Terrel Givens Ama Over On Reddit.

[Buzzard]

Looks like it may be wrapping up, but still ongoing the last time I looked a few minutes ago.

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/2g08u4/i_am_terryl_givens_ama/

[cinepro]

Lots of gems...
 
 
 

There is much amiss in our culture: the principle concern I have in our present environment is the culture of certainty that is so pervasive it marginalizes and intimidates those who, like the father in Mark, desire to believe, but can't say the words, "I know." We need a greater appreciation for the gift of faith. I also want to say, I find much to celebrate in Mormon culture as well. Somehow, in spite of abundant failings, we have managed to create a sense of family in most wards, where we know we can find comfort and a sustaining hand when we are in crisis.
 
- Teryl Givens

Any parent who thinks he knows the key to successful child-raising is deluded and presumptuous. Children are not lumps of clay who become happy or sad, successful or failures, righteous or rebellious, according to our parenting skills. Spirits come with aeons of character formation and formative decisions already made, behind them. All we can do is nurture in ways that facilitate or impede their developing according to the measure of their creation.

- Teryl Givens

As to whether we should be welcoming and inclusive in our wards and worship services of those who are in committed homosexual relationships-- I think the answer is an unequivocal yes. If you are asking whether I think those relationships will ever receive temple sanction, I see no possibility. The roots of our doctrine of gender complementarity and the heavenly family, and a heavenly father and mother, are too deep and foundational.

- Teryl Givens

I do not know the exact process by which manuals are vetted and approved, but I do remember that in the case of Hugh Nibley, Pres. McKay at one point had to intervene to get his manual approved. So I am confident that we have a massive bureaucracy of mid-level managers who are more often the problem than "the Brethren."

- Teryl Givens

I am not fully resolved in my mind about section 132. But I will tell you what I believe. I believe Joseph was sincerely convinced he was commanded to implement polygamy as part of the restoration of all things. I believe God gave him the keys to bring about that restoration. I believe that God blessed those who were faithful to the principle as they believed and accepted it.

- Teryl Givens

Edited September 10, 2014 by cinepro

[cinepro]

(Question: Is belief a "choice"?)

 

Ah, my favorite question. Yes, emphatically and absolutely belief is a choice subject to certain conditions. We cannot choose to disbelieve gravity- the evidence is too overwhelming. We cannot choose to believe in the Easter Bunny. The evidence is too lacking. If there is sufficient evidence to make a proposition plausible, but not to convince, then I believe we can and must choose whether or not to believe. Some critics of my position have doubted that belief is ever volitional. I can think of cases where I think it is quite clear that volition is involved. You are in a relationship. You trust your partner. But you find evidence of betrayal. Your partner explains away the evidence. It seems most everyone can imagine a situation where the evidence is ambiguous enough that you make a conscious decision to believe or disbelieve. Augustine said this about faith: sometimes, "our understanding is determined by the will, which chooses to assent to one side definitely and precisely because of something which is enough to move the will, (since it seems good or fitting to assent to this side) though not enough to move the understanding." Beautifully expressed, I believe. If belief is not a choice, then it seems we are in an impossible quandary. It means we are blessed or denied blessings for something outside our will, ie, belief in Christ and his gospel.

 

- Teyryl Givens

Edited September 10, 2014 by cinepro

[Johnnie Cake]

Wouldn't it be nice if what Teryl Givens said carried any official authority

[Paddy]

Wouldn't it be nice if what Teryl Givens said carried any official authority

Truth is authoritative in and of itself. Gee I felt slightly philosophical stating that.

It is interesting that in lieu of definitative, nuanced and well thought out comments from the church in regards to this issue that it is the intellectuals and scholars are filling the vacuum. For example the essays on lds.org.

The leaders do a great job articulating other things but are still learning in this space.

[cinepro]

Wouldn't it be nice if what Teryl Givens said carried any official authority

 

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's still not awesome that he says it at all.

[Rivers]

Awesomeness is authoritative in and of itself

[Robert F. Smith]

Wouldn't it be nice if what Teryl Givens said carried any official authority

It is precisely because what he says carries no official Church authority that he has the freedom to say it on Ask Me Anything.  The consequences of any of the Brethren engaging such stream of consciousness would be far too grave.  Same problem for the President of the United States telling all of us what he really thinks.  For those in sensitive positions, words must be chosen carefully.  Diplomacy.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Paddy]

It is precisely because what he says carries no official Church authority that he has the freedom to say it on Ask Me Anything. The consequences of any of the Brethren engaging such stream of consciousness would be far to grave. Same problem for the President of the United States telling all of us what he really thinks. For those in sensitive positions, words must be chosen carefully. Diplomacy.

Don't think the comparison between a small religious leader and the exposure of the US president is a fair comparison which begs the question: what consequences would come as a result of a GA in the church speaking his mind? I suspect most members would find it insightful and refreshing.

[sethpayne]

 

(Question: Is belief a "choice"?)

 

Ah, my favorite question. Yes, emphatically and absolutely belief is a choice subject to certain conditions. We cannot choose to disbelieve gravity- the evidence is too overwhelming. We cannot choose to believe in the Easter Bunny. The evidence is too lacking. If there is sufficient evidence to make a proposition plausible, but not to convince, then I believe we can and must choose whether or not to believe. Some critics of my position have doubted that belief is ever volitional. I can think of cases where I think it is quite clear that volition is involved. You are in a relationship. You trust your partner. But you find evidence of betrayal. Your partner explains away the evidence. It seems most everyone can imagine a situation where the evidence is ambiguous enough that you make a conscious decision to believe or disbelieve. Augustine said this about faith: sometimes, "our understanding is determined by the will, which chooses to assent to one side definitely and precisely because of something which is enough to move the will, (since it seems good or fitting to assent to this side) though not enough to move the understanding." Beautifully expressed, I believe. If belief is not a choice, then it seems we are in an impossible quandary. It means we are blessed or denied blessings for something outside our will, ie, belief in Christ and his gospel.

 

- Teyryl Givens

 

 

I love Teryl, and agree that choice is an element of belief.  However, there are lots of people who believe lots of things where the evidence overwhelmingly against them.  Flat earth society, truthers, birthers etc...  There are folks who believe that our world is run by reptile aliens from 13 Illuminati bloodlines.  To me, the evidence is overwhelmingly against their believe but there we have it.  Also, while it is true that we can't argue with the ultimate effect of gravity, there is disagreement about its mechanics.  I mean, who is telling the truth?  Einstein or Newton?  Both are.  But how?  They are simply describing the same phenomenon in different ways.  You don't build a bridge using relativity and you don't search for Dark Matter using Newtonian mechanics.  

 

I guess what I"m saying is that human beings have shown that they can believe in ANYTHING.  Regardless of the evidence.

[Robert F. Smith]

Don't think the comparison between a small religious leader and the exposure of the US president is a fair comparison which begs the question: what consequences would come as a result of a GA in the church speaking his mind? I suspect most members would find it insightful and refreshing.

Perhaps, but cooler heads usually prevail in the face of the likely consequences of unthinking, emotive free speech.  That is the point.  Speaking off the cuff has led many a CEO, President, and (yes) "small religious leader" to rue the day he did not speak from a carefully wrought set of remarks on sensitive issues.

[Tacenda]

http://radiowest.kuer.org/

 

Listening to Terryl and Fiona Givens on Radio West right now.   

[Robert F. Smith]

http://radiowest.kuer.org/

 

Listening to Terryl and Fiona Givens on Radio West right now.   

Thanks, Tacenda.

A great interview.  I always love Fiona's brilliance -- and her very British accent.

[BCSpace]

Wouldn't it be nice if what Teryl Givens said carried any official authority

 

 

 

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's still not awesome that he says it at all.

 

 

 I can agree with some of what he says, but how would one know if one's agreement or disagreement wasn't actually a case of itching ears?

[Robert F. Smith]

 I can agree with some of what he says, but how would one know if one's agreement or disagreement wasn't actually a case of itching ears?

Study it out in your mind first, then pray about it.  Maybe even fast over it if it seems like too much of a challenge to already strong assumptions.  Let the Holy Spirit be your guide.

[Rivers]

 I can agree with some of what he says, but how would one know if one's agreement or disagreement wasn't actually a case of itching ears?

Good  question.  I had to look up "itching ears" in the scriptures to understand your comment. 

Joseph Smith once talked about doctrine tasting good. So I think the way we feel about what we are taught is not an invalid method of determing truth.

[DBMormon]

It is precisely because what he says carries no official Church authority that he has the freedom to say it on Ask Me Anything.  The consequences of any of the Brethren engaging such stream of consciousness would be far too grave.  Same problem for the President of the United States telling all of us what he really thinks.  For those in sensitive positions, words must be chosen carefully.  Diplomacy.

I would argue that Terryl more than anyone I know chooses his words very carefully.   I am not concerned with his speaking off the cuff.  As others have said, truth whether stated by an authority or not stands on its on two feet.

Edited September 14, 2014 by DBMormon

[BCSpace]

Study it out in your mind first, then pray about it.  Maybe even fast over it if it seems like too much of a challenge to already strong assumptions.  Let the Holy Spirit be your guide.

 

That leads me to the LDS Church.  So then, I should compare what Givens says to LDS doctrine and judge based on that standard.

[DBMormon]

That leads me to the LDS Church.  So then, I should compare what Givens says to LDS doctrine and judge based on that standard.

I don't find what Givens says to be contrary to LDS Doctrine.  If I define Doctrine as "what we cliam God has actually stated to us as revelation"  then I see no issue from Givens. At worse he is on the fence on section 132 but that is not an outright throwing out of the revelation.

[Robert F. Smith]

That leads me to the LDS Church.  So then, I should compare what Givens says to LDS doctrine and judge based on that standard.

By George, I think you've got it.

 

Provided, of course, that studying the Scriptures helps you find the correct doctrine with which to compare Terryl's opinions, or anyone else's opinions for that matter.  And provided that once you have studied it out in your mind (while reading Scripture), you are prepared to go to the Lord with any still outstanding questions on doctrine.

[stemelbow]

I love Teryl, and agree that choice is an element of belief.  However, there are lots of people who believe lots of things where the evidence overwhelmingly against them.  Flat earth society, truthers, birthers etc...  There are folks who believe that our world is run by reptile aliens from 13 Illuminati bloodlines.  To me, the evidence is overwhelmingly against their believe but there we have it.  Also, while it is true that we can't argue with the ultimate effect of gravity, there is disagreement about its mechanics.  I mean, who is telling the truth?  Einstein or Newton?  Both are.  But how?  They are simply describing the same phenomenon in different ways.  You don't build a bridge using relativity and you don't search for Dark Matter using Newtonian mechanics.  

 

I guess what I"m saying is that human beings have shown that they can believe in ANYTHING.  Regardless of the evidence.

humans...what are we going to do with us? Believing "anything"? how dare the individual billions of us believe many varied things inconsistently following different standards in so creating our beliefs.