The church has always encouraged apologists to go out and spout theories that contradict Mormon doctrine.

I think we are seeing the same sort of multi-directional approach now. The church authorizes and encourages the Givenses to say things that the church denies. Why? Be all things to all people. But what really matters is the apostles and prophets. In my view those leaders have moved to the right since the Mormon moment: the louder conference speeches, the persecution of leading dissidents, the reaffirmation of the anti-gay agenda, etc., all bespeak a more aggressive position in sLC.

Which means that the Givenses may ultimately be denounced, like the fundamentalists were, like Peterson, like others. I'll never understand why intelligent people allow themselves to be used knowing full well that the church may tire of them and then toss them aside.

As someone said, keep your eyes on the prophet. He knows the church's real direction.

That's really funny.

First, the man is mentally impaired.

Second, it only takes a small amount of study to realize "the prophet" doesn't have the authority to do ANYTHING on his own.

Oh yeah??!!?!? You're not giving him enough credit. He can wiggle his ears, for gawds sake!

I don't think the church intends to move in the Givenses' direction. I believe they are pursuing two different strategies for two different audiences.

Remember how Holland expressed sympathy and support for Dehlin in private and then went uber-conservative in his next conference talk? The one about going over, under or around the divine Book of Mormon? Dehlin felt betrayed by this, as he was, and thought Holland had waffled. I think, though, that Holland was simply pursuing a new approach.

To appeal to the blood-and-guts conservatives the apostles move to the right, demanding ever more obedience and adoration. You also get the occasional raised voice in conference. Meanwhile the prophets and apostles encourage a thoughtful, gentle apologetics from the Givenses in an appeal to NOMs and intellectuals. The church hopes that this will slow the exit of liberals and moderates who staff so many ward and stake positions. We are not supposed to notice that the two approaches are contradictory.

The problem, of course, is that the Givenses have no authority at all. The prophets and apostles, not mealy-mouthed NOMs, are God's representatives and spokesmen. So what the Givenses are really doing, unintentionally but undeniably, is to affirm people's doubts and further demonstrate the inadequacy of prophetic leadership. I don't think this will work. I don't think you can credibly have unauthorized spokespeople contradict what the authorized leaders say.

The Givenses may be more presentable than Peterson and Midgely were, but I seriously doubt they'll be much more successful.

The leadership knows they've painted themselves into the corner and there's no way out.

They cannot disavow all the things that make it mormon (BOM, BOA, Prophets, Apostles, Saints, etc.) because they'll be no different than any vaguely Christian church out there. People who think about the gospel would leave in droves.

That leaves the social/emotional members, as MrTranquility says below. The Givens give them a way to 'feel' about the church. But it won't work for those who think. And unfortunately, there are fewer social/emotional members -- especially outside of the corridor than thinkers. But I believe the socials would probably stay in no matter what the Givens say.

In the end, the Givens approach won't do a darn thing to help get the leadership out of the fix they're in.

I think you are right.

Completely agree, Lot's Wife. If the church were really moving in the direction of becoming a kinder, gentler version of itself, they wouldn't be "sanctioning" the Givens or anyone else to relay the message. The Brethren would be delivering the message themselves.

The Givens are merely being used as damage control to help doubting members feel more comfortable so that they'll stay in the church. But, the Brethren have no intention of adopting the Givens approach themselves. Their message will be the same as always...Joseph Smith, prophets, the one and only true church, tithing, obedience etc.

The 'brethren' have one way of acting when delivering conference talks. It seems to be where they're the most comfortable. The teleprompter rolls and they read the script.

On the other hand, meeting with members seems to be where they're the least comfortable. They don't have answers. They HATE being challenged in ANY way. They don't like people. And they can't seem to be able to speak contemporaneously. When they try, they often tell too much truth and then get in trouble.

It's no wonder they've sent the Givens in to run interference and smooth things over, delivering the all is well in the realm speech.

This is not a long term, winning strategy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/2014 07:31PM by Devoted Exmo.

The reasons why most chapel Mormons are Mormon doesn't have anything to do with reason. Their motives are emotional, and that's the reason the Givens can twist and turn logic into pretzels all day; their motivation is emotional too. However, on some other level they think it's supposed to make sense, so they feel compelled to produce a formidable stream of bullsh!t.

The Givens are not the magic bullet to solve the morg's apostasy crisis. I think it gives comfort to very few.

Like a lot of your posts, this is good stuff. It is the emotional nature of chapel Mormonism that enables the church to pursue two contradictory strategies simultaneously.

The church instructed the chapel Mormons--those who are not experiencing doubt--not to go to the Givenses' fireside. Why? Because those Mormons are satisfied with the fire-and-brimstone approach employed by the General Authorities. They want red meat, devoid of rational argument, and they get it.

The Givenses are aimed at the more thoughtful people who want to be NOMs or internet Mormons or liberal Mormons. If the church can keep the chapel Mormons out of these firesides, they'll make a little headway in keeping liberals in the church. The Givenses' presence means that at least some of the apostles sympathie with the NOMs.

