RFM & Terryl Givens - interesting insights

[Hagoth]

RFM's recent podcast about the "Subversive Terryl Givens" had a couple of gems that are worth discussing.

Givens points out that Joseph Smith would add ideas to the JST and then shortly thereafter those words would just happen to show up in a D&C revelation, coming from the mouth of God. Interestingly, the opposite would also happen. Joseph would receive a revelation from God and the wording would find its way back into the mouths of Bible authors. It would be interesting, although I don't think it's the case, if any of these actually originated with Adam Clarke. Givens classified these kinds of things under the catch-all of "revelatory imagination." This is a whole new kind of revelation. It starts in the imagination of Joseph Smith and ends up in the mouths of God and ancient prophets.

I think Givens is dead-on in assigning Joseph's doctrinal legacy to his imagination (plus a healthy dose of plagiarism!).

Somewhat along the same lines is an observation that Earl Wunderli made in An Imperfect Book (RFM did not discuss this, but it's what came to mind while I was listening). He compared the language of chapters of the BoM that Joseph was translating with revelations he was receiving at the same time and noticed that the language of BoM authors changed over time to use the same phrases and ideas that God was using in his revelations to Joseph.

Another point RFM brought up is that Joseph apparently believed that everyone enters heaven in the Telestial Kingdom and progresses eventually to the Celestial Kingdom. This is concept I have never heard. Just wondering if anyone has more info on this. It really is a much better doctrine than the one we teach now. I like the idea that everyone moves on to the next phase together and then they can progress at their own speed. Way too universalist for the modern fundamentalist church, though.

[alas]

RFM's recent podcast about the "Subversive Terryl Givens" had a couple of gems that are worth discussing.

Givens points out that Joseph Smith would add ideas to the JST and then shortly thereafter those words would just happen to show up in a D&C revelation, coming from the mouth of God. Interestingly, the opposite would also happen. Joseph would receive a revelation from God and the wording would find its way back into the mouths of Bible authors. It would be interesting, although I don't think it's the case, if any of these actually originated with Adam Clarke. Givens classified these kinds of things under the catch-all of "revelatory imagination." This is a whole new kind of revelation. It starts in the imagination of Joseph Smith and ends up in the mouths of God and ancient prophets.

I think Givens is dead-on in assigning Joseph's doctrinal legacy to his imagination (plus a healthy dose of plagiarism!).

Somewhat along the same lines is an observation that Earl Wunderli made in An Imperfect Book (RFM did not discuss this, but it's what came to mind while I was listening). He compared the language of chapters of the BoM that Joseph was translating with revelations he was receiving at the same time and noticed that the language of BoM authors changed over time to use the same phrases and ideas that God was using in his revelations to Joseph.

Another point RFM brought up is that Joseph apparently believed that everyone enters heaven in the Telestial Kingdom and progresses eventually to the Celestial Kingdom. This is concept I have never heard. Just wondering if anyone has more info on this. It really is a much better doctrine than the one we teach now. I like the idea that everyone moves on to the next phase together and then they can progress at their own speed. Way too universalist for the modern fundamentalist church, though.

I have heard the idea that we start in the TK and work up from there, long time ago. I couldn’t have told you it was JS, just that once upon a time, far far away, when actual gospel discussions happened in Sunday School, I think it was the ward I grew up in, so 50 years ago. But I think the idea stuck because it makes more sense that there is a lot of work still to do before any of us make it to CK.

[Jeffret]

Another point RFM brought up is that Joseph apparently believed that everyone enters heaven in the Telestial Kingdom and progresses eventually to the Celestial Kingdom. This is concept I have never heard. Just wondering if anyone has more info on this. It really is a much better doctrine than the one we teach now. I like the idea that everyone moves on to the next phase together and then they can progress at their own speed. Way too universalist for the modern fundamentalist church, though.

Is this something RFM stated? Or quoting something that Givens said? (I don't know that RFM has done an extensive study in this area and I find he sometimes oversimplifies the provenance of some things. I'm not terribly familiar with Givens work but as a professor of English and religion I think he is more careful with that sort of thing.)

I don't know of anything as definitive as described, that actually states Joseph's beliefs / teachings on the topic. As best I can tell, it's possible Joseph might have believed that, but it's also positive he believed the opposite. Of course, with the way Joseph worked he may well have taught both.

There's a long running debate in Mormon theology about Eternal Progression. One interesting aspect of it was that it was a lot more favored in earlier days of the Church. There were a number of leaders or thinkers who at least considered it a definite possibility. There are definite statements in support of Eternal Progression in the 19th century. Once Joseph Fielding Smith and his student Bruce R. McConkie got hold of it, though, there was a definite opinion expressed. BRM made progression among the kingdoms one of his Seven Deadly Heresies. Whereas Joseph and Brigham clearly believed in progression to the highest levels, Gordon dismissed it as a mere couplet.

Earlier beliefs about progression between kingdoms may have been connected with the doctrine of Multiple Mortal Probations. Maybe different probations were required to achieve progression. As far as I've ever heard details on exactly what early members / leaders thought about EP and MMP is sketchy at best.

In the earliest days of the NOM forum, Peggy was about as much of a NOM as could be (though mostly inactive) and notably well read. She was particularly interested in the universalist nature of early Mormonism. She was very universalist herself and liked to point out a number of things, particularly in Joseph's earlier teachings, were a universalist response to the popular heaven-hell dichotomy of the day. Joseph's teachings of the nature of heaven resulted from his concern over the popular teachings of the day and contained a much more universalist tone. The modern Church has abandoned that and claimed a sole authority over a very limited heaven.

[consiglieri]

I quoted Givens as saying he concluded Joseph Smith believed it.

Another example of Givens's subversiveness.

Oversimplificatingly yours,

RFM

[Jeffret]

I quoted Givens as saying he concluded Joseph Smith believed it.

Another example of Givens's subversiveness.

Thanks for clarifying.

I wonder where he gets that from. I haven't seen that show up anywhere else.

(Sorry to criticize you about oversimplifying.)

[moksha]

Sunday, January 12th, 2020 Consiglieri will be at the St. George Red Lion at 2 PM to share nuggets of wisdom with fry sauce.

Pass it on.

[Just This Guy]

One thing I was unable to follow in that episode is who was the target of Mr. Givens subversiveness? Is he working to undermine the church, or is he working to undermine nay-sayers? RFM seamed to go back and forth on that.

[blazerb]

One thing I was unable to follow in that episode is who was the target of Mr. Givens subversiveness? Is he working to undermine the church, or is he working to undermine nay-sayers? RFM seamed to go back and forth on that.

I think he is undermining the standard narrative that we all grew up with. It a sense, this strengthens the church. He is laying the groundwork so the church can say in 10 years that everyone should have known these things. In another sense, he is undermining church leaders who may hold more traditional views about things like kingdom-hopping. I think the Givens have the approval of leaders in the church who are taking the long view.

[Hagoth]

One thing I was unable to follow in that episode is who was the target of Mr. Givens subversiveness? Is he working to undermine the church, or is he working to undermine nay-sayers? RFM seamed to go back and forth on that.

I think he is undermining the standard narrative that we all grew up with. It a sense, this strengthens the church. He is laying the groundwork so the church can say in 10 years that everyone should have known these things. In another sense, he is undermining church leaders who may hold more traditional views about things like kingdom-hopping. I think the Givens have the approval of leaders in the church who are taking the long view.

I think that's right. Givens hangs comfortably on the plausible deniability utility belt. He's not an officer of the church, so you don't have to take him seriously until an officer of the church or another apologist urns up the gaslight on you. "If you had been faithfully studying you would have already known about this."

