Terryl Givens Fireside
 

Terryl Givens, author of "By the Hand of Mormon" and "Vipers on the Hearth" gave a fireside in my area. I had been looking forward to this, as I had enjoyed his comments in the PBS documentary about Mormons.

He is a professor of "literaure and religion" at the Univ. of Richmond.

A few months ago, I had been to a similar fireside in the same location given by the official LDS church historian. The fireside was packed to the brim, going about a quarter way into the gym. I expected similar numbers for Br. Givens. I was surprised when the chapel was only about half full. I guess he doesn't command the same cache as the official LDS historian. But his presentation was much more interesting. To me.

I wish I had taken written notes, but oh well. I sent live text updates to Archaea, so those were my notes.

Br. Givens was apparently in town because his brother lives in the area. At least he implied that. The fireside was sponsored by the BYU DFW Management Society.

Br. Givens looked a little bit older than I remembered from the documentary. I was surprised when he said the PBS documentary was 5 years ago. I had thought it was maybe 3 years ago. Time flied. Maybe that's why he looked older. He's not a physically imposing man either. But he is a great speaker. He used powerpoint slides for his presentation.

The presentation was a tad bit more apologetic than I might have expected, but overall the presentation was dominated by ideas that I had not previously considered, and that made it worthwhile. I don't know if these ideas are contained in his prior books or not.

He started with the Rodney Stark quote about Mormonism possibly number in the high two-hundred millions by about 2070. And how this was a shock to academia, that was mocked because it assumed linear growth. So years later Stark acknowledged the criticism, redid his calculations, and apologized for his prior estimates. They were too low he announced. [laughs]. But the important thing about Stark's work is that it started to turn academic attention to Mormonism. A new world religion being born before our eyes. A great opportunity to study the phenomenon.

The next point was that the Book of Mormon is the most published American book ever. On his graph he had the Twilight and Harry Potter books which were nipping the tail of the BoM. He said that Book of Mormon has hit the 150 million printed mark. He said he pointed this out to the editor at Oxford, and said how can we have no serious academic work on the most-printed book in American history. He said he got a reply the same day or the next day that if he would write a book about it, they would publish it (Oxford is apparently no press to sniff at either). So this editor knew Givens professionally, I forget the relationship however.

He then went through about six different ways that the Book of Mormon has been considered over its history.

The first way is an emblem or proof of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling. The fact that the book existed was what was important, not the contents. Many early adherents reported conversions in just touching or holding the book. He asked the audience, how many times do you think that Joseph Smith, in his lifetime, preached from the Book of Mormon? He quoted an LDS historian who said that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, but never read it. Said he was only half-joking. There is no recorded instance of Joseph preaching from the Book of Mormon. The contents did not matter, except as proof of his prophetic calling. In fact, when some European missionaries asked Joseph to put together a primer on LDS beliefs, he used the Bible, not the Book of Mormon. Also made the point that Joseph may have considered a prophetic task, and this his job was to go on to the next task. He began retranslating the Bible only months after completing the Book of Mormon.

He also said that when Joseph began with the Book of Mormon he probably didn't think that he was going to start a church. That this probably came as a shock to him.

Said that Joseph Smith never spoke about the First vision in his preaching, probably because it was such a personal experience for him. That Joseph always cited his prophetic calling as starting in 1827 when he received the golden plates.

Givens had a copy of the first edition of the BoM on the lectern with him, as well as Parley Pratt's first edition Book of Mormon (he is writing a biography on PP). These were lent to him for the fireside. Both copies looked to be in absolute pristine condition. Someone gasped when he said the one book was PP's. At some point that he said that the first person in Mormon history to actually be interested in the actual contents of the Book of Mormon was PP.

He talked about the millenialism that had really taken over in the US in the 1830s. Hard for us to imagine what it was like. Talked about the missionaries that went to Ohio and baptized the Campbellites there. That these were people literally waiting everyday for a sign of the second coming. And with this new Bible (the BoM) they had a sign, and quadrupled the membership of the church. That there were hundreds of sects then that we have never heard of today. One of the things that distinguished Mormonism from them was the BoM. They had no tangible evidence. Joseph did.

He talked about Walter Scott, a restorationist. That he had gone so far as to even predict the possibility of a new bible to herald in the new millenium and Christ's coming.

Givens showed a slide that contained quotes from George Mardsen, a famous academic at Notre Dame and from Rodney Starks. Mardsen says that the BoM contains unique beliefs that separate it from Christianity, while Starks says that the BoM is so non-Mormon, that by itself, had Mormonism relied on it, it would probably have been nothing more than another Protestant sect. So which is true?

