Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

[Hagoth]

In a recent Reddit AMA Terryl Givens announced that he is "writing of a book that would do for the PGP what By the Hand of Mormon did for that scripture."
https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaint ... ivens_ama/

Givens says,

"Abraham's teachings and writings on the creation, the priesthood, and the resurrection were adopted and integrated by the Egyptians into derivative writings in their own sacred burial texts discussing immortality and the afterlife, which were adapted and corrupted over time resulting in a version of the Book of Breathings that Joseph obtained. Then Joseph translated it to extract the original truths in Abraham's gospel teachings that influenced the Egyptian writings."

Does this strike anyone else as just a repetition of standard non-answer that falls under the general category of the catylist theory? Does Givens understand that there is no way to support such a theory? That it should be named the Catalyst Excuse?

He seems to be trying to establish the catalyst theory as the official answer and he sides with Hauglid (who he names as the primary inspiration and information source for the book) in accepting that there was no lost scroll. Givens actually refers to the process as "channeling." Using such a loaded term seems like an intentional act of moving even further away from empirical thinking and deeper into magical thinking.

Here's an interesting observation that Givens makes:

Many who stay do so because they are intellectually incurious and not apt to be troubled by new developments or discoveries. And many who leave do so because they are intellectually curious, but not intellectually open enough to reformulations of faith paradigms. So we may be losing the moderate middle?

It sounds like he's saying wall-jello is now the standard for doctrinal exegesis and that you should just be open to going along with whatever flavor they're tossing out today, curious sure, but more importantly, intellectually submissive.

When someone brought up the fact that the main problems still exist, like the embarrassingly bad translations of the facsimiles, Givens said:

The process was not what we thought, but has no bearing on the validity of the product.

If I'm following where he's going with all of this and other statements on the AMA, Givens seems to be saying that Joseph believed what he was translating was correct, and even though it wasn't that's okay because he was channeling information from an outside source to restore what the papyri really SHOULD have said.

What this is really all about, if you ask me, is that the BoA has become a total trainwreck for the church and they need someone to step in and put a fresh coat of paint on it with eloquent language about overlooking the concrete problems to find the nebulous meaning behind the meaning that will resonate with the bigger message of the church, which is "don't worry your little brain, we've got it covered." What that really means for most members is that they can say, "hey, Terryl Givens is a really smart guy, so smart I couldn't even get through any of his other books. He must have some really good answers, which takes the heat off me having to deal with it myself."

[Not Buying It]

Whatever Terryl Givens, you mealy-mouthed apologist who sells a watered-down version of cafeteria Mormonism that has never actually existed in this or any other dimension of reality to try and get people to stay in what is actually an unreasonably controlling and oppressive religion. You purveyor of chameleon Mormonism that magically changes to the same color as whatever intellectually bankrupt apologetic argument you happen to be hawking at the time. You who for filthy lucre would strengthen the chains that bind people to the Church with your intellectually dishonest arguments. You who would try and make a buck telling me the sky is actually somehow red as I stare at it with my own eyes and see it for the blue it really is. Knock yourself out, but know that the only people listening to you will believe literally anything you tell them that helps them preserve their untenable worldview and readily disprovable but tightly-held beliefs. It's not that you're brilliant - it's that they're desperate. And you exploit that desperation.

I don't like Terryl Givens. I'm sure he's a nice enough guy, but I don't respect people who make $$$ selling lies, rationalization, obfuscation and spin.

As to the Book of Abraham, our friend Yobispo put it as eloquently yet forcefully as anyone could:

The title and subtitle are very important, in my mind.

"THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM
TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

Joseph told us that it was written in Egypt by Abraham, "by his own hand, upon papyrus". Joseph gives us the location where it was written, who wrote it and what he wrote it on. Yet the church now admits (in the essay, not general conference where believers would hear it) that the papyrus has nothing to do with Abraham at all. I think that the arguments beyond that are a waste of your precious time. After all, if we can't take "by his own hand upon papyrus" literally, then words don't mean anything.

[Palerider]

It sounds like he's saying wall-jello is now the standard for doctrinal exegesis and that you should just be open to going along with whatever flavor they're tossing out today, curious sure, but more importantly, intellectually submissive.

When someone brought up the fact that the main problems still exist, like the embarrassingly bad translations of the facsimiles, Givens said:

The process was not what we thought, but has no bearing on the validity of the product.

If I'm following where he's going with all of this and other statements on the AMA, Givens seems to be saying that Joseph believed what he was translating was correct, and even though it wasn't that's okay because he was channeling information from an outside source to restore what the papyri really SHOULD have said.

Just deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole in order to continue believing. Whatever it takes....just keep believing.
Isn't that the classic ploy of all con men?

