The below quotations
are taken from an online “Reddit” interview of Terry Givens, (wherein he was
pitching a new book he has written about the Pearl of Great Price) containing
his responses to questions, and also a few relevant comments from questioners.
These are followed by statements of true church doctrine that refute Givens’ statements:
Givens: I think the significance of the BofM, for Joseph and
the world generally, was that it was a sign pointing to a renewal of the
miraculous universe. It contained very little that was new theologically.
Response: I don’t think most members of the Church would
recognize this assertion on the “significance of the Book of Mormon.” If by a
“sign” of the “miraculous universe” he means the Book of Mormon is a sign of
the beginning of the unfolding of the restoration of the gospel to the earth,
then, yes, it is—but why not just say that? Otherwise, the title page of the
book indicates its true purpose: “to show unto the remnant of the house of
Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they
may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also
to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal
God, manifesting himself unto all nations.” Further, the assertion that it
contains very little new theologically is unjustified and would be disputed by
many students of that volume of scripture.
Interview question: How can I strengthen my testimony once
I’ve started to doubt Joseph’s gift of translation?
Givens’ answer: Try to unlearn everything you assumed about
how revelation works. In the words of Abraham Heschel: An analysis of prophetic
utterances shows that the fundamental experience of the prophet is a fellowship
with the feelings of God, sympathy with the divine pathos, a communion with the
divine consciousness which comes about through the prophet’s reflection of, or
participation in, the divine pathos. The typical prophetic state of mind is one
of being taken up into the heart of the divine pathos. . . . The prophet hears
God’s voice and feels His heart. He tries to impart the pathos of the message.
. . . As an imparter his soul overflows, speaking as he does out of the
fullness of his sympathy." I dont think that's an exact description of how
JS worked, but its closer than the common set of cultural assumptions.
Response: This reply is spiritually dangerous counsel. Most
members will have learned how revelation works from reading about it in the
scriptures and the talks given by Church leaders; and most will have received
revelation themselves; some will even have experienced the gift of tongues or
discernment or have had pure intelligence flow into their minds. To unlearn
such knowledge would indeed damage a testimony. While many theories abound as
to how Joseph Smith translated, he said he did it “by the gift and power of God.”
The purity and simplicity of Moroni 10:3-5 takes over for the seeker, followed
by the teachings in the early sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. To quote
a worldly philosopher’s description of how revelation was given to Joseph
Smith, or anyone else for that matter, is absurdly out of place. Givens does
not know how Joseph Smith received revelation, nor how he translated languages that
Joseph himself did not know; therefore, his descriptions are worthless and
meaningless. We are not told what the common set of cultural assumptions are
supposed to be, so we cannot make a judgment on them, but surely most members
of the Church would know, from appropriate sources, better than philosophers,
how revelation works.
Givens: Section 76 was, as far as we know, unique as a
revelation. Vivid, detailed, jointly shared, explicit. Many LDS clearly assume
that JS heard Gods voice dictating revelations to him and he simply recorded
them. Or that he dictated them after personally conversing with Jesus. I dont
think the record bears that pattern out.
Response: Most every word of this rings false. Section 76 is
indeed a marvelous revelation, but is certainly not unique. Joseph received
many “vivid, detailed,” and “explicit” visions. Yes it was shared with Sidney
Rigdon, but Joseph also shared a vision or visitation with Jesus and other
great prophets from past dispensations, with Oliver Cowdery, depriving these
situations of uniqueness.
The surveys
that have been done on the various categories of the kinds of revelations that
are in the Doctrine and Covenants indicate that Joseph received them a number
of ways: by vision, by hearing the audible voice of God, by hearing the voice
of the Lord in his mind, by the Spirit dictating to him what to write, by pure
intelligence flowing into his mind, by the Urim and Thummim, and by other ways.
Givens: It helps to recognize that church leaders are not
historians, and they have not used their position to access secret archives
with the real history of Mormonism chronicled. They were raised on the same
manuals we were. And many times the inaccuracies are of no one's deliberate
doing. For instance, JS himself used the term Urim and Thummim to refer both to
the interpreters and to the seer stone in hat. No wonder we got those details
wrong for so many years. And in cases where the record was inaccurately
transmitted, does the misdeed of a church historian 50 or a hundred years ago
have anything to do, really, with my discipleship to Christ?
Response: This is a mixture of semi-truths jumbled together.
While church leaders are not professional historians they are church
leaders—Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is much better than being a
historian. Historians are limited in their fields by access to historical sources.
Where such is non-existent or sketchy, their contributions become likewise non-existent
or sketchy. To rely on the word of certain historians/academics can become a
tragic trap that may cost a person their testimony and even eternal life.
Plural marriage in Nauvoo is one of those areas where limited and sketchy
documentation has devalued the worth of the input of historians. While there is
no alleged “real history” (or alternate history) of the Church (a favorite theme
of anti-Mormons) hidden in church archives, there are minutes of meetings of
the First Presidency and the Twelve, diaries of apostles, and many sacred,
private, and confidential church historical records that are access restricted,
and for mostly good reason (hinders critics from mocking the sacred). This
means that senior church leaders do have access to restricted information that
others are denied, contrary to Givens’ assertions. Further, there is a huge
difference between past church histories containing “inaccuracies” which they
really didn’t, and these past church histories avoiding the parts of church
history that did not build faith in Christ. The purpose of Sunday School and
priesthood/Relief Society lessons was and is to strengthen faith in God, not
review all church history. Those who have thought otherwise, and then declare
themselves as feeling betrayed, are dealing with self-imposed illusions that
feed their doubts. Details were not “wrong” so much as they were omitted for
good reasons. Studying the Mountain Meadows Massacre in Sunday School would
have deepened no one’s testimony, while studying the Book of Mormon deepened
many testimonies. Only those who mistake the purposes for church classes ever
accuse the church of inaccurate history. I can’t help but think that if some
past church leaders (such as President Joseph Fielding Smith) were enabled to
return and explain themselves today, and talk to some historians and academics,
they would be doing some rebuking.
Givens: It doesnt bother me that he [Joseph Smith] turns out
to have been channeling rather than translating-- esp. given the fact that that
is how we got the BofM.
Response: Givens is here advocating the dubious theory that
Joseph Smith didn’t know that he wasn’t translating the Book of Abraham and
Book of Mormon, but that instead he had owned an Egyptian papyrus that
triggered or catalyzed his mind into “channeling,” evidently by revelation, the
text of the Book of Abraham, that he dictated to scribes, all the while
thinking he was translating an actual existing papyrus, or in the case of the
Book of Mormon, from gold plates. This is the kind of nonsense that a few academics
theorize. No Church leader has taught that Joseph channeled the text of the
Book of Mormon. On the contrary, they have all taught that he translated it by
the gift and power of God. There is some debate in play as to whether he used
the Urim and Thummim or a seer stone, or, more probably both, in the
translation process, but that is beside the point. He said he “translated [not
transmitted or channeled] by the gift and power of God.” Also we read, “And
gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to
translate the Book of Mormon;” (D&C 20:8; the “means” “before
prepared” meant the interpreters, not the seer stone) and these statements mean
that the Holy Spirit was involved. In a famous letter, Joseph
Smith wrote: “With the records was found a curious instrument, which the
ancients called ‘Urim and Thummim,’ [the Interpreters] which consisted of two
transparent stones set in the rims of a bow fastened to a breastplate. Through
the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift
and power of God.” Here we have Joseph’s physical description of the Urim
and Thummim (or Interpreters), not a seer stone, “through the medium of” which
he says he translated the Book of Mormon (not channeled). More scripture:
“And he commanded me that I should seal them up; and he also hath commanded
that I should seal up the interpretation thereof; wherefore I have sealed up
the interpreters” (Ether 4:5). Joseph used the means before prepared as the
scriptures and letter he wrote say he did. Joseph knew no Egyptian (reformed or
otherwise) and never claimed he did. But he was a
Seer and Translator as part of his calling as the Prophet of God on earth.
The academics, like Givens, claiming he was not a translator but a channeler
are misleading people and contradicting scripture; a sad and sorry development.
Questioner: What advice do you have about studying and
coming to understand the Pearl of Great Price for someone who struggles with
the Old Testament as well? How can I open my heart and mind to God's word, when
a lot of ancient scripture seems irrelevant or implausible in the current
times?
Givens’ answer: Parley Pratt set us on the wrong track
hermeneutically [interpretation of scripture]. He was an avid literalist. JS
emphasized time and again the fallibility of scriptures. 1 Nephi 13 tells us
that our blinded condition is a consequence of biblical corruption, but as LDS
we are reluctant to actually call out those corruptions specifically. In our
PERSONAL study I think we have to do that. I follow CS Lewis's rule: As he
wrote to a friend, it is dangerous to dismiss out of hand certain biblical
depictions, such as “the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua. I see the
grave danger we run by doing so,” he wrote, “but the dangers of believing in a
God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery
calling Him ‘good’ and worshiping Him, is still greater danger. The ultimate
question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the
inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine
of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine
renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible.”
Response: This is largely rubbish, or mixed rubbish. Joseph
Smith did emphasize that the Bible was troublesome and fallible because of its many
translation and transmission errors, but in relation to his own revelations, he
said the Book of Mormon was the most correct book (doctrinally and revelatory)
on earth, and he
also said that “there is no error in the revelations which I have taught,”
meaning the doctrinal accuracy of the sections in the Doctrine and Covenants
and other books of scripture he brought forth. The Book of Mormon does indicate
that there is the possibility of the errors of men in the text, but Joseph did
not emphasize that. So Givens has completely misstated the case. And no matter
how much C. S. Lewis is quoted in Conference, and how correct many of his
teachings were (and how great the likelihood that he has now joined the Church
in the spirit world), he was a Protestant theologian that did not really know much
solid doctrine. Let us not follow him or his rules of interpretation, and
instead follow those of the prophets today. Joseph Smith taught: “What is the
rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely
as it reads.” Some scriptures are meant to be interpreted literally, some
figuratively. We can have the Spirit of the Lord to assist us, and the apostles
and prophets, or C. S. Lewis or some other modern philosopher. Which is best? Elder
Maxwell’s advice seems relevant to answer this questioner: “There is a risk
when we contemplate the doctrines of the Restoration that we might ‘stagger’ in
the face of such bold and promising truths. Given such breathtaking revelations
and translations, let us, therefore, heed King Benjamin’s counsel: ‘Believe in
God; … believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can
comprehend’ (Mosiah 4:9).”
Givens: I believe in a severely self-limiting omnipotence.
And I believe in a tragic universe, in Hegel's sense. Some conflicts are
irresolvable, even by God.
Response: The omniscience and omnipotence of God is longtime
well-settled church doctrine; that Givens does not believe in an omnipotent and
omniscient God speaks volumes about him, but says nothing about the Church and
its doctrine—which is not beholden to his or Hege’s philosophizing. Notice how
often Givens appeals to the philosophers of the world to justify his warped
gospel opinions. Is this where we really want to go for knowledge of the plan
of salvation? All I have to do is skim a few General Conference talks and
everything there contradicts Givens’ assertions.
Givens: Personally, I find the King Follett theology perhaps
the single most intellectually appealing aspect of Mormon theology. As even Ricard
Dawkins [an atheist activist] admitted in print and on air, "I could
believe in God as a super-evolved human intelligence," or words to that
effect. Evolution, progress out of opposition, increasing complexity,
self-organizing systems everywhere around us- this is the world king follett
describes. I could not, personally, be a conventional theist. I cant embrace an
always existing infinitely perfect Being of goodness and compassion. My mind
cant go there. But I can embrace a material universe, in which hydrogen becomes
helium becomes the stuff of planets and stars and human life and Mozart and
Shakespeare. And God as the supreme instance of such boundless energies moving
toward perfection-- I can get my mind around that.
Response: If Givens is pushing evolution or the big bang
theory here, then he is just parroting modern scientific theories that
contradict scripture and the teachings of the prophet. Anyone can read the Prophet
Joseph’s King Follet discourse for themselves to find out what it really
says and teaches, rather than accepting an academics explanation for what it
says. D&C 20: “we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal,
from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven
and earth, and all things which are in them;” Do we seek after the finite
man-made explanations of this liberal/progressive academic or do we desire and
love and believe the word of the Lord? “And that he created man, male and
female, after his own image and in his own likeness, created he them; And gave
unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and
true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.”
Givens teaching that God is “moving toward perfection” is blasphemy that every
sound and stable church members should rise up and condemn (Matthew 5:48)!
Givens: A general hostility to biblical criticism in
general, as well as a pervasive suspicion of non-LDS scholarship is crippling
our ability to read the scriptures more intelligently.
Response: This call to seek after and accept the Bible
scholarship of the world is spiritually and doctrinally dangerous and contrary
to the continuous counsel of Church leaders from the Prophet Joseph Smith till
now. From the 8th article of faith: “We believe the Bible to be the
word of God as far as it is translated correctly” to other stronger warning
from prophets and apostles, the church as a whole should be on guard against
contrary counsel from Givens or others. Let us not mix the pure doctrine of the
church with the religious scholarship of the world!—not at all costs! Higher
Biblical criticism denies the miraculous, the supernatural. The First
Presidency and Twelve have long guarded the Church against what Givens here
promotes.
Inquirer: What do you personally believe it means to become
"gods" in exaltation? Can we one day be everything that our Father in
Heaven is now? Do you believe that our Father was once a mortal in some eons or
eternity past? Or do you believe becoming a god in exaltation is something
other than repeating the pattern of spirit child => mortal life =>become
a god => spirit children.
Givens: I dont know what "becoming a god" means or
entails, but Moses 7 gives us the most information available to us. It has
something to do with acquiring an infinite capacity for empathy and compassion.
I incline to the belief that we will foster/shepherd/adopt or otherwise help to
educate other spirit entities in the ways of the eternities, in companionship
with our spouse.
Response: Givens’ response speaks of either ignorance of, or
disbelief in, the many scriptures that teach what it means to become like God;
whether this is willful or not I couldn’t say, but is unconscionable for
someone professing to be educated and working for BYU. His audience deserves
far better and doesn’t get it; but they don’t seem to go to the scriptures and
teachings of the prophets either; also deeply regrettable. We are not a church
that relies on the opinions of scholars; we are a church that relies on
revelation, that already canonized or that coming from the current prophet of
God. Anyone teaching differently than this is teaching false doctrine and is in
conflict with all of the prophets and apostles—those who hold the keys of the
kingdom.
There is a
list of scriptures longer than your arm, to use the colloquial saying, that
teach that the faithful can become as God is and do exactly what He now does:
“If you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall
have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God” (D&C
14:7).
“All things that the Father hath are mine” (John 16:15).
“And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s
kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.” (D&C
84:8)
“Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or
your Father who is in heaven is perfect” (3 Nephi 12:48).
“Father, I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou
hast given me out of the world, because of their faith, that they may be
purified in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may
be one, that I may be glorified in them” (3 Nephi 19:29).
“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which
shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou,
Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us. . . . And
the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as
we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one”
(John 17:11, 20-23).
“Ye shall be even as I am” (3 Nephi 28:10).
“Now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what
we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for
we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth
himself, even as he is pure” (1 John 3:2-3).
“Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be
with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me”
(John 17:22, 24).
“If you keep my commandments you shall receive of his
fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father” (D&C 93:20)
. “And John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness
of truth, yea, even of all truth; And no man receiveth a fulness unless he
keepeth his commandments. He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and
light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things’ (D&C
93:26-28).
“Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should
give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him” (John 17:2).
“Wherefore, he is possessor of all things; for all things
are subject unto him, both in heaven and on the earth, the life and the light,
the Spirit and the power, sent forth by the will of the Father through Jesus
Christ, his Son. But no man is possessor of all things except he be purified
and cleansed from all sin” (D&C 50:26-28).
“Wherefore, as it is written they are gods, even the sons of
God—Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present,
or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s and Christ is God’s”
(D&C 76:58-59).
“Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; . . . and
shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all
heights and depths. They shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set
there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon
their heads, which glory shall be a fulness of a continuation of the seeds
forever and ever. Then shall they be gods” (D&C 132:19-20).
“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my
throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne”
(Revelation 3:21).
“Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the
fruit of his loins . . . which were to continue to long as they were in the
world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should
continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as
innumerable as the starts; or, if you were to count the sand upon the seashore
ye could not number them. This promise is yours also, because ye are of
Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the
continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself” (D&C
132: 30-31).
This list
is already too long, and most will not read each verse, and there are many
more, but how one can supposedly be familiar with the scriptures and not know
that the faithful can become just like God is now, is beyond me. Elder
McConkie told CES religious educators: “So simple a passage as John 17:3
has a limited meaning for all men, but it is a celestial beacon of blazing
light to us. From it we learn that to know God and Christ is to be like them—thinking what they think, speaking what they speak,
doing what they do—all of which knowledge
is beyond the capacity of an unenlightened mind to receive.” For other sources
refuting Givens’ philosophizing, see
here. His alternative theories conflict with the scriptures, except perhaps
if we categorize them as angels. The angels, who are not Gods in eternity, but
who remain as angels forever, might do the kinds of things he theorizes. Too
bad they will never be anything but angels. They “are appointed angels in heaven,
which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of
a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.” Sounds to me
like Givens’ best thinking will allow him to become a ministering angel for
someone who could grasp the concept of, and pursue and attain far greater
glory.
Inquirer: I've read everything you've ever written or said,
and I have a great love for the parts of Mormonism that both you and I have had
an intellectual conversion to. What I am sensing today is that there are two
Mormonisms. One Mormonism is this kind of Dallin H. Oaks, obedience based, old
historical narrative, literal interpretation of scripture, one true Church
narrative...and the other Mormonism is one you would find from nuanced Mormons.
The other Mormonism has a different historical narrative, approaches scripture
differently, sees Christ as more of a healer than the sins rhetoric, has a
different idea on what prophets are, focuses on the larger Church of Christ
versus one true church, is wary of pharisee like rules in the Church, etc. It
goes back to the idea of Iron Rodders and Liahonas. Except then I felt like
when that was written, the two could co-exist. Now I feel like we are in a
battle over which Mormonism is the true Mormonism, and which one is going to
move forward. I sense a crossroads for the religion. Do you get that sense? Is
it possible that the Church will move away some of the more beautiful aspects
of our philosophy to the point that we lose the essence of it altogether until
all that is left is truth claims and Mormon fundamentalism, with the
hinterlands of Mormonism abandoned, . . . to the dangerous outskirts? Do you
sense a Crossroads? Can we adjust and shift the narrative fast enough to not
lose all of the "intellectual, feminist, and gay" Mormons that are
considered threatening to the Church?
Givens: I share some of these concerns. 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. On the more positive
side, I think the Mormonism I apprehend is coming into its own. Distinctive
voices in the quorum have spoken feelingly about the place for doubting
disciples who struggle. And they have emphasized the fallibility of prophets,
and the inadequacies of our historical narrative. And the massive revisionist
work going on (JSP, topics essays, Saints volume) all attest to a new
sensibility that is in the ascendancy. I think our leadership and culture alike
have always been populated by those who emphasize the gentler side of Christ
and his gospel, and those who feel the need to hold the line against the
encroachments of secularism and progressivism. Thats fine and healthy. The most
polarizing voices I hear are not from the leadership. They are, on the one
hand, from those who have rigid, inflexible views of what constitutes orthodoxy
and impugn the character and faith of those who differ. And on the other, from
those who evince the attitude that they are enlightened and hope the church
will catch up to their progressive views. As a whole, I see developments from
the top as inspired developments.
Response: So, here we have a doubter, a dissident, who
believes the church is fragmenting into two camps; one for the doubters and
dissidents, and one for the followers of (falsely labeled supposedly) rigid
people like President Dallin H. Oaks—and Givens shares some of those concerns!?
Turns my stomach. The church is not splitting, but there are some that leave it
because they become enamored of the world and imbibe its social and
philosophical agenda. And they will receive the reward the world can offer
them. I would encourage people to find out for themselves what the voices of
the Quorum of the Twelve are teaching and have taught. While they sometimes touch
on the issue of the doubters and dissidents, they do not give comfort and aid
to the enemy. While they know that they themselves and their predecessors are
and have been fallible men, they also know they hold the holy Apostleship and
receive revelation from Jesus Christ that guides His Church. Alleged inadequacies
in the historical record are really gaps where the record did not build faith
and were therefore purposely left out as gaps. Let no one have fear that the
Church will splinter or that dissidents will get their own church of
intellectuals, feminists, and gays that becomes the real church. Such is not in
the offing.
Then we
have the 64-dollar statement: “The most polarizing voices I hear are not from
the leadership. They are, on the one hand, from those who have rigid,
inflexible views of what constitutes orthodoxy and impugn the character and
faith of those who differ.” There is little doubt this statement is aimed at me
and others like me, who are labelled as dogmatic and inflexible in our views
and who supposedly impugn the character of those who differ.
Well, let’s
think about this notion. Just how much flexibility and unorthodoxy should Jesus
and His prophets and apostles allow to creep into the Church and its doctrines?
Enough to cause its apostasy? More? Less? How long would The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints last as a unified identifiable body of covenant
believers if Givens philosophizing became the norm? He quotes many worldly philosophers
in his interview and also in other writings. How long until we would cease to
be the Restored Church of Jesus Christ?
