On Interpreter - Boyce claims errors from Givens, Mason, Hardy

[stemelbow]

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-lengthening-shadow-is-quality-of-thought-deteriorating-in-lds-scholarly-discourse-regarding-prophets-and-revelation-part-one/

I caught this piece over this past weekend.  It is, at least for me, a frustrating read.  It is a part 1 of 3 parts it looks like.  And it severely misses the boat, if you ask me.  I welcome thoughts. 

Here are some of mine.  I didn't get very far into it when I noticed my eyes glazing over.  It took a few reads before I started to pay attention.  Here's why:

The author, Duane Boyce, get's after Givens, initially for making a significant error.  It was hard to take seriously after this first attempt at exposing error.  Let's consider:

Quote

To begin, consider a single paragraph by Terryl Givens.⁵ In it he desires to show that we should not expect moral superiority from men called as prophets — they are not “infallible specimens of virtue and perfection.” As partial support for the obviousness of this claim, Givens draws attention to the Lord’s statement to the infant Church, regarding Joseph Smith, that “thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments” and that “his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” (D&C 21:4–5). Givens quotes only the phrase “in [Page 5]all patience and faith” in this passage, however, remarking that “God would not have enjoined us to hear what prophets, seers, and revelators have to say ‘in all patience and faith’ if their words were always sage and inspired.”⁶ Givens thus interprets this passage to indicate that we are to have patience and faith toward the Brethren since they are not always “sage and inspired.”

I'm not sure it matters what the passage says, per se, or how Givens had decided to use it.  His point seems worth considering, no?  it doesn't feel like his point is given much thought by the author of this Interpreter piece.  Here is the whole of the two versus:

Quote

Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

So here we are, we need to give heed to the words that come from the Lord through His servants.  This does not suggest all words we receive from the apostles and prophets are his words, though.  I read an element, perhaps like Givens, of us needing to be patience and faithful when words come to us, as we work through what are His words, and what are not necessarily his words.  It may in some measure be contravening the scripture to apply, but let's not pretend that Boyce's argued use is not either.  This is specific about Joseph Smith relating God's words.  This is not alluding to apostles and prophets in general, as Boyce would have it.  In the end, Boyce's argument really suffers, as I see it.

Says Boyce:

Quote

Unfortunately, the interpretation Givens and Mason offer of this verse is untenable. After all, immediately prior to telling us to receive prophets’ word in patience and faith,⁹ the Lord tells us to receive that word “as if from mine own mouth.” But this creates an obvious problem. If the Lord is telling us to receive prophets’ words as if from his own mouth, it is not likely that he is simultaneously telling us to have patience and faith because those words might not be “sage and inspired.” Such an interpretation reduces to the claim that the Saints should recognize that the Lord’s own words are not always sage and inspired and therefore that members should be patient with him. This absurdity is not what Givens and Mason intend, but it is what their interpretation of the verse logically entails.

His view demands that all words given us from apostles and prophets are God's words.  Since Joseph first addressed this issue to today, we've seemingly accepted that not all words from Joseph were from God.  No one, it seems to me treat all words from all prophets and apostles that have spoken since the time of Joseph Smith as sage and inspired, yet we have Boyce seemingly wanting to argue against the notion that we should not accept willy nilly all words as being sage and inspired. 

My couple of greats grandpa was known to have said this:

Quote

President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when ‘Thus saith the Lord,' comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.”

- Apostle Charles W. Penrose, Millennial Star, v. 54, p. 191
 

Let's consider a bit more:

Quote

Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley (1910 - ):

“Q: And this belief in contemporary revelation and prophecy? As the prophet, tell us how that works. How do you receive divine revelation? What does it feel like?
A: [Gordon B. Hinckley] Let me say first that we have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don't need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we've already received. Now, if a problem should arise on which we don't have an answer, we pray about it, we may fast about it, and it comes. Quietly. Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind. I liken it to Elijah's experience. When he sought the Lord, there was a great wind, and the Lord was not in the wind. And there was an earthquake, and the Lord was not in the earthquake. And a fire, and the Lord was not in the fire. But in a still, small voice. Now that's the way it works.”

- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday Interview, April 13, 1997, by Don Lattin
 

I think we are speaking of two different kinds of revelation quite often.  Boyce argues that the revelation that comes when considering someone for a position is the same type of revelation that Hinckley means when he suggests, "we don't need much revelation".  When Mason suggests the Lord "intervenes occasionally" in guiding the Church, he was agreeing with Hinckley, or rather, rephrasing Hinckley.  When Boyce argues against Mason's view he alludes to phrases here and there, or stories here or there (Kimball's been gone for over 30 years and Harold B. Lee and Hugh B Brown have been gone for over 40 years), and then claims Mason is wrong.  I'm not sold.  I find that cherry picking consideration to be the very problem he wishes to fight against--deterioration of thought. 

After making the point about leaders having continual revelation he goes on to contradict his view in the next section.  I'm not sure this is a well argued point on his part, and that he's trying to critique another seems problematic. 
He concludes:

Quote

Elder Dallin H. Oaks remarked (regarding the experience of all members) that “we are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit. That is part of the experience we must have in mortality.” Thus, he said, “revelations from God … are not constant. We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation.”

Quote

The scriptural record thus supports what would seem to be common sense: some issues matter a great deal, some matter to a small extent, and, comparatively speaking, some matter very little if at all, and the Lord exercises direction and control commensurate with such varying degrees of importance. Surely this reality explains why President J. Reuben Clark could remark that “we are not infallible in our judgment, and we err,”⁵⁷ while President Gordon B. Hinckley could say that “the Lord is directing this work, and He won’t let me or anyone else lead it astray”⁵⁸ (and President Uchtdorf could similarly say that “God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course”⁵⁹). The difference in such [Page 15]statements would seem to stem naturally from a difference in the issues each has in mind and in their relative importance.⁶

Earlier he quoted James E. Faust as saying:

Quote

First Presidency, President James E. Faust said, “I can testify that the process of continuous revelation comes to the Church [Page 10]very frequently. It comes daily.”²⁸ Speaking similarly, President Howard W. Hunter said that “there is an unending stream of revelation flowing constantly from the headwaters of heaven to God’s anointed servants on earth.”²⁹

I'll await comment before adding my thoughts on the temple restriction area of his piece.  But all are welcome to comment on whatever portion of this he/she likes.

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

Jeff Lindsay:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2017/07/an-unnecessary-attack-on-faithful-lds.html

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'll await comment before adding my thoughts on the temple restriction area of his piece.  But all are welcome to comment on whatever portion of this he/she likes.

I read a summary about the article, and I'm not going to read the interpreter piece by Boyce.  This is a more conservative apologist complaining about the more progressive apologists pushing the envelope too far.  This sounds to me very similar to the old guard complaining about the changes at Maxwell Institute.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Jeff Lindsay:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2017/07/an-unnecessary-attack-on-faithful-lds.html

Wow, Lindsay, what I consider a conservative apologist himself, is even calling for a more moderate approach.  This also says something about the article.  

[juliann]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Wow, Lindsay, what I consider a conservative apologist himself, is even calling for a more moderate approach.  This also says something about the article.  

Perhaps it says more about those labels   Polemics and apologetics are often confused. I would consider this piece to be polemics, just as Hancock's attack on "young LDS scholars" was.  I think it is a fair guess that "conservatives" dislike polemical approaches as much as "progressives" do. As for the "old guard" (another confusing label,) they are so few their contributions can, and should be, addressed by name.  As distasteful as this article is, I have to give him credit for naming his targets rather than smearing a fuzzy group label. 

[mfbukowski]

Supporting the words of prophets with other words of prophets is a circular argument.  It is like saying the Bible is true because the Bible tells us it is true.

Every principle is to be verified by our own testimonies. I personally believe that we must not follow anyone blindly but to test each principle.

Edited July 25, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

Perhaps it says more about those labels   Polemics and apologetics are often confused. I would consider this piece to be polemics, just as Hancock's attack on "young LDS scholars" was.  I think it is a fair guess that "conservatives" dislike polemical approaches as much as "progressives" do. As for the "old guard" (another confusing label,) they are so few their contributions can, and should be, addressed by name.  As distasteful as this article is, I have to give him credit for naming his targets rather than smearing a fuzzy group label. 

Whether we characterize this phenomenon as conservative iron rods versus progressive liahonas, this sort of debate will go on endlessly into the future, even into the Millennium and after.  "There is nothing new under the sun."

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Perhaps it says more about those labels   Polemics and apologetics are often confused. I would consider this piece to be polemics, just as Hancock's attack on "young LDS scholars" was.  I think it is a fair guess that "conservatives" dislike polemical approaches as much as "progressives" do. As for the "old guard" (another confusing label,) they are so few their contributions can, and should be, addressed by name.  As distasteful as this article is, I have to give him credit for naming his targets rather than smearing a fuzzy group label. 

Good points and clarification on terms.  I agree with you that at least he's engaging with them by name, and I assume from the summary I read that he is also avoiding Ad Hominem attacks.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Wow, Lindsay, what I consider a conservative apologist himself, is even calling for a more moderate approach.  This also says something about the article.  

I've not read it all. It's really, really long and I think gets into the weeds far too much which undermines the case they are trying to make. (Because few will read it) There's also a strong argument that he's not particularly reading charitably. I think there is a bit of a case to be made along those lines, albeit in a much narrower sense. 

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I've not read it all. It's really, really long and I think gets into the weeds far too much which undermines the case they are trying to make. (Because few will read it) There's also a strong argument that he's not particularly reading charitably. I think there is a bit of a case to be made along those lines, albeit in a much narrower sense. 

If people on this board aren't even willing to read the article, then I wonder who his audience is.  Maybe other Interpreter authors?  

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If people on this board aren't even willing to read the article, then I wonder who his audience is.  Maybe other Interpreter authors?  

My impression (again just going by past articles he's written along with the bits of this paper I've read) is that he favors a more traditional theology ala McConkie and dislikes people making things more complex. He also advocates a more straightforward treatment of scripture -- i.e. take it at face value as accurate in the details of history rather than assuming it's written by flawed humans.

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I've not read it all. It's really, really long and I think gets into the weeds far too much which undermines the case they are trying to make. (Because few will read it) There's also a strong argument that he's not particularly reading charitably. I think there is a bit of a case to be made along those lines, albeit in a much narrower sense. 

And 3 installments of this all based on the same assumptions? 

[hope_for_things]

49 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

My impression (again just going by past articles he's written along with the bits of this paper I've read) is that he favors a more traditional theology ala McConkie and dislikes people making things more complex. He also advocates a more straightforward treatment of scripture -- i.e. take it at face value as accurate in the details of history rather than assuming it's written by flawed humans.

I'm not a regular reader of the Interpreter, but it seems like this kind of an article would be more appropriate for a different publication.  Theologically it sounds like he fits within the mainstream orthodox more simplistic interpretations, but since he's trying to employ more rigorous analysis and engage with very knowledgeable and well read scholars like Givens and Mason, I'm thinking he's got to be out of his league with respect to how he's interpreting their positions.  

As a contrast, the articles you've been writing about Adam Miller's Future Mormon are engaging with the material and show a good understanding of it.  (Personally, I like Adam Miller a lot, but much of the philosophy stuff is over my head, so I haven't read all your recent articles, but I did read one of them.)

Ultimately, there maybe an audience for his approach, but I agree with you that it seems very narrow.  

[hope_for_things]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And 3 installments of this all based on the same assumptions? 

Disney has direct to home video for their lower quality cartoon sequels.  Maybe parts 2 and 3 can be upon request and for email distribution only.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not a regular reader of the Interpreter, but it seems like this kind of an article would be more appropriate for a different publication.  Theologically it sounds like he fits within the mainstream orthodox more simplistic interpretations, but since he's trying to employ more rigorous analysis and engage with very knowledgeable and well read scholars like Givens and Mason, I'm thinking he's got to be out of his league with respect to how he's interpreting their positions.  

I'm not sure that's true. He is a smart guy. He went to Harvard, got a PhD in psychology and apparently has studied a fair bit of philosophy. I'm not sure it's so much simplistic interpretations so much as he's part of the group who thinks some have gone theologically too far liberally. Often they see that as an undue focus on failure rather than success. You see that in his treatment of the Sherem story but also here in the critique of Givens and so forth. I think the main problem is that he just isn't reading charitably enough. That is it comes off at times as shrill polemic that doesn't consider context enough. That might be a tad too unfair to him, but that's the sense I have.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And 3 installments of this all based on the same assumptions? 

I hope not. On the one hand I think debate within the various groups is healthy. On the other hand I think it has to be done with close readings and charitable readings. Yet at the same time I'm somewhat sympathetic to there being views among what I'd term the more theologically liberal that are somewhat problematic. So put me in the camp of thinking something like this needs to be done to keep the movements healthy. I just don't think this is a particularly good example of what needs done. We need apologetics with polemic.

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I've not read it all. It's really, really long and I think gets into the weeds far too much which undermines the case they are trying to make. (Because few will read it) There's also a strong argument that he's not particularly reading charitably. I think there is a bit of a case to be made along those lines, albeit in a much narrower sense. 

I think the issue here is that its much worse than he is not reading them charitably, which is also a fair charge.  His argument about revelation and the amount of revelation given is not very useful or tenable, it seems to me. 

[stemelbow]

Here's more of the article that I find untenable:

Quote

Did the Lord Have to Wait on His Prophets?

It is also relevant to note this remark by Mason:

Some assume that for many decades prophets had patiently waited on God to reveal if and when the policy should change. [Page 22]Based on Kimball’s self-assessment, perhaps it was the case that God was patiently waiting on his prophets.⁸¹

The hypothesis Mason floats here overlooks significant evidence. For one thing, in addition to being radically mistaken about “Kimball’s self-assessment,” it overlooks President Kimball’s own report that “his predecessors had sought the Lord’s will concerning the priesthood policy, and for whatever reason ‘the time had not yet come.’”⁸² Since President Kimball had himself worked intimately with five of these predecessors over his decades in the Twelve, he can be considered a reliable source. Mason’s comment also overlooks Leonard Arrington’s report regarding President Lee’s fasting and prayer on the topic.⁸³ In suggesting that prophets were casual about the subject of the priesthood temple restriction, it would seem that Mason should acknowledge and address such reports — particularly President Kimball’s own.⁸⁴

I think he's severely misreading Mason now.  Mason did not say that Kimball's assessment of hisself was that God had to wait on Him.  Mason says, "perhaps it was the case..." that God had to wait on the prophets. 

Again misread mason:

Quote

Mason reports the following: “Kimball had to struggle and fight — mostly, he admitted, against himself, and against the prejudices [presumably, the racist sentiments] natural to a white man born in America in 1895.”⁷⁸

But notice what President Kimball actually said on this matter:

I had a great deal to fight … myself, largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go all the rest of my life until my death and fight for it and defend it as it was.

And:

I have always prided myself on being about as unprejudiced as to race as any man. I think my work with the minorities would prove that, but I am so completely convinced that the prophets know what they are doing and the Lord knows what he is doing, that I am willing to rest it there.⁷⁹

So President Kimball “admitted” nothing like Mason reports. Instead, he stated the exact opposite — that he was actually free of the prejudice Mason attributes to him and that what he had to “fight” was simply the psychological momentum created by his defense of the restriction over a lifetime.

Mason did not say Kimball himself thought he had prejudices natural to a white man.  He simply misread Mason and then attacked, based on his idea that Mason misread. 

Quote

At the time Elder Kimball wrote this letter (1963) the priesthood-temple restriction had long been in place, and yet there was no universally accepted explanation for the restriction. As will be discussed later, the Lord regularly gives instructions without [Page 19]explanations, and that often leaves all members (including leaders) on their own in trying to understand what the reasons might be in one case or another.

I'd say he's being too selective.  In 1949 the First Presidency authored a statement on Race.  It certainly describes an explanation for the ban.  from the 1949 statement:

Quote

The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle.

They don't seem to be saying what Boyce is saying.  There were universally accept explanations. 

Quote

It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

 

[clarkgoble]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think the issue here is that its much worse than he is not reading them charitably, which is also a fair charge.  His argument about revelation and the amount of revelation given is not very useful or tenable, it seems to me. 

I've just not read enough to have a strong opinion. I've been halfway thinking of writing a post on it if I can find the time.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Jeff Lindsay:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2017/07/an-unnecessary-attack-on-faithful-lds.html

Bravo, Jeff.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure that's true. He is a smart guy. He went to Harvard, got a PhD in psychology and apparently has studied a fair bit of philosophy. I'm not sure it's so much simplistic interpretations so much as he's part of the group who thinks some have gone theologically too far liberally. Often they see that as an undue focus on failure rather than success. You see that in his treatment of the Sherem story but also here in the critique of Givens and so forth. I think the main problem is that he just isn't reading charitably enough. That is it comes off at times as shrill polemic that doesn't consider context enough. That might be a tad too unfair to him, but that's the sense I have.

What Clark says... (out of points plus I can pretend I would have said something as intelligent).

[strappinglad]

I think we can all agree that when the Prophet and/or apostles speak in such a way as to agree with our thinking , then they are inspired, but when they speak about things that we disagree with , they are woefully human.

I am sliding out on a limb here , but I will estimate that the Vast majority of what we have been told by modern leaders is to :

1. pray regularly

2. read the scriptures regularly

3. obey the commandments ... regularly

4. seek the Spirit regularly.

Are most doing those things now? No? Well expect more of the same. As for the other few %age points , when you are fully fulfilling the main 4 , feel free to disagree/ criticize .

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If people on this board aren't even willing to read the article, then I wonder who his audience is.  Maybe other Interpreter authors?  

Who says "people on this board aren't willing to read it"? I'm on this board, and I look forward to reading it. In fact stemelbow's disapprobation amounts to a high recommendation in my eyes.  

I will say that I quite like the excerpts quoted on this thread, the ones stemelbow says are so "untenable."

I very much agree, for example, that Mason misinterpreted President Kimball's words. Boyce's interpretation coincides with my own as I have read that quote from President Kimball on multiple occasions over the past 39 years. 

In view of President Kimball's account of spending many hours in the upper room of the temple petitioning the Lord, it is patently absurd to suggest that the Lord was "waiting on His prophets."

Edited July 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Bobbieaware]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If people on this board aren't even willing to read the article, then I wonder who his audience is.  Maybe other Interpreter authors?  

I've read the entire article and agree with the author. He did a great job. 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Who says "people on this board aren't willing to read it"? I'm on this board, and I look forward to reading it. In fact stemelbow's disapprobation amounts to a high recommendation in my eyes.  

I will say that I quite like the excerpts quoted on this thread, the ones stemelbow says are so "untenable."

I very much agree, for example, that Mason misinterpreted President Kimball's words and that Boyce's interpretation coincides with my own as I have read that quote from President Kimball on multiple occasions over the past 39 years. 

In view of President Kimball's account of spending many hours in the upper room of the temple petitioning the Lord, it is patently absurd to suggest that the Lord was "waiting on His prophets."

 

19 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I've read the entire article and agree with the author. He did a great job. 

 

Does this mean you approve equally of the attacks on Givens?