[Mormorrisey]

Whatever Terryl Givens, you mealy-mouthed apologist who sells a watered-down version of cafeteria Mormonism that has never actually existed in this or any other dimension of reality to try and get people to stay in what is actually an unreasonably controlling and oppressive religion.

I admit, I was in this camp for a long time. Simply because you're both right here, NBI and Hagoth, and especially for the fact that Terryl Givens/Bushman/Prince could exist in the world whereas being surrounding by fundamentalists in my area, I couldn't get away with it and had my recommend threatened. Which probably means I'm just jealous!

I see it a little differently now, though, in that I think they provide a valuable service to the prog-morms and the more liberal faction to be found in the church. Clearly the church is listening to this more liberal group with the changes they've made over the last little while, and more particularly for the damage Givens et al are doing to the more fundamentalist apologists. I don't know if anyone is following the debates that Hauglid and Jensen are having with John Gee and the other Fair people about the Book of Abraham, but look at the hatchet job Gee does on the BOA volume in the JS papers project:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... -stumbles/

If Givens is in league with Hauglid, and they more than anyone can rile up the Gee/Peterson/Hamblin apologist faction, then this scholarly rumble has my blessing to continue forward. Is Givens leaning towards dishonesty in his writings? Sure he is, but the more I read him and listen to his appearances on podcasts he is a true believer, but with a lot of nuance and a lot of compassion for people who are going through faith crises. And if his message finally gets through to the people I care about, maybe my life will be easier. If Givens want to buy into a Mormonism that doesn't exist, and it works for him, and he helps others make it work for them, then go float your boat. I'll take Givens' brand of Mormonism over Oaks's, that's for dang sure.

But I also will concede that the BOA is such a trainwreck, that this does cry desperation for Givens to do this book at this time. The BOA is simply not what it proports to be, which leads to the conclusion that Mormonism itself isn't what it proclaims to be, if one digs deep enough. Givens simply papers over the deep cracks, I'll admit that fully.

[Emower]

It boils down to the "give brother Joseph (and by extension the church) a break" argument. They were/are doing the best they can, God works through imperfect people, blah blah blah. Honestly, this argument works fabulously for people who would like to (or are forced to) stay in and are intellectually submissive, as Hagoth says. Givens really does appeal to a majority within the church. Lots of people can see through this as lipstick on a pig though. It isnt a very smart argument, given that you need so many assumptions that are subject to attack, but honestly it is the only argument likely to appease the most people.

It makes sense to me that one of the most moderate defenders of the church would adopt one of the most moderate arguments for the BOA.

[wtfluff]

...
Givens says,

"Abraham's teachings and writings on the creation, the priesthood, and the resurrection were adopted and integrated by the Egyptians into derivative writings in their own sacred burial texts discussing immortality and the afterlife, which were adapted and corrupted over time resulting in a version of the Book of Breathings that Joseph obtained. Then Joseph translated it to extract the original truths in Abraham's gospel teachings that influenced the Egyptian writings."

...

Simply amazing the way Confirmation Bias can cause "smart" humans to perform gold-medal worthy mental gymnastics and literally twist their brain into knots to "keep on believing" religious fairy-tales.

Can we, as humans, ever get beyond such biases?

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Yay loose translation! [emoji849]

[Emower]

...
Givens says,

"Abraham's teachings and writings on the creation, the priesthood, and the resurrection were adopted and integrated by the Egyptians into derivative writings in their own sacred burial texts discussing immortality and the afterlife, which were adapted and corrupted over time resulting in a version of the Book of Breathings that Joseph obtained. Then Joseph translated it to extract the original truths in Abraham's gospel teachings that influenced the Egyptian writings."

...

Simply amazing the way Confirmation Bias can cause "smart" humans to perform gold-medal worthy mental gymnastics and literally twist their brain into knots to "keep on believing" religious fairy-tales.

Can we, as humans, ever get beyond such biases?

Based on a few books I am reading right now, I think the answer is no. It interesting to think about the mechanisms that evolved to enable cooperation and further us as a species. Belief in the supernatural was central to that. Can belief (maybe trust is a better word) in science replace it? Like star trek liked to portray? I dont know, but I am not going to hold my breath.

[jfro18]

My problem with Givens is that he knows this doesn't work and yet he continues to write books and tour the country doing firesides convincing others to stay in the boat because he's found a way to make it work.

And maybe he truly believes the Book of Abraham has no loss of value even if it is completely wrong and no apologetics from the church have any footing in reality, but I just don't believe anyone could be that far in without a motive.

Perhaps my anger towrds Givens is that DW read one of his books early on and quickly began to just nuance through the issues as we talked by quoting some things he said, that even though they didn't actually work, allowed her to say "Yeah some things in the past don't add up but how could Joseph have possibly gotten these other things right?"