[consiglieri]

Thanks for clarifying.

I wonder where he gets that from. I haven't seen that show up anywhere else.

(Sorry to criticize you about oversimplifying.)

Lol!

It's okay. I am guilty of many sins and that is no doubt sometimes one of them.

Givens cites a few pages from another of his books in support of this proposition, but I don't have that book and have not run it down to see why he believes this.

I agree it is far from certain.

I expect the progressive structure of the endowment may play into it.

Cheers!

[consiglieri]

One thing I was unable to follow in that episode is who was the target of Mr. Givens subversiveness? Is he working to undermine the church, or is he working to undermine nay-sayers? RFM seamed to go back and forth on that.

I think Givens seeks to make Mormonism respectable to intellectuals, and in so doing unintentionally subverts the faith of dominant narrative believers.

[Corsair]

I think Givens seeks to make Mormonism respectable to intellectuals, and in so doing unintentionally subverts the faith of dominant narrative believers.

There is a strain of Mormonism that simply wants to "keep Mormonism weird". I can understand what Brother Givens is trying to do and I can only sit on the sidelines munching popcorn watching the inevitable fireworks.

As many of you know, I still attend my ward. It is filled with lots of genuinely good people. I have a hypothesis that many of the genuinely good people have their commitment cemented in place by the weirdness of Mormonism. Much like plural marriage solidified 19th century Mormonism, the ongoing weirdness of the modern LDS church keeps the LDS people distinct and unintentionally gives a reason to stick together.

If things like temple ordinances, priesthood, and missionary work were removed, the LDS church would just turn into another boring Protestant sect in slow decline. Brother Givens seems to be trying out an impressive balancing act of trying to keep the "peculiar people" distinction while making LDS philosophy and doctrine more acceptable to outside scholars. We will see if the average Mormons like my ward members will accept these kinds of changes and distinctions.

[Jeffret]

One thing I was unable to follow in that episode is who was the target of Mr. Givens subversiveness? Is he working to undermine the church, or is he working to undermine nay-sayers? RFM seamed to go back and forth on that.

RFM is clearly saying that Givens is a subversive towards the Church. Or that he is subverting people's testimony. He's certainly saying that some church leaders would consider that Givens is eroding members' testimonies.

Which is true, after a fashion. But, as several people in this thread have pointed out, it's a bit oversimplified. What Givens is also doing is providing a way out for changing doctrines or for people. He is also creating space for more intellectual approaches. Or for believing members that are interested in synthesizing deeper historical examinations. In one sense, that subverts the Church because the leaders clearly want to feed the members pablum through a simple on-brand message. But it also provides space for some members to keep happily participating. Given the density of the language and the content that RFM reports in Givens' book, this information isn't going to be consumed by the average member. Those who do read it are less likely to be subverted, if they aren't already.

In many ways, RFM is not oversimplifying in this episode, quite the opposite. He provides a lot of deep, connected information. But, in the central claim of the subversiveness, other people here have already pointed out the oversimplification. But, there's still enough interesting content in the episode.

[Jeffret]

Joseph would receive a revelation from God and the wording would find its way back into the mouths of Bible authors. It would be interesting, although I don't think it's the case, if any of these actually originated with Adam Clarke. Givens classified these kinds of things under the catch-all of "revelatory imagination." This is a whole new kind of revelation. It starts in the imagination of Joseph Smith and ends up in the mouths of God and ancient prophets.

I think Givens is dead-on in assigning Joseph's doctrinal legacy to his imagination (plus a healthy dose of plagiarism!).

There are certainly some believing members, or at least some fully participating members, who take this approach. I did for many years as a full-NOM and I'm certainly not the only one to do so. I've known a number of people like that. Givens writings do more to expand space in the Church for people like that. If my concerns were primarily historical, Givens could well have given me additional reason to stay. I still think Givens is substantially correct about how Joseph worked and that's still a fascinating study.

Another point RFM brought up is that Joseph apparently believed that everyone enters heaven in the Telestial Kingdom and progresses eventually to the Celestial Kingdom.

RFM didn't elaborate on this point. Apparently Givens didn't either. I'd be curious why Givens thinks there is enough evidence to conclude Joseph believed in Eternal Progression. It's a plausible claim. I even consider it likely. But I don't know of any evidence that really supports it.

[deacon blues]

Sunday, January 12th, 2020 Consiglieri will be at the St. George Red Lion at 2 PM to share nuggets of wisdom with fry sauce.

Pass it on.

Is this for reals, or am I just gullible? It might be worth the drive from Sandy.

[wtfluff]

Sunday, January 12th, 2020 Consiglieri will be at the St. George Red Lion at 2 PM to share nuggets of wisdom with fry sauce.

Pass it on.

Is this for reals, or am I just gullible? It might be worth the drive from Sandy.

Yes it's for real. Consig announced it on his last podcast, and it has been published on other sites besides NOM.

(In case Consig doesn't return to NOM in time to verify...)

[moksha]

Sunday, January 12th, 2020 Consiglieri will be at the St. George Red Lion at 2 PM to share nuggets of wisdom with fry sauce.

Pass it on.

Is this for reals, or am I just gullible? It might be worth the drive from Sandy.

Be there or raise your hand to the square!

“Eenie Meenie Chili-Beanie, Consiglieri is about to speak.”

[Not Buying It]

One thing I was unable to follow in that episode is who was the target of Mr. Givens subversiveness? Is he working to undermine the church, or is he working to undermine nay-sayers? RFM seamed to go back and forth on that.

RFM is clearly saying that Givens is a subversive towards the Church. Or that he is subverting people's testimony. He's certainly saying that some church leaders would consider that Givens is eroding members' testimonies.

Which is true, after a fashion. But, as several people in this thread have pointed out, it's a bit oversimplified. What Givens is also doing is providing a way out for changing doctrines or for people. He is also creating space for more intellectual approaches. Or for believing members that are interested in synthesizing deeper historical examinations. In one sense, that subverts the Church because the leaders clearly want to feed the members pablum through a simple on-brand message. But it also provides space for some members to keep happily participating. Given the density of the language and the content that RFM reports in Givens' book, this information isn't going to be consumed by the average member. Those who do read it are less likely to be subverted, if they aren't already.

In many ways, RFM is not oversimplifying in this episode, quite the opposite. He provides a lot of deep, connected information. But, in the central claim of the subversiveness, other people here have already pointed out the oversimplification. But, there's still enough interesting content in the episode.

I'd agree. Terryl Givens is just a guy trying to make the Church work. Nothing more, nothing less. He's subversive in the sense that he teaches non-Brethren approved ideas that help Mormons try and reconcile all the crazy, but at the end of the day he's just some random guy making up crap to try and explain why 2 + 2 = 5. Yes, an educated random guy, and one who is more informed of the problems than most. But he's still just making up non-correlated crap that tries to make a big tent Church out of one that tries to squeeze us all into little cardboard boxes. Givens opens the flap of our little cardboard box, peeks in, and tries to convince us all we are actually in a big tent.

I don't like him. I don't trust him. I don't respect him. However subversive he may seem to some, he's still doing the Church's dirty work, trying to give members who know the problems reasons to stay, which I hardly find subversive at all.

[Hagoth]

When he spoke at my stake I was disappointed with how quickly he fell into standard apologetics mode.

I wonder what would be the tipping point that would cause The Brethren to start considering him a heretic. I have a feeling that it would be the moment he applied his fluffy nuanced approach to how divinely inspired and obedience-worthy those Brethren are.

[deacon blues]

Just a note: I'm interested in driving down to St. George Sunday morning to see Consiglieri's event, if the weather isn't too bad. Anyone else interested? If you are respond on my "Support" thread.