Hagoth wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:41 am
moinmoin wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 23, 2020 8:15 am
Hagoth --- when did you experience "Brother Givens' Traveling Salvation Show?" :) Was it around 2014, or much later? If later, than "boo" for Givens, because he clearly knew better.
The ebb and flow of memory makes me dread a police investigator ever asking me "where were you on the night of...? but an internet search places that fireside in September of 2015.
Then he knew better. [Sigh]. I'd like to know what he was basing his opinion that Roberts didn't believe in the LGT on. Just his own impression?
Roberts continued in his letter to Riter, after the part I quoted: "If this be true [LGT], it might allow of other great stretches of the continents to be inhabited by other peoples, with other cultures and languages, which would still further tend to solve the difficulties of the Book of Mormon in regard to the existence of the great diversity of language stocks among the American race" (ibid, 54).
Do you remember if Givens believed (so, probably believes?) that Roberts lost his belief in the Book of Mormon? That would indicate to me that he didn't have much firsthand familiarity at all with Roberts's own explanations about his studies. Was he saying that if Roberts had considered the LGT, it would have answered all his concerns? That's also disappointing, but again, I've never been a fan of Givens, and I don't think he and his wife are actually very helpful (they do try to be, but their approach makes too many concessions I am not willing to make).
While McMurrin and Madsen (whom those who tout Roberts losing his faith rely solely on) rejoice in the points Roberts brings up in the studies, even they recognize that he didn't personally believe the points he brought up. For example (one of many examples), Roberts acknowledges in his studies the chasm between modern geology and anthropology and the timeline of the Book of Mormon, which they pounce on with delight, but then chide Roberts for his "inability to escape the yoke of a sometimes abject biblical literalism [and] traditional patterns of biblical thought that often tie [him] to an outworn and intellectually frustrating scriptural literalism . . . Despite Roberts’ rather high level of historical and theological sophistication, he failed to distinguish effectively history from myth and legend in the biblical writings, accepting literally such accounts as the Garden of Eden and flood stories of Genesis" (ibid, xxviii and xxiv-xxv). In other words, he actually believed the Bible and Book of Mormon stories literally happened within historic times; yet, the studies point to geological and anthropological time frames as being in conflict with the Book of Mormon. It's actually just as astonishing that McMurrin and Madsen cling to his studies as evidence that he lost his faith, as it is that Givens seems ignorant of or simply ignores Roberts's own explanations.
I'm also fascinated that people seem to gloss over his own explanation: " Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report herewith submitted is what it purports to be, namely a ‘study of Book of Mormon origins’ for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro et con, as well as that which has been produced against it, and that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it. While searching for the answers to the questions of Mr. Couch submitted through Mr. William E. Riter, I came in contact with the material here used, and concluded that while the subject was fresh in my mind to make it of record for those who should be its students and know on what ground the Book of Mormon may be questioned, as well as that which supports its authenticity and its truth… I am very sure that you will find the material herewith submitted of intense interest, and it may be of very great importance since it represents what may be used by some opponent in criticism of the Book of Mormon" (letter to Heber J. Grant, ibid, 57-58).