He showed a slide with many of the very unique doctrines that are in Mormonism (like celestial marriage, baptism of the dead, and many others). How many derived from the BoM? None of them. So what is the uniqueness and value of the BoM?

Givens says that the two unique theological contributions of the Book of Mormon, long unrecognized, are the fortunate fall (i.e. no original sin) and a better understanding of the relationship between the atonement and agency. He makes the point that Mormonism, at its beginning, was the only religion to negate original sin. He says even now, major Christian religions still believe in original sin, but that the actual rank and file Christians themselves increasingly don't. In other words, the rejection of original sin was revolutionary, moreso than is apparent to our modern sensibilities.

Givens talked about John Lloyd Stevens and his expedition to Mesoamerica, and how the illustrated book that was published in 1841 literally rocked the nation. It was transformative. Suddenly there was evidence of an advanced civilization that seemingly could not be easily connected to the native Americans that most Americans were familiar with. Joseph had believed the Book of Mormon to take place in the Ohio River Valley. There are the stories of his marches, saying that such and such battle took place here, and his remark on Zelph the white Lamanite. A friend of Joseph's in NYC (he said the name, I forget it) sent him a copy of these two hardback books and said that he might find it interesting. And yes, Joseph was interested. Aha, WE can explain who these people were. And thus the idea that those were actually the peoples of the Book of Mormon. At this time, Givens says, modern archeology did not exist. And no one was in position to really contest any kinds of claims.

The church was interested in archaeology, and even sent The Cluff Expedition from BYU to Mesoamerica in 1900. They journeyed through Mexico, were polygamy was still legal. And because of some members of the expedition becoming sidetracked due to polygamous inclinations, the expedition was recalled. With no success.

He talks about how a number of theories were made about the peoples of the Book of Mormon, and how until the early 1980s the church had been actively promoting the idea that the entire peoples of the Americas came from the people of the Book of Mormon. And this has caused severe harm to the church. He says there is a professor at Yale that makes great art of mocking Mormon apologia re: Book of Mormon archaeology.

1920 brought the very first crisis in the church re: the Book of Mormon. A congressperson sent a letter to the church with five questions. The president of the church passed the letter onto B.H. Roberts and asked him to reply. Roberts studied the questions and had not replied within a couple of weeks. the president asked him what was the matter, and B.H. Roberts said "we have problems, let's talk."

Today, almost universally among Mormon/BYU scholars, the Sorenson model of the Book of Mormon geography is accepted as most likely. That Sorenson tablulated the time and geography of the BoM and determined that it actually took place in a very small area. I forget the exact dimensions, but something like 100 miles by 200-300 miles. Which Givens says is incidentally about the same area as the Holy Land/Bible.

Givens went into a number of different theories that support the Book of Mormon, including chiasmus and phrase formation (like "river of water" and "rod of iron"). "Don't let your children sing 'iron rod', that's false doctrine, it's never mentioned in the Book of Mormon. It's actually 'rod of iron.'" [laughter].

He said that the most important archaeological proof that he expects will ever exist in his lifetime is the discovery of the Altar of NHM in Yemen. Originally discovered by German archaeologists, and then later expounded on by BYU archaeologists. Lehi, in the Book of Mormon, makes reference to it, and it is in the area that we expect Lehi would have been, and apparently fits the timeline. And this was distinctly mentioned as already named, instead of Lehi just naming it after his own family. He says Mormon critics are completely silent about this. No better proof of a place-name exists.

Talked about how the BoM really changes the way that we understand revelation. That Mormons understand the word revelation differently. It may have been about here that he shared an anecdote about a colleague who had come to him with a personal problem. Givens asked him if he has prayed about it. Sure, yes, I have prayed about it. Well, what was the answer you felt? What do you mean? You prayed, so how did God answer you? What are you talking about--you mean to say that you believe God would deign to answer an individual's question like that? He said an interesting conversation ensued. And that how it illustrates that when you move across religious cultures, you can never assume that the same meanings and constructs hold true. They do not. And it is very difficult to perceive the differences.

Sometimes revelation is merely understood as the presence of the Bible. And also the history of the church. As well as interior experience. But that this interior experience is an understanding of God's grace, and that God only reveals Himself to people. That we are not to understand that God reveals actual statements to persons who seek revelation (this is the standard Christian view Givens says). He goes on to name a few persons/bodies who cite Moroni 10:3-5 as the most heretical portion of the Book of Mormon, that it is heresy to believe that God dispenses religion in that way. It gives too much power to the individual.

