Recently I’ve been listening to podcasts discussing Fiona and Terryl Givens’ book The Christ Who Heals, and have noticed a repeating theme that I have also seen mentioned on Reddit – that there is a divide, where some people really embrace the Givens’ message, while others state that the Givens are moving the goalposts, using flowery language to skirt the tough issues, or lack institutional authority, rendering the message impractical outside firesides or blogs. I want to take a stab at addressing the concerns of the latter group, for two reasons: 1) I appreciate the Givens’ message; and 2) The concerns about their effectiveness seem correlated with my previous post regarding authority.
Throughout my life I was taught a particular narrative and understanding of the Mormon faith. This perspective was taught to me as the only valid path to God and the “true” way of understanding Joseph Smith’s spiritual message. Add to this the long history within the LDS Church, going all the way back to the conflicts in Missouri, of expected obedience to authority, and the result was a dependence upon Church leaders for answers. I was taught to interpret Mormonism through their lens, and that their lens was the only one capable of returning me to God.
As that perspective and narrative broke down under the scrutiny of study, I, as so many others have, struggled in my faith. I found that there were significant aberrations in the lens with which I had been provided to view my Mormon heritage. I had been told that no other lens was “true”, yet I found that the lens provided to me could also not be “true”. Over time I learned to develop my own lens, grinding and polishing the imperfections as I found them, eventually creating the lens I use today.
I went through a lot of work to rebuild the lens of my faith. It was not easy and I faced significant cultural pressure to conform to the accepted lens. Such difficulty is unnecessary, however. It needn’t be so. What if there were alternatives? Why have only one lens?
If you can see your path laid out in front of you step by step, you know it’s not your path. Your own path you make with every step you take. That’s why it’s your path.
Joseph Campbell
This is why I appreciate the lens with which the Givens see their Mormon faith, and why I especially appreciate that they are sharing it. I see many who discount the Givens as peddling a Mormonism different than the official narrative. Indeed, that is so, but why is that a problem? Like the literalist, conservative leaders who declare one “true” lens, those who complain about the Givens are also caught in the single lens paradigm, only, rather than accepting the lens, they toss it out.
What if, rather than setting up this dichotomy, other perspectives were seen as valid? What if we were allowed to explore varying perspectives of our Mormon faith – some seeing, for example, Joseph Smith according to the traditional narrative, while others rejecting a lot of what Joseph taught, but holding on to his teachings that taste sweet to their soul? Elder Ballard, in a recent BYU devotional address, may have opened the door to such a spiritual marketplace:
As we begin to consider some of your questions, it’s important to remember I am a general authority, but that doesn’t make me an authority in general. My calling and life’s experiences allow me to respond to certain types of questions. There are other types of questions that require an expert in the specific subject matter. This is exactly what I do when I need an answer to such questions. I seek others including those with degrees and expertise in such fields.
I worry sometimes that members expect too much from Church leaders and teachers, expecting them to be experts in subjects well beyond their duties and responsibilities. The Lord called the apostles and prophets to invite others to come unto Christ, not to obtain advanced degrees in ancient history, biblical studies, and other fields that may be useful in answering all the questions we may have about scriptures, history, and about the Church. Our primary duty is to build up the church, teach the doctrine of Christ, and help those in need of our help.
Fortunately, the Lord provided this counsel for those asking questions: “Seek ye diligently[,]… teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” (D&C 88:118) If you have a question that requires an expert please take the time to find a thoughtful qualified expert to help you. There are many on this campus and elsewhere who have the degrees and expertise to respond and give some insight to most of these types of questions.
I really appreciate that Elder Ballard seems to be walking back the “one true lens” type of thinking. We need not rely solely upon our leaders to interpret the Mormon faith for us. The Mormon faith has for too long been dominated by one particular perspective – one “true lens” with which to view our spiritual heritage. However, if the religion is to remain vibrant and compelling into the future, dogmatic adherence to one particular perspective, given to us by our leaders, must come to an end. Those on both sides who deride the Givens’ work are limiting themselves to a Mormonism consisting of that one lens. It need not be so. Instead, we should explore our faith through our own lens. Doing so requires persuasion, patience, and love for each other and, again, the Givens are showing a great example in doing so. They have not declared their perspective as the one true lens through which all must view the Mormon faith. Instead, they have sought to persuade others and offer their perspective as an aid to others. Some may utilize aspects of the Givens’ perspective while others may not, but each person should have the freedom to develop a faith and lens that fits their unique gifts and life. As these varying perspectives come together, a vibrant community can develop – a community capable of supporting and strengthening those of varying faith, whether they be Bruce R. McConkie Mormons, literalists, or liberals.
I’ll close with one of my favorite quotes along these lines. It comes from a Sunstone essay authored by Lavina Fielding Anderson titled, “In the Garden God Hath Planted: Explorations Toward a Maturing Faith”:
God doesn’t plant lawns. He plants meadows. But we belong to a church that, currently, values lawns–their sameness, their conformity, the ease with which they can all be cut to the same height, watered on schedule, and replaced by new turf if necessary. (And against which it is easy to spot dandelions.) All organizations are limited in their ability to handle diversity, but our church seems particularly limited right now in it’s ability to cherish and nurture individuals as individuals–as wild geraniums, catnip, western coneflowers, or yarrow–not as identical blades of grass in a uniformly green lawn…Patience is hard, but I plan to still be here when the Church stops experimenting with lawns and refocuses on the garden which the Lord hath planted.
I believe Fiona and Terryl Givens are working at being gardeners in God’s meadow. They provide a message that gives room for varying types of faith to flourish, and I appreciate their work. To force the false dichotomy of the old narrative upon them is to ignore the sprouting of a variety of faiths in the meadow. Rather than deride their work, we should grab some fertilizer and join them.
Wheat & Tares 
Beautifully done, Cody. My sincere compliments. Long, slow, deliberate clapping!!
This is a great post, Cody. I love the lawn vs. nature analogy. I’ve also thought that this idea can be expressed as processed food vs. raw/real food. Processed food is uniform and “safe” but it has lost much of its nutritional value.
I also like to think of the “God of the of the Wilderness” or of mountain tops, the God who appears in nature and in “dangerous” places. Sometimes we need to believe in this kind of God when religion becomes too “canned”. I think Stephen tried to capture this idea in Acts 7 when he said, “However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands”.
Well done. I love the lens analogy because realizing what seeing through a glass darkly actually means was so important to reshaping my own faith (especially when you consider that they didn’t have flat glass back in Paul’s day; glass was for vases).
Interesting. I have long thought that the Mormonism that the Givens taught had much to recommend it but it in many particulars was not the Mormonism espoused by the Correlation Committe or the “ Brethern”. Indeed in my neck of the woods people have been warned against espousing out loud the very things the Givens are heard to say in Church sponsored firesides. Indeed more than one of my friends has been excommunicated for such heretical beliefs. Proving I suppose the truth of the theory of “leadership roulette “. And the importance of status.My old advisor Richard Bushman can say things like the traditional narrative is largely wrong and should be replaced by a more accurate reading of our history and people applaud. I said that once and was almost ridden out of gospel doctrine on a rail. None the less since Mormonism should embrace all truth where ever it is found we are all well served to hear what the Givens have to say and then do our duty to determine its truth via the Spirit.
“Like the literalist, conservative leaders who declare one ‘true’ lens, those who complain about the Givens are also caught in the single lens paradigm.”
C’mon. This argument is beyond intellectually lazy, it’s a zombie meme that’s been stalking disaffected Mormons since the Arrington era.
Yet another opportunity to wonder out loud if folks are aware of the provenance of this zombie meme… it’s no coincidence that it emerges around the same time that institutionally-approved Mormon history begins exhibiting something like rigor and honesty.
In other words, the moment “nuance” becomes fashionable inside Mormon history, Mormonism’s perpetual boundary maintenance machine begins casting the exmormon position as anti-nuance.
I’m suggesting you’d be hard-pressed to find that argument prior to the Arrington era, because it was unneeded. Dissenters from the nuance-free dominant narrative were simply marked as morally deficient. Post Arrington, we begin to get tagged as intellectually deficient. And that zombie meme has been stalking us for 45 years now.
I enjoyed this. Thank you.
I think I am in the camp that feels like the Givens message is not the Mormonism I grew up with. I am not angry about that. I am glad that others find it useful. It just doesn’t resonate with me when I think of how to go to church each Sunday and try and hold to what they profess. To me it would feel like a double life.
I do like how you frame this as “another lens”. I like that analogy.
I will need to hear many more pronouncements from leaders in many more venues before I think any sea change is occurring (especially when Ballard himself somewhat claims that he can answer a young man’s questions in the talk http://www.mormonstories.org/m-russell-ballard-regional-broadcast-9-11-2016/). I don’t feel that the leaders really want us “talking to people to get questions answered.” Should I ask Denver Snuffer, or Rock Waterman? OK – I guess not them since they are excommunicated. But what about Mike Stroud?
It feels to me more like Elder Ballard is saying, “stop bugging me to answer those historical questions.” As I think I have mentioned before, I have had hundreds of lessons and talks over my lifetime to “stay with the ‘correlated’ materials only or you are placing your soul at tremendous risk.”
There has been a thread, I’ll call it the Joseph Smith, BH Roberts, Talmadge, Nibley thread that Givens fit into. Very much my church.
There has also been the contrary thread.
But I always remember that the church finance Talmadge giving pro Evolution lectures to make the point that both positions were acceptable.
Or Elder “ I’m a Democrat “ Faust doing presentations that you could be LDS and a Democrat.
Err “financed”. Another cell phone typo.
Happy Hubby, I think you grew up with a Mormonism as seen through one lens. It hasn’t always been so. Prior to correlation there were varying doctrinal disagreements, many of them public, but correlation wiped that out in favor of a particular perspective and then applied that perspective all the way back to Adam, as if there was one, continual narrative from the dawn of time. That narrative is untenable, but unfortunately for all of us, it was the only thing taught. We were all given one lens with which to view Mormonism: the lens of specific leaders in the Church.
If we set that lens aside and create our own lens, I think we can see things in a way that makes for a durable Mormonism in your life. It won’t look like the Mormonism as seen through the Lens of Correlation, but it is nevertheless “true” to you, for it is shaped by both you and God (I believe this is alluded to in D&C 1:20,24, where all are described as servants and that God speaks to us according to our own understanding). Indeed, as you state, such a change in perspective will not always be popular with those using the old lens, but that situation can change and I see the Givens as working to implement such a change.
chinoblanco, I’m not trying to do boundary maintenance. I think my posts speak to my distaste for such activity.
I’m also not specifically calling out ex-Mormons or dissenters in my critique; however, some of them, just as some believers, can get caught up in forcing one particular model/perspective on all members of the LDS Church. That is what I reject.
The LDS Church pitched a particular narrative born from the perspective of a tiny fraction of the membership. It reflected their interpretation of scripture, their interpretation of Joseph Smith’s teachings, their politics, their background, etc. Many of them held influential leadership positions and pushed their perspective on the rest of us, labeling it “official”. Since we know their model is not viable (does not fit the data), we can search for alternative models. Some say an alternative, viable model cannot be fit to the data. Those folks dissent and frequently leave, which is a viable option, in my view. Others, such as the Givens, come up with different models that fit their unique perspective. I enjoy this marketplace of models, so to speak, and think it is a breath of fresh air compared to the one-model-fits-all of the past.
No doubt the alternative models, including that of the Givens, are rarely welcome at church meetings on Sundays, but I think as more people see the flaws in the previous model, they will begin to hypothesize alternatives. The Givens are helping to create an environment where such models can be seriously considered. I welcome that diversity.
I also understand that many will conclude the best fitting model is one which says the Church is built on lies and is not worth participating in. That’s a fair assessment, I think, and I think that model contributes to the diversity of models. Someone isn’t intellectually deficient for accepting that model. They weigh evidence differently than others do.
What I’m trying to say is that the Givens are working to make viable a third model (as opposed to the traditional and ex-Mormon models). I don’t think they are being intellectually dishonest in doing so but are fitting the data to a model that, to them, accounts for the evidence they have gathered. I appreciate their attempt to bring diversity to the community.
There was a time when the Church finances efforts to provide alternative perspectives—like when Talmadge was funded on a pro-evolution lecture series. That was intended to make the point that both sides of the debate were within the mainstream.
The amount of effort to do that ebbs and flows.
But it is a feature of historical Mormonism.
Indeed it was, Stephen. Thanks for pointing that out. I wish it had always been so. I think what we are seeing is a resurgence of that heritage and, hopefully, a reduction in Correlation, but I remain skeptical.