Fiona givens leaves maxwell institute

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

My stake has long followed this process quite scrupulously.  

Thanks,

-Smac

You need to get out of Provo a bit.  There is actually a big church membership out there that don't view things from the constrictive Wasatch Front mentality and actually resent having it shoved down their throats.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have no doubt is she continues to talk about this topic is such a way she will be given the boot.

Could you elaborate on that?  Why do you think so?

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The church seems to be reverting back the the 19990s and wants to purge out anything that does not seem orthodox enough if spoken about in public.

I'm not really seeing it.  I think the Trib article, despite its flaws, was substantively correct when it said that "Mormonism’s Heavenly Mother has gone mainstream."  Also: 

Quote

She is the topic of a number of books on sale at Deseret Book, which is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. She has spawned essays (including an official one from the faith), poetry, a one-woman play, hymns, art shows, even academic debates.

She has been embraced as part of the church’s Young Women theme, which was updated in 2019 to say: “I am a beloved daughter of Heavenly Parents, with a divine nature and eternal destiny.”

In 2000 the Maxwell Institutes published Daniel C. Peterson's "Nephi and His Asherah," which has been extensively cited and discussed ever since.

In 2011 BYU Studies published “A Mother There: Historical Teachings and Sacred Silence” by David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido which "documents over 600 cases where general authorities have spoken about Heavenly Mother, stretching from the days of the prophet Joseph Smith down to 2010."

In 2012 Meridian Magazin published an article by Warren Aton which noted that Paulsen and Pulido "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," that "there is no authorized mandate of silence concerning Heavenly Mother" and that "{w}e are free to acknowledge her, talk about her and to give her the honor due to her."

In 2015 the Church published an essay about Her on its website: Mother in Heaven

So where is the retrenchment you are referencing here?  

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You seem to promote the tone that one needs to toe the "party" line. 

What "'party' line" is that?

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I mean my goodness. She spoke at a fireside and shared her speculative musings and has even labeled them as such. 

Broadly speaking, I don't think the Church's meetings should be used to propagate "speculative musings."  Per section 38.8.20 of the Handbook, presentations should be "in harmony with Church doctrine."

But outside of the Church's meetings, I am quite happy to discuss "speculative musings."  This board.  FAIR conferences.  Scholarly articles.  

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And some poor little souls were so hurt by this they had to complain. 

So complaining is disallowed in the Church?  You think people who disagree with something should always remain silent about it?  Dissent should be stifled?

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I guess they feel more comfortable with their correlated pablum mind numbingly boring correlated Sunday school milk toast.

Got it.  People like you complain and that's just hunky dory.  Brave, even.  Otherwise, "shut up," he explained.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You need to get out of Provo a bit. 

I've been on this board since 2004.  I'm coming up on 12,500 posts.  I'm not exactly cloistered.  I have spent a lot of time considering opinions and perspectives from people "out{side} of Provo."

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

There is actually a big church membership out there that don't view things from the constrictive Wasatch Front mentality and actually resent having it shoved down their throats.

Section 38.8.20 of the Handbook applies to the entirety of the Church, not just "the constrictive Wasatch Front."

My ward and stake likewise are pretty good and excluding politicking during church meetings.  Is that part of the "constrictive Wasatch Front mentality" too?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Got it.  People like you complain and that's just hunky dory.  Brave, even.  Otherwise, "shut up," he explained.

Isn't that your approach really?  No speculation allowed in any sort of official church meeting? Stick to the correlated material or shut up. And yes the correlated material is mind numbing.  I recall when I was still attending when the priesthood and RS manual was Gospel Principles. It seemed to me a HP group was typically a bit beyond a books used for years for a new member class. Were there format for discussing and exploing tough theolical and other philisophical issues in Church and it was accepted to ask and talk about difficult and even controversial subjects I might have continued to attend.  But the straight jacket correlated elementary school type approach the Church takes towards teaching its members is simply stifling for me at least.

 

 I am not complaining by the way. I am discussing.  

[Teancum]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've been on this board since 2004.  I'm coming up on 12,500 posts.  I'm not exactly cloistered.  I have spent a lot of time considering opinions and perspectives from people "out{side} of Provo."

Section 38.8.20 of the Handbook applies to the entirety of the Church, not just "the constrictive Wasatch Front."

My ward and stake likewise are pretty good and excluding politicking during church meetings.  Is that part of the "constrictive Wasatch Front mentality" too?

Thanks,

-Smac

Is the handbook of the church binding on its members?  Where is the common consent? I know you like to quote it as if it is scripture. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I highly doubt she simply quit.

She said she did.  She said-- “after almost two years of employment, I voluntarily made the decision to leave the Maxwell Institute to focus on my own study, writing and other personal endeavors. I maintain the highest regard and warmest relations with the Maxwell Institute and its wonderful faculty.""

Do you think she's not being honest?

