Fiona givens leaves maxwell institute

[Nofear]

Most of the article is ... meh (at best). I would like more information on the small part of it that talks about Fiona Givens and her leaving the Maxwell Institute.
Anybody know anything?

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/05/08/latter-day-saints-are/

[Calm]

Is anyone able to copy paste from the article?  Wonder if blocking copy is a new feature. What a pain if so. Back to typing out quotes. 
 

PS:  I have no new info. 

Edited May 9, 2021 by Calm

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is anyone able to copy paste from the article?  Wonder if blocking copy is a new feature. What a pain if so. Back to typing out quotes. 
 

PS:  I have no new info. 

Not sure why you can't. I can. Which part do you want?
 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Not sure why you can't. I can. Which part do you want?
 

I just thought it would be nice to post the section on Givens as there is so much other stuff before and after that may not interest some. 

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I just thought it would be nice to post the section on Givens as there is so much other stuff before and after that may not interest some. 

In March, Fiona Givens, co-author with husband Terryl of “The God Who Weeps: How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life,” was invited to give a fireside address to members in a Latter-day Saint young single adult ward in Harlem.

More than 200 people signed on to Givens’ Zoom presentation, according to Delaney Plant, who was among them.

Givens shared her studies and research into Heavenly Mother, including multiple biblical accounts in which she believes a female deity is depicted as a pillar of light, Plant reports in an email. “She then made the connection that during the ‘First Vision,’ when Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ, he first mentions seeing a pillar of light.”

That shows that “Heavenly Mother was also present during the First Vision,” Plant says Givens concluded.

In answer to a question, Givens discussed whether the Mother God might be synonymous with the Holy Spirit. In the past, the writer has addressed this possibility.

“Is she part of the Godhead? One assumes she is,” Givens told The Salt Lake Tribune in 2013. “So, is she the Holy Spirit? The [scriptural] record is silent on this and so much else that we fall into the sticky quagmire of speculation.”

After her recent remarks, several attendees complained and now Givens is no longer employed by BYU’s Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, and is turning down invitations to all speaking engagements.

Givens declined to comment on the fireside or its aftermath, and, though BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins confirmed Givens’ departure, she would not detail reasons why, citing personnel policies.

Still, Plant wants answers.

“I find the whole situation quite confusing and upsetting,” she writes. “I feel that BYU is now silencing a very important voice in regards to a doctrinal topic that is not wrong to speak on.”
----------

I wonder what she means by "personnel policies"?

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

Most of the article is ... meh (at best). I would like more information on the small part of it that talks about Fiona Givens and her leaving the Maxwell Institute.
Anybody know anything?

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/05/08/latter-day-saints-are/

Did the SLT Editor time this article for Mother's Day?

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

Most of the article is ... meh (at best).

There are a few interesting bits.  That said, it is a bit odd to watch the Tribune, ostensibly a news outlet, turn itself into essentially a purveyor of theological grumblings by carefully selected members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Grumblings that pretty much always veer into politicking, feminism, race theory, LGTB stuff, etc.  And such articles are pretty much always by Peggy Fletcher Stack.

I am a member of the Church, so I have an interest in news items about the Church.  The personal musings of Peggy Fletcher Stack's carefully curated groups of "intellectuals" about largely imponderable topics don't quite fit the bill.  How much eye-rolling must "news" articles like this get from non-members?

Quote

I would like more information on the small part of it that talks about Fiona Givens and her leaving the Maxwell Institute.
Anybody know anything?

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/05/08/latter-day-saints-are/

Sounds like Fletcher Stack indulged in a bit of pos hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning:

Quote

In March, Fiona Givens, co-author with husband Terryl of “The God Who Weeps: How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life,” was invited to give a fireside address to members in a Latter-day Saint young single adult ward in Harlem.

More than 200 people signed on to Givens’ Zoom presentation, according to Delaney Plant, who was among them.

