"The Crucible of Doubt: Reflections On the Quest for Faith," by the Givens

[LA Ute]

This is a very interesting book by Terryl and Fiona Givens that will help many people (but is not for everyone):

The Crucible of Doubt: Reflections On the Quest for Faith (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1609079426/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=58297709448&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=4288446438424081295&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_7slx909x5f_b)

It just came out in August and I got a copy for Christmas. The Givens emphasize approach to issues rather than the issues themselves. I think that's much better and the typical apologetic approach of tackling difficult faith issues one by one.

The reviews on the Amazon page are very positive. Here's one that gives a good taste of the book:


This is a pretty thin book, about 170 pages. But don't quibble about page count or even price. This is a book you will re-read.

As a bonus, the book production feels "quality" - nice font, book paper, book design, etc.

The book is full of gems such as this one from page 31:

"We feel unmoored if our religion fails to answer all our questions, if it does not resolve our anxious fears, if it does not tie up all loose ends. We want a script, and we find we stand before a blank canvas. We expect a road map, and we find we have only a compass....

"It is curious in this regard that so many critics attribute to religion a kind of facile wish fulfillment, imaginative fairy-tale scenarios that reduce complexity and mystery to easy answers and glib forms of consolation. As any disciple knows who has lived a life of faith thoughtfully, attuned to the rhythms of humanity's travails, to the demands of mercy and unconditional love, and to the call of patient waiting, religion is not the coward's way out of life's difficulties.

"As Flannery O'Connor wrote, 'Religion costs. They think it is a big electric blanket, when of course it's a cross.'

".... As Elder Holland has said, 'Sadly enough, it is a characteristic of our age, that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much: comfortable, smooth gods.'"

I heard with interest in a recent KUER radio interview the authors said the church leaders asked them to write this book, just as with their earlier book The God Who Weeps.

CONTENTS
Introduction: Paradigms and Premises: On Starting Off on the Wrong Foot
1. Of Methods and Maps: The Use and Abuse of Reason
2. On Provocation and Peace: Of Life's Fundamental Incompleteness
3. Of Sadducees and Sacraments: The Role and Function of the Church
4. Of Canons and Cannons: The Use and Abuse of Scripture
5. On Prophecy and Prophets: The Perils of Hero Worship
6. On Declaration and Discipleship: The Ring of Pharaoh
7. Mormons and Monopolies: Holy Persons "Ye Know Not Of"
8. Spirituality and Self-Sufficiency: Find Your Watering Place
9. The Too-Tender Heart: Rethinking Being "Overcome with Evil"
10. Of Silence and Solitude: "Speak, Lord, For Thy Servant Heareth"
11. To the Godless and Guileless: Belief as Risk
Epilogue: Doubt and Discipleship
Notes
Index

[DrumNFeather]

I've read a little of it and I agree, their approach is one that resonates with me.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I like the Givens' approach as well. Mormonism needs a Reform movement similar to Judaism, where people can openly question and challenge and discuss beliefs.

[Utebiquitous]

Crucible of Doubt is fantastic. Givens' "God Who Weeps" is even better. If you haven't read that LA and others I recommend it.

[LA Ute]

Crucible of Doubt is fantastic. Givens' "God Who Weeps" is even better. If you haven't read that LA and others I recommend it.

I loved "By The Hand of Mormon" and "The God Who Weeps" and agree, 'biq. What appeals to me most about "Weeps" and "Crucible" is that they suggest some alternative ways to think about any faith issue, not just the well-known ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Utebiquitous]

I need to read "By the Hand of Mormon."

Agree with your thoughts. I also loved "The God Who Weeps" because it reintroduces in a very thoughtful way some of our theology that isn't emphasized enough, in my opinion. I particularly love his thoughts on Mormonism's teaching and thinking on the nature of God.

[LA Ute]

Who is it not for? The target audience - Mormons - loves this kind of stuff.

I'm pretty sure his target audience for the books we're talking about is people who are interested in LDS faith struggles, usually because they're experiencing one, know someone who is, or just care about the subject. Most people outside those groups would probably not find his books very interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Here's a little bit of Givens' thinking, with a short summary of his background at the end:

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1904/terryl-l-givens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

I think the population you describe intersects nearly 100% with general LDS membership. That's all I'm saying. I'm sure most Mormons find his stuff to be interesting.

I hope you're right! That would be a good thing, I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Applejack]

I saw the Givens speak some years ago. He is a very interesting guy and I've always enjoyed hearing him talk publicly. I'm sure he is a fascinating lecturer.

I find his writing quite burdensome, however. It just seems to swim.

[DrumNFeather]

I was digging into this book a little bit last night because my EQ lesson this week is on Utchdorf's talk regarding information that we now have that we didn't have before. I'm drawn to this book because of the B.H. Roberts analogy/Dummy Lock.

Forever 1st Counselor LA, do you think bringing up B.H. Roberts in an EQ lesson would draw any ire?

I tend to think it won't, but my lessons are all over the map anyway, so I want to ask someone who has climbed the ladder in the church a little bit. :D

[LA Ute]

I was digging into this book a little bit last night because my EQ lesson this week is on Utchdorf's talk regarding information that we now have that we didn't have before. I'm drawn to this book because of the B.H. Roberts analogy/Dummy Lock.

Forever 1st Counselor LA, do you think bringing up B.H. Roberts in an EQ lesson would draw any ire?

I tend to think it won't, but my lessons are all over the map anyway, so I want to ask someone who has climbed the ladder in the church a little bit. :D

He died a GA in good standing. Yes, many quote him selectively, but I know you can do it right. I think you'd get much more flak if you quoted one of those obscure and odd-sounding Journal of Discourses talks from the 1860s. If you give the lesson while wearing a white shirt you'll have even more credibility.

[DrumNFeather]

He died a GA in good standing. Yes, many quote him selectively, but I know you can do it right. I think you'd get much more flak if you quoted one of those obscure and odd-sounding Journal of Discourses talks from the 1860s. If you give the lesson while wearing a white shirt you'll have even more credibility.

When I was executive secretary, I wore a white shirt once (literally) and the Ward Clerk asked me if all of my other shirts were dirty :)

[SeattleUte]

I'm not interested in this book, but I have a grammar question, as sometimes this kind of thing comes up anytime a family's name ends in s. Is it really "the Givens"? I've seen "the Givens'" (not as a possessive) but that doesn't seem right. My instinct tells me it's "the Givenses".

[Applejack]

I'm not interested in this book, but I have a grammar question, as sometimes this kind of thing comes up anytime a family's name ends in s. Is it really "the Givens"? I've seen "the Givens'" (not as a possessive) but that doesn't seem right. My instinct tells me it's "the Givenses".

Givenses sounds like you mangled the ending. I vote for Givens.

[DrumNFeather]

I'm not interested in this book, but I have a grammar question, as sometimes this kind of thing comes up anytime a family's name ends in s. Is it really "the Givens"? I've seen "the Givens'" (not as a possessive) but that doesn't seem right. My instinct tells me it's "the Givenses".

They are giving a fireside in my stake on the 27th of this month. Come on by, we'll ask them.

[Ma'ake]

Givens apparently went on a tour of the same name, "Crucible of Doubt", with his wife, giving talks to Mormons troubled by others' doubts, the diversity of attacks from so many directions, perception of church leadership hiding historical information, etc.

The number of questions, the breadth of topics, and the complexity in the answers makes it basically impossible for Givens or anyone else who is trying to provide in depth answers in a faith promoting way in one or two hours, so some people came away from these meetings feeling like the issues were very, very lightly addressed, it was more or less a "smooth over session", on the substance of the topics.

Givens said the explosion of information on the Internet has created a substantial issue, that church leaders take it seriously, that there is indeed an awful lot of historical information that really hasn't been analyzed in depth, because the leaders in the past haven't feel that it was important to examine and publicize every aspect of Church history, etc. Apparently an entire floor of the COB contains a lot of historical information they've never really sifted through in great detail... because it hasn't been a priority, in the past.

There is apparently some responses, or rather a much more robust version of church history being developed as a response to the variety of troubling issues. Instead of focusing on the parts of Mormonism that were felt to be important, the new material will be much broader, "the church does not have anything to hide".

IMO, the sheer volume of issues, with solid historical or church references as backup, have given the "antis" an advantage. In a way, there are parallels with Obamacare, because it's really easy to attack it with soundbites from multiple angles, and giving complex answers to complicated issues takes an awful lot of time, and just-in-time education of the audience.

Most people have no interest in an answer that involves educating to provide context.

We live in a time of very short attention spans, where long, complicated explanations lose credibility simply because they're long and complicated. This applies to a lot of areas. How do you explain to fans that a QB who hasn't done well will probably be much better, because the OL play has improved, the RBs are better equipped to pick up blitzes, the WRs will be able to get better separation? "He makes terrible decisions and throws into coverage!"

Anyway, I don't have a testimony of the LDS theology, personally, but I completely relate to and understand the quandry Mormonism faces in responding to diverse, complex topics that have already been painted in a completely different and negative light.

[SeattleUte]

Givens apparently went on a tour of the same name, "Crucible of Doubt", with his wife, giving talks to Mormons troubled by others' doubts, the diversity of attacks from so many directions, perception of church leadership hiding historical information, etc.

The number of questions, the breadth of topics, and the complexity in the answers makes it basically impossible for Givens or anyone else who is trying to provide in depth answers in a faith promoting way in one or two hours, so some people came away from these meetings feeling like the issues were very, very lightly addressed, it was more or less a "smooth over session", on the substance of the topics.

Givens said the explosion of information on the Internet has created a substantial issue, that church leaders take it seriously, that there is indeed an awful lot of historical information that really hasn't been analyzed in depth, because the leaders in the past haven't feel that it was important to examine and publicize every aspect of Church history, etc. Apparently an entire floor of the COB contains a lot of historical information they've never really sifted through in great detail... because it hasn't been a priority, in the past.

There is apparently some responses, or rather a much more robust version of church history being developed as a response to the variety of troubling issues. Instead of focusing on the parts of Mormonism that were felt to be important, the new material will be much broader, "the church does not have anything to hide".

IMO, the sheer volume of issues, with solid historical or church references as backup, have given the "antis" an advantage. In a way, there are parallels with Obamacare, because it's really easy to attack it with soundbites from multiple angles, and giving complex answers to complicated issues takes an awful lot of time, and just-in-time education of the audience.

Most people have no interest in an answer that involves educating to provide context.

We live in a time of very short attention spans, where long, complicated explanations lose credibility simply because they're long and complicated. This applies to a lot of areas. How do you explain to fans that a QB who hasn't done well will probably be much better, because the OL play has improved, the RBs are better equipped to pick up blitzes, the WRs will be able to get better separation? "He makes terrible decisions and throws into coverage!"

Anyway, I don't have a testimony of the LDS theology, personally, but I completely relate to and understand the quandry Mormonism faces in responding to diverse, complex topics that have already been painted in a completely different and negative light.

I disagree. This is not complicated at all.

[Scratch]

I'm not interested in this book, but I have a grammar question, as sometimes this kind of thing comes up anytime a family's name ends in s. Is it really "the Givens"? I've seen "the Givens'" (not as a possessive) but that doesn't seem right. My instinct tells me it's "the Givenses".

You're right, it's the "Givenses." Although I must say that I'm enormously disappointed in your period placement. Possessive singular would be "Givens's," and possessive plural would be "Givenses'."

[SeattleUte]

You're right, it's the "Givenses." Although I must say that I'm enormously disappointed in your period placement. Possessive singular would be "Givens's," and possessive plural would be "Givenses'."

I'm glad a Yaley agrees with me. But you must mean apostrophe not period placement. I was just copying down what I've seen on Internet sites, but of course this is a running debate especially among grammarians and s' not s's for possessive singular is especially defensible where the setting is ancient (this thread probably doesn't qualify).

[concerned]

I'm glad a Yaley agrees with me. But you must mean apostrophe not period placement. I was just copying down what I've seen on Internet sites, but of course this is a running debate especially among grammarians and s' not s's for possessive singular is especially defensible where the setting is ancient (this thread probably doesn't qualify).

Its Yalie you ignorant bastard.

[SeattleUte]

Its Yalie you ignorant bastard.

lol

[Scratch]

I'm glad a Yaley agrees with me. But you must mean apostrophe not period placement. I was just copying down what I've seen on Internet sites, but of course this is a running debate especially among grammarians and s' not s's for possessive singular is especially defensible where the setting is ancient (this thread probably doesn't qualify).

No, I meant the period that was placed outside of the quotation marks, I'm with you on the apostrophe on what's considered appropriate, but I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I ever end a non-plural word with just an apostrophe.

[SeattleUte]

No, I meant the period that was placed outside of the quotation marks, I'm with you on the apostrophe on what's considered appropriate, but I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I ever end a non-plural word with just an apostrophe.

Run-on sentence.

[Scratch]

Run-on sentence.

That's an incomplete sentence fragment.

[SeattleUte]

If you want an ebook version of my latest publication, board mail me or email me at John.Neeleman.Author@gmail.com and I'll give one to you (or you can buy one for 99 cents). I dedicated it to some of you! It's a quick and easy read.

http://www.amazon.com/Response-Terry...=John+Neeleman (http://www.amazon.com/Response-Terryl-Fiona-Givenss-Crucible-ebook/dp/B01999RMQC/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449950303&sr=1-3&keywords=John+Neeleman)

[Rocker Ute]

I'm not interested in this book...

And then proceeds to write a 30 page rebuttal to it. What do you write about books you are interested in?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk