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

[ttribe]

Some notable snippets from the comments section - 

Brant A. Gardner:

Quote

I would hope that we read our fellow Saints’ offerings with more charity than I see in the article, or this response.

As for the named scholars who are “drifting from unquestioned belief,” I am unaware that a faithful Latter-day Saint is required to have an unquestioned belief and faith in anything. On the contrary, if we believe without having questioned (and answered), then we have abdicated our moral agency and negated the heart of God’s plan. Moral agency can be messy, and it leads to different people who express things differently. I will continue to enjoy, and be edified, by Givens’ ideas. If Givens is experiencing a deterioration in the quality of his thought, I hope that I may deteriorate similarly to be able to produce such quality arguments and discussions as he does.

 

Jeff Lindsay:

Quote

Givens here is slammed for just cherry-picking one phrase in his use of D&C 21:4-5 while neglecting the crucial “as if from mine own mouth.” We are told this is the critical error that leads to an egregious blunder, comparable to the hypothetical extreme error of neglecting the bulk of Wittgenstein’s writing while claiming to provide a comprehensive analysis of the author.

But has Boyce adequately and fairly assessed Givens’ thinking on this matter? To be fair in evaluating him, should he not consider what Givens actually means and consider the tiny paragraph Boyce attacks in light of its context and in light of Givens’ related works?

While Boyce is aware of the Crucible of Doubt and cites it from Chapter 6, in that very chapter Givens discusses D&C 21:4-5 in much more details, clearly quoting “as if from mine own mouth” and providing an excellent analysis of what it means in his argument. That analysis based on a solid understanding of the concept of delegation provides a reading that appears consistent with scripture, logically sound, and removes the “absurdity” that Boyce assigns to Given by making “as if” become more like “exactly the same as”, which arguably is a strained reading applied to give an overly harsh result.

In other words, I think the key argument is flawed and unfairly applied. I hope it can be revised, especially in light of Givens’ more detailed discussions on this topic. He’s not an apostate leading the faithful away, from what I can see.

Quote

Below is the passage from Givens in chap. 6 of The Crucible of Doubt that Boyce should have considered to understand what Givens’ means when he suggests that D&C 21:4-5 considers the human aspect of our leaders as delegates for the Lord. The following also refutes the idea that Givens’ position ignores the significance of the phrase “as if from my own mouth”:

Delegation is a sobering, even terrifying gesture on God’s part. To delegate or to deputize, both mean that the person receiving that authority has something like God’s power of attorney; the person’s acts, within circumscribed limits, carry the weight and efficacy of God’s own acts. But surely no human can act with the wisdom, the perfect judgment, the infallibility of God. Precisely so. And if delegation is a real principle — if God really does endow mortals with the authority to act in His place and with His authority, even while He knows they will not act with infallible judgment— then it becomes clearer why God is asking us to receive the words of the prophet “as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.” [Doctrine and Covenants 21:4-5] Indeed, this counsel was part of the very first revelation God gave to the newly organized Church in this dispensation, which should give the warning particular primacy among God’s many counsels. Clearly, the Lord can delegate His authority to a human without any assumption that said human will always exercise that authority in perfect conformity with God’s intentions. From Sunday School teachers to prophets, those with God’s authority to act in His name will, even with the best of intentions and efforts, make mistakes. God has already anticipated the need to overlook His prophets’ human weaknesses; hence His admonition on the day of the Church’s very founding. And so did Joseph himself remind his people: “if they would bear with my infirmities . . . I would likewise bear with their infirmities,” he said.

However, a different question emerges when it is the action, not the person, that is imperfect. If a bishop makes a decision without inspiration, are we bound to sustain the decision? The story is told of a Church official who returned from installing a new stake presidency. “Dad, do you Brethren feel confident when you call a man as the stake president that he is the Lord’s man?” the official’s son asked upon his father’s return home. “No, not always,” he replied. “But once we call him, he becomes the Lord’s man.” The answer disconcerts initially. Is this not hubris, to expect God’s sanction for a decision made in error? Perhaps. It is also possible that the reply reveals the only understanding of delegation that is viable.

