Abstract: In a pair of recent books, Patrick Mason and Terryl and Fiona Givens seek to revitalize, reinvigorate, and deepen our understanding of basic terms and concepts of the Restoration. I welcome such efforts, convinced (even where I sometimes quibble) that the conversations they will engender among faithful and committed believers can be very healthy. Now that “the times of refreshing [have] come from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3:18), it is imperative, both for ourselves and for a world that needs to hear the news, that we not lose sight of the radical freshness of the divine gift and of its comprehensively transforming power. My hope for The Interpreter Foundation is that — while joyfully recognizing, indeed celebrating, the fact that prophets and apostles lead the Kingdom, not academics and intellectuals — it will contribute not only to the defense of the Restoration but to the explication of Restoration doctrines and enhanced understanding and appreciation of their riches.
[Page vii]A few weeks ago, the remarkably prolific, learned, and always interesting Latter-day Saint thinkers Terryl and Fiona Givens kindly sent me a copy of a brief new book they had just published. It’s entitled All Things New: Rethinking Sin, Salvation, and Everything in Between.1
I’ve enjoyed it very much. Twice. I’m in deep sympathy with the fundamental project, and I recommend the book enthusiastically. Like Patrick Mason’s soon-to-be published Restoration: God’s Call to the 21st-Century World, which I read in manuscript before it went to press, it is a book that will challenge faithful Latter-day Saint readers in a good and [Page viii]positive way and that deserves to be widely discussed.2 Indeed, in my view, discussing these books would benefit us considerably as a community.
Discussing such matters can be not only beneficial, but truly part of the “sweet work” of the Kingdom. As the prolific English minister and hymnist Isaac Watts (1674–1748) reminds us,
Sweet is the work, my God, my King,
To praise thy name, give thanks and sing,
To show thy love by morning light,
And talk of all thy truths at night.3
We benefit not only because it is genuinely sweet to talk of “poems and prayers and promises and things that we believe in,”4 but because through such conversations we might become better equipped to defend, commend, and build the Kingdom. We might be more effective in sharing the Gospel and serving the Saints and the world in which we live.
Terryl and Fiona see us as being harmed by a kind of disease, and I’m inclined to agree:
We believe that … many … struggling Saints are suffering as a consequence of what scripture calls “the traditions of the fathers, which [are] not correct” (Alma 21:17). … The philosopher Friedrich Schleiermacher describes the situation well. He wrote that one can believe and teach that “everything is related to the redemption accomplished by Jesus of Nazareth” and yet that redemption can be “interpreted in such a way that it is reduced to incoherence.” His diagnosis is the subject of this book.5
Now, please don’t jump to the conclusion that Terryl and Fiona Givens are apostate heretics, calling out The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints and stepping forward to steady the ark. They are energetic believers in the Restoration.6 But they also believe that the [Page ix]Restoration is ongoing, and that, while the Saints have been given (among many other divine blessings) great doctrinal gifts, our understanding of those gifts is still limited in some important ways, even stunted, by the language in which we speak and write about them, which has been corrupted by centuries of misunderstanding and apostasy.
[W]e offer here what we hope may provide bases for an ongoing conversation about the language of the Restoration. … Here are a few caveats about what this sketch is and is not. We are neither offering dogmatic definitions nor offering a comprehensive treatment. We are trying to model and inspire fresh ways of thinking through the religious vocabulary that pervades our wounded world and particularly our Church that is still emerging from the wilderness.7
They want to get back to what they believe to have been the original Christian vision, and they set that vision out in their first chapter:
We will discuss two doctrines that were part of Christian self- understanding in the early years: the eternal nature of our souls, extending back beyond the formations of the world, and the parenthood of God taken as more than mere metaphor. These two sacred truths — the eternal nature of men and women, and the loving, selfless, devoted love of a parental God — were the lifeblood of a vibrant Christian community that saw the purpose of life as an educative experience in the school of love.8
These two doctrines — our premortal life with the plans there set in motion and the true parental nature of God — are the foundations of the Restoration and are unique in the current Christian world.9
They cite a beautiful passage from the 1997 book Sanctuary, by the late Chieko Okazaki (1926–2011), who served as first counselor in the general presidency of the Relief Society between 1990 and 1997:
At the end of this process, our Heavenly Parents will have sons and daughters who are their peers, their friends and their colleagues.10
This essay wasn’t really intended to be a review of All Things New, let alone of Patrick Mason’s Restoration, but it’s clearly evolved as I’ve written it beyond what I had planned. Consequently, before I use them as a platform [Page x]from which to make the one simple point that I intended to make with the present article, I want to say a few more things about the Givens’ book.
Throughout the book, they cite “many beautiful and God-touched voices,”11 ancient and medieval and modern, both Latter-day Saint and mainstream Christian, and occasionally Jewish. “Latter-day Saints,” they correctly point out, “can find much to applaud and much to learn from earnest God- and Truth-seekers across the spectrum.”12 “God- touched souls have recurrently provided pinpricks of light amid the greater darkness.”13 A significant number of these are the voices of women — enough to suggest that including them was a deliberate choice. I enthusiastically welcome this choice.14
At many places in All Things New, I found myself exclaiming “Yes!” Sometimes this was because they had just made a point that I myself have made somewhere or other. (I’ve always loved this definition from Ambrose Bierce’s minor 1906 masterpiece The Devil’s Dictionary: “Admiration, n. Our polite recognition of another’s resemblance to ourselves.”) At other places, though, it was because of a fine insight that crystallized something for me that I had maybe not seen before.
Here is just one of a large number of examples:
We might venture a definition of salvation: to be saved is to become the kind of persons, in the kinds of relationships, that constitute the divine nature. … If salvation is about what we are to become as individuals, heaven is the name given to those relationships in which individuals find fulness of joy. That may not be a complicated idea, but its implications are far-reaching. [Page xi]For one thing, it clarifies why neither salvation nor heaven are rewards that God can dispense, or that we can earn.15
Heaven, as Joseph taught, is not a matter of reward or position or place but a particular kind of sociability.16
Significantly, the title of their Chapter 6 is “Heaven: From ‘Where’ to ‘with Whom.’” I find that profound. Moreover, it gives serious meaning to a witticism from Joseph Smith that is often treated as a mere joke:
[L]et me be resurrected with the Saints, whether I ascend to heaven or descend to hell, or go to any other place. And if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it.17
Ultimately, to be saved is to become like Christ, who is like the Father:
And ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one. (3 Nephi 28:10)
This is, as All Things New expressly recognizes, a daunting prospect:
Restoration theology is, from the first word, far more ambitious, presumptuous, and gloriously aspirational than we may recognize. Restoration theology goes far beyond the current Christian hope of personal redemption from death and hell. Our faith tradition aspires to make us into the likeness of our Heavenly Parents. Our sin, as Saints, may be in thinking that such an endeavor could be anything other than wrenching, costly, inconceivably difficult, and at times unimaginably painful. We do not become, in C. S. Lewis’s phrase, “little Christs” by a couple of well-spent hours ministering to our assigned families and abstaining from tea and coffee. … We are still very much in the morning of an eternity of striving.18
There are no shortcuts to Christlikeness. If God were able to make us Christlike with a simple wave of a magical divine wand, he could and presumably would — and certainly should — already have done so, long before there had ever been Adolf Hitlers, Jeffrey Dahmers, Joseph Stalins, Colombian drug lords, mass murdering terrorists, abusive husbands, [Page xii]abused children, dishonest accountants, and cheating spouses. Long before our own fumbling attempts at righteousness, our own acts of selfishness and thoughtlessness, our repeated failures at acting as we know we should.