Givens shared her studies and research into Heavenly Mother, including multiple biblical accounts in which she believes a female deity is depicted as a pillar of light, Plant reports in an email. “She then made the connection that during the ‘First Vision,’ when Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ, he first mentions seeing a pillar of light.”

That shows that “Heavenly Mother was also present during the First Vision,” Plant says Givens concluded.

In answer to a question, Givens discussed whether the Mother God might be synonymous with the Holy Spirit. In the past, the writer has addressed this possibility.

“Is she part of the Godhead? One assumes she is,” Givens told The Salt Lake Tribune in 2013. “So, is she the Holy Spirit? The [scriptural] record is silent on this and so much else that we fall into the sticky quagmire of speculation.”

After her recent remarks, several attendees complained and now Givens is no longer employed by BYU’s Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, and is turning down invitations to all speaking engagements.

Givens declined to comment on the fireside or its aftermath, and, though BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins confirmed Givens’ departure, she would not detail reasons why, citing personnel policies.

Still, Plant wants answers.

“I find the whole situation quite confusing and upsetting,” she writes. “I feel that BYU is now silencing a very important voice in regards to a doctrinal topic that is not wrong to speak on.”

A few thoughts:

1. "Plant wants answers," but since BYU's internal policies prohibits it from providing them and Givens isn't commenting, there's not much more to say.

2. I think it's potentially problematic that Sis. Givens used a Church meeting to preach her personal speculations and opinions.  This isn't the first time I've heard Sis. Givens opine about things that are unsettled and speculative.  And generally that's just fine and dandy, provided that the time, place and manner of sharing such opnings are appropriate.  I wonder if Sis. Givens' remarks were inappropriate for the context in which they were given.  I wonder if she was given the opportunity to preach the doctrines of the Restored Gospel, but instead shared her personal speculations.  She's done this before.  For example, in 2016 Sis. Givens spoke with Jana Riess about her (Sis. Givens') theory that Joseph Smith gave Emma Smith priesthood keys.  I commented on this here:

Quote

I have not studied Sis. Given's article in detail, but her thesis about the "turning over" of "priesthood keys to Emma" appears to be almost entirely predicated on a single reference on page 40 of the Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book (link here) (see footnote 57 in Sis. Givens' article), as follows (emphasis added):

Quote

Let this Society teach how to act towards husbands  to treat them with mildness and affection. When a man is  borne down with trouble— when he is perplex’d; if he can meet  a smile, an argument— if he can meet with mildness, it will  calm down his soul and soothe his feelings. When the mind  is going to despair, it needs a solace.
[1 line blank]
This Society is to get instruction thro’ the order  which God has established— thro’ the medium of those appointed  to lead— and I now turn the key to you in the name of God  and this Society shall rejoice and knowledge and intelligence  shall flow down from this time— this is the beginning of  better days, to this Society

And perhaps also this reference (from page 38 of the Minute Boo, see footnote 29 of Sis. Givens' article) (emphasis added):

Quote

He exhorted the sisters always to concentrate their  faith and prayers for, and place confidence, in those whom  God has appointed to honor, whom God has plac’d at the  head to lead— that we should arm them with our prayers.—that the keys of the kingdom are about to be given to them, that  they may be able to detect every thing false— as well as to the Elders.

Contrast the above-emphasized claims with this statement by Elder Oaks in his April 2014 General Conference address, The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood (emphases added):

Quote

Priesthood keys direct women as well as men, and priesthood ordinances and priesthood authority pertain to women as well as men.
...
The understanding we seek begins with an understanding of the keys of the priesthood. “Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood [holders] to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth.” Every act or ordinance performed in the Church is done under the direct or indirect authorization of one holding the keys for that function.
...
In that notable address, President Smith said again and again that women have been given authority. To the women he said, “You can speak with authority, because the Lord has placed authority upon you.” He also said that the Relief Society “[has] been given power and authority to do a great many things. The work which they do is done by divine authority.” And, of course, the Church work done by women or men, whether in the temple or in the wards or branches, is done under the direction of those who hold priesthood keys. Thus, speaking of the Relief Society, President Smith explained, “[The Lord] has given to them this great organization where they have authority to serve under the directions of the bishops of the wards … , looking after the interest of our people both spiritually and temporally.”
...
We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.
...
In the eyes of God, whether in the Church or in the family, women and men are equal, with different responsibilities.