And of course she wouldn't really talk about those things he gets right, but she specifically mentioned the Givens book for giving her that perspective, so I kind of hate the Givens' approach because of that.

But honestly - ANY (and I mean ANY) apologetics of the Book of Abraham FLATLY go against what Joseph Smith told us he was doing. The one thing apologists never want to actually talk about is what Joseph Smith actually said, what the Book of Abraham actually says, or what the Book of Mormon actually has in it. They will fight you all day before taking anything at face value, and to me that says it all.

[1smartdodog]

It would be preferable for him to say I know it makes no sense whatsoever, but I like being a mormon so I will continue with that. If individuals need to make up stories to believe something that is just sad, and intellectually dishonest.

I can't help but think he has some ulterior motive. Why he works so hard to keep everyone in a boat full of holes is beyond me. Cant imagine he makes tons of money on books. Maybe he likes the prestige he is afforded by running around the country on behalf of the brethren.

[Palerider]

I can't help but think he has some ulterior motive. Why he works so hard to keep everyone in a boat full of holes is beyond me......Maybe he likes the prestige he is afforded by running around the country on behalf of the brethren.

I had a Stake President who claimed he had "read it all" referring to "anti- Mormon" material and he said, "None of it bothered me!"

My non-verbal question was, "What's wrong with you?"

But I realized, looking back on some previous conversations with him that he was totally and utterly enthralled with being "closer to the Brethren" because of his calling. He loved having the opportunity to occasionally rub shoulders with the spiritual giants and eventually served as a mission president. I have no doubt he mentally waits by the phone every time there's an opening among the Seventy.

I think I know where his motivations lie.

[Emower]

It has been a long time since I have read everyone's introductions and personal exit stories, but when I am confused by Teryl Givens' motivations and explanations it helps me to recall the times when I cried out loud, feeling my world crumple, wishing that it could be true. I really did not want to come to a realization that the church was not what I thought it was. I wanted anything else. I grasped Teryl's lifeline for a while, and it helped me. It helped me calm down enough that I could gain some introspection and not be quite so reactionary. A lot of mormon stories did the same thing for me, the only difference was the conclusions each outlet came to. I was eventually able to make my own choice and it wasnt to support the arguments that Teryl supplies, but boy I appreciate the effort he puts forth to those in the same position as I was. Perhaps his motivation really is charity for those that he might actually believe are his brothers and sisters.

There are those who want it to be true so badly that any argument which makes sense superficially will do, and that is fine.We assume that all of those people floundering out there for answers just need to stand up on the floor that is beneath them, without knowing just how deep that floor is for many people.

[moksha]

Givens says,

"Abraham's teachings and writings on the creation, the priesthood, and the resurrection were adopted and integrated by the Egyptians into derivative writings in their own sacred burial texts discussing immortality and the afterlife, which were adapted and corrupted over time resulting in a version of the Book of Breathings that Joseph obtained. Then Joseph translated it to extract the original truths in Abraham's gospel teachings that influenced the Egyptian writings."

I would place Terryl Given's assertion in the "Compounding a Lie" category. Needing to support the Book of Abraham is one thing, but lying about the Book of Breathings being a corruption of the Book of Abraham is hubris and the denigration of Egyptian history on a large scale. It is akin to Givens taking a torch to the Great Library of Alexandria in the name of LDS apologetics.

[Keewon]

I presume that if the BofA turned out to have some scientific merit, the Church would latch onto it. Science would be the order of the day. Science would be their best friend. They'd shout: "Look here. Here's smoking gun scientific evidence JS was a prophet!" Not only would you hear about it in general conference, BYU studies, seminary courses and whatnot, you wouldn't hear the end of it.

So now that it turns out the BofA isn't what JS said, and doesn't in any way capture the actual meaning of the papyri, will any of the erstwhile science enthusiasts admit this is evidence JS wasn't a prophet? That this still scientific evidence?

Nope- they invent new theories that can't be falsified (the catalyst theory), talk about the fallibility of science, play Pilate with that "what is truth anyways?", pull out the "you can't prove a negative" canard, and so forth. Science is only relevant if it tells me what I want to hear.

If they could only say "Well, yes, science does seem to shoot down the Church's claims, but at least I have personal evidence and plan to keep believing in spite of whatever the physical evidence says". That at least would sound more intellectually honest. The hypocrisy is discouraging.

[Keewon]

I would love to be at the Q&A section of a lecture with Givens or his ilk, and have someone ask the following questions:

"If the BofA contained a literal translation of the papyri, would that be evidence that JS was a prophet? Why or why not?"

"If the BofA did not contain a literal translation of the papyri, would that be evidence that JS was not a prophet? Why or why not?"

"If you never consider negative evidence in your investigation, or at most always try to explain that negative evidence away with speculative hypotheses that cannot be proven or disproven, is your investigation honest from a scientific point of view? Why or why not?"