But — and until you read All Things New for yourself, you’ll have to take my word for it — despite the intimidating, bracing character of the Givens’s message, this book is resoundingly hopeful, deeply reassuring, and encouraging. God, they remind us, is a loving Father, not a hanging judge, who wants to share with us all that he possesses.
Or, in the spirit of the book itself, perhaps I should say that God are — note the purposeful plural — a loving Father and Mother who want to share with us everything that they have and are, and who sent God the Son, Jesus Christ, as our divine healer.
One of the most striking aspects of All Things New is its common practice of using plural verbs and pronouns to refer to God. As others no doubt will, I found this grammatically jarring. (I’m a grammarian, not only in English, and I spend much of my daily time writing and editing, and grading student papers. Verb-subject agreement is one of my particular small and pedantic obsessions.) But I also found it stimulating and exhilarating.
After saying, early in the book, that “a change in pronoun usage may be in order” with respect to the word God, they proceed to make the change.19 And for such a change, unaccustomed to it as we are by either official Church usage or our own folk habits out in the pews, there is certainly doctrinal justification in Latter-day Saint tradition:
Elder John A. Widtsoe wrote: “The glorious vision of life hereafter … is given radiant warmth by the thought that … [we have] a mother who possesses all the attributes of Godhood.” The Apostle Erastus Snow went further: “Deity consists of man and woman. … I have another description: There never was a God, and there never will be in all eternities, except they are made of these two component parts: a man and a woman; the male and the female.” If this is true, then when we employ the term God, it will often be the case that two divine Beings are behind the expression. The writer of Genesis employed the name Adam to refer to a fully collaborative couple; Adam is effectively their surname (Gen. 5:2; Moses 6:9). Just as Adam can refer to both Adam and Eve, there will … be instances when God is rightly followed by the pronoun They. Brigham Young taught that “we were created … in the image of our father and [Page xiii]our mother, the image of our God.” His statement indicates that calling Heavenly Mother “God” is consistent with the biblical account of the creation of both the “male and female” being in “the image of God” (Gen. 1:26–27).20
But let’s get back to the hopeful, optimistic, encouraging character of All Things New. As the epigraph to their introduction, the Givenses quote William Tyndale:
Evangelion (that we call the gospel) is a Greek word and signifieth good, merry, glad, and joyful tidings, that maketh a man’s heart glad, and maketh him to sing, dance, and leap for joy.21
And that is very much the spirit in which they write. It is all about healing, love, and the hope that all might ultimately be saved — a universalistic or at least quasi-universalistic position to which I have also long been inclined.
So, it may seem churlish on my part to acknowledge that at some points in All is New, I quibbled with what they had to say.
Although, for instance, I think that their criticism of the renewed influence of St. Augustine in the Reformation is well-aimed and worthy of serious consideration, I’m a bit more inclined than they evidently are to see positive developments from the Reformers and the Reformation, as well. (In other words, I’m somewhat more traditionally Latter-day Saint in my attitudes here, while believing that the traditional Latter-day Saint attitude needs their correction.)22
Moreover, while I think their criticism of “penal substitution” models for the atonement of Christ is entirely justified — I’m inclined to agree with them that “Brokenness, not sinfulness, is our general condition; healing from trauma is what is needed”23 — I’m not sure that I understand exactly what it is that they’re putting in its place.24 It isn’t clear to me, in their model, why our salvation demanded that Jesus absolutely had to suffer in Gethsemane and be crucified on the cross at Golgotha. And yet, evidently, he did. And as to why he did, the “penal substitution” theory has the great advantage of clarity, even if it [Page xiv]lacks the advantages of truth and of suitably depicting the nature of God. Nor is it apparent to me what role the performance of vicarious temple ordinances for the dead can play in their conception of Jesus as Savior and of the healing role of his sacrificial offering. And yet we’re repeatedly told that such ordinances are absolutely necessary — they don’t dispute this — and we devote great effort and expense to seeking out our dead and performing the required rituals on their behalf.
For a much smaller issue, I was struck by the fact that in one passage they approvingly cite the theologian David Bentley Hart as saying that “Paul speaks of … sin as a kind of contagion, disease with which all are born; … but never as an inherited condition of criminal culpability.”25 And then, three pages later, they observe, with what I take to be disapproval, that “In the Christian past, sin was equated with a contagion.”26 I think that I can see a way to reconcile the two statements, but perhaps I’m wrong.
And, while I myself have come to the view (which is plainly also theirs) that our eternal progress to Godlikeness will, at best and if we make it at all, require eons of time and learning beyond the grave, I would have appreciated some engagement with such passages as Alma 34:32, which seem (at least at first and second glance) to run counter to such a viewpoint:
For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.27
Furthermore, I would very much like to discuss with them their continual use of the term woundedness to describe the human condition. It is, in crucial ways, fundamental to their project (with which, I stress again, I am deeply sympathetic).
I worry about it not because I disagree with the idea of the word. I happen to find it extraordinarily apt and insightful, and it’s crucial to the way in which I myself have tried to act when I’ve been entrusted with stewardships in the Church (e.g., as a bishop) that involved pastoral counseling. I see wounded souls (in everyone, very much including myself) that need education, coaching, encouragement, and healing more than they require punishment. What caught my attention, though, was the way, in All Things New, the word went from being a textual variant to being the foundation for discussion:
[Page xv]In 1 Nephi 13, the Lord’s messenger characterizes the modern world’s inhabitants as being in a state of “awful woundedness” (1830 edition) or in an “awful state of blindness” (1837 edition).28
The 1837 and present editions replace “state of awful woundedness” with “awful state of blindness.” The common point of both descriptive words is telling: woundedness and blindness alike describe a condition for which we are not responsible; the injury is due to the agency of others who have removed “plain and precious” things from the scriptural record.29
Those two passages, one on the third page of All Things New and the other its accompanying chapter endnote, represent essentially the last mentions of the fact that woundedness might not be the actual, accurate word at 1 Nephi 13:32. Elsewhere — for example, in these passages — no doubt about the word is apparent at all:
- “what Nephi called ‘the state of awful woundedness’ that we inhabit”30
- The book’s ninth chapter, entitled “Sin,” bears the subtitle “From Guilt to Woundedness.”31
- “[T]he most pervasive image the New Testament and Book of Mormon employ in reference to our condition is woundedness. The angel uses that word to describe the human condition to Nephi.”32
- “When the angel referred to the world of today as being in a “state of awful woundedness,” he provided a term, woundedness, that is accurate and is a catalyst to love.”33
It is true that 1 Nephi 13:32 reads “state of awful woundedness” in the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon. Next, when Oliver Cowdery copied the Original Manuscript onto the Printer’s Manuscript, he initially transposed those words, writing “awful state of woundedness” before correcting them back to the Original Manuscript’s “state of awful woundedness.” And accordingly, that is the way that the passage reads in the Book of Mormon’s 1830 first edition. However, in his preparation [Page xvi]for publishing the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith went back to the original word order of the Printer’s Manuscript while changing woundedness to blindness. Thus, in the 1837 edition, the relevant passage reads “awful state of blindness.” Subsequently, this has remained the reading of all of the official editions of the Book of Mormon published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever since.
So, should “state of awful woundedness” be the preferred reading? I readily acknowledge that such a reading is attractive and that it might afford — indeed, does afford — a rich basis for theological, soteriological, and anthropological reflection. However, I have to point out that Royal Skousen’s critical Yale edition of the Book of Mormon, based on decades of meticulous study of Book of Mormon textual history and language, reads “state of awful wickedness” — in contradiction not only to the Original Manuscript, the Printer’s Manucript, Joseph Smith’s 1837 revision, and the current official edition published by the Church. Although I genuinely like “awful woundedness,” I’m persuaded by Skousen’s reasoning that “awful woundedness” may have been a dictation or scribal error, and that “state of awful wickedness,” although conjectural, is very possibly the proper reading. At a minimum, it must be said that “awful woundedness” is very far from a sure thing.34
My concern is that if we try to base ourselves on how we think scripture should have been worded rather than the way it actually was worded, we risk cutting ourselves loose from our mooring into untethered subjectivism. Happily, though, in this case I judge the damage to be minimal (if, indeed, there is any damage at all).
But, as I approach my peroration, I want to stress that I like All Things New very much. I like the ambition, even the audacity, of it. The Restoration and its vision of human destiny are audacious — radical — and that should not be forgotten. Years ago, a rather distant relative, intending to say something nice about the place where I had just accepted a faculty teaching position, described Provo, Utah, as a pleasant little religious town. He meant well, and I responded in kind. But the last thing I want is to be associated with a quaint and sentimentalized “Old Time Religion.” I love, and have always loved, the sheer adventurousness, the revolutionary ambition, the radicality and expansiveness, the cosmic [Page xvii]vision, of the doctrines of the Restoration, and that’s what I like so very much about both the Givens’ new book and Patrick Mason’s Restoration: God’s Call to the 21st-Century World.
Not surprisingly — I love these passages, too — All Things New happily quotes the stirring words of “the visionary member of the Seventy, B. H. Roberts”:
Mental laziness is the vice of men, especially with reference to divine things. Men seem to think that because inspiration and revelation are factors in connection with the things of God, therefore the pain and stress of mental effort are not required; that by some means these elements act somewhat as Elijah’s ravens and feed us without effort on our part. … “[W] hy then should man strive and trouble himself to understand? Much study is still a weariness of the flesh.” So men reason; and just now it is much in fashion to laud “the simple faith;” which is content to believe without understanding, or even without much effort to understand.35
The Givenses say — and I strongly concur — that we need to be continually rethinking the doctrines we have received, to receive them afresh and to teach them in ever fresh ways. Admittedly in a unique way, the Reformation formula Ecclesia semper reformanda est — “the church must always be reformed” — applies to the Restored Church of Jesus Christ every bit as much as it applies to the churches of Protestantism. Semper reformanda. It is true, of course, that we have the distinct advantage of being led by living prophets and apostles, and intellectuals and scholars should not — nay, must not —attempt to usurp their authority. But that’s no excuse for laziness on our part. We must escape traps of tiredness, stale routine, irrelevance to real, contemporary concerns.
B. H. Roberts foresaw this need and hoped for its fulfillment in our day. He found his inspiration in the writings of the eminent American philosopher Josiah Royce. Disciples, Royce said, “are of two sorts. There are, first, the disciples pure and simple. … They expound, and defend, and ward off foes, and live and die faithful to one formula. … On the other hand, there are disciples of a second sort. … The seed that the sower strews upon [his] fields springs up in [his] soil, and bears fruit — thirty, sixty, an hundredfold. … Disciples of the second sort cooperate in the works of the Spirit … [and] help lead … to a truer expression” [Page xviii](our emphasis). B. H. Roberts read these words and built them into a prophecy and a call to action. “Mormonism,” he said, “calls for [these disciples of the second sort,] disciples who will not be content with merely repeating some of its truths, but will develop its truth; and enlarge it by that development. The disciples of ‘Mormonism,’ growing discontented with the necessarily primitive methods which have hitherto prevailed in sustaining the doctrine, … will cast them in new formulas; cooperating in the works of the Spirit, until they help to give to the truths received a more forceful expression.”36
Patrick Mason and Terryl and Fiona Givens have given us examples of “second-sort” discipleship. Whatever flaws may exist in their books, I honor and respect them for that.
The Interpreter Foundation, you might think — along with this, its flagship journal — is dedicated to discipleship of that first sort, to defending what we’ve received and to warding off foes. It is certainly true that doing so is one of our principal missions. But it’s my devout hope that we can also contribute to the second sort of discipleship, to developing enlarged and more forceful expressions of the Restoration.
Of course, as the author of Ecclesiastes recognized, “to every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven” (Ecclesiastes 3:1). In a letter to his wife, Abigail, the American Founder John Adams wrote
The Science of Government it is my Duty to study, more than all other Sciences: the Art of Legislation and Administration and Negotiation, ought to take Place, indeed to exclude in a manner all other Arts. — I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine.37
I thank all of those who have brought the Interpreter Foundation to where it is today, and who will carry it yet further. Without the time and effort and financial support offered by a large number of generous people, there would be nothing. Specifically, now, I’m grateful for those [Page xix]who have written the articles and reviews in this issue of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. They do their work without financial compensation. I’m grateful to the source checkers, the copy editors, the anonymous peer reviewers, and all those who make the production of the Journal possible — and especially to Allen Wyatt and Jeff Lindsay, who have been assigned that ceaselessly demanding task, week after week after week. To all, my sincere and deep appreciation
Daniel C. Peterson (PhD, University of California at Los Angeles) is a professor emeritus of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University, where he founded the University’s Middle Eastern Texts Initiative. He has published and spoken extensively on both Islamic and Latter-day Saint subjects. Formerly chairman of the board of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) and an officer, editor, and author for its successor organization, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, his professional work as an Arabist focuses on the Qur’an and on Islamic philosophical theology. He is the author, among other things, of a biography entitled Muhammad: Prophet of God (Eerdmans, 2007).
Facebook
X
Youtube
Tiktok
Instagram
38 Comment(s)
Some Things New: A review of Terryl and Fiona Givens, All Things New « Meridian Magazine, 02-14-2021 at 11:02 pm
[…] (69)Current editions reflect Joseph Smith’s revision to “awful state of blindness.” Daniel Peterson has raised the question whether the Givens do not stake rather too much on this question of […]
Dub, 01-17-2021 at 8:49 pm
Dan,
Thanks for the review. I am just finishing the book and came across your review after looking up Royal Skousen’s treatment of the “woundedness” issue. And I agree with your overall assessment in most respects.
I think the authors are right that we as a church would benefit from draining the swamp of some cultural assumptions. To your point, I don’t think they adequately deal with scriptural passages that would be contrary to their point of view. It seems that the authors’ general response would be (from the opening pages of the book) that those passages also are from their own cultural context that doesn’t really apply anymore (or should be read figuratively). There is a lot to consider here. The authors make the point early that the book is intended to start a discussion rather than to thoroughly address each of the topics.
This will be an interesting “discussion” to watch in the coming years. The authors have already had an influence on our popular theology. This newest work seems to be a welcome refreshing of how we think about and implement the existing doctrine, and yet for some ideas it seems more would be needed to show how the ideas connect to existing scriptures and doctrine.
Steve Mordecai, 01-17-2021 at 4:43 am
I wanted to comment on this well written book, when I first read your review but I had not yet finished reading it. Now that I have, it is time.
I very much appreciated Given’s books and this one too but as is the case with most of us, we miss the mark. How so? Well, when we approach the subject of the Atonement, for some reason we rarely, if ever, address the issue of guilt, hell and the justice required by God.
Sometime ago, while doing my family history, this issue of justice and mercy, hit me very hard. To understand I must relate a story of Jael Sara DeCasseres. I copy and paste from my journal “What makes her “special”? Well, She died 5 February 1943 at Auschwitz. That caught my attention. De Casseres is a name that has been on my family tree for years. Not relatives but married into a couple of my lines. Jael was born 31 August 1864. At age 4, her mother died. Jael finally married at age 30, on the 14th of March 1895, to Adolph van Strien, age 26. I’m sure she was happy. They had two children, Henrika, 9 Jan 1896 and Louis, 11 Oct 1899. Then on 29 Dec 1899 her husband died. She was 34. Then as a widow, in her late 70s, she was hauled off to die in a concentration camp (Auschwitz) and her son was taken to Sobibor, Poland, the infamous SS death camp, were he died 30 Jun 1944 ( I would have been 3 months old.). Then I found that her father Abraham’s 2nd wife was Ester Belinfante. Jael’s step-mother is my 4th cousin 3X removed.”
Now what does this little story have to do with Given’s book? Well, let just say that for me it is personal, like many who share my father’s ancestry, we can’t help but question the justice of God. Many have turned to atheism. I have not and am LDS, of course.
That said, when I read this book, I was bothered because he seems to treat the subject much too lightly. I understand, I think, where he is coming from. LDS women, in particular, seem to suffer, overly from quilt and it is a serious issue but when we undertake to soften the blow by leaving off half the theological argument by ignoring the doctrine of Hell, we fail to comprehend, what I consider one of the most powerful and, yes, most “ beautiful” teachings of the BofM.
Back to my little story of Jael and the Nazi. Just think how relieved she must have felt when she died. I like to think that she was met by her parents, her siblings and then by her son, Louis, as he subsequently died. A joyous reunion indeed. Conversely, I considered what the Nazis would experience when they, in turn passed through the veil.
In Mosiah 2:38 Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.
This does not, of course, refer to what happens at death, but rather to what will happen at the final judgment to those who refuse to repent.
That, to me, explains or provides an answer to the problem of evil. Books could and should address this most troubling of issues. I am no scholar but I have given this issue considerable thought. I could say much more but this is not the place.
Thank you for allowing me to “vent”!
Replies
Steve Mordecai, 02-16-2021 at 9:02 am
I reply to my own post. I am reading the Givens’ book again and have reread Bro Peterson’s essay. I enjoyed both. Now, I would still like to read an essay or book that deals with the Justice side of the equation. I wish I were capable of such an endeavor! I also read all the comments below and was, shall I say, not inspired.
Nathan, 01-05-2021 at 9:16 pm
I really enjoy the work that the Givenses do, but I share some of Dan’s misgivings about their focus on the “woundedness of the world” as opposed to the wickedness. Beyond the 1837 changes, I think a lot of the early sections of the Doctrine and Covenants as well as the 1832 account of the First Vision evince a much greater preoccupation with wickedness in the world rather than a world in need of divine therapy.
The first thing the Father and the Son do is forgive Joseph’s sins, and then they tell him that the whole world ‘lieth in sin.’ Section 1 of the Doctrine and Covenants says much more about warning the rebellious and the wicked than it does about binding up the brokenhearted. Furthermore Section 29 is chiefly concerned with gathering up the elect to Zion so that God can pour out His wrath upon the wicked. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon ends with a whole civilization being annihilated because of their wickedness. I think any explanation of the paradigm surrounding sin and salvation that Joseph Smith was operation under has to reckon with these very obvious concerns about wickedness and not merely ‘brokenness.’
To a broader point, I think there is a tension in Mason’s and the Givenses’ work that might be worth considering. They very ably extoll the many dazzling doctrines that Joseph revealed, but simultaneously promote an attitude that I don’t think helps their readers obtain the same insights that Joseph did or participate in the ongoing Restoration that they eagerly extoll. My understanding of the gospel is that we gain ‘further light and knowledge’ by purifying ourselves so that we can communicate with God and receive revelation from him. To me this very much implies a preoccupation with repenting of our own sins so that He can make us clean. While I certainly don’t think that any of the previously mentioned authors condone or promote wickedness, I do think that their focus on God as some kind of supernatural therapist, and doubt as an ineluctable component of life that is meant to be lived with rather than overcome will ultimately make it less likely that people who adopt the ideas they put forward can actually participate in the ‘ongoing restoration’ vis-à-vis repentance and revelation in the way that Joseph Smith did.
I definitely don’t think any of them are unfaithful members, but at least in my own life I’ve found Christ’s power to forgive our very real and very wrong sins more miraculous than his ability to comfort us in our distress (although both are of course valuable). To me, focusing on the latter at the expense of the former obscures what is most marvelous about Him and His Atonement.