I close with some truths about the blessings of the priesthood. Unlike priesthood keys and priesthood ordinations, the blessings of the priesthood are available to women and to men on the same terms. The gift of the Holy Ghost and the blessings of the temple are familiar illustrations of this truth.

As I read Elder Oaks, although women can "exercise" priesthood authority and receive all of the blessings of the priesthood without actually holding the priesthood, the "holding" of "keys" appears to be a function of "holding" the priesthood.

Thus Sis. Givens appears to be contradicting Elder Oaks (obliquely, anyway) when she claims that Joseph Smith "{turned} over priesthood keys to Emma."

See also these remarks by Elder Ballard (emphases added):

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s Church, and His Church is governed by and through priesthood authority and priesthood keys. “Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood leaders to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 2.1.1).
...
Let us not forget that approximately one-half of all the teaching that takes place in the Church is done by sisters. Much of the leadership provided is from our sisters. Many service opportunities and activities are planned and directed by women. The counsel and other participation of women in ward and stake councils and in general councils at Church headquarters provide needed insight, wisdom, and balance.

It takes both men who respect women and their distinctive spiritual gifts and women who respect the priesthood keys held by men to invite the full blessings of heaven in any endeavor in the Church.
...
When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power. While the authority of the priesthood is directed through priesthood keys, and priesthood keys are held only by worthy men, access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children.

Again, this seems to be contrary to the claim of Sis. Givens.

I hope she is not setting herself up as a voice of authority alternative to that of the leaders of the Church.

The issue, then, could have less to do with the speculative stuff and more to do with the time, place and manner in which she shared it.

3. The article states that "several attendees {at the fireside, a meeting of the Church} complained" about what Sis. Givens said.  I wonder if she went a bit too far in her remarks, particularly given that:

• A) she was speaking in a Church meeting,
• B) she was possibly/apparently invited to speak in some sort of representative capacity, whether it be a representative of the Church, or of BYU and the Maxwell Institute,
• C) she seems to be willing to mix her personal speculations/opinions with established doctrine, even to the point of contradicting the official teachings of the Church (which is problematic when she does not while speaking in a church meeting and/or in a representative capacity), and
• D) she has apparently done this sort of think before (in 2016 Jana Riess described Sis. Givens as "a Deseret Book author who has been traveling widely in response to local invitations (with her husband, author and renowned intellectual Terryl Givens) giving firesides and  touring with the 'Time Out for Women' series that is sponsored by Deseret Book").

Again from the article:

Quote

“Is she part of the Godhead? One assumes she is,” Givens told The Salt Lake Tribune in 2013. “So, is she the Holy Spirit? The [scriptural] record is silent on this and so much else that we fall into the sticky quagmire of speculation.”

After her recent remarks, several attendees complained and now Givens is no longer employed by BYU’s Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, and is turning down invitations to all speaking engagements.

This is where Fletcher Stack's article becomes a bit weird.  Sis. Givens was speaking in 2021, and yet Fletcher Stack quotes something she said eight years ago.  Why?  Putting your thumb on the scales, Peggy?

Anyway, it seems unusual for members of the Church to complain about a fireside.  That "several" did so may indicate just how "out there" Sis. Givens went.

That said, I'm curious how Peggy Fletcher Stack knew about any of this.  To whom did these "several attendees" complain?  And weren't the attendees from "a Latter-day Saint young single adult ward in Harlem?"  So how did a reporter in Utah find out about this?  We don't know, 'cuz the "news" article doesn't tell us.

4. To the extent that Sis. Givens' fireside talk affected her relationship with the Maxwell Institute, the issue does not seem to be the topic.  Plenty of people in the Church have talked about this, including Daniel Peterson's Nephi and His Asherah article that was published in 2000 by the Maxwell Institute.  See also this 2012 article by Warren Aston: The Other Half of Heaven: Debunking Myths about Heavenly Mother

Quote

When Elder Neal A. Maxwell of the Twelve spoke some years ago in General Conference about the heavenly home-coming that the obedient can look forward to, he noted that our Mother in Heaven would surely have a role[i]. Yet, for most of us, singing the hymn O My Father is usually the only time the existence of a Heavenly Mother is verbalized. Given the fact that she is the mother of our spirits, why then do we talk so little about Heavenly Mother?

The reasons for this silence seem to fall into three categories. When they are examined in light of the scriptures and the teachings of church leaders, all of them can be shown as “cultural assumptions.” None stand up to scrutiny.

Myth 1: Church leaders do not speak of her, so we should not.

Myth 2: She exists, but we know nothing else about her.

Myth 3: Our silence protects her against being blasphemed and slandered as the Father and the Son are.

Let’s examine each of these particular “Mormon Myths” against the facts.

He goes on to discuss these three "myths," and does a good job of it.  From the first one:

Quote

Myth 1: Church leaders do not speak of her, so we should not.

Last year, 2011, BYU Studies published a landmark article by David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido entitled, “A Mother There: Historical Teachings and Sacred Silence.” I strongly commend it to you[ii]. For those unfamiliar with it, BYU Studies is an official, scholarly, peer-reviewed publication of the church-operated Brigham Young University and one whose editorial board includes general authorities. The article documents over 600 cases where general authorities have spoken about Heavenly Mother, stretching from the days of the prophet Joseph Smith down to 2010.

Several truths emerge from this fact alone:

• The subject of Heavenly Mother has been regularly addressed (how could it not?) by church leaders throughout the entire history of the church. It is not, as some think, a subject spoken about in the early days of this dispensation, but not now.
• All the statements affirm our unshakeable belief in Heavenly Mother. That we have a Mother in the pre-mortal realms is as basic as the fact that we have a Father there also.
• Significantly, the authors found no occasion where church leaders have ever asked us to not speak of Heavenly Mother, or to maintain some kind of “sacred silence” about her.
• From all this we can conclude that talking openly about our belief in Heavenly Mother should not be seen as unorthodox or controversial.

And this:

Quote

Myth 3: Our silence protects her against being blasphemed and slandered as the Father and the Son are.

The evidence cited in the BYU Studies article makes it clear: there is no authorized mandate of silence concerning Heavenly Mother.

---

  And simple logic refutes the well-intentioned idea that we protect her by hiding her. Surely it makes no sense that children should be denied knowing anything of their mother, talking about her, loving her and honoring her, during the most crucial period of their eternal journey. Doing so with an earthly mother would be unthinkable; how much more so with our Mother in Heaven?

 

When President Hinckley cautioned us in 1991 against praying to Heavenly Mother he did not instruct us never to talk about her[vii]. We are free to acknowledge her, talk about her and to give her the honor due to her. As members of the church we can affirm her existence rather than apologize. There is no need to speculate or teach beyond the body of material given by the leaders of the church for the past 180 years. She is there in the heavenly realms with the Father, watching over us in our mortal probation.

One day the faithful will stand again in their presence.