The problem is that thinking Mormons, NOMs, did not get to their present state independently. They KNOW the scriptures; they KNOW the doctrines; they KNOW what the apostles and prophets are saying. So while the Givenses' Mormonism may appeal for a while, it ultimately heightens the cognitive dissonance because their wishy-washy views contrasts so sharply with the church's authoritative doctrine. If the Givenses can't offer persuasive, rational explanations--especially now that Holland has blessed them--then in the long run they are simply going to convince more NOMs that the church is speaking out of two sides of its mouth.

Until there are substantive explanations from the Q12 and the FP, there is no way to keep many the NOMs on board. If there are no such explanations, then the church will shrink into just the red-meat crowd.

Paul the Apostle wrote:
Everybody is talking about "the Givens Approach" but NOBODY here is telling me what their approach actually "IS".

Backyard Professor says:
Their approach is Sure go ahead with a few doubts, just do't let them get too big. And if they do, then come back to church. That's it in a nutshell. Honestly.

Everybody is talking about "the Givens Approach" but NOBODY here is telling me what their approach actually "IS".

I think you'll find it here: http://mormonstories.org/fiona-and-terryl-givens-and-the-crucible-of-doubt/

Terryl again:

"I choose to affirm that truthfulness of the Restored Gospel for five principal reasons.

1. Joseph Smith revealed the God I am most irresistibly drawn to worship.
2. He gave the only account of moral agency that to my mind can justify the horrific costs of our mortal probation.
3. He provided a story of the soul’s origin and destiny that resonates with the truth and the appeal of cosmic poetry.
4. The fruits of the gospel are real and discernible.
5. The restoration is generous in its embrace."

Hahahahahah!

He loves Joseph Smith because his god "resonates with the truth and the appeal of cosmic poetry". So, in other words, one of Terryl's reasons for worshipping a God constructed out of whatever Joseph Smith was plagiarizing at the time is this: it "resonates" to some inscrutable vibration that Terryl, sitting in his argyle sweater and drinking cocoa, is uniquely qualified to discern.

And point 2 is ludicrous. Joseph Smith's God's theodicy is among the most amateur and unconvincing of any version in history. I could go into why, but suffice it to say that it is a form of Persian dualism, nothing more.

The fact that Terryl, later in the same "Mormon scholars testify" article, has the audacity to refer to Ivan Karamazov as one of his heroes, in a vain attempt to give himself some rebel credentials, just shows that he doesn't understand any of the issues in question. Ivan really struggled. Ivan truly rebelled. Where is Terryl's rebellion?

I'm being cruel, I know, but it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Is this guy for real? Does anybody really listen to this stuff?

"The restoration is generous in its embrace"?? REALLY? How about to doubters, Terryl? Tell it to families that have been destroyed by its absolutist claims. Tell it to women who are second rate citizens. Tell it to black and Native Americans and Gay men who have committed suicide. Generous how? Because we pretend to baptize Hitler forty times after he died? Some generosity.

This is all flowery pedantic nonsense. Terryl the Twaddler is the hired apologetic gun of the LDS church. Good luck.

When I read Terryl's "The God Who Weeps" I called him a rhetorician. Now that I have read his newest missive
The Crucible of Doubt," I believe he is a rhetorical apologist. That is my new name for these guys. They are quite clever with language, although it reminds me too much of Neal A. Maxwell. They have a more subtle way of saying "have faith, don't doubt. The church is still true even if you aren't." It could have saved 140 pages of reading, but it was fun to see how he uses words. Reviewing this new book is my next blog project. He raised my eyebrows several times with what he is claiming as it goes diametrically opposite of what Oaks, Holland and other leaders have said in recent years. Very interesting that. I wrote in one margin comment, "Yo dude, you need to tell the brethren this, not us!" GRIN!

And he's got that damn voice! I mean the man must have taken elocution lessons. Then Fiona with her British accent calling him darling. I wish my wife sounded like that when she calls me by my pet names.

Seriously, I like these people. I wish they were part of my Bible based church... AND they might even be part of my bible based church. I wouldn't be surprised if they said they attended other denominations occasionally for perspective (doesn't that sound like something they would say).

I just didn't know they were actually trying to get members to stay in the church from a positional standpoint.

I don't have anything of quality to add to this fascinating discussion, other than to say I don't understand them. Reading between the lines I think they don't really believe the church is true, but it is useful, so everyone should stay in.

I just don't understand that line of reasoning. Mormonism is a very demanding narrow minded religion to live. Bearing "good fruits" is NOT enough for me. There are too many other ways of thinking, or religions, to learn how to be a good person that aren't as troubled, damaging, and exclusive as the mormon church.

We have two TBM friends that are educated and liberal in their way of thinking. One of them told us he stays in, despite all the issues and damage the church causes, because it makes him a better person. He really is a great guy, but wow, I don't get it. There are many other ways to be a good person that doesn't involve lies and troublesome history and devoting your money, your lifestyle, and so very much of your time to this church.

I will never understand it.

I think she's pretty.

We are the same age, so 1957 must have been a good year. ;o))