cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Religious Studies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-17-2011, 03:22 AM   #1
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default 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.

Last edited by MikeWaters; 05-17-2011 at 03:24 AM.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 03:38 AM   #2
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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

Quote:
Across the course of this two-day exegesis, Givens gave me a complete reboot of my simplest faith as well as my most aggressive intellectual pursuit to understand the whole eternal round. The uniqueness of Joseph Smith's restored theologies, the way the Book of Mormon fits perfectly into the course of history as laid out in the Old Testament, and the resonating truth of the Plan of Salvation make all of our institutional church's quirks and quibbles seem so small and trite. The gospel isn't about "me me me" and it's ultimate purpose is not necessarily to make sure that every person is perfectly happy in this life. It is so much more, so much greater than ourselves, so tied up to the purposes of eternity and the beauty of creation. Thoughts like these make my head feel like it's going to explode, in the same way muscles feel tired but exhilarated after a workout.
I would have loved to take Givens out to dinner, me and Archaea shooting the bull with him.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 02:44 PM   #3
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I would have loved to hear that conversation. Thank you for the updates.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 03:04 PM   #4
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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.

Quote:
All in all, this is a closely written, thoughtful (if polemical) book by a devoted scholar. It is certainly provocative reading, whether you happen to be a Mormon or not.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 03:16 PM   #5
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 06:12 PM   #6
ChinoCoug
Senior Member
 
ChinoCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
ChinoCoug is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters View Post

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.
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.
__________________
太初有道

Last edited by ChinoCoug; 05-17-2011 at 08:42 PM.
ChinoCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 08:30 PM   #7
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Grant Hardy is no longer a believer, so what do you expect him to say?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 08:37 PM   #8
ChinoCoug
Senior Member
 
ChinoCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
ChinoCoug is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post
Grant Hardy is no longer a believer, so what do you expect him to say?
LOL. You're thinking of Grant Palmer.
__________________
太初有道
ChinoCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 08:46 PM   #9
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-...5664923&sr=1-2
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 08:54 PM   #10
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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?
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.