Givens says that the most important chapters in the Book of Mormon are in Nephi 10 and 11. This is after Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life, and Nephi is desirous of an understanding of the same. And an angel asks Nephi if he believes on the words of his father, and he says yes. And the angel breaks into song. Givens says "this is the most glorious moment in the Book of Mormon." That revelation from God is available to all individuals. No where else in scripture had a non-prophet been given such a revelation and visions, and this is one of the truly great insights/revelations of the BoM. In effect (my words) the democratization of revelation. Givens words: "fully personal revelation."

Given offers a John Whittier quote saying that people joined the Mormon church because they were seeking primal manifestations of divine power.

Givens then said, in one of the more interesting and provocative statements of the fireside, that modern Mormons have abandoned dialogical revelation in favor of this emotion/attunement based revelation that is described in the Doctrine and Covenents (burning in the bosom and stupor of thought). He says D&C's context was for translation, and not the model for all personal revelation as it has in some ways become.

There was a question/answer period as well. I didn't take any notes about that. He was asked about the process of translation of the Book of Mormon, and the head in hat thing with peep stone. He says Joseph started with the Urim and Thummim, but stopped using it because he said it hurt his eyes. That was the first phase, and then started using the hat and peep stone. The hat to shut out distractions and light and focus on the stone. He says there was nothing magic about the stone, but it served as a focus. And in the third and final phase of the translation Joseph did not use a stone/hat at all, that he dictated without any aid, with the plates wrapped up at the side of the room. He says that our sanitized history has not served us well.

He comments about how close and connected the leaders of the church were to the past and persecution. Joseph F. Smith saw the bodies of his father Hyrum and his uncle Joseph, dead in situ, as a young boy. That Joseph Fielding Smith was only one generation removed. So up until 1972, in effect, the church was one generation removed from Joseph Smith, and the memories of persecution lingered, leading to defensiveness and isolation.

He says we have been much too defensive. He says that the internet has revolutionized things, and there is an understanding now that we need to be open, and remarkable things are happening with church historians (including official ones). Mentioned the Joseph Smith papers.

Both at the beginning of the talk and at the end he mentioned how Mormon studies is becoming more and more valued and sought after, with Mormon studies cropping up in universities and esteemed presses publishing books about Mormonism, including several from Oxford. Says Yale has published a version of the Book of Mormon. And Penguin as well.

He said that Evangelicalism on the other hand is holding very little interest from the same quarters.

He talked about how the producer of the NPR Mormonism series talked to some pretty big anti-Mormon names for her documentary and how they ranted and raved against Mormonism, but she didn't include them, because "no one is interested in hearing ranting and raving."

He says we should be open about our history, and we've been defensive for no good reason. The best defense is a good offense. Talked about Parley Pratt's response to Mormonism Unvailed was "yes we believe those things, and let me tell you a few more things about what we believe."

He was asked about the open internet publication of the handbook of instructions, and agreed that it is a sign of the church opening up. No longer having to deal with unauthorized publication of the secret manual. Here it is, for everyone to see.

So those are probably the high points, or at least, most of the points that made an impression on me. More may come to me later, but I am tired of typing! It was worth attending.

I was googling to see if anyone else had posted an account of this fireside, came across this link describing a fireside/Q&A in Provo, UT.

http://www.neylanmcbaine.com/2010/11...reen-room.html

I would have loved to take Givens out to dinner, me and Archaea shooting the bull with him.

I would have loved to hear that conversation. Thank you for the updates.

Some additional things he talked about:

After he wrote his book "By the Hand of Mormon", when he visited BYU he said there was one question BYU professors had for him: "How did you get away with it?" Get away with what? "Writing a faith-promoting book and having it published by Oxford." I don't think Givens necessarily agrees that he wrote a faith-promoting book, but he said that Mormon scholars have often sold themselves short by holding back and not addressing things.

He mentioned, in context of openness, that it is not often talked about or well known, that the church published Hoffman's salamander letters for public consumption before they were known to be forgeries. In other words, they were not hidden. "We have this stuff, we don't know what to make of it, here it is."

He also referred to the recent news reports of the metal plates/books supposedly found in a cave in Syria. He did state a caveat about "if authenticated." He appeared to not know that the latest scuttlebutt is that they are forgeries.