These shouldn't be hard questions.

[Not Buying It]

Terryl Givens didn’t travel far and wide through the Church giving firesides for free. I don’t know who was financing that, but someone was. And while he probably doesn’t get rich off of his books, if his motivation is solely to help people, why sell a book? He could provide all his information for free in a blog if he’s really just out to help people.

In my estimation, Terryl Givens is guilty of priestcraft, he is one of those men who “preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the Welfare of Zion. But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.” (2 Nephi 26). If you look at that definition, he preaches, he sets himself up as a light unto the world, and he labors for money. Terryl Givens is just a much less successful Joel Osteen with less charisma, less ambition, a pseudo-academic approach and a much weirder denomination to work with. He hawks a kinder, gentler version of Mormonism that doesn’t really exist and does nothing to change the reality of what the Church is really like. But what he does do is provide intellectually dishonest rationalizations that keep some members in it, and for that he is useful to the Church.

[Palerider]

I would love to be at the Q&A section of a lecture with Givens or his ilk, and have someone ask the following questions:

"If the BofA contained a literal translation of the papyri, would that be evidence that JS was a prophet? Why or why not?"

"If the BofA did not contain a literal translation of the papyri, would that be evidence that JS was not a prophet? Why or why not?"

"If you never consider negative evidence in your investigation, or at most always try to explain that negative evidence away with speculative hypotheses that cannot be proven or disproven, is your investigation honest from a scientific point of view? Why or why not?"

These shouldn't be hard questions.

This is the Dishonest Waiter parable.

People make mistakes. All of us do.

A waiter at a restaurant gives you the wrong change occasionally. If he is an honest waiter, approximately 50% of the time the error will favor you and 50% of the time it will favor the waiter.

If the error favors the waiter 100% of the time, you know you have a dishonest waiter.

With the church corporation, all of the questionable issues are resolved by its apologists in favor of the church 100% of the time. No matter what happens, the church is always true and Joseph always comes out smelling like a rose.

You do the math......

[Hagoth]

...but look at the hatchet job Gee does on the BOA volume in the JS papers project:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... -stumbles/.

This is fascinating to me. They're fighting over the differences between the Keebler Elf and the Lucky Charms Leprechaun when maybe they should be putting more energy into the question of whether snack-based fairies even exist.

Anything the editors say about Egyptian language, papyri, or characters is beyond their skill and training. It is regretable that although The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints counts several faithful Egyptologists among its membership, the editors deliberately chose not to involve them in any serious way.

Doesn't Gee realize that is how the church approaches everything? That it's exactly how apologetics work, his included?

[Hagoth]

Terryl Givens didn’t travel far and wide through the Church giving firesides for free. I don’t know who was financing that, but someone was. And while he probably doesn’t get rich off of his books, if his motivation is solely to help people, why sell a book? He could provide all his information for free in a blog if he’s really just out to help people.

In my estimation, Terryl Givens is guilty of priestcraft, he is one of those men who “preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the Welfare of Zion. But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.” (2 Nephi 26). If you look at that definition, he preaches, he sets himself up as a light unto the world, and he labors for money. Terryl Givens is just a much less successful Joel Osteen with less charisma, less ambition, a pseudo-academic approach and a much weirder denomination to work with. He hawks a kinder, gentler version of Mormonism that doesn’t really exist and does nothing to change the reality of what the Church is really like. But what he does do is provide intellectually dishonest rationalizations that keep some members in it, and for that he is useful to the Church.

Terryl and Fiona made a stop at my stake. I think I mentioned this recently on another thread. I began to get excited when Terryl gave the impression that he was going to hit some hard BoM issues head-on and then fell back into weak, generalized apologetics (e.g. if you understand that the BoM happened in Mesoamerica all of your questions evaporate) and a why-not-just-believe approach. I got the impression that Fiona isn't much of a believer and is along for the ride. She actually made a disparaging remark about the GAs and said she prefers Harry Potter to the Book of Mormon.

[jfro18]

Terryl and Fiona made a stop at my stake. I think I mentioned this recently on another thread. I began to get excited when Terryl gave the impression that he was going to hit some hard BoM issues head-on and then fell back into weak, generalized apologetics (e.g. if you understand that the BoM happened in Mesoamerica all of your questions evaporate) and a why-not-just-believe approach.

This reminds me of the Patrick Mason approach... basically saying 'Yeah I was lied to as well and I felt horrible about it, but do you really want to let go of those good feelings you've had in order to really find out more? It might have some awful history, but doesn't it make you feel good today?'

I got the impression that Fiona isn't much of a believer and is along for the ride. She actually made a disparaging remark about the GAs and said she prefers Harry Potter to the Book of Mormon.