If God honored only those decisions made in perfect accord with His perfect wisdom, then His purposes would require leaders who were utterly incapable of misconstruing His intention, who never missed hearing the still small voice, who were unerringly and unfailingly a perfect conduit for heaven’s inspiration. And it would render the principle of delegation inoperative. The Pharaoh didn’t say to Joseph, your authority extends as far as you anticipate perfectly what I would do in every instance. He gave Joseph his ring. The king of Spain didn’t say, I will honor your judgments and directives insofar as they accord with my precise conclusions at such a time as I second-guess your every word and act. He signed the viceroy’s royal commission. And after calling Joseph Smith to his mission, the Lord didn’t say, I will stand by you as long as you never err in judgment. He said, “Thou wast called and chosen. . . . Devote all thy service in Zion; and . . . lo, I am with thee, even unto the end.” [Doctrine & Covenants 24: 1, 7, 8]

So, what does this mean for us devoted disciples of the Loving God? In Farrer’s opinion, God “does not promise [Peter, or Joseph] infallible correctness in reproducing on earth the eternal decrees of heaven. He promises him that the decisions he makes below will be sanctioned from above.” In that view, if delegation has any meaning at all, then God is as good as His word. He honors the words and actions of His servants, sincerely executed on His behalf. Here Farrer gives an interesting reading of Christ’s words to Peter, that what His servant binds on earth, will (then and therefore) be bound in heaven. The words are God’s promise to give His divine weight of authority to the principle of delegation, to stand surety for the leaders He entrusts. (Givens, Crucible of Doubt, Kindle location 1363)

 

Bob Crockett:

Quote

Bro. Boyce takes Prof. Mason to task for saying that the Church occasionally intervenes in Church affairs, and Bro. Boyce then cites a number of General Authority statements reporting that the relationship between them and God is close.

In the Reed Smoot hearings, Senate lawyers asked President Joseph F. Smith whether he had ever had a revelation. He testified that he had not. In the next hearing, he stated that he wished to correct his earlier statement. He stated that the Holy Spirit was constantly guiding the Church.

The New Testament provides for bottom-up Church governance. “When two or more [apostles] are gathered in my name, I will be there and will ratify their decisions,” is the paraphrase. The Old Testament describes different kinds of prophetic revelation; the kind Moses received and all others.

Thus, the NT model is generally bottom-up ratification. But, fire can come from the sky and consume the priests of Baal, at times, or Jesus can appear to Paul. Hence President Smith’s confusion in the Reed Smoot hearings.

When the Church approved the Manifesto, many in the Church criticized the Manifesto as not stating “Thus Sayeth the Lord” as did many D&C sections. We heard the same argument in the recent controversy over the children of same-sex marriages. Revelation doesn’t generally come as text dictated from a stone.

I think Bro. Boyce’s perception of what is revelation and what is not seems a little naive — something a Primary student might believe or is told but is contrary to the New Testament model. Is there not room for human error? Is there not room for human freedom of will of interpretation? Did Nathan err when he told David to go ahead and build the temple, and did he err when he reversed himself and told David to wait for Solomon to do it? Did Joshua err when he approved a treaty with the Gibeonites after God told him to wipe them out?

Peter received his revelation three times to take the Gospel to the Gentiles and to treat the Gentiles no differently than the House of Israel, and then Paul castigates him at the Jerusalem conference for refusing to eat with Gentiles. Is the Galatians account accurate? Or Luke’s account in Acts? Did Peter commit error (Paul calls him a “false brother”) or did Paul get it wrong? Did the revelation occur or did it not?

We’ve been there in priesthood councils. In bishoprics. Stake presidencies. We can see how the Church works and is guided. It is exactly as Prof. Mason describes it. We are free to choose under the guidance of the Spirit, and Moroni is not necessary for each High Council meeting.

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by ttribe

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours 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. 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."

LOL,!!! That's what motivated me to read the article.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

51 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

 

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

I'm only about three pages into the article so far, but already I can identify an excerpt that responds quite well to this hyperventilated accusation:

"Although it facilitates expression to refer to well‐known authors by name, this article is not a study of authors. It is a study of claims. Do the assertions we examine withstand scrutiny or don’t they? The question (as always) is not whether an author is smart or famous or “faithful” (ad hominem considerations all), or even whether anything else an author has produced is cogent or even admirable. The only question is whether a given important claim is intellectually sound — and if it is not, the reasons it is not. That is the focus of this study."

To this I would add this question: Are Mason, Hardy and Givens so precious that their devotees cannot abide seeing their claims and assertions scrutinized by other scholars? Having eschewed the idea of the infallibility of prophets, must we now contend with the dogma of the infallibility of popular academicians in the field of Mormon studies?

Edited July 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[MosiahFree]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Your observation reminded me of something Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote in in 1940:

Quote

A teacher may get good, even astounding, results from his pupils while he is teaching them and yet not be a good teacher; because it may be that, while his pupils are directly under his influence, he raises them to a height which is not natural to them, without fostering their own capacities for work at this level, so that they immediately decline again as soon as the teacher leaves the classroom. Perhaps this is how it is with me; I have sometimes though so. (When Mahler himself conducted his students in training sessions he obtained excellent performances; the orchestra seemed to deteriorate at once when he was not conducting it himself.)

( 'Culture and Value' translated by Peter Winch, 38E)

I've come to the conclusion that a few of the Brethren are akin to spiritual Mahlers and when they have departed this world some of the Saints just go to pieces when they encounter their written words.

[MosiahFree]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I'm only about three pages into the article so far, but already I can identify an excerpt that responds quite well to this hyperventilated accusation:

"Although it facilitates expression to refer to well‐known authors by name, this article is not a study of authors. It is a study of claims. Do the assertions we examine withstand scrutiny or don’t they? The question (as always) is not whether an author is smart or famous or “faithful” (ad hominem considerations all), or even whether anything else an author has produced is cogent or even admirable. The only question is whether a given important claim is intellectually sound — and if it is not, the reasons it is not. That is the focus of this study."

To this I would add this question: Are Mason, Hardy and Givens so precious that their devotees cannot abide seeing their claims and assertions scrutinized by other scholars? Having eschewed the idea of the infallibility of prophets, must we now contend with the dogma of the infallibility of popular academicians in the field of Mormon studies?

The article is of the same quality one would find in publications such as Mind, Nous, and Philosophy & Phenomenological Research (the only real difference is that this piece of scholarship isn't behind an obscenely high paywall, people don't give the folks over at The Interpreter Foundation enough credit ya know?). I think some of the reaction we are seeing is coming from people who are not used to a high quality of discourse and what they perceive as uncharitable attacks is really just Boyce moving the discussion forward for everyone with an interest in it.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, MosiahFree said:

The article is of the same quality one would find in publications such as Mind, Nous, and Philosophy & Phenomenological Research (the only real difference is that this piece of scholarship isn't behind an obscenely high paywall, people don't give the folks over at The Interpreter Foundation enough credit ya know?). I think some of the reaction we are seeing is coming from people who are not used to a high quality of discourse and what they perceive as uncharitable attacks is really just Boyce moving the discussion forward for everyone with an interest in it.

You haven't been here long enough for me to up-vote you for this post, so I'll just thank you for it. 

I'm quite amazed at the emperor's-new-clothes sort of reaction this Interpreter piece has drawn, even from some ordinarily rational and thoughtful folk. 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

12 hours 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. 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."

I stand corrected, we found a target audience member! 

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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

Makes sense, there are some on this board who appreciate this kind of work after all.  

[clarkgoble]

13 hours 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. 

For the record I didn't say I wouldn't read it. I said I've not yet had time to fully read it. (Just to be clear in case my comments were confusing anyone) That's more due to having a pretty busy week at work, children's birthdays and other commitments.

Also, while from what I've read thus far I don't care for the paper, I also think that he makes some good points at times. But I'll hold off saying much until I have time to engage the paper fully.

I don't want to say too much specific until I've had a chance to read it carefully. But Brant's comment quoted above is interesting. I wonder how much of all this is the old evidentiary vs. fideism approach to religion. I've been reading Perspectives on Mormon Theology: Apologetics for a review over at T&S (one of the other reasons I've not had time to delve into this paper yet). A point several of the authors make is the distinction between those two approaches to religion. I'd not considered that relative to the methods and tensions in apologetics. But it's possible that is a big issue here that phrase "drifting from unquestioned belief" brought to mind. I'm very much in the fallibilist evidentiary camp, which may affect how I read this paper.

Edited July 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I'm only about three pages into the article so far, but already I can identify an excerpt that responds quite well to this hyperventilated accusation:

"Although it facilitates expression to refer to well‐known authors by name, this article is not a study of authors. It is a study of claims. Do the assertions we examine withstand scrutiny or don’t they? The question (as always) is not whether an author is smart or famous or “faithful” (ad hominem considerations all), or even whether anything else an author has produced is cogent or even admirable. The only question is whether a given important claim is intellectually sound — and if it is not, the reasons it is not. That is the focus of this study."

To this I would add this question: Are Mason, Hardy and Givens so precious that their devotees cannot abide seeing their claims and assertions scrutinized by other scholars? Having eschewed the idea of the infallibility of prophets, must we now contend with the dogma of the infallibility of popular academicians in the field of Mormon studies?

Nobody is hyperventilating of course. 

And yes all three can and should take scrutiny.  I think Gardner said it well, and Lindsay said ti well, as per the quotes above.  It's not that they can't take scrutiny, it's simply that this effort at critique failed miserably.  It's no where near a useful effort at examining whether their claims are intellectually sound.  It's really amazing that it was published by the Interpreter on such grounds.  The blacklash is clearly due to the failure of the piece by Boyce, not because anyone feels like the three can't take scrutiny.

Nice try, though, Scott. 

[stemelbow]

I'm glad both Scott and Bobbie are excited about the piece based on the notion that I did not like it.  Here are some other offerings, if they hadn't read them already, they will likely enjoy based on their dislike and hyperventilating over me:

Letters to a Mormon Elder

THe Satanic Bible

Review of Mormon Stories

Twilight

Deliver us From Evil

There are probably others that I can send your way once I think of them. 

 

 

[stemelbow]

32 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

For the record I didn't say I wouldn't read it. I said I've not yet had time to fully read it. (Just to be clear in case my comments were confusing anyone) That's more due to having a pretty busy week at work, children's birthdays and other commitments.

Also, while from what I've read thus far I don't care for the paper, I also think that he makes some good points at times. But I'll hold off saying much until I have time to engage the paper fully.

I don't want to say too much specific until I've had a chance to read it carefully. But Brant's comment quoted above is interesting. I wonder how much of all this is the old evidentiary vs. fideism approach to religion. I've been reading Perspectives on Mormon Theology: Apologetics for a review over at T&S (one of the other reasons I've not had time to delve into this paper yet). A point several of the authors make is the distinction between those two approaches to religion. I'd not considered that relative to the methods and tensions in apologetics. But it's possible that is a big issue here that phrase "drifting from unquestioned belief" brought to mind. I'm very much in the fallibilist evidentiary camp, which may affect how I read this paper.

Here's to hoping you can free up 10 minutes of your time before you chime in again>> 

Haha...just playing

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, MosiahFree said:

Your observation reminded me of something Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote in in 1940:

( 'Culture and Value' translated by Peter Winch, 38E)

I've come to the conclusion that a few of the Brethren are akin to spiritual Mahlers and when they have departed this world some of the Saints just go to pieces when they encounter their written words.

Yes, Wittgenstein had a grasp of music that I cannot even imagine having myself- I feel quite deficient in that area.  Our Bernard Gui here understands that sort of thing and comments about reading scores and hearing the music purely in perfect performances within his own mind, and I cannot even comprehend what that would be like.

But what you say is I think right on the money in that music is an example of direct wordless experience, without language and without the ambiguity of language which fogs every word, every statement of a revelation inevitably.

I think it is not that the saints will so much see that the prophets were "wrong" but simply that seeing through a glass darkly (language) can never replace "face to face" understanding.  Music has that kind of "face to face" communication of emotion I think though it lacks the logical content one can come closer to communicating in language.   Perhaps the prophets see things "face to face" but inevitably by the time the words come from their mouths much of the "music" is gone, not through their fault necessarily but due to the inherent problems with the medium of language itself.

And that is precisely why we can study their words but we cannot amplify them or translate those words back to seeing "face to face" as they have, until the words are amplified by the spirit within ourselves.

It's like having a recording as an artifact in our hands, but unless we put that recording into the proper device and press "play" there is no music.  For us the Spirit is the device that plays the music of their dead words we see on the page before us. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I stand corrected, we found a target audience member! 

 

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Makes sense, there are some on this board who appreciate this kind of work after all.  

Has there ever been a greater demonstration of the hive mentality than refusing to read an article and then engaging in public shaming of those who do?

Edited July 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Has there ever been a greater demonstration of the hive mentality than refusing to read an article and the public shaming those who do?

I should have put a couple  in my message, no intention to shame, just have some good fun with you.  When I originally asked who the audience was, I assumed some would be here on the board, but the first couple messages from others sounded like they weren't in the target audience.

At any rate, it wouldn't be as fun of a board if we didn't have some seriously different perspectives around here.  Diversity is good.  

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Has there ever been a greater demonstration of the hive mentality than refusing to read an article and then engaging in public shaming of those who do?

I've read the article.  Way overlong.  Perhaps I'm biased because I'm the director of the Mormon Studies Program at Claremont where Prof. Mason teaches.   

I really think that Boyce seems rather naive about the way the Church works internally and he uses that naivete to shame Givens and Mason, among others, to use your overused term.  

And I'm about as conservative and orthodox a Saint as there is, to the point that I think that several of the scholars who haunt and post on this board teach doctrine contrary to Church manuals.

Quote

To this I would add this question: Are Mason, Hardy and Givens so precious that their devotees cannot abide seeing their claims and assertions scrutinized by other scholars? Having eschewed the idea of the infallibility of prophets, must we now contend with the dogma of the infallibility of popular academicians in the field of Mormon studies?

Really an absurd thing to say.   Mason, Hardy and Givens have long been subject to criticism.  I, for one, won't read anything Givens says any more because it isn't really the Gospel as I see it.  I just don't see Boyce's article as all that scholarly and more of a religious diatribe based upon notions of how he thinks the Church should work.   I've worked with the Church brethren.  I see how they do things.  I've been in priesthood leadership positions.  I see how wards and stakes work.  It isn't how Boyce sees it.  Jesus isn't there in every meeting telling Apostles and Stake Presidents how to run things.  The Spirit guides them, and fire from the sky happens only occasionally.    Certainly, I don't see Mason, Hardy (whom I also don't really agree with) and Givens as infallible.  Your reductio ad absurdem doesn't fly here.

I support the Interpreter in several ways and appreciate its output.  I just disagree with Boyce's scholarship.  

Edited July 26, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

I haven’t yet finished my reading of the Boyce essay. I might have more to say about it later on.

 

But for now, I’ll discuss one of the disputed points: the interpretation to be applied to Doctrine and Covenants 21:4-5.

 

Quote

 

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give ^aheed unto all his words and ^bcommandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all ^choliness before me;

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

 

 

Boyce takes Givens to task for Givens’s interpretation of the above passage: that the phrase “in all patience and faith” is an oblique way of acknowledging that Church leaders would make errors in instructing the faithful and that the Church members would need to have patience with their failings. I can see how Givens’s interpretation would be applauded by those seeking an excuse to ignore, discount or dispute this or that piece of instruction or teaching from the leaders of the Church, since, they reason, it might have been given in error.

 

But Boyce disagrees with Givens, saying instead that the phrase “in all patience and faith” is meant to imply that the Church members would suffer persecution as a result of their heeding the instruction from the prophet, just as Christ’s followers were hated and persecuted for obeying Him.

 

Of the two interpretations, Boyce’s strikes me as being the more plausible (and in this, I recognize I differ with Jeff Lindsay, who, in a blog post, rebutted Boyce’s piece). For if the prophet is giving us the words and commandments of Christ "as he receiveth them," he is not, by definition, erring.

But even if we disagree with and reject Boyce’s interpretation, that doesn’t mean we are obliged to embrace Givens’s.

I would suggest a third interpretation.

When the Lord speaks through His prophet, we should give heed to the instruction “as if from [His] own mouth,” and we should do it “in all patience and faith.” The “patience and faith” on our part are important on those occasions when the prophet delivers instruction that, to us, might not be immediately clear in its purpose or might be difficult for us to embrace and implement. On those occasions, we exercise “patience and faith” when, instead of rejecting the teaching outright, we ponder it and go to God in prayer to seek our own witness of its truthfulness.

In Joseph Smith’s day, that certainly would have been necessary for many of the people when he taught them the principle of plurality of wives.

When “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was published scarcely a generation ago, the principles it restated seemed self-evident, and some of us back then may have wondered about the need to emblazon them in a proclamation. Today, though, some of those principles are difficult for some people to receive, including some of our own people, particularly as the proclamation guides some of the actions and decisions of our Church leaders. It seems there has never been a greater need than today to receive the inspired pronouncements of the prophet “with all patience and faith.”

It can take patience and faith to accept a mission call or a Church assignment, even if we agree in concept that such calls are issued under inspiration.

That, to me, is the real meaning of Doctrine and Covenants 21:4-5. As Kenngo would say, “Your mileage may vary.”  

Edited July 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I've read the article.  Way overlong.  Perhaps I'm biased because I'm the director of the Mormon Studies Program at Claremont where Prof. Mason teaches.   

I really think that Boyce seems rather naive about the way the Church works internally and he uses that naivete to shame Givens and Mason, among others, to use your overused term.  

And I'm about as conservative and orthodox a Saint as there is, to the point that I think that several of the scholars who haunt and post on this board teach doctrine contrary to Church manuals.

Really an absurd thing to say.   Mason, Hardy and Givens have long been subject to criticism.  I, for one, won't read anything Givens says any more because it isn't really the Gospel as I see it.  I just don't see Boyce's article as all that scholarly and more of a religious diatribe based upon notions of how he thinks the Church should work.   I've worked with the Church brethren.  I see how they do things.  I've been in priesthood leadership positions.  I see how wards and stakes work.  It isn't how Boyce sees it.  Jesus isn't there in every meeting telling Apostles and Stake Presidents how to run things.  The Spirit guides them, and fire from the sky happens only occasionally.    Certainly, I don't see Mason, Hardy (whom I also don't really agree with) and Givens as infallible.  Your reductio ad absurdem doesn't fly here.

I support the Interpreter in several ways and appreciate its output.  I just disagree with Boyce's scholarship.  

You have me at a disadvantage, because I have scarcely started reading Boyce's piece. It may be, by the time I'm finished, that I will disagree with some of it too. I already have gently disagreed with part of it (see my prior post). But unlike some here, I'm not going to refuse to read it just because it challenges three of the Golden Boys of Progressive Mormon(tm) Academia.

But yeah, I think your professional and personal association with Mason (the only one of the three you didn't express personal disagreement with) does make you biased.

What's the old saying? "When Mason speaks, the thinking has been done."

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Has there ever been a greater demonstration of the hive mentality than refusing to read an article and then engaging in public shaming of those who do?

How about a couple of other posters who are wont to approve the article based on the dislike of one who disagrees with it? 

[stemelbow]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I haven’t yet finished my reading of the Boyce essay. I might have more to say about it later on.

 

But for now, I’ll discuss one of the disputed points: the interpretation to be applied to Doctrine and Covenants 21:4-5.

 

 

Boyce takes Givens to task for Givens’s interpretation of the above passage: that the phrase “in all patience and faith” is an oblique way of acknowledging that Church leaders would make errors in instructing the faithful and that the Church members would need to have patience with their failings. I can see how Givens’s interpretation would be applauded by those seeking an excuse to ignore, discount or dispute this or that piece of instruction or teaching from the leaders of the Church, since, they reason, it might have been given in error.

 

But Boyce disagrees with Givens, saying instead that the phrase “in all patience and faith” is meant to imply that the Church members would suffer persecution as a result of their heeding the instruction from the prophet, just as Christ’s followers were hated and persecuted for obeying Him.

 

Of the two interpretations, Boyce’s strikes me as being the more plausible (and in this, I recognize I differ with Jeff Lindsay, who, in a blog post, rebutted Boyce’s piece). For if the prophet is giving us the words and commandments of Christ "as he receiveth them," he is not, by definition, erring.

But even if we disagree with and reject Boyce’s interpretation, that doesn’t mean we are obliged to embrace Givens’s.

I would suggest a third interpretation.

When the Lord speaks through His prophet, we should give heed to the instruction “as if from [His] own mouth,” and we should do it “in all patience and faith.” The “patience and faith” on our part are important on those occasions when the prophet delivers instruction that, to us, might not be immediately clear in its purpose or might be difficult for us to embrace and implement. On those occasions, we exercise “patience and faith” when, instead of rejecting the teaching outright, we ponder it and go to God in prayer to seek our own witness of its truthfulness.

In Joseph Smith’s day, that certainly would have been necessary for many of the people when he taught them the principle of plurality of wives.

When “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was published scarcely a generation ago, the principles it restated seemed self-evident, and some of us back then may have wondered about the need to emblazon them in a proclamation. Today, though, some of those principles are difficult for some people to receive, including some of our own people, particularly as the proclamation guides some of the actions and decisions of our Church leaders. It seems there has never been a greater need than today to receive the inspired pronouncements of the prophet “with all patience and faith.”

It can take patience and faith to accept a mission call or a Church assignment, even if we agree in concept that such calls are issued under inspiration.

That, to me, is the real meaning of Doctrine and Covenants 21:4-5. As Kenngo would say, “Your mileage may vary.”  

I think your interpretation, as well as Boyce's, is a hasty one.  This section is speaking of Joseph restoring the Church.  It is the instruction given to him from God that should be heeded.  It is not a comment on instruction given beyond Joseph.  While some might want to take this to mean any president of the Church, it doesn't say that. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/25/2017 at 9:04 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

To this I would add this question: Are Mason, Hardy and Givens so precious that their devotees cannot abide seeing their claims and assertions scrutinized by other scholars? Having eschewed the idea of the infallibility of prophets, must we now contend with the dogma of the infallibility of popular academicians in the field of Mormon studies?

Which is part of the message in Nibley's "The World and the Prophets" when he discusses the reactions of scholars when the Prophets speak. Both have their places, but they live in different worlds.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

How about a couple of other posters who are wont to approve the article based on the dislike of one who disagrees with it? 

Why the derail?

[clarkgoble]

On 7/26/2017 at 9:37 AM, stemelbow said:

Here's to hoping you can free up 10 minutes of your time before you chime in again>> 

Haha...just playing

LOL. It's true though - I've not written here as much of late due to being busy. Plus 5 minutes here or there while waiting from something to print is quite different from several hours to read and engage with this paper.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I think your interpretation, as well as Boyce's, is a hasty one.  This section is speaking of Joseph restoring the Church.  It is the instruction given to him from God that should be heeded.  It is not a comment on instruction given beyond Joseph.  While some might want to take this to mean any president of the Church, it doesn't say that. 

Then you are ignoring the fact that the revelations compiled and canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants are there precisely because of their timeless and general application, not merely for their value as historical curiosities. 

And if anybody is being hasty, you are, in dismissing my interpretation, which applies as well to Joseph Smith as it does to any of the later prophets. 

[stemelbow]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then you are ignoring the fact that the revelations compiled and canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants are there precisely because of their timeless and general application, not merely for their value as historical curiosities. 

And if anybody is being hasty, you are, in dismissing my interpretation, which applies as well to Joseph Smith as it does to any of the later prophets. 

Yours is merely an assumption.  I'm just going with what it says without adding an assumption.