Let’s talk about Terryl Givens’ latest booklet, “Faith and Intellect,” part of Deseret Book’s Let’s Talk About series. Like all his books, this one is informative and enjoyable. He writes very good books. His two volumes on LDS theology really ought to be on your shelf. In Faith and Intellect, Givens, a faithful LDS scholar, puts the Church’s best foot forward, but he does acknowledge counterarguments and unwelcome facts, so he stops short of being an apologist. I read most of the book while reclining in my camping chair up in the mountains, so I didn’t take any notes or do any notations. So I can’t really do a review. For that, go read this review. I’m mostly going to talk about what Givens talked about.
So the first question: Are you (or is anyone else) too smart for the Church? The short answer is no. For most churches, education and participation are inversely correlated. More education leads to less participation. Oddly and rather surprisingly, that’s not the case for the LDS Church, where more education leads to more participation. That’s a surprising result. I can think of some alternative explanations for that fact, but it does cast doubt on the idea one often encounters on some sites that if you read a few (or a few dozen) books about LDS history and doctrine you are very likely to think yourself out of the Church. Well, sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesn’t, and it seems less likely to happen to a Mormon than to those in other denominations.
In Chapter 3, “Heart and Mind United,” Givens review the fairly positive track record of official LDS support for education in general, including higher education. In our day, that is most evident in the Church’s flagship university, BYU, and its sister campuses. There is also broad support for those who are inclined to do graduate school, although there seems to be a preference for professional degrees rather than academic PhD’s. And now BYU has a medical school. That should be interesting. Yet there is a strain of anti-intellectualism that one picks up in LDS leadership and in CES. It’s a strange state of affairs to have a Church that is so broadly supportive of education, while at the same time being rather distrustful of scholars and scholarship, particularly in fields that touch on LDS faith claims. Which side of this divide do you come down on?
I was most interested in Chapter 7, “The New Mormon History.” I’m not sure Givens really engaged with the topic (the chapter is only eight pages long). By training he’s a literature guy, not a history guy. He devoted sixteen pages to Chapter 5, “The Stories We Tell.” It’s all about narratives, we’re living inside our own story, and so forth. My sense is that Givens doesn’t really think it’s necessary to get the history right. For him, I think, it’s not the historical facts and how they support a given historical narrative that really matter. Consider this quotation:
The operative questions for Saints are, did Joseph Smith or did he not experience firsthand the unspeakable love of a living God … ? … Does our Restoration faith make God more present to us and to the world? (p. 89)
Now you might say that’s a refreshing way to put the big questions. In most discussions, including most GA talks addressing LDS history, that first sentence would be, “… did Joseph Smith or did he not experience an actual visitation from God the Father and His Son, and later receive keys of authority from heavenly messengers?” Those are historical claims, and deserve serious consideration. The whole point of the New Mormon History (the topic of the chapter, after all) was that serious consideration of LDS history often discloses facts that were not known, or not acknowledged, or even consciously marginalized or ignored, by earlier LDS historians. New facts will require new narratives — and LDS leadership really does not like to have to change its narrative. To put it bluntly: Facts matter. Facts about LDS history matter. That position doesn’t really emerge in the discussion in Chapter 7.
A last topic to touch on comes from Chapter 8, “The Poverty of Secularism.” If you are LDS and thinking of not being LDS anymore, what are the alternatives? A Protestant denomination, Catholicism, a non-Christian religion, secular atheism, scientism? The point of the chapter is that secularism and atheism don’t offer the kind of satisfying and adequate answers that a wandering Mormon seems to be looking for if she doesn’t find it in the LDS Church. You might agree with that claim or you might not. When it comes to the Big Questions, truth has a way of always being just around the corner. Here’s how Givens frames it:
One doesn’t — or shouldn’t — choose a paradigm because it comports with how one wishes the world to be. One chooses a system of belief … because it provides the best explanations for the most questions of greatest concern. In my view, such a master framework should encompass the three matters of greatest value to humans. (p. 95)
He then defines those three matters. (1) “Does it satisfy my yearning for truth and understanding?” (2) “Does it satisfy my yearning for the beautiful?” And (3) “Does it satisfy my yearning for the good?” That’s right out of Plato, where the highest forms come together in the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. I’ve sometimes read wavering Mormons state that if the Church can’t be true, it has to at least be good (to retain any sort of allegiance). To his credit, Givens’ discussion doesn’t end up with the sort of casual dismissal of secularism that you so often hear in General Conference.
In light of that short discussion, What is your worldview or life paradigm or system of belief or master framework? The LDS Church offers a turn-key worldview. So do other churches, to some degree (those with less rigid orthodoxies give adherents more leeway in their personal beliefs). A secular worldview is wide open; there are many secular worldviews. And of course there are some whose view of the world extends no further than making the next car payment and planning where to go on vacation next month.
I think it’s worth plunking down twelve bucks for the book. It will help any reader think about these interesting faith and reason questions that don’t often get a fair discussion in LDS circles.
So here are some questions I threw out earlier in the post:
- In the year 2024, is the Church still pro-education and pro-learning? Or has the anti-intellectual line of thinking displaced the positive view of learning and scholarship the Church (its leaders, its members) once had?
- Is story and narrative the most important concern of the Church and its members, or do historical facts matter more? Keep in mind that evidence for the most relevant questions is often lacking and facts pertaining to such questions are often uncertain.
- Worldviews or systems of belief — does everyone need one? Is it a matter of choice or do you feel compelled to affirm one particular system of belief rather than others? What’s the best non-LDS alternative on the worldview market?
Wheat & Tares 
“In the year 2024, is the Church still pro-education and pro-learning?” Pro-education, yes. Pro-learning, no.
“Is story and narrative the most important concern of the Church and its members, or do historical facts matter more?” They both matter. I’m not sure I could choose one or the other.
“Worldviews or systems of belief — does everyone need one?” Nope. My system of belief is complex. In one regard, the one I regard the most, it in theory aligns still perfectly with Mormonism and Christianity. It is the gospel of kindness, empathy, compassion. But the other side of the coin, the side that current leadership seems to emphasize, puts us at odds as I no longer buy into the whole covenant path schtick and everything it entails (tithing, garments, sad heaven, etc).
I really enjoyed the first book I read by the Givens’ a decade ago but since then the impact has diminished.
I think the “anti-intellectual” bent is largely based in Jacob’s teachings in 2 Nephi 9:28-29:
The Brethren don’t seem to be opposed to intellectuals who try to integrate education and God’s teachings, but they tend to look poorly on those who try to substitute education for studying God’s will. Those are the people who “hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside” that Jacob was condemning.
I don’t necessarily think I’m too smart for church, but church has gotten far too dumb for me.
I thought there was another statistic saying that there was an inverse correlation between the education levels of LDS women and church attendance. Did Givens leave out the fact that educated women often leave the church? It makes perfect sense. Educated men in the church often rise through the leadership ranks. They are respected and their expertise is valued. Educated or professional women are at best awkwardly tolerated or at worst ostracized in the church. Educated professional women make LDS men uncomfortable in church settings where women are supposed to take on a second class role. It’s easier to treat someone as second class when they don’t do paid work or don’t have as many degrees, especially in a male hierarchy based on status.
I know this from firsthand experience. There were some women at church who thought my work was neat and were friendly and curious. There were other women who ignored me because I didn’t have children and others who only conceived of women as mothers.
The men mostly ignored me until my husband would bring up that I worked in tech. Then the men would look at me like I had just teleported right in front of them and I existed for the first time. A few showed sincere interest, but most seemed a little shell shocked and would still never treat me as a peer and talk about work with me. Even my very devout stepmother agrees with me that Mormon men don’t treat women like peers. Having educated or professional women in a ward lays bare the absolute sexism in the church.
I think the church is pro education in secular fields. I think it’s pro indoctrination in terms of not applying intellectual inquiry to doctrine. Whenever scriptural interpretations are challenged or current doctrine analyzed, leaders ignore any contradictions or simply use appeals to authority to trump any disagreement. Take women and the priesthood, there is no doctrinal basis for the ban. So church leaders just say well Jesus didn’t ordain women but God loves his children. There is no serious intellectual engagement or wrestle with contradictory scriptures on this matter. The leaders are not interested in what is true or consistent with the gospel here. They ignore their own scripture they chose to incorporate into the 1978 revelation. All are alike unto God. It’s all cherrypicking and confirmation bias.
A century ago we had scientists among the general authorities (Roberts, Widtsoe, Talmage). At the time I think Mormonism thought of itself as a modern and up-to-date (in addition to “True”) version of Christianity that embraced all truth from all sources (see quotes from Brigham Young and others on this). We then spent the last century getting caught up in various culture war fights (evolution, race, feminism, LGBTQ rights) that didn’t necessarily even originate in the church, but which caused some in the church, including some particular leaders, to take pretty strong anti-intellectual positions. There’s a pretty long track record of the church eventually and quietly abandoning those positions, which is why I’m inclined to say that on balance, the church is still very pro education, within limits. The rub is always between whatever anti-intellectual position has been taken by the leadership of the present day, and the consensus of experts (aka “the world”). It gets people in trouble, particularly those with some kind of platform or those working at church universities. It also brands some academic disciplines as more “safe” than others. This is really unfortunate, but it’s also not particularly new. On balance I don’t think we’re in a much different position than back when the first presidency was saying cringeworthy things about evolution and race in the first half of the last century.
On the correlation between education and church activity.
The Mormon church membership consists of a core of believers who either live in Utah or have some sort of connection to Utah, and a periphery. The core consists of multi-generational members who are deeply attached to the church and tight-knit within its system. They attend seminary, go to BYU, marry in the church, have much or all of their family in the church, and are often in an environment of high pressure to achieve. Many of the core members are successful, but owe part of their success to their connections within Mormonism. They are held to high standards and stand to lose a lot (friends, family, spouse, and sometimes even job) if they leave the church. The social shame system of the church has a heavy impact on core Mormons, but not so much on peripheral Mormons. The periphery of the church consists largely of members who are in and out. They are often converts from poor to middle classes. They often don’t have high levels of education. When you crunch/manipulate the numbers by looking at both core and peripheral members, the statistic that you get is that the members who are more educated tend to stay in the church longer. If you looked only at core members and activity rates, we would doubtlessly get a much different picture when it comes to education and activity rates.
So does attachment to the church have to do with education and being intellectual? No. It has everything to do with the fact that the core members come from multi-generation Mormonism which tends to be more wealthy and therefore more educated and the tight-knit social nature of core Mormonism. If education were directly related to driving attachment to the church, what we would expect to see then is the mass appeal of Mormonism to educated classes. But are those joining the church mostly well educated? No. Of course not. Those of us who have served missions can attest to the fact that it is rare to have converts to the church who are well-educated.
Also, the church is unique in that is the only religion whose community acquired its own special territory in the Americas where they started out poor, but were able to acquire wealth and separation from outside influence for quite a while. By the time outside influence began to affect the Mountain West, Mormonism was already established enough to keep its community intact. The wealth of land acquisitions in the Mountain West over decades generated the core of Mormonism as we see it today.
Mormonism is pro-intellectual in most areas. It has embraced secular education for the most part. It abandoned polygamy practice and established a university with a mostly secular curriculum, but that accepts mostly believers as professors and students and heavily enforces belief and practice. But when it comes to areas of history and science that challenge Mormon tradition, the church is extremely anti-intellectual.
One thing that make a difference why smarter people stay in the Mormon church is that it rewards men for education and work success by giving them higher callings. So an educated man is made bishop then stake president and that all makes it harder to leave.
I wish someone who do a study and control for this effect. Say, study women with higher IQs and see if they stay in the church more than women with average IQs. Or just compare men’s education and job success to their church participation and the compare that to women’s. I would suggest it is opposite for women. The higher the education and more job success, the less likely they will stay. This is because the church sidelines women with high education and job success, until they reach the general officer level and then they select the same kind of women as they do men, but that is only a handful of women.
Thanks for the response to the book, Dave B. I’ll have to check it out! I also agree with Chadwick that we are seeing a lot of evidence that education is still very important to the Institution but true learning not so much. I’m hoping this is a cyclical thing and not a true decline (but I’m not holding my breath).
And I agree with Mary and Anna–that would be very interesting to see in a large study. Case-study of one here. Indulge me. I’m highly educated. There are times I feel very isolated at church, knowing how different my views are on–almost everything–from my fellow parishioners. But the things that really matter: these are a community of people who are trying to do good and be good, who know me, love me, and accept me as one of theirs, make it worthwhile for me. They know I vote differently than most of them do, that I take issue with the Church’s positions on many social issues, and they also (some of them, including the immediate past bishop) know that I don’t take the literal view on plenty of the truth-claims.
By Givens’ beautiful and good standards, my local congregation is very rich, even as I feel that my institutional Church is growing poorer all the time. How much truth is taught on a given Sunday in my ward varies, but we have plenty of it in Primary where I’m hanging out these days: you are loved, you must try to love others, Jesus teaches us how to love. All truths that matter deeply to me, but not the ones the Institution seems very interested in lately.
I think I will accept Anna’s astute observation with one caveat: It depends on what type of education the men pursued and their employer. If they work for CES, they are highly esteemed. Finance, law, business and strictly professional degrees count. Degrees in the life sciences (the anti-evolution bias?), history, social sciences, humanities, arts, or the so-called “lesser” professions (nursing, education, etc.) are not as highly valued. In my stake, plumbers and contractors are more respected at church than male nurses or teachers (women’s work?). The only time nurses get a phone call from the stake is if they need a quota of nurses for the next “trek” experience.
“A last topic to touch on comes from Chapter 8, “The Poverty of Secularism.” If you are LDS and thinking of not being LDS anymore, what are the alternatives? A Protestant denomination, Catholicism, a non-Christian religion, secular atheism, scientism? The point of the chapter is that secularism and atheism don’t offer the kind of satisfying and adequate answers that a wandering Mormon seems to be looking for if she doesn’t find it in the LDS Church.”
In other words, “where will you go?” A couple of thoughts, as a secularist myself. First, I used to think that I had to answer to other believers and that I had to justify my questions about Mormonism. Then I realized that believers won’t accept any motion to question or leave the church as justifiable and that it is a fool’s errand to try. Second, I used to feel that I bore the burden of proof, then I realized that it was the church making the extraordinary truth claims and that they bore a very large burden of proof, which they were falling severely short of. What I have found as my many years as a secularist is that many of the answers in Mormonism simply are not good answers. They’re not well evidenced and are illogical. Additionally, many of the questions that Mormonism is providing answers for sometimes just don’t have answers. Where does the universe come from? We may never know and we just have to accept that. Secularism is not a creed. It is a rejection of religious creeds on the basis that the religions often claim to know too much but can’t really back up their claims. Life is full of uncertainties that we just have to accept. Sometimes we can find some answers and sometimes we simply can’t. Making up an answer and pretending its real just seems counterproductive. And that’s what Mormonism is to me. I’m simply not interested in false hope or unyielding belief in a bunch of impossible things. Optimism is good, positive thinking is good, but let’s not get carried away. Faith should be in what is feasible, not in what is unfeasible.
Then there are questions that Mormonism just fails at answering that secularism has done a very good job of answering. Where do Native Americans come from? Mormonism held for decades and decades that Native Americans came from a group of Israelites who migrated from the Middle East to the Americas once in 2200 BC and a couple of other times in 600 BC (Lehi’s party and the Mulekites, who didn’t know about each other). Then scientific inquiry revealed that Native Americans came from migrations from East Asia across a land bridge starting 25,000-16,000 years ago, and tapering off about 8,000 years ago. Are we making new findings about migration? Yes, all the time. Are we 100% about the theories that are there? Some elements of the theories we are 100% but others maybe not so much. Any evidence of ancient Israelites who practice proto-Christianity migrating? Not a shred. Secularist thinking has simply done a much better job than Mormonism at answering that question.
I’m not so hot on the Givenses. They feel very much like apologists to me, and the fact that Fiona was pressured to leave BYU does not sit well with me at all: https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/n8ur2y/byu_did_not_fire_fiona_givens/. Likewise I’m not a fan of things like the Faith Matters conferences. Real scholarship doesn’t start with the premise that it must be true. Instead it follows the evidence dispassionately. I also find the Givenses (particularly Teryl) to have a writing style that just feels too malleable for my taste. I would say esoteric, but that feels like a compliment. YMMV.
Mary: “The men mostly ignored me until my husband would bring up that I worked in tech. Then the men would look at me like I had just teleported right in front of them and I existed for the first time.” I had this exact same experience when we were expats in Singapore. I was an executive at American Express. We used to invite different couples or families over for Sunday dinner to get to know people, and with one couple the husband was just talking to my husband (who was the “trailing” spouse–meaning I was the one on the expat package). When my husband mentioned that my job was our reason for being there, this Mormon dude looked at me as if the housecat had suddenly learned to talk. It was bizarre and insulting all at the same time. I was probably at least 10 years older than he was. I honestly don’t know what some of these men are thinking. Their self-importance is just astonishing. The look on his face just spoke volumes.
I’m not exactly sure what to make of the comment that education causes women to leave and men to stay. I think that there is something to that, but I’ve been in one ward (maybe two if I am generous toward the Singapore experience) that was an exception to that (meaning where the women were mostly as well educated as the men, with careers). It was the first and only time I have truly felt like, as I said at the time, “the mother ship called me home.” Aside from that experience, I have mostly found Mormon women harder to relate to. I once met a young Mormon woman who said “We’re in law school” when she introduced herself, and I went up to her after the meeting. “Wow, OMG, that’s so great that you are both studying law together. Is that how you met? That must be a lot.” She kind of hemmed and hawed for a minute then said, “No, I think you misunderstood. I mean that HE’s in law school, and we’re married, so I’m supporting him.” I vaguely said, “Oh, well, I’m sure that’s hard too. Uhm, good luck with that.” Like WTF kind of weird thing is that to say that “WE” are in law school when you are not in fact in law school? What was I supposed to think? I’m not downplaying the difficulty of being married to someone in law or medical school, but why not just say that? It’s like those military wives who demand to be addressed by their husband’s rank.
So, the gist of what I’m saying is that the Church values some things about education: higher salaries / higher tithing / more prestige. But above that, they value loyalty to the institution. If your education leads you to conclude they are wrong about certain things, they don’t want that. Women having careers is less valued because they will probably have fewer kids and be less available to do free labor for the church. Men having careers is great, especially if it’s got prestige or flexibility built in, because they are too busy to look into dubious truth claims and history.
But yes, in general, the church does seem to be more successful at retaining higher educated members, perhaps due to the BYU tuition subsidies. You often marry someone you meet in college, so this approach has been very successful.
“Like WTF kind of weird thing is that to say that “WE” are in law school when you are not in fact in law school?”
Sort of like couples who say “We’re pregnant” — no, one of you is pregnant.
Hawkgrrrl,
I experienced an exception when I lived in Massachusetts. Those wards had a lot more educated professional women. It was a breath of fresh air, but the overall church teachings and culture was still there. I did really enjoy my time there though.
And yes to the weird insulting reactions of LDS men. The worst was always having male missionaries over for dinner. They would basically ignore my existence until my husband directed the conversation to me. My favorite was when they asked us who our favorite prophet was. I said Deborah, and it completely went over their heads. They talked down to me like I was in primary to explain what they meant by a prophet.
I wish the church simultaneously valued education and intellectual inquiry but at the same time ran the wards like spiritual refuges. I think it’s so sad that church culture has just imported all the male capitalist cultural elements where the same people who have status in the world are the same people who have status at church. That’s not the way it should be.
I always felt sad for the stay-at-home moms I talked to where I could tell they felt inadequate or insecure after learning that I had a career. There was nothing wrong with their life choices, and being a mom is so hard. Instead of being respected by the church and the men, they are treated like their experience isn’t worth anything. It’s insanely hypocritical that motherhood is the highest calling but puts women low the church totem pole. This isn’t to say that women in other demographics don’t have things just as hard. I guess it makes me a little sick all the lip service male leaders give to mothers and then do so little to actually elevate or support them.
On choosing a paradigm – this just doesn’t make sense to me. There is just so much in the world that is good, true, and beautiful, I can’t really wrap my mind around why someone needs to choose a master framework or paradigm in which to place things. Inevitably, you’re missing out, because there’s always something good in humanity that won’t fit right in your paradigm.
I know many people who are much smarter than me that are still fully in, and many that have left. Some personality traits seem to work well both in education and in the church.
Bill: I was once talking to a couple at church who were expecting their first child, and I asked the husband how it was going. He answered, “My fifteen minutes was GREAT. Her five months has been a little hit and miss.”
For 2024…maybe? It HAS been at least 4 years since either my spouse or I have been asked/told (by bishops!) that one or the other of us is in fact too intellectual to be in tune with the spirit/able to understand what the temple means/ etc etc. But between 2006 and 2020 we heard this 7 times in wards around the country sadly. I think it was just that those bishops had honestly never considered the questions we would bring up and that gaslighting was the chosen defense
I have always appreciated the Givenses, but resent the church for having cancelled Fiona from the Maxwell Institute because the church got into a twist about her speaking out on Heavenly Mother.
Is the church pro-education and pro-learning? The church seems to support education in the professional disciplines, including accounting, finance, economics and law. The church likes its professionals who attain positions influence and high earning in banking, private equity, venture capitalism, consulting, government and law. There are tributaries of these disciplines which the church seems to support as long as individuals promote the interests of the church. These areas include the foreign service, intelligence and public policy (i.e. religious freedom).
Over its history, the church has proved to be anti-intellectual. At least the majority of leaders in power have. The Utah Territory under Brigham Young sent many women back east to leading medical schools, and even men to places like the University of Michigan’s law school. However, as soon as the need for physicians was met, and women were granted the right to vote, the church reeled in its women and closed the programs to send women “abroad.” (There are great histories written about this time.)
BH Robert, James Talmage and John Widtsoe represented another era of science and learning in the church, but it didn’t last. Religious educators at Brigham Young Academy sought to style our religious education after the divinity schools at the University of Chicago and UC Berkeley. But J. Ruben Clark effectively killed those efforts. More recently, the BYU college of religion seemed to focus on biblical scholarship with the hirings and promotions of people like Stephen E. Robinson, Roger Keller and Dong Sul Choi. That effort looks to have been killed with the letter that informed faculty that CES educators would be favored to be promoted to religious professors instead of those like Robinson and Keller who held PhDs in ancient scription from Duke University and knew languages like ancient Greek and Aramaic. Now we have (pardon me while I nod off to sleep) people like Hank Smith and the grossly ignorant and ham-handed Brad Wilcox as examples of the church’s “pro-education” and “anti-learning” regiment.
My children were well read, honestly curious, and asked complicated theological questions to their seminary teachers only to be rebuked and told they were wasting their time and instead should focus on preparing for missions. They all went to top 20 universities and today have no interest in Mormonism.
As for the question if not Mormonism then what? My family has found much joy, peace and pleasure in humanism and in studying historical Christianity as explored by biblical scholars. In fact, the more we walk down those paths of learning, the more we see Mormon theology as thin, even trite.
“One doesn’t — or shouldn’t — choose a paradigm because it comports with how one wishes the world to be. One chooses a system of belief … because it provides the best explanations for the most questions of greatest concern.”
I’d take it a step further suggest that many latter-day saints–including myself–choose a system of belief that they believe to be revealed. And then as their understanding of that system deepens they come to see that it does, indeed, provide the best explanations for the most important questions.
It’s interesting to hear complaints about being “Too smart” in the Church, particularly for women, yet, check out the Professional lives of the current Primary and Relief Society General Presidencies. Oops. RS President Camille N. Johnson practiced Law for decades. I was dismayed that one Church member attacked her for being outside the home, in a FB reel, using a video Ezra T. Benson’s talk of mothers staying at home, against her. If you are going to attack her for all she did outside her home, then, you would have to also attack the GA’s that called her for ignoring that! As for me, I don’t care if they call a woman Professional to be RS General President, I figure they have that worked out.
Mary: Along the lines of Deborah, one woman I know on FB & the bloggernacle is a Historical Theologian. She is current working on studying Junia, identified as an apostle in Romans 16:7. The name Junia is appearing as a female name in texts of that era. Some are flipping out at the idea that Junia is female, but this woman is taking the various arguments about Junia being male to task.
I will say that I have not read any of the books by either of the Givens. I have seen/ heard them in various interview situations, which were for me quite off putting, coming across as overly fawning and conciliatory towards the church; apologetics perhaps. But for me it didn’t feel real, or in good faith, skin-crawling actually. And perhaps that is an extreme reaction, and very unfair of me. Who can say. I have also been less than impressed by contributions on T&S. At any rate, it has all left me with no desire to read what they have written.
The church likes to present itself as being in favour of education. But the current crackdowns at BYU would indicate this as less than honest in my view. Rather, it seeks to control and mould education in its own image. It uses it to suit its own purposes, but locks scholars into a straitjacket. That’s my impression anyway.
Thanks for the comments, everyone. A very fine discussion.
I confess the experience of educated and professional women in the Church being rather different than for men was just a blind spot for me when writing the post. Thanks to those who filled that in.
Likewise, there is a geographical difference, I think. And if you live in a college town, your ward might have a few academics.
EJ, it sounds like the blowback you got was for asking tough questions, not for being smart or well educated. Few bishops are really equipped to deal with tough questions.
Hedgehog, I think you would have a different Givens experience if you read the two volumes Terryl did on LDS theology.
Dave B, I assume you’re referring to “A God who Weeps” and suchlike. I read the reviews when they were published, and it really didn’t feel like they were going to do anything for me. It all just felt so disingenuous at best. So no I didn’t read them, which may not be fair, be I just really, really, really cannot bring myself to do so.
”The operative questions for Saints are, did Joseph Smith or did he not experience firsthand the unspeakable love of a living God … ?”
I don’t like that phrasing actually. First of all, unspeakable is a terrible adjective for love that smacks of a distant God whose love is only truly revealed in secrecy. Second, plenty of people have experienced God’s love without claiming a corporeal visitation or special priesthood keys. So no, Brother Givens, that’s not the operative question at all. You’re just dodging the operative question down an alley that feels more fluffy.
Observer, I think you’re right about that 2 Nephi 9 passage encapsulating how the Brethren view education and Learning. I also think it reflects a religiously motivated denial. “To be learned is good as long as you don’t learn the wrong things. To be learned is good unless you disobey your leaders.”
Joseph Smith compared blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to looking at the sun and saying it doesn’t shine. That’s what church leaders do when they refuse to accept the evidence of human evolution or that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century composition that reflects the social values of Joseph Smith’s life and times and nothing resembling pre-Colombian America.
I love “All Things New” by Fiona and Terryl Givens. In this volume they explain original meanings of translations in earlier times and how they were warped by the protestant movement. They share how the restoration brought these meanings closer to the original translations, but then of course, we just went along trying to be like the evangelicals, trying to make our doctrine more like theirs so we can fit in.
I found reading this book to be very healing of some of the toxicity of the prosperity gospel taught at church and the Justice and mercy punishment system that gets applied to the atonement.
They give a full chapter to each toxic word:
Sin, Hell, Salvation, Obedience, Fall, Justice, Repentance, Forgiveness, Atonement, Grace, Worthiness, and Judgement. They also explained the original translations indicate God is plural, They,/Them, make/female.
Regardless of the rejection by you black and white thinking types, this book can do a lot of good with current church members. I don’t see it as apologist, but mind opening. It certainly was for me. It was one of the first steps for me of feeling like I could give myself permission to see the church as different from the faith promoting narrative.
I recommend you give it to all your TBM family members. It will change the way they think and maybe give you a basis for mind changing civil respectful discussions.
Sold at Deseret Book.
a few thoughts
mary, I would have loved it if you’d said, “and others who only conceived of women as conceivers”.
i’m with those who are secularists. Ironic to me that in recent years some GAs have identified secular humanism as the great and abominable church, while lds church leaders use little of that which members sacrifice for in ways Christ taught and modeled.
i’m not too smart for anything. I’m not sure how one becomes too smart. However, I cannot make myself believe in anything supernatural. Too many life experiences.
what I like about biology is that it is not judgmental, or based on worthiness, or a faith test, or can be bargained with.
It is just biology.
Dave B: “if you live in a college town, your ward might have a few academics” This triggered a memory for me since I grew up in a ward where 4 of the men all taught at a local liberal arts college. One of those men was the branch president. Another was the bishop years later (with a beard!). Both were very active Democrats as well as educators. One of the other two professors was director of the Hill Cumorah pageant and a counselor in the branch presidency, but eventually was challenged on the basis of his assumed sexual orientation and never came back (he was in his 50s or 60s when this happened). And the fourth professor, a black man from Guyana, often blessed the sacrament and taught a youth Sunday School class. He was my personal favorite, but it didn’t really occur to me until much later when I was an adult that he was never elevated on par with the others. So education is not an equalizer, as has been pointed out, and this is just another angle on that observation.
I spent a lot of time in my mission memoir on my observation that the ones who got put in leadership were never as good as the ones who were barred from it. There are of course exceptional leaders here and there, but on the whole, once you get on the leader track, the hubris, rationalizing, and compromises required to maintain power are inevitable. It happens in all human organizations, and it is the main thing Jesus railed against in the NT.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Hedgehog, I was referring to Terryl Givens’ two-volume Foundations of Mormon Thought series. First, Wrestling the Angel: Cosmos, God, Humanity (OUP, 2014) and second, Feeding the Flock: Church and Praxis (OUP, 2017). These should have received more attention than they did when they came out.
lws, that sounds like an interesting book. Rooted perhaps in actual facts, rather than trying to nail jelly to the wall. Maybe I will look into it, if I can get past my prejudice of what I term the “slimy slippery CES vibe” I get from the authors. It’s a vibe demonstrated in concentrated form from the likes of Brad Wilcox, but I definitely have a sense of it from the Givens too.
Dave B, I will have to look out some reviews, You’re right that they didn’t get nearly the same publicity on publication.
I really dislike (trying not to say something stronger) Brad Wilcox. His excuses for the church’s actions are blind, racist, sexist, and insulting to other churches. I give him NO credence. Don’t let him talk to your youth or your friends. He can’t even provide up to date policy or doctrine and instead spouts theories the church has distanced itself from.
Fiona and Terryl Givens are NOTHING like him.
On the Givenses, By the Hand of Mormon was OK. It was an attempt to view the Book of Mormon as literature that was written to be palatable to a secular audience. Since then, however, he seems to have grown reliant on the age-old apologetic rhetoric to defend the church, although not as offensive as Dan Peterson and some others. Brad Wilcox and John Bytheway are youth speakers, of course, who don’t write to grown-up, let alone, academic audiences. Yet, they are truly abysmal. Just because you speak to the youth doesn’t mean you have to speak down to them and treat them as if they are stupid. Teenagers have brains and can think critically, even if these brains are not yet fully developed.