Edited May 10, 2021 by bluebell

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Got it.  People like you complain and that's just hunky dory.  Brave, even.  Otherwise, "shut up," he explained.

Isn't that your approach really? 

No.

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No speculation allowed in any sort of official church meeting?

Again: "Broadly speaking, I don't think the Church's meetings should be used to propagate 'speculative musings.'  Per section 38.8.20 of the Handbook, presentations should be 'in harmony with Church doctrine.'  But outside of the Church's meetings, I am quite happy to discuss "speculative musings."  This board.  FAIR conferences.  Scholarly articles."

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Stick to the correlated material or shut up.

I am quite grateful that the Church has made efforts to make sure false doctrine is not taught in church meetings.  

I also think it is reasonable that the Church regulate the content of its meetings.

I also that Church meetings should not be (mis)appropriated by individual members to propagate their personal speculative opinions that deviate or distract from the doctrines and tenets of the Church.  There is a time and place to explore and speculate.  The Church's formal meetings ain't it.

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And yes the correlated material is mind numbing. 

I think the correlated material is pretty good.  And we are free to go beyond those materials in our personal study.

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I recall when I was still attending when the priesthood and RS manual was Gospel Principles. It seemed to me a HP group was typically a bit beyond a books used for years for a new member class. Were there format for discussing and exploing tough theolical and other philisophical issues in Church and it was accepted to ask and talk about difficult and even controversial subjects I might have continued to attend.  But the straight jacket correlated elementary school type approach the Church takes towards teaching its members is simply stifling for me at least.

I am not complaining by the way. I am discussing.  

"The correlated material is mind numbing" ≠ "complaining?"

Oh.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[Harry T. Clark]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

She said she did.  She said-- “after almost two years of employment, I voluntarily made the decision to leave the Maxwell Institute to focus on my own study, writing and other personal endeavors. I maintain the highest regard and warmest relations with the Maxwell Institute and its wonderful faculty.""

Do you think she's not being honest?

It could be like the politician that claims he/she is stepping down to be with family more when it is really to avoid impeachment, or in Ms. Givens' case, a firing.  Sure this is what she said, and focusing on her own study, writing and other personal endeavors is what she was always doing.

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Is the handbook of the church binding on its members? 

Yes.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Where is the common consent?

Where it always is.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I know you like to quote it as if it is scripture. 

No, I don't.  I don't put it on equal footing with scripture.  Nothing like.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

She said she did.  She said-- “after almost two years of employment, I voluntarily made the decision to leave the Maxwell Institute to focus on my own study, writing and other personal endeavors. I maintain the highest regard and warmest relations with the Maxwell Institute and its wonderful faculty.""

Do you think she's not being honest?

I am skeptical still.  

[Teancum]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

Where it always is.

No, I don't.  I don't put it on equal footing with scripture.  Nothing like.

Thanks,

-Smac

When were you asked for a sustaining vote to accept the handbooks as binding?

[Nofear]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am skeptical still.  

I suppose that is your prerogative. More telling about you than anything else though. I personally believe Fiona Givens is a fundamentally honest individual and a sincere disciple of Christ and not a political deceiver.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I've been on this board since 2004.  I'm coming up on 12,500 posts.  I'm not exactly cloistered.  I have spent a lot of time considering opinions and perspectives from people "out{side} of Provo."

Hardly the same as interacting in real time outside of "Zion." 

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I suppose that is your prerogative. More telling about you than anything else though. I personally believe Fiona Givens is a fundamentally honest individual and a sincere disciple of Christ and not a political deceiver.

Yea I am just an evil apostate.  Disparage me all you want.

[JAHS]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

When were you asked for a sustaining vote to accept the handbooks as binding?

When I vote to sustain the church leaders that means I sustain all they do, including writing policy in the Handbook.
Therefore I am sustaining the acceptance of the handbook as binding.

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

When I vote to sustain the church leaders that means I sustain all they do,

I sustain them the best I can, for them to do the best they can. Without flaws, where is there room for God's hand?

[Harry T. Clark]

Quote

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 quote is from the article.  Is it correct that Ms. Givens is turning down speaking requests?  If so, perhaps she is being pressured to do so?  Or perhaps she was pressured to leave and lost her desire to speak, at least for a little while?

[Fair Dinkum]

Could this be the canary in the coal mine moment for Nuanced Mormonism?  If the church does double down on orthodox Mormonism and leaves no room for those who have awoken to the fact that the traditional narrative is just not sustainable, we may have seen the high water mark for church membership in first world countries.

To quote Winston Churchill, "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning" for nuanced Mormonism. 

 

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

You need to get out of Provo a bit. 

I've been on this board since 2004.  I'm coming up on 12,500 posts.  I'm not exactly cloistered.  I have spent a lot of time considering opinions and perspectives from people "out{side} of Provo."

Hardly the same as interacting in real time outside of "Zion." 

Not "the same as."  Better.  In terms of exchanging viewpoints in the Marketplace of Ideas, participating on this board for many years has done far more than, say, me attending church services here and there during vacations.  We have all sorts of people on this board, with all sorts of ideas and perspectives on the Church and its practices, doctrines and history.  And I interact with and respond to those diverse ideas and perspectives on a regular basis, and have done so fairly consistenty since 2004 on this board, and on other message boards going back to 1995 (anyone remember Zion's Lighthouse?).

In addition, I read.  A lot.  Both correlated and non-correlated materials.  Both faithful and critical materials.  Both mainstream and kinda-out-there materials.  

You're trying really hard to characterize me as some sort of ignernt, head-in-the-sand, Wasatch Front yokel, as someone who is so ignorant he needs to be specifically advised of stuff like "{t}here is actually a big church membership out there that don't view things from the constrictive Wasatch Front mentality" (quite a stereotype there), as someone who is oblivious to opinions and perspectives "out{side} of Provo."  I don't think that characterization works.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I've been on this board since 2004.  I'm coming up on 12,500 posts.  I'm not exactly cloistered.  I have spent a lot of time considering opinions and perspectives from people "out{side} of Provo."

This board has, in my experience, provided a relatively unique educational experience by sharing opinions and perspectives in an indepth way rarely experienced at church.  I have learned here many things I never picked up on at church.  But that is significantly different than actually living with members with significantly different views (not saying they don't exist in Utah, never meant that special brand of doomsday Saint until my current ward in Utah where there have been a couple).  For example, I knew that some nonAmerican Saints had problems with the way American culture may dominate in church, but it was unforgettable and even life changing to be honest to see a Saint get up and leave Sacrament Meeting in anger and disgust because the chorister yet again was playing American patriotic songs in the weeks up to July 4.  And then to hear it talked about by his wife and others.  A very small thing, but it impressed me in a way hearing international Saints speak about the issue and even living with several of them as roommates at BYU never did.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

This board has, in my experience, provided a relatively unique educational experience by sharing opinions and perspectives in an indepth way rarely experienced at church.  I have learned here many things I never picked up on at church.  But that is significantly different than actually living with members with significantly different views (not saying they don't exist in Utah).  For example, I knew that some nonAmerican Saints had problems with the way American culture may dominate in church, but it was unforgettable and even life changing to be honest to see a Saint get up and leave Sacrament Meeting in anger and disgust because the chorister yet again was playing American patriotic songs in the weeks up to July 4.  A very small thing, but it impressed me in a way hearing international Saints speak about the issue and even living with several of them as roommates at BYU never did.

Yup. I recall on my mission having a companion who was an enthusiastic member of the Partido Obrero Revolucionario (Revolutionary Workers' Party), a Trotskyite Communist party. On election day, we went to the zone leaders' house so the two Bolivians could vote, and we two Americans would stay home. The Bolivian zone leader was a passionate partisan of Accion Democratica Nacional, the party of former right-wing dictator Hugo Banzer, whom you might describe charitably as neo-fascist. Neither saw any conflict between their religious faith and their politics. I've mentioned this experience to American LDS friends, and they can't wrap their brains around a Communist or neo-fascist member in good standing. But, as you say, when you actually interact personally with someone outside the bubble, your perspective changes. And no, message board interactions don't really count. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

. But, as you say, when you actually interact personally with someone outside the bubble, your perspective changes. 

I wouldn't call it a bubble, it is just a different community.  There are issues that get confronted in Utah in my experience where they are ignored elsewhere because one doesn't go home and see one's fellow members driving/walking up to the houses across the street or next door.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

When I vote to sustain the church leaders that means I sustain all they do,

I sustain them the best I can, for them to do the best they can. Without flaws, where is there room for God's hand?

Well since they are prophets of God, God's hand is involved in the writing of the handbook.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wouldn't call it a bubble, it is just a different community.  There are issues that get confronted in Utah in my experience where they are ignored elsewhere because one doesn't go home and see one's fellow members driving/walking up to the houses across the street or next door.

I was thinking specifically of a North American bubble, but your point is well taken.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I was thinking specifically of a North American bubble, but your point is well taken.

The US is not good at teaching/exposing its people to the history or current events and characteristics of other countries in general in my experience (no doubt there are teachers who excel), I have no problem saying the US is in a bubble.*** Canada by being its neighbour has had to be more active in engaging with the US than the reverse due to a number of factors (sheer number of people, for one thing; but also massive economic pressure from both companies and the government).  I haven't lived in Mexico, so can't comment on that.

***We couldn't even get our US bank to accept US dollar cashier checks from our Canadian bank back when we lived in Canada.  We made sure to get US dollars to spend in the States before crossing the border as Utah banks refused to exchange.  Canadian banks and even local stores had no problem with the reverse (everyone knew the exchange rate, it seemed).  No doubt that has been solved by now given the instantaneous nature of money transactions.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Calm