Replies
Jeff Walsh, 01-06-2021 at 2:21 am
I think that the whole debate on the concept of woundedness or wickedness is based on an understanding of Moses chapter 7 and why our Heavenly Father was weeping. Was He weeping because of the woundedness of his children or because of their wickedness? I believe that Terryl and Fiona’s understanding of this in their book “The God who Weeps” is based on a faulty assumption. The conversation between Enoch and the Lord takes place after Enoch and his city, including eventually all the righteous, have been translated and taken from the earth. Heavenly Father is weeping over the RESIDUE of His children who because of their failure to repent of their wickedness would be soon taken from the earth by the great flood. I also believe that this was the action of a loving Father not allowing them to commit further sin, but to have them enter the spirit world where they would eventually be taught the gospel and would have the opportunity to be forgiven of their wickedness.
Replies
Glen Danielsen, 01-06-2021 at 6:40 am
Yah, Jeff. What the Givens have given is fad philosophy of pure manufacture. And it has acceptance in part because they “hath friends” in places of influence and at every checkpoint. Steve Young has happily admitted in print that he uses givenspeak in teaching Sunday gospel doctrine classes. I would rather hear John Lennon poetry.
After forty years of reading, seeing, and hearing, it’s crystalline clear to me that the cardinal characteristic of Secularists/Liberals is their theory-making, the creation of alluring false philosophies set forth in pristine, sophisticated prose. To write their blight—to tout their doubt, they MUST depart from our canon, and no one notices or no one cares. Not only is their new-age thought-rot not found in the scriptures, but the writ is fluent with denunciations of it. Liberals’ narratives will mingle with talk of Christ, support for the Book of Mormon and the prophet Joseph. But I am certain he himself would say, “Why, it is a beautiful system. I have but one fault to find with it—it is not true.”
Replies
CS, 01-06-2021 at 2:36 pm
Glen, this is beyond ridiculous. Can you give one example of what you talking about from the Peterson article?otherwise it is your opinion on something you’ve never read.
Replies
Glen Danielsen, 01-07-2021 at 1:07 pm
Heck, CS—new to the mess? Some comments have evolved from the mentions of Givens and Mason in the article. The steer should be clear. Some have misgivings about Givens—and Patrick. For good reason, I think. I am a fan of Dan—that is, his wrought thought. Beyond fond, ridiculously devoted.
Very Best — ???
Replies
CS, 01-07-2021 at 4:36 pm
In other words nothing, great.
Glen Danielsen, 01-03-2021 at 10:49 pm
“It seems to only add insult to injury for anyone dealing with such a struggle to be denounced by some”
No one is denouncing Saints in faith crisis. We are speaking of doctrine; doctrine is not cruel unless you are Nephi’s grousing older brothers who accused Nephi of being angry with them. For that matter, there are no more effusive, pointed condemnations of doubt than those that routinely come from Jesus’ own lips that swim through our entire canon.
Glen Danielsen, 01-03-2021 at 5:35 pm
It’s not a matter or orthodoxy. And defense of Faith is not “defensive.” This is not an issue of thin skin, but of slick and sophisticated philosophies that undermine belief and faith by substituting them with doubt as a belief system. It is ‘let me give you mine unbelief’ and call it “Belief and Belonging.”
Replies
Brant A. Gardner, 01-03-2021 at 7:43 pm
Except doubt is an essential element of the development of faith, and continues as long as faith is enlarged. Joseph doubted the way the gospel was taught, and therefore sought more knowledge which led to the first vision. His doubt of his worthiness led to a prayer that led to Moroni appearing. I suspect we could follow through much of his prophetic career and find that some doubt or question propelled him to greater faith. Doubt and questions are essential to progress in faith.
Replies
Glen Danielsen, 01-03-2021 at 10:31 pm
I don’t believe the scriptures anywhere support the new Liberal doctrine that doubt is “essential.” In clearest, most pointed terms the Savior reproved doubt. Always. The New Testament is effusive with condemnations of doubt. Doubt has never been a means to resolving concerns. In fact the very opposite is true—Faith and belief being necessary is replete in the NT. Saying Doubt is a means is like saying influenza is necessary or a means for good health.
The most insidious doctrine ever manufactured by the Liberal colony in the Church is that Doubt is “belief and belonging.” It should shock every schooled Latter-day Saint when they hear that sleaze philosophy parroted in Sunday classes. It is marketed by Deseret Book and BYU courtesy of its authors, who have received funds & fame along with it—the very essence and definition of priestcraft.
This is why I object to the presence of Liberaldom in the Faith—NOT merely because I disagree with it, but because its toxic breathings hurt people and the very fabric of church culture itself.
Jeff Walah, 01-04-2021 at 2:16 am
So Brant are we now being asked to believe that the restored gospel of Jesus Christ was brought about because of doubt rather than faith? Are you saying that our founding prophet Joseph Smith was continually having doubts which caused him to ask questions of the Lord? Was President Monson wrong then when he said “Doubt never inspires faith”?
I am sure that we all have questions but surely those questions are based on faith, not because we continually doubt the answers we receive, upon which our testimony is built!!!. I believe that honest questions are inspired by the Lord, doubts are placed in our minds by Satan, who does not want us to find truth. I liken the gospel to a large jigsaw puzzle, when we receive our testimonies we are given the edge pieces. We then have the eternal quest to find out where all the many other pieces fit in. Sometimes we cannot see where a particular piece fits, what do we do then? Do we doubt that the whole puzzle is a fraud and throw it away? No we put the piece to one side and build the pieces that we know fit together, and eventually we find where the other pieces go which makes the puzzle complete.
I strongly believe that we are living in the harvest time which our Saviour predicted would happen before His Second Coming. Satan knowing this is sowing doubts into the mind of the saints, especially our youth.
The counsel of Elder Uchtdorf rings very true to me. “Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith”.
My advice would be to rely on the scriptures and the words of the ones who have the awesome responsibility to lead the Church rather that the philosophies of men (Mingled with scripture)
Dennis Horne, 01-04-2021 at 8:49 am
I wasn’t going to comment on this article, but Glen is getting ganged up on.
If I might tactfully say, I completely disagree with Dan, with Givens, with Mason, and with Brant.
“Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not.”
Elder Packer:
“Tests of faith are growing experiences. We all have unanswered questions. Seeking and questioning, periods of doubt, in an effort to find answers, are part of the process of discovery. The kind of doubt which is spiritually dangerous does not relate to questions so much as to answers.”
I have recently gone through a time of testing in faith seeking to receive answers to prayer. The only “doubt” I have experienced has been directly the result of the devil’s interference. He tempted me to doubt, which I shook off and accordingly have been able to receive precious communication from God. Doubt is the great enemy of faith, not any kind of aid to it whatsoever. I have never found one prophet or apostle who spoke approvingly of doubt (even as they readily acknowledge it exists), but I have seen Givens and others that Glen has mentioned speak well of it; even to celebrate it. I saw a blog post by Brian Hauglid a few years ago on the icky liberal “By Common Consent” in which he spoke well of doubt and said it should be celebrated; now look where he says he is.