5. Our Mother in Heaven seems to be a topic that, when discussed in some quarters, almost inevitably devolves and degrades.  Just look at the Trib article:

• "Some feminists don’t want to be handed Heavenly Mother from church leaders but would prefer to have members, mostly women, 'find her ourselves,' says Rachel Hunt Steenblik."  Huh.  It seems odd to affirmatively reject and dislike prophetic statements about a sacred and revelatory topic.  I also note that the Gender Wars continue to be imported into the Church.
• "{S}ome feel that progressive members 'are not any better at including single people or people without children in these types of conversations,' the poet says, 'and feel that they also highly privileged women who are married and have children.'"  Oi.  This is the language of disunity and division.
• "These are conversations that female members should be having, says Latter-day Saint historian and theologian Maxine Hanks, instead of waiting for the church’s male leaders to offer the last word on Heavenly Mother."  Again, this is about rejection of prophetic revelation.  And it borders of usurpation, too.
• "These days, the church’s view of Mother God has become most frequently entwined with the earthly roles for women spelled out in the faith’s family proclamation, with men as presiders and women as nurturers.  That leaves women like Kerry Spencer Pray feeling alienated.  'I’m a mother and a queer Mormon, married to a woman,' says Pray, who taught writing at BYU for 15 years. 'For me, the rhetoric about Heavenly Mother is a little bit tricky because she has a husband and children. My life doesn’t fit.'"  Again, this is supposed to be a news article.  And note how Fletcher Stack bolsters Pray's street cred by irrelevantly noting that she "taught writing at BYU for 15 years."  

6. It appears that Sis. Givens used a church meeting to espouse her personal opinion that Heavenly Mother was the "pillar of light" during the First Vision, and that She is the Holy Spirit.  As Warren Aston astutely noted: "There is no need to speculate or teach beyond the body of material given by the leaders of the church for the past 180 years."  But it looks like Sis. Givens may have done just that.  And she did that during a church meeting, while speaking in a representative capacity.  If so, then that was an unfortunate lapse in judgment, and I hope she avoids repeating it in the future.

7. I very much like Sis. Givens and her writings.  She seems like a wonderful person.  I also appreciate her discretion in not running to the Internet or the Tribune to foment ill will against BYU and/or the Church, to self-aggrandize, to elicit sympathy and adulation for herself at the expense of BYU and/or the Church.  I wish her the best.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 9, 2021 by smac97

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, JAHS said:

In March, Fiona Givens, co-author with husband Terryl of “The God Who Weeps: How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life,” was invited to give a fireside address to members in a Latter-day Saint young single adult ward in Harlem.

More than 200 people signed on to Givens’ Zoom presentation, according to Delaney Plant, who was among them.

Givens shared her studies and research into Heavenly Mother, including multiple biblical accounts in which she believes a female deity is depicted as a pillar of light, Plant reports in an email. “She then made the connection that during the ‘First Vision,’ when Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ, he first mentions seeing a pillar of light.”

That shows that “Heavenly Mother was also present during the First Vision,” Plant says Givens concluded.

In answer to a question, Givens discussed whether the Mother God might be synonymous with the Holy Spirit. In the past, the writer has addressed this possibility.

“Is she part of the Godhead? One assumes she is,” Givens told The Salt Lake Tribune in 2013. “So, is she the Holy Spirit? The [scriptural] record is silent on this and so much else that we fall into the sticky quagmire of speculation.”

After her recent remarks, several attendees complained and now Givens is no longer employed by BYU’s Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, and is turning down invitations to all speaking engagements.

Givens declined to comment on the fireside or its aftermath, and, though BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins confirmed Givens’ departure, she would not detail reasons why, citing personnel policies.

Still, Plant wants answers.

“I find the whole situation quite confusing and upsetting,” she writes. “I feel that BYU is now silencing a very important voice in regards to a doctrinal topic that is not wrong to speak on.”
----------

I wonder what she means by "personnel policies"?

If Fiona made the decision to quit, how is that BYU silencing anyone?

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That "several" did so may indicate just how "out there" Sis. Givens went.

Or it could be several friends got together and one persuaded the others to back her complaint. 
 

I would like to read a transcript before deciding as Givens has been careful in the past from what I have heard, but I doubt that will happen unless someone recorded it...is that common?  I haven’t been to a fireside since cell phones became recording devices. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It appears that Sis. Givens used a church meeting to espouse her personal opinion that Heavenly Mother was the "pillar of light" during the First Vision, and that She is the Holy Spirit. 

It was a fireside, not Sunday School. My experience is that tons of personal opinion is shared when talking about research during firesides.   I doubt that has changed in recent years.  I have been to some pretty out there ones. 

Edited May 9, 2021 by Calm

[juliann]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Anyway, it seems unusual for members of the Church to complain about a fireside.  That "several" did so may indicate just how "out there" Sis. Givens went.

 

I don't know what church you go to, but you can ask any bishop or RS president about how common complaints about lessons are . And it is usually an indication of how "out there" the complainers are. 

 

Quote

4. To the extent that Sis. Givens' fireside talk affected her relationship with the Maxwell Institute, the issue does not seem to be the topic.  Plenty of people in the Church have talked about this, including Daniel Peterson's Nephi and His Asherah article that was published in 2000 by the Maxwell Institute.  See also this 2012 article by Warren Aston: The Other Half of Heaven: Debunking Myths about Heavenly Mother

Thanks for pointing this out. When men speculate on the same topics, is is considered scholarship. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

It appears that Sis. Givens used a church meeting to espouse her personal opinion that Heavenly Mother was the "pillar of light" during the First Vision, and that She is the Holy Spirit. 

It was a fireside, not Sunday School. 

But a Church meeting nonetheless.

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

My experience is that tons of personal opinion is shared when talking about research during firesides.   I doubt that has changed in recent years.  I have been to some pretty out there ones. 

My recollection is that Sis. Givens does not live in New York.  If so, she was an out-of-stake person invited to address members of the Church in Harlem during a church meeting, something that typically requires approval from the stake president.  From Section 38.8.20 of the Handbook:

Quote

38.8.20

Guest Speakers or Instructors

For most Church meetings and activities, speakers and instructors should belong to the local ward or stake.

A guest speaker or instructor is someone who does not belong to the ward or stake. The bishop’s approval is required before a guest speaker is invited to a ward meeting or activity. The stake president’s approval is required to invite guest speakers to stake meetings or activities.

The bishop or stake president carefully screens guest speakers or instructors. This may include contacting the person’s bishop.

The bishop or stake president ensures that:

• The presentation is in harmony with Church doctrine.

• Guest speakers or instructors are not paid a fee, do not recruit participants, and do not solicit customers or clients.

• The person’s travel expenses are not paid either with local unit budget funds or by private contributions.

• Presentations comply with the guidelines for using Church facilities (see 35.4).

So it seems like firesides involving out-of-stake speakers need to be approved by the local leader, who "carefully screens" the guest speaker to ensure that, inter alia, "{t]he presentation in in harmony with Church doctrine."

Using a church meeting to teach other members of the Church that Heavenly Mother was the "pillar of light" during the First Vision, and that She is the Holy Spirit seems to be a bit problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

Quote

Anyway, it seems unusual for members of the Church to complain about a fireside.  That "several" did so may indicate just how "out there" Sis. Givens went.

I don't know what church you go to,

I live in Provo.

Quote

but you can ask any bishop or RS president about how common complaints about lessons are .

In my experience, they are not particularly common.

Quote

And it is usually an indication of how "out there" the complainers are. 

Unless, of course, the content of the lesson was indeed problematic.

Quote

Quote

To the extent that Sis. Givens' fireside talk affected her relationship with the Maxwell Institute, the issue does not seem to be the topic.  Plenty of people in the Church have talked about this, including Daniel Peterson's Nephi and His Asherah article that was published in 2000 by the Maxwell Institute.  See also this 2012 article by Warren Aston: The Other Half of Heaven: Debunking Myths about Heavenly Mother

Thanks for pointing this out. When men speculate on the same topics, is is considered scholarship. 

I think the issue may have had more to do with the venue.  With the time, place and manner.

Any who knew that the young adults in Harlem were such insufferable misogynists!  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 9, 2021 by smac97

[juliann]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

6. It appears that Sis. Givens used a church meeting to espouse her personal opinion that Heavenly Mother was the "pillar of light" during the First Vision, and that She is the Holy Spirit.  As Warren Aston astutely noted: "There is no need to speculate or teach beyond the body of material given by the leaders of the church for the past 180 years."  But it looks like Sis. Givens may have done just that.  And she did that during a church meeting, while speaking in a representative capacity.  If so, then that was an unfortunate lapse in judgment, and I hope she avoids repeating it in the future.

 

Margaret Barker has made this standard stuff. She has said the same thing in FM conferences.  FM is listed as an approved source by the Church. So exactly where is the lapse in judgment? There is, obviously, some support for these concepts...at least for those who value Biblical scholarship and early Christian history.  

[juliann]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

 

Any who knew that the young adults in Harlem were such insufferable misogynists!  

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you now resorting to claiming that every audience member complained?

 

Quote

I think the issue may have had more to do with the venue.  With the time, place and manner.

But that would be....speculation.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So it seems like firesides involving out-of-stake speakers need to be approved by the local leader, who "carefully screens" the guest speaker to ensure that, inter alia, "{t]he presentation in in harmony with Church doctrine."

Hasn’t made much difference in my experience..granted a bit out of date these days. It was just actual scholarship being used as a springboard. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

Quote

It appears that Sis. Givens used a church meeting to espouse her personal opinion that Heavenly Mother was the "pillar of light" during the First Vision, and that She is the Holy Spirit.  As Warren Aston astutely noted: "There is no need to speculate or teach beyond the body of material given by the leaders of the church for the past 180 years."  But it looks like Sis. Givens may have done just that.  And she did that during a church meeting, while speaking in a representative capacity.  If so, then that was an unfortunate lapse in judgment, and I hope she avoids repeating it in the future.

Margaret Barker has made this standard stuff.

Margaret Barker is not a member of the Church.  And her "standard stuff" is not typically preached during formal church meetings, nor are they supposed to be screened by local leaders to ensure they are "in harmony with Church doctrine."

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

She has said the same thing in FM conferences.  

FM conferences are not church meetings.

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

FM is listed as an approved source by the Church.

And yet nobody is suggesting that FM conference talks are governed by Section 38.8.20 of the Handbook.

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

So exactly where is the lapse in judgment? 

See Section 38.8.20 of the Handbook.

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

There is, obviously, some support for these concepts...at least for those who value Biblical scholarship and early Christian history.  

I find Heavenly Mother to be a thrilling and fascinating topic.  I have no qualms whatsoever with the substance of Sis. Givens' comments.  They seem quite faith-affirming and beautiful, if speculative and conjectural.  

I have no qualms with discussion of these concepts, provided the time, place and manner are appropriate, and also provided that the meetings of the Church are not (mis)appropriated to propagate such concepts.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

Are you now resorting to claiming that every audience member complained?

Obviously not.

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

Quote

I think the issue may have had more to do with the venue.  With the time, place and manner.

But that would be....speculation.

Yep.  Isn't that what we all are doing?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

So it seems like firesides involving out-of-stake speakers need to be approved by the local leader, who "carefully screens" the guest speaker to ensure that, inter alia, "{t]he presentation in in harmony with Church doctrine."

Hasn’t made much difference in my experience..granted a bit out of date these days. It was just actual scholarship being used as a springboard. 

My stake has long followed this process quite scrupulously.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[mgy401]

It should perhaps be noted that the Trib has a habit of omitting key details in order to nudge its readers to make inferences that may or may not coincide with the fulness of the story. 

Here, the Trib tells us people complained about Sister Givens’s remarks.  It does not tell us which people complained, or why.  It could well be that most of the complaints came from hardcore feminists who didn’t feel Sister Givens went far enough. . . Or from folks who were angry that Givens was permitted to speak at all, given her husband’s then-recent column condemning elective abortion, which caused quite a stir among Mormon lefties.  

Without further info as to the nature of the complaints and/or a full transcript of the fireside, it remains an open question.  

Edited May 9, 2021 by mgy401

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

It should perhaps be noted that the Trib has a habit of omitting key details in order to nudge its readers to make inferences that may or may not coincide with the fulness of the story. 

Here, the Trib tells us people complained about Sister Givens’s remarks.  It does not tell us which people complained, or why.  It could well be that most of the complaints came from hardcore feminists who didn’t feel Sister Givens went far enough. . . Or from folks who were angry that Givens was permitted to speak at all, given her husband’s then-recent column condemning elective abortion, which caused quite a stir among Mormon lefties.  

Without further info as to the nature of the complaints and/or a full transcript of the fireside, it remains an open question.  

I know someone who is a perpetual critic of the Givens', wouldn't surprise me at all if they were one of them. Mind you this person is a critic of the church as well so, who knows

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Myth 1: Church leaders do not speak of her, so we should not.

With today being Mother's Day, it was inevitable that this topic was brought up in our sacrament meeting.  One of the speakers quoted from the Gospel Topics essay on Mother in Heaven.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

Without further info as to the nature of the complaints and/or a full transcript of the fireside, it remains an open question

This...no points left, but seriously, any speculation is worthless Imo and potentially inappropriately damaging Sister Givens’ good name. 
 

She has been giving firesides for years.  Speaks at Women’s Conferences too.  This isn’t a newbie.

https://m.facebook.com/SunderlandEnglandStake/videos/598784724150708/

https://browningitalymilan.com/fireside-with-terryl-and-fiona-givens-may-27th-2020/

https://www.fionagivens.com/events/2018/4/22/fireside-with-terryl-givens-washington-dc

Edited May 9, 2021 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

In March, Fiona Givens, co-author with husband Terryl of “The God Who Weeps: How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life,” was invited to give a fireside address to members in a Latter-day Saint young single adult ward in Harlem.

More than 200 people signed on to Givens’ Zoom presentation, according to Delaney Plant, who was among them.

Givens shared her studies and research into Heavenly Mother, including multiple biblical accounts in which she believes a female deity is depicted as a pillar of light, Plant reports in an email. “She then made the connection that during the ‘First Vision,’ when Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ, he first mentions seeing a pillar of light.”

That shows that “Heavenly Mother was also present during the First Vision,” Plant says Givens concluded.

In answer to a question, Givens discussed whether the Mother God might be synonymous with the Holy Spirit. In the past, the writer has addressed this possibility.

“Is she part of the Godhead? One assumes she is,” Givens told The Salt Lake Tribune in 2013. “So, is she the Holy Spirit? The [scriptural] record is silent on this and so much else that we fall into the sticky quagmire of speculation.”

After her recent remarks, several attendees complained and now Givens is no longer employed by BYU’s Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, and is turning down invitations to all speaking engagements.

Givens declined to comment on the fireside or its aftermath, and, though BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins confirmed Givens’ departure, she would not detail reasons why, citing personnel policies.

Still, Plant wants answers.

“I find the whole situation quite confusing and upsetting,” she writes. “I feel that BYU is now silencing a very important voice in regards to a doctrinal topic that is not wrong to speak on.”
----------

I wonder what she means by "personnel policies"?

It’s a catch-all excuse. They gave the same reason for not commenting on Daniel Peterson’s removal as Mormon Studies Review editor. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Did the SLT Editor time this article for Mother's Day?

Not sure about the editor, but I have no doubt the writer did. Gotta have that news peg.