Was Jesus
dogmatic? Did He allow His disciples to teach false doctrine? What caused the
great apostasy in the first place? Was it a mixture of true doctrines as taught
by the apostles with Greek philosophy? What about those who differ from
orthodoxy? Should we give them a pulpit to preach their doubts and differences and
social agendas? Do we stand as watchmen on the tower or do we hand the keys of
the gates to the enemy or anyone who happens to wander past with an opinion and
a learned reputation? Eternal truths are indeed “dogmatic” and I love them.
Rigidly,
inflexibly holding tight, dogmatically, to the iron rod keeps people on the
path to the tree of life, and then also keeps them from wandering into
forbidden paths or into mists of darkness to get lost. Does President Nelson’s
voice polarize? If you think not, you are a fool. “Truth is truth” he recently
stated. The prophets and apostles would have all men and women come into the
church, no matter their background, but they would not allow them to preach and
infuse the philosophies of men or their former church’s theology into the
doctrine of the Church. It is one thing to come in or stay in and seek to
promote the false agenda of the world around us, and another to come in
repenting and meekly accepting truth as found in the word of God. This church
is governed by scripture and modern revelation to a prophet, not by the
thinking of the eminent philosophers that Givens loves quoting.
If someone
feels their character has been impugned when in reality their false doctrine
has been corrected, so be it; I can live with their mistake easily and happily.
The General Authorities suffer from that kind of misunderstanding constantly;
it goes with being a watchman on the tower.
Givens: The difference is that in the intervening century,
we have acquired culturally shaped expectations about prophets and revelation
that are highly unrealistic and inconsistent with Smithian
doctrine. [emphasis added]
Response: The Church has been taught by prophet in “the
intervening century” and people have had them and their teachings before them
as examples. This has lifted and inspired and edified the Church for all that
time and still does. Only fools ever believed prophets were perfect and
infallible. Their lives and spiritual experiences have been used as examples to
edify and instruct members of the Church. This has been done with purpose and
forethought and direction from the Lord. Givens’ explanations here are more
than troubling.
But one of
the most egregious things he wrote in the online interview was to raise the
notion of a “Smithian” doctrine. The whole foundation of the restoration is the
fact that Joseph Smith did not have his own doctrine. There is no such thing as
“Smithian” doctrine. Two quotations of refutation will suffice. From President
Charles W. Penrose: “The revelations that
we have are not simply utterances of the Prophet Joseph or others to whom they have been
given. They are the word of the Lord. Don’t let us forget that. When we talk
about Joseph Smith as a scientist, that is all right when we go to show that
things revealed to him as truths have since been received and understood by the
learned of the age and have come to them without knowing that he predicted
them, but was he their author? We do not pit him against them, but we take the
word of the Lord, and don’t let us forget that it is the word of the Lord that
has come to us, and this Church is founded upon it.... The word of the Lord…is
truth and can be relied upon, and we can take our stand upon it and bring
everything to it, and that should be with us the standard.”
(Conference Report,
April 1918, 21-22.)
“These are not, I submit, the words of Joseph Smith the
man. They are words of divine revelation that speak of the glorious
opportunity, the promised blessings made possible by the Son of God through His
divine atonement in behalf of all who will listen and obey. These words are the
promise of the Redeemer of the world, who rules and reigns in that celestial
kingdom and who invites us to qualify ourselves to come into His presence.” I
suggest that Givens ought to distinguish between the teachings of men and those
from God through his Prophet. He loves to quote and believe the teachings of
the philosophers of the world, so his own teachings echo theirs, not a good guide
to follow. Elder
Robert D. Hales said: “What I would emphasize more than anything else is
that Church doctrine remains constant. It used to be that the Church and the
world weren’t very far apart. Now the world is accelerating downward fast.
There are many who would like to have the Church be a few steps
behind the world but moving with it. But wherever the world goes, however
deviant it becomes, the Church will remain constant.”
I conclude
with President
Packer’s counsel: “As I grow in age and experience, I grow ever less concerned
over whether others agree with us. I grow ever more concerned
that they understand us. If they do understand, they have their agency and can
accept or reject the gospel as they please. It is not an easy thing for us to
defend the position that bothers so many others.
Brethren and sisters, never be ashamed of the gospel
of Jesus Christ. Never apologize for the sacred doctrines of the gospel.”
As we have seen, Givens seems not only to apologize for gospel doctrines, but
to agree with those of the world seeking to disbelieve or change them.
I hope
people can find better scholarship on the Pearl of Great Price than that
offered by Givens or the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, such would seem to be a
wise search indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment