Furthermore, what I like about the Givens book is part of what makes it less attractive to a broad readership: It complicates rather than simplifies. And while I think that’s consistent with reality, it “costs” more in terms of effort.

I’m excited that the second volume comes out in the UK in a couple of weeks – I think that’ll give a good balance as it’ll provide a look into the practices of the church and how they emerge out of the doctrine. The doctrine and practices are the two sides of the same coin.

Another difference is that Mormon Doctrine was authored by a General Authority, which gave the book a sort of implicit official approval (despite the fact that behind the scenes the senior leadership had given it an actual stamp of UNapproval, which was never communicated to the general membership). Nothing by Givens or Bushman or any other LDS scholar is going to garner that level of respect among the membership, regardless of how helpful or productive the doctrinal discussion is.

And since no GA presently writes books that seriously discuss LDS doctrine, there is very little mainstream discussion of serious LDS doctrine. It’s like the whole Church curriculum is an extended Gospel Essentials class. Thank you, Correlation.

How long must a Mormon believe each little precept before another precept is added to change the prior precept, and so on?

Revelation is an excuse to keep from being pinned down to anything specific, or a way to “correct” a long held disgusting belief such as allowing blacks to hold the priesthood to avoid adverse public pressure.