It was not doubt that caused Joseph to ask of God, it was faith. Reread Moroni’s whole lengthy instruction about faith after relating the experience of the brother of Jared. All miracles and mighty works happen after faith, not doubt.
Glen, thanks for standing up for right and truth.
Replies
Brant A. Gardner, 01-04-2021 at 9:10 am
The discussion about doubt only serves to highlight the semantic problem of doubt. It is similar to when Pres. Benson said that pride was never good. That can be true–depending upon how one defines pride. The problem is semantic. What is the real difference between a question and doubt? One could invent a difference, but they are functionally the same. The “doctrinal” difference is whether the previous knowledge-base is considered correct or somehow in need of improvement. When I say that Joseph doubted Methodism and Presbyterianism, is there a significant change if I say he questioned them?
If one’s personal definition of their faith crisis uses the word doubt, it doesn’t help to tell them that they are doing something wrong. If one’s lack of a faith crisis means they never ask questions, they will never learn. It is wonderful to achieve faith. It is wonderful to maintain faith. Suggesting that faith happens in a place where there are no questions diminishes faith. If the questions are serious enough to begin to question faith, perhaps then we can call that doubt. What is the solution? The solution is to answer the questions and resolve the doubt. The problem isn’t that something creates the need to ask questions, but the inability to be in a place where the answers can come to increase faith.
Jeff Walah said:
So Brant are we now being asked to believe that the restored gospel of Jesus Christ was brought about because of doubt rather than faith?
That is an unfortunate misreading of what I said. Let’s remember that the trigger verse for the first vision was about those who lacked faith to ask. Joseph felt he was in that position. Of course, he had sufficient faith to act, and then his faith increased. Faith isn’t a singular thing. I often wish English had the verb form that Greek does. Perhaps then we could understand faith as a process rather than some singular thing that one either has or doesn’t have.
CS, 01-04-2021 at 9:46 am
Dennis, I don’t think the Elder Packer quotation says what you think it says. I suspect you are reading into it. Elder Packer talks about “the kind” of doubt, not all kinds of doubt. What does it matter that Prophets haven’t spoken out approvingly on doubt? Should we just trust your research? Why? Of course Joseph had faith to go into the Sacred Grove but it’s because he first doubted he could find answers from the local clergy and their interpretations of the Bible. One thing that Prophets have spoken on is holier than thou attitudes. Dennis, don’t be blinded by your extreme self righteousness, it isn’t helping. You and Glen see “liberal” as bad thing, whereas others see it differently.
Please read President Charles W. Penrose’s words, ” “Our religion is a progressive faith. We hear that term that term used a good deal nowadays, and it does not, in many instances, convey the proper impression. Progressiveness does not imply throwing away anything that we have learned that is true but it means getting further light and knowledge and information on those things that we have learned, and an advancement into other truths, which of course will be in harmony with that which we have received; because truth is always in harmony with itself”
Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine, January, 1913
Elder David B. Haight said in April 1994, “Our scriptures teach us gospel truths, and inspired writers add to our understanding.” This was after he said that Frederic Farrar, the noted Anglican clergy, was a believer and inspired. In our day we should be thankful for Patrick Mason, The Givens’ and others not of our faith who are believers and are open to inspiration to help us know the Gospel better. So, I am thankful for them for standing up for truth and right and helping us know what that even means.
Replies
Dennis, 01-04-2021 at 11:09 am
CS/whizbang,
Funny you should quote from Pres. Penrose (and ignore the scripture I quoted warning against doubt). I almost quoted Pres. Penrose myself but didn’t at the last minute. Regarding the subject of the article/book review and also what is being further discussed, he said (in general conference):
I have heard some of my brethren say, “Well, do you want to stop men from thinking?” Not at all. Liberty to think and liberty to act upon the thought if you don’t infringe the rights of others. Liberty to think, liberty to read, liberty to have theories and notions and ideas; but, my brethren, it isn’t your province nor mine to introduce theories into the Church that are not in accordance with the revelations that have been given. Don’t forget that. And if any change in policy is to be introduced, it is to come through the proper channel. The Lord said only his servant Joseph should do that while he lived, and then after he died others were to be called to occupy the place, and the key is in the hands of the man who stands at the head, if any change is to be introduced in our Church. Don’t let us fix our minds too much on the ideas and notions that are called science. If it is really science that they produce, something demonstrated, something proved to be true, that is all right, and there is not a doctrine of our Church that I can find that comes in direct conflict or contradiction to the sciences of the times if they are sciences, but a great deal of that which is called science is only philosophy, and much of it speculative philosophy, and these ideas change with the ages, as we can see by reference to what has been called science in times that are past. . . .
The boundless universe is before us all to learn and to live and to come up to the standard occupied by our Eternal Father and to be fit for his society. Let our minds enlarge, our understanding increase and let everything that is proved to be true and established and demonstrated come in to us as part of our belief, but the theories and notions of men that are in contradiction to the revelations of Almighty God are not to be considered in the light that some people view them. Let us be very careful about these things.
(Conference Report, April 1918, 21-22.)
Let us indeed be very careful about these things. It is not the “province” of the Givens’s or Mason or any of the other liberal progressives to be introducing new theories into the church under the name of revisiting the revelations, ridding ourselves of the alleged (really imaginary) false traditions of our fathers, etc.
The formal process for that to happen, for the Restoration to unfold, is the general handbook, not a book by Givens. I want nothing to do with his philosophies that I find so unscriptural. The Givens, Mason, Spencer, Reiss tails (or tales) do not wag the Church dog. And for them to say that yes, the prophets and apostles give the doctrine to the church, but over here in our corner we will theorize and speculate and experiment and revisit and reimagine and so forth is deeply dangerous to their readers, in my view. And it would seem, in Pres. Penrose’s.
Replies
CS, 01-04-2021 at 2:35 pm
Dennis, or one of the “others” who post under name on your blog
I ignored the verse because it isn’t relevant. Christ was saying look unto him and doubt not, can you provide any examples from Mason, Givens and now you are piling Spencer and Riess in as well to not look unto Christ? Of course not-because they don’t think we shouldn’t look to Christ and therefore it is irrelevant.
Let’s talk about “introducing theories” into the Church here. Is it your province to publicly call for Jana Riess to give up her temple recommend? No. Is it your province to say this, “Those activists who agitate and push the Church to change its doctrine (really God’s doctrine) to allow for homosexual attraction, marriage, and/or relations to be part of God’s plan in the spirit world and the resurrection are deeply and tragically deceived and will one day find themselves sorely disappointed, standing at the left hand of God” No, it isn’t. Is it your province to say that “BYU is giving aid and comfort to the adversary”? No. is your province to say this, “May I simply state that if these essays became church doctrine, or began to overcome the Church, it would be a sign that the wild olive branches were overtaking the tame ones; that philosophy was again replacing revelation; that another Great Apostasy was overtaking the Restored Church of Jesus Christ” No. One thing you did say that is true though is “I would go inactive and wait for death eagerly, as I assume many who lived in the days when the original Twelve were dying off (in the meridian of time) did, when God took His priesthood and revelation from the earth. I would not be a member of a Church that believed the speculations promoted by these essayists.” You call others unstable, “ilk”, “ apostate” and here you are threatening to go inactive. Nice Dennis. I can on and on about your own theories that you introduce, none of which are your province to say so. I didn’t even put my favourite one on the list, it’s about how you claim that you know are not one of the brethren but you are a watchman for the church. If you conservatives want the Church to stop progressing and getting further revelation, then that is fine but you don’t speak for others and you certaintly don’t speak for the Church Dennis.
It’s weird you speak out against doubt except when it’s your own doubt as to the Givens, Mason et al. It’s fine for you to doubt them but it isn’t, apparently, for others.
“I want nothing to do with his philosophies that I find so unscriptural”. Then don’t read his books, it’s that simple. Mind you I doubt you actually read anything he or the others’ have actually written but rely on these reviews. I find all of these theories you introduce in direct contradiction to the established policies of the Church and so I agree with President Penrose that we shouldn’t give any credence to the theories of Dennis Horne.
Dennis, 01-04-2021 at 6:00 pm
By the way, I would like readers to know that CS, alias Whizbang, is my unwanted internet stalker. He always tries to post critical material on truthwillprevail.xyz where I blog but the owner/moderator mostly deletes him because his comments are so absurd and poorly written.
Since Interpreter lets him criticize me here, all I ask is that readers go to my blogs (at truthwillprevail.xyz) to get full context for those items he poorly criticizes here below. I stand by everything on it, but it is much more understandable in context, rather than his anti-Mormon style of snippet charges and false interpretations.
Daniel Peterson, 01-04-2021 at 10:16 am
I’m puzzled, Dennis Horne.
My little essay says nothing at all about the “virtue” of doubt. I have, however, written a short piece about the importance of questioning:
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/questioning-the-divine-plan/
You say that you “completely disagree” with my most recent essay. But I’m curious to understand WHY.
Replies
Dennis Horne, 01-04-2021 at 5:31 pm
Dan, it’s because most every thing you say in your piece is wrong and contrary to true gospel teachings.
I am emailing you a quickly written explanation that goes into far more detail than I want to here. You can post that explanation here or not as you please.
Replies
Daniel Peterson, 01-04-2021 at 6:03 pm
Dennis:
I trust that you’re a committed, faithful, orthodox member of the Church.
So am I.
I’m disinclined to post your lengthy explanation here, primarily because I would feel an imperative need to reply to it (and to what I regard, candidly, as its manifold errors), and I simply don’t have the time or the energy for that.
Suffice it to say that we disagree at many, many points. And yet, curiously, I’m quite confident that we agree on all of the most important ones.
Eric Ducos, 01-04-2021 at 10:49 am
Please no — no ganging up. This is a good discussion that’s just meant as such. I don’t know Glen but I both appreciate the perspective and fully realize the potential of ending up traveling on strange roads. I enthusiastically agree with the scripture and quote you provided including the “doubt your doubts first” quote from Elder Uchtdorf posted somewhere else on this thread.
For some, doubt is as unavoidable as breathing – and not because they have a bad attitude about faith. It’s not a matter of just applying the principle that “they heeded them not”. They just can’t ignore their own minds and the difficult acknowledgement that “I’d far rather be happy than right any day.” (Douglas Adams)
Faith seems like both a gift of the spirit and a choice where given two options you take the faith-full explanation without feeling like you’re violating your intellectual integrity. Doubt is not like that. It would be incredibly difficult to choose not to have doubt — meaning to simply silence your mind. I might even call it harmful.
Having experienced both, I can’t explain how one day I woke up and doubt about some of the most important things was gone. Quite miraculously. I still can’t explain “the great and marvelous change which had taken place” – which is why I call it a miracle.
But even with that there are perspectives, doctrines, opinions, histories, frameworks that I question — not because I am critical of them but because I am curious, or something doesn’t seem quite right to me. That’s doubt at work and in that process (and while remaining faithful) I have found so many deep and meaningful insights. I completely credit faith, not doubt, for the outcome. But it’s doubt that got me thinking and pondering.
Moroni’s “doubt not, but be believing” is the end of that process. Not because you choose option 1 despite your intellect screaming at you but because, having pondered the alternatives, you’ve arrived at the blessed spot where you can trust God in the choice you made.
I feel no entitlement to step on that demanding process for someone in the middle of it or imply heresy just because I sense some misalignment with what I perceive to be correct.
Eric Ducos, 01-04-2021 at 9:21 am
I can only acknowledge the real risk of being deceived by various philosophies and perspectives (or even by our own desires to be justified in our favorite sins). I grew up taking several hours of philosophy every week in high school and I am still dealing with the fallout ~35 years later ?.
But I am recognizing something very different from “slick and sophisticated philosophies that undermine belief and faith” in the contributions of the authors mentioned in this thread. Maybe we’re putting different meaning behind the same word. If doubt means approaching all religious inquiry with cynicism, or if it means systematically addressing all faith-related propositions with skepticism or even with mostly intellectual approaches, then I think we are very much missing what God intended us to do with the process of faith.
Legitimate doubt to me means – for example – not being sure that God exists quite the way I currently think He does, or wondering if I truly understand the implications of salvation and exaltation, or how agency will continue through eternity, etc. That’s basic human nature (of the good kind I think) and in that sense, it seems I know more people – including in the Church – whose lives are riddled with doubt than not.
As incredibly expansive as the Restored Gospel is (and probably because of that), it still leaves mountains of unanswered questions — many of which still strongly beg for answers today.
It seems to me that the published ideas discussed in this thread are just a manifestation of this ongoing process. And — as I would expect — they include various research, musings and ideas that try to make sense out of personal experiences and/or perceived gaps in the big picture.
It doesn’t feel right to criticize those efforts, let alone their authors. And in many of those similar discussions what I hear from the author is not “let me give you mine unbelief”, but “let me tell you what I really struggle with and what I have come up with”. That sounds pretty legitimate to me.
Glen Danielsen, 01-01-2021 at 5:39 pm
Dan’s essay here is beautifully written—and makes me deeply breath disappointment. I believe an era has passed—a Truman Madsen one. The past and present is noted with earmarks: I never saw nor can I conceive Truman including apostates in the appreciations of his books, nor cozying up to them in buddy photos. I cannot, with all the effort that could be mustered, see him front a false and damaging philosophy of doubt as a means, and calling it “belief and belonging.” I read this well-written piece and feel the sting of renewed regret. I also feel a fresh resolve to “Choose your friends carefully, you will become like them,” (Litwiller), and “Be careful of your friends, they can make you or break you,” (Gordon B. Hinckley).
An era of faithful scholars has largely passed. It is being replaced with a new fraternity that is characterized by pristine fad philosophies and a toxic new belief system that lauds Doubt. All are being taken in by them. Joseph would say, “Why, it is a beautiful system. There is only one fault I have with it: it is not true.”
Replies
Jeff Walsh, 01-02-2021 at 2:34 am
Thank you Glen, I am glad that there are those among us that question the so called “New Mormon History”. The only person on earth that can ENLARGE doctrine is the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Replies
Daniel Peterson, 01-02-2021 at 12:04 pm
It seems that Elder Roberts and I didn’t express ourselves clearly enough.
I agree — and, in my essay, explicitly said — that final doctrinal authority rests solely with the Brethren.
However, Truman Madsen (mentioned by Glen Danielsen, above) and others like him greatly enlarged my view of Latter-day Saint doctrine over the years, for which I’m deeply grateful.
Brett DeLange, 01-03-2021 at 9:24 am
I think it was a Sister—Eliza Snow—who first expanded and enlarged our understanding of a Mother in Heaven. That truth has been spoken of by subsequent Church leaders over the years. I am grateful for receipt of these truths.
Daniel Peterson, 01-02-2021 at 11:57 am
I’m not an apostate. Nor are Terryl and Fiona Givens. Nor is Patrick Mason.
Replies
Glen Danielsen, 01-02-2021 at 2:58 pm
I would like to clarify, Dan: I never meant to imply that you, nor the Givens, nor Patrick Mason are nor ever have been apostates. I would have been clearer—or more specific—but then my comment would have been axed by Gardner because he sees the criticism of individuals as personal attacks. What I was referring to is the Givens mention of Lavinia Fielding Anderson in their book appreciations. Anderson is an apostate. Brant: An apostate is one who was excommunicated for apostasy, and who engages in apostate activities. I don’t know if that is an ‘official’ church definition, and I do not care. (Who has stipulated that a stated opinion must also been official church doctrine?) Now, will this comment be nixed by Gardner because of its being so specific? Almost certainly.
To clarify further: Truman Madsen expanded upon my understanding of doctrine as well. But he did not do as Patrick Mason and Adam Miller have—to change doctrine and manufacture new and toxic doctrine, (specifically the new fad philosophy of the acceptability of Doubt, or doubt as a means).
Now, I will stay away from Interpreter.
Replies
Brant A. Gardner, 01-02-2021 at 3:37 pm
I have also expressed appreciation to Lavina Fielding Anderson in books. I know the value she adds, and based on what I have learned from her, the implication of apostate that you appear to intend is much worse than the reality, despite definitions. Knowing her and her contributions, she is much more faithful and Christlike than many who opine but don’t have that label.
Replies
Glen Danielsen, 01-02-2021 at 3:41 pm
I would expect precisely that of you, Brant.
Replies
Brant A. Gardner, 01-02-2021 at 3:43 pm
Thank you.
Daniel Peterson, 01-02-2021 at 3:42 pm
I see no good reason, Glen, for you to “stay away from Interpreter.”
But you’re entirely free to do so. And, anyway, splitting into warring, mutually exclusive, non-communicative camps and hurling anathemas at each other seems increasingly to be the characteristic mark of our time.
Replies
Glen Danielsen, 01-02-2021 at 7:17 pm
Dan: Thank you. I thought I had worn out my welcome! ? But on the warring camps, I do see it differently. I believe it important to choose friends carefully. I mentioned a quote from President Hinckley above that seems to suggest that, and it makes sense to me. I believe there are times when boundaries are good, even important. I love Sister Sharon Eubank’s conference talk on the sanctity of unity. On the other hand, I will not be of one heart with priestcraft and the new Liberals’ gospel of “sincere doubt,” (Mason/Miller/etc).
I see real damage being done in the Faith by secularists; I’ve sounded off much about it before here in this great forum, so I won’t right here/right now, and I’m tired of brant-rant emails and the use of a sensor’s button more often than not simply because my writing rubs liberal sensibilities. This is not mere quibble; it is about punk censorship used to quash viewpoint.
Thanks again, though. I had thought that you might be irreparably offended because of a perception that I had pigeonholed you as an unfaithful, (THAT would be weirdly far from the truth). I do wish to apologize to you for offending your personal choice of friends, if I have.
Very Best. ?
Replies
Eric Ducos, 01-03-2021 at 2:59 pm
I think that stubborn and chronic doubt exists in some people — maybe in many. Such nagging doubt is beyond frustrating for those who ache with a “desire to believe” but can only ask — and have done so sometimes for years — to please “help thou my unbelief”. It seems to only add insult to injury for anyone dealing with such a struggle to be denounced by some that might have otherwise been considered a brother or a sister.
Significant doubt (about the Restored Gospel, or about Jesus’s divinity, or about God, etc.) might seem incomprehensible to those who have been blessed with the gift of faith, or at least deal with less (emotional/chemical/intellectual/philosophical/etc.) baggage than those struggling with doubt.
Sometimes, some almost wear doubt as a badge of honor because that is the best they can do with the cards they have been dealt. One cannot simply wave away doubt. Even with prayer, fasting, and a dedicated study of the word of God. Blessedly, that last statement is not indefinitely true. But it can be true for an agonizingly long time. It would be extremely demoralizing to be made to feel like an infidel in the midst of that struggle.
I am worried about calling the influence of self-admitting doubters damaging, or unilaterally declaring them secular or unfaithful, especially because in doing so, we a) make implicit comparisons of righteousness that imply a measure of unfitness on their part, b) we deprive both us and them of the excellent dialog and valuable insights that are gained from trying to understand each other’s views, and c) it makes an ambiguous statement about our own understanding of the practice of mourning with those that mourn and comforting those who stand in need of comfort. And actually, many of the insights shared by the Givenses seem very much worth considering. Whatever doubt I might recognize in their contributions is definitely not the kind of doubt whose semantic opposite is faith, or that implies anything less than a sincere commitment to the foundational principles of the Gospel.
I hope that while some might feel defensive and critical toward those whose views are not always aligned with what we define as orthodox, many others will respond to their contributions like Dan Peterson. Especially because I expect that often, their publications are sincere and well-intentioned attempts to make sense of their own personal experiences. Attempts which, I have found, very often contain profound and rewarding insights when approached with somewhat of an open mind — not even as a Gospel scholar/philosopher but as an interested disciple of Jesus Christ.