He talked about the reception of his book by the popular press. He had seen that the reviewer of his book had also reviewed a new Joseph Smith biography and absolutely torn it apart (I think by a non-LDS author). Given that, he thought his treatment was going to be much worse. He was surprised at how positive the reception was.

By way of comparison, the LDS assistant church historian Richard Turley, Jr., spoke about the different editions of the Book of Mormon, and how they came to be at his fireside in the same venue.

And that was about it. The breadth of content was very shallow.

Cf. Grant Hardy. In his Oxford publication he apologizes all over himself for the BoM not being historical.

Thanks for the summary. I'll be hearing Givens speak at Duck Beach in a couple of weeks. Should be rewarding.

Grant Hardy is no longer a believer, so what do you expect him to say?

LOL. You're thinking of Grant Palmer.

I wasn't aware of Grant Hardy's Oxford book.

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-...5664923&sr=1-2

Another tidbit: I believe Givens was asked when the church started finally paying attention to the contents of the Book of Mormon. His answer was not until Ezra Taft Benson and the announcement that the church was under condemnation.

So could it be that we are really the most BoM-centric generation in the history of the LDS church?

Thanks for the detailed report from the fireside. Terryl Givens is one of the most engaging and thoughtful LDS scholars around.

I would like to clarify one issue in the thread, however. I am still a believer (in fact, I'm currently serving in a stake presidency), and I most certainly think that the Book of Mormon is historical. In writing my book for Oxford, I tried to leave some room for non-Mormons to engage seriously with the contents of the Book of Mormon from the perspectives of literature, world scripture, and religious studies. Even so, reviewers at the press complained that I took Nephite history far too seriously. In academic contexts, polarizing issues such as historicity can sometimes be temporarily bracketed, but when I speak in church or go out with the missionaries, I am more than happy to bear testimony that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it claims to be.

Grant Hardy

Let's take this for a moment.

Scripture of the ancient variety provides insights into man's interaction with divinity. Some parts, such as the Gospels, form part of the genre of Greco-Roman biographies but are not written as modern histories.

So are you saying the BoM is religious narrative with historical details, or what are you claiming it is in terms of narrative development in light of some historical claims? Do you adopt the Sorenson model for geographical discussion?

It may be B. Carmon Hardy of whom I was thinking, the writer of Solemn Covenant.

There was a BYU professor, who later migrated to Cal State Fullerton. If that is the man, then that's who I was considering.

I'm not exactly sure that I understand your question, but perhaps I haven't been clear enough myself. So I'll try again.

I believe that Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni were actual ancient prophets who wrote from their own experiences and inspiration. The Book of Mormon that we have today is a translation of their words, though as a translation it may be rather loose compared to what a scholarly translation would look like. (In scripture, conveying spiritual truths in an understandable, motivating way may be more important to God than historical, linguistic precision.) In any case, I think that the translation was given fairly directly to Joseph Smith through the Urim and Thummim (or the seer stone). That is to say, I find Royal Skousen's arguments pretty persuasive.

It is sometimes helpful to keep in mind that the difference between historical fiction (which may include a lot of accurate facts) and actual histories (which often include inaccurate information) is largely one of intent. Novelists make things up; historians try to get the facts straight, though they always work from within some limited cultural perspective. I think that the Book of Mormon is an actual history rather than a novel, but I understand that non-members see the book differently.

I don't claim any special knowledge about where Book of Mormon events took place, and for that reason I don't spend a lot of time trying to put the narrative in a Mesoamerican context, but I think that Sorenson's limited geographical model is by far the most plausible that has been put forward so far.

Grant:

Thank you for your response. However, I disagree that the BoM should be considered a history.

It should be considered a theological document laden upon either some historical events as perceived by certain individuals, or inspired fiction. It's one or the either.

It is not written as a traditional, ancient or modern history, so I fully disagree with the concept it's a history, even if it says so. It's compilation of religious events strung together in a quasi-chronological sequence. That's not a history.

Prof Hardy:

Since you're right there why don't you come speak at the Duck Beach Symposium?

Archaea:

"History" is a wide-ranging and sometimes loaded term. Would you consider Eusebius or the Deuteronomist to have written histories? I agree that Mormon's primary motivation is theological rather than historical in the modern academic sense (the Book of Mormon's lack of attention to political, economic, social, and even cultural factors can be frustrating for historically-minded readers), but I don't think that the Nephite record is simply a theological treatise illustrated with a few historical anecdotes. Mormon really seems to be trying to piece together a coherent account of past events based on primary sources, though of course his writing is thoroughly influenced by his own (theological) interests and biases.

ChinoCoug:

Thanks for the invite, but I'm not really "right there." Asheville is about an eight-hour drive from Duck Beach (NC is a really long state, and we're talking about opposite ends). But you'll be in good hands with Terryl Givens. Have a great time.

The reason I could never consider the BoM as a history is that I don't see enough of the necessary elements of a history, even an ancient one. Neither of us arguing that Eusebius or Mormon was Tacitus, Thucydides or Herodotus.

In answer to your question, no I do NOT consider Eusebius a historian, but rather I consider him a theologian with a very heavy agenda, to prop up the basis for the orthodox position in terms of its authority clinging to orthodox claims to historical authority.

No, I most certainly do NOT consider the Deutoronomist a historian.

Mormon, assuming the character is what he claims to be, was a leader, a compiler of theological records, in a sequential method.

I also don't consider the Bible a history but a compilation of theological records which make reference to their perceptions of historical events, real and sometimes fictional (Job or Jonah).

Mormon's "historical" references are to political events which affected the spiritual welfare of the people about which he testified. It explained the benefit of the fall, the individuality of dialogical revelation, and the nature of God. Although Mormon ascribes spiritual cause and effect, and many ancient historians tried to describe causes and effects, it is not written in the true historical manner.

However, any work which follows a traditional sequential timeline could be called a history, but that's not how I view it. Somebody such as in the tradition of Ibn Khaldun is a historian. http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/klf.htm

I don't mean to be disagreeable, but it seems to be a disservice of treating or discussing the BoM as if it were a history. It's not that in any classical sense. So when we as members throw that around, it devalues the testament for what it really is. It's another testament of Christ, that he has interacted with men, that he died and resurrected.

What people are asking is, did any of the events set forth therein really happen? That's a different question to couching in terms is the BoM historical. And I know traditional members do not wish to consider this possibility because it lessens their fervor, but so long as the BoM brings people to Christ, whether the events really happened is less important. If the Spirit of the Book convinces people of Christ, then it has achieved its stated purpose.

So in my mind, the BoM is a theological testament of Jesus Christ. It should not be considered a history despite Mormon's labeling it as such. He was no trained historian and really wasn't familiar with classical histories.

About Dr. Hardy's BoM reader book...

I only read blurbs about it, but I find the idea very interesting, and one that I had been thinking of.

I've posted here on CG before re: what I consider one of the real mysteries and peculiarities of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon essentially starts off with the story of the murder of Laban (Chapter 4).

There's something about the voice of Nephi that has, at times, grated on me. I noticed many years after first reading the Book of Mormon, that the account of Laban contains many more details and explanations than anything else Nephi writes about. Recounting this story many years after the fact, it appears that Nephi felt compelled to carefully document and justify his actions (i.e. murder). He seems to want to ensure that when the account is remembered, that he is blameless.

Is this the kind of thing that Joseph Smith would start with, in fabricating new scripture?

Anyway, this idea of getting into the heads of the authors/editors of the Book of Mormon has been interesting to me, before I had heard of Dr. Hardy's book. So I will take a look for sure.

I've also long been intrigued by what the Sword of Laban meant. It was obviously a treasured object. Isn't it believed that it was included with the Golden Plates? Plates, Urim and Thummim, Sword.

******

"Grant Hardy" was mentioned in Terryl Givens' talk, but I don't remember what the context was. I too, had a brief moment where I thought "the guy who was involved in the Book of Mormon DNA controversy?" but I thought that couldn't be right because the context of what Givens' was saying was on the faith-promoting side of things. Must be very annoying to Dr. Hardy to be confused with Grant Palmer!

or B. Carmon Hardy.

That's who I thought he was. Sadly, our visitor came one day and not again.

I'll have a chance to meet Givens in an intimate setting. If you have any questions for him, list them today.

I would ask him something along the lines of whether he thinks that convert baptisms in the USA have slowed, or been disappointing, and whether that is more a reflection of the church and its changing relationship with the public, or whether it is general reflection on American society and the growing irreligious of it.

Along the same lines I might ask what he feels the impact of the Godmakers et al. has been on church growth, esp. in the internet age.

He said that growth is dying in Europe as well, and we are becoming a Southern hemispheric church. I followed up by pointing out that the US is more religious in Europe, and it's secularizing, but we've lost the #1 growth spot to JWs and SDAs.

He said the internet has had a HUGE negative impact on Church growth. The Church recognizes this and is taking action.

He said we need to reconstruct our CES system. We are creating fragile testimonies. If you tell a 14-year old that Joseph Smith used a peepstone, he'd say, "Whoa! That's cool!" Instead, they are not finding out until later, and they leave the Church. Not because they found some other truth, but they feel they've been betrayed.

I talked to him about five years ago and he said that in order to get non-LDS people to subject the BoM to critical analysis, we should start by treating it as a literary piece.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20024

Last weekend I asked him how much has Grant Hardy's book done in that regard. He said that's a critical step, but he hasn't heard any non-LDS people cite the book yet.

It was a very interesting symposium, with even heated debate. Maybe I'll post notes when I get the chance.

His wife Fiona was also present. She taught seminary, and junked the CES materials.

Some CES people are great. But there have been others that I have been very much less than impressed with. And I've always felt like the watered-down served-on-a-platter history that the church teaches BETRAYS the legacy of the REAL people who sacrificed for this church. Even in people that are loyal to the church, there can be SKEPTICISM and DISTRUST of the curricula, because they know the TRUTH is not the number one priority.

When I was a young teenager, my father asked me if I had been reading "The New Era." He got a little ticked at me when I said, "I'm not going to read that propaganda."

Not everything in this church needs to be recounted in the General Conference sing-song voice.

Later on in college, I was doing some work for a BYU history professor, going through a diary of an early female Utah settler. I thought to myself, now this is interesting, this is something that makes me feel connected to this pioneer heritage. It's a real person with real desires. WHY DON'T THEY ASSIGN SOMETHING LIKE THIS in all these required BYU religion classes?

Needless to say, no one asks me for my advice.

I may be a little bit of a hypocrite. When I give a lesson, I go straight from the manual. Because it only takes me 5 minutes to prepare the lesson. And that's what I'm supposed to do anyway. I'm not supposed to reinvent something or give my own personal take on whatever topic is on my mind.

Anyway, my personal opinion on why the church isn't doing well missionary-wise is because very few people are interested in it. And most of the ones who are interested are the least educated and informed people in the country. Nothing wrong with these folks, but it sure doesn't bode well when there are whole swaths of demographics you can't touch.

Also, my wife teaches Sunday School to the older teenagers. They tell her about all the crap they have to put up with. People mocking their religion, citing the infamous South Park episode, etc. I have the impression that for Mormonism, ignorance has been replaced with vitriol. And a few "family first" radio ads are not going to cut it.

In DC we are still getting top-level converts (Manager of the largest directorate in the CIA converted in 2007, she has as Harvard MPA).

Including only faith-promoting stuff is nothing new to religion (John 20:30-31). As Archaea has documented, little in the scriptures can be considered "history" in the modern sense. I don't think The Church is doing anything egregious. It's just that it won't work anymore.

I called my little sister (22, nine years my younger) in Cali last night to tell her about the peepstone, and she already knew. Now that Bushman is at Claremont they hear him speak quite often.

I don't know what we'd do without Givens and Bushman.

I have a few observations which may or may not be useful. I had some friends whom I invited to Church, who began reading the BoM and were interested. However, the interest waned over time.

I asked why. One was a lack of time for the investment required. Another criticism was a good and honest one. Even though we have lay persons, our sacrament meetings are downers and poorly constructed.

We have people using cookbook talks without insight. Here is what I mean. The typical talk is somebody reading some GC talks and some scriptures. I have recounted now numerous sacrament meetings where the speakers fail to tell any personal stories highlighting the principle being presented. It's Elder X said this. Alma Y says this.

Not, I was wondering how I could help my son feel the spirit so that he could look to God. So we were working in the yard and I felt inspired to stop and to ......

We seem to be a busy people, filled with facts and numbers, but no inspiration. We've lost the charisma, inherent with faults and instability, which informs the heart and propels us to action. Our sacrament meetings are often dead. Yes I can feel the Spirit but the Church feels like a walking zombie, uninspired and lacking passion.

And another issue are our hymns. They are such downers. No upbeat happy, healthy hymns of praise and glorious joy. The pace of the hymns is downtrodden. Yes we're suffering horrible economic times. I get that.

We need some talks about how to give talks and how to share the inspiring experiences so others can have them. We need a GA or two to step it up and say.

This Church is still inspired, and I have seen God, he still lives. We are His People and we invite all to come to Christ.

Instead we're becoming so ecumenical, we are indistinguishable and unrecognizable to our forefathers.