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

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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

It's more than an assumption. It's a doctrinal understanding about the purpose of scripture. 

The general and timeless application of the scriptural passage we are discussing here is not something I invented. It is standard teaching in the Church.  It is Mormonism 101. 

Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Restoration and the first holder of priesthood keys in this dispensation is the prototype for all succeeding Church presidents, just as Peter, Christ's chief apostle, is a prototype for all latter-day Church presidents.

You can reject this teaching if you want, but if you do, it is you who are out of step with the teaching of the Church in this respect. 

Edited July 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's more than an assumption. It's a doctrinal understanding about the purpose of scripture. 

The general and timeless application of the scriptural passage we are discussing here is not something I invented. It is standard teaching in the Church.  It is Mormonism 101. 

Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Restoration and the First holder of priesthood keys is the prototype for all succeeding Church presidents, just as Peter, Christ's chief apostle, is a prototype for all latter-day Church presidents.

You can reject this teaching if you want, but if you do, it is you who I are out of step with the teaching of the Church in this respect. 

This would seem to be in line with how others have understood the purpose of the scriptures to be in the past:

"And I did read many things unto them which were written in the books of Moses; but that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah; for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning." (1 Nephi 19:23)

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This would seem to be in line with how others have understood the purpose of the scriptures to be in the past:

"And I did read many things unto them which were written in the books of Moses; but that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah; for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning." (1 Nephi 19:23)

Indeed!

Thanks for this. 

I don't have time to look it up now but there is that statement from Paul about all scripture being profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc. 

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Indeed!

Thanks for this. 

I don't have time to look it up now but there is that statement from Paul about all scripture being profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc. 

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

(2 Timothy 3:16-17)

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

(2 Timothy 3:16-17)

I think there's a misspelling in verse 17.  My bible gateway app says it should be thoroughly, not throughly as it's spelled on lds.org.

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think there's a misspelling in verse 17.  My bible gateway app says it should be thoroughly, not throughly as it's spelled on lds.org.

Ok, maybe not.  It looks like throughly is an older spelling that some KJV editions retain.  Others have changed it to thoroughly.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Ok, maybe not.  It looks like throughly is an older spelling that some KJV editions retain.  Others have changed it to thoroughly.

Checking a number of online dictionaries, I find that throughly is a legitimate -- albeit archaic -- synonym for thoroughly. It stands to reason the word would have been changed in newer Bible translations designed to make the text clearer to modern readers. 

Through means complete or finished, as in "I am through with the task." So one who is "throughly furnished unto all good works" is completely so furnished. 

Edited July 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

23 hours 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. 

That's what I'm saying...your assumption is just that.  I'm fine if you want the assumption.  But that doesn't mean your interpretation is a good one.

[stemelbow]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's more than an assumption. It's a doctrinal understanding about the purpose of scripture. 

The general and timeless application of the scriptural passage we are discussing here is not something I invented. It is standard teaching in the Church.  It is Mormonism 101. 

Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Restoration and the first holder of priesthood keys in this dispensation is the prototype for all succeeding Church presidents, just as Peter, Christ's chief apostle, is a prototype for all latter-day Church presidents.

You can reject this teaching if you want, but if you do, it is you who are out of step with the teaching of the Church in this respect. 

So whatever the Church teaches you is true, huh?  Fine by me, Scott.  I simply dont' take that stance, so you aren't convincing me that your assumption is anything but that. 

To each his own, eh?

[stemelbow]

On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 9:24 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Why the derail?

My thread, bub.

[Bob Crockett]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Checking a number of online dictionaries, I find that throughly is a legitimate -- albeit archaic -- synonym for thoroughly. It stands to reason the word would have been changed in newer Bible translations designed to make the text clearer to modern readers. 

Through means complete or finished, as in "I am through with the task." So one who is "throughly furnished unto all good works" is completely so furnished. 

Actually, the Church does not use the authorized KJV, but has modified it slightly. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 7/28/2017 at 1:47 PM, Bob Crockett said:

Actually, the Church does not use the authorized KJV, but has modified it slightly. 

With the KJV more than 500 years old and the restored Church nearly 190, it's not surprising there would have been a few tweaks along the way.

 

[Daniel Peterson]

Just to be clear:

 

Contrary to the title of this thread, "Interpreter," as such, hasn't declared that "Givens, Mason, Hardy are wrong."

 

Interpreter isn't a monolith, as Jeff Lindsay's dissenting responses plainly show.  (He's on Interpreter's board.)

 

Nor, as I read him, has even Duane Boyce said, simply, that "Givens, Mason, Hardy are wrong."

 

I doubt that he believes that.  I certainly don't.  I see much of value in the work of all three, and have repeatedly said so, publicly.

 

Nor is this any sort of collective statement from the "Old Guard" -- I note the apparent naïve chronological snobbery -- about the "new course" at the Maxwell Institute.

 

Duane Boyce wasn't involved much, if at all, in FARMS or the Maxwell Institute prior to the putsch of 2012, and nobody who was involved much commissioned or wrote his article.

 

 

 

 

[clarkgoble]

On 7/25/2017 at 11:11 PM, 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.

That seems to be pushing it a tad. If nothing else the style is quite unlike what you'd find at those journals. I personally think it was likely a mistake for the Interpreter to have published it. I think the point Boyce is trying to make could have and probably should have been done in a somewhat different way. I'm somewhat sympathetic to his point, but man the way he went about it was problematic IMO.

I have something half written responding, but I'm not sure I'll finish it. It's really hard to figure the best way of engaging with his points (which is about a kind of fear of liberal theology creeping in via apologetics) without falling into the same traps his paper did.

Edited July 31, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Grant Hardy]

From my reading of parts 1 and 2, Duane Boyce's answer to the question posed in his title is a resounding "Yes!" Which means that his thesis is that "Givens, Mason, and Hardy are deteriorating the quality of LDS scholarship by undermining prophets and revelation in ways that cast a shadow over the Restoration." One would think that an editor would have seen this. Readers of course can judge for themselves whether such a thesis, or Boyce's tone and handling of evidence, qualify as regular "academic give-and-take." 

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Daniel Peterson said:

Just to be clear:

 

Contrary to the title of this thread, "Interpreter," as such, hasn't declared that "Givens, Mason, Hardy are wrong."

Ok.  Duane Boyce said they made "significant" and "egregious" errors. 
It so happens he made a paper about it published by The Interpreter Foundation

16 hours ago, Daniel Peterson said:

 

Interpreter isn't a monolith, as Jeff Lindsay's dissenting responses plainly show.  (He's on Interpreter's board.)

I really enjoyed his dissenting responses.  Are you going to publish an official response from him? 

16 hours ago, Daniel Peterson said:

 

Nor, as I read him, has even Duane Boyce said, simply, that "Givens, Mason, Hardy are wrong."

I don't think anyone has made much of an issue out of the title of this thread, until now.  We can ask the moderators to correct it.  I don't think I can. 

16 hours ago, Daniel Peterson said:

 

I doubt that he believes that.  I certainly don't.  I see much of value in the work of all three, and have repeatedly said so, publicly.

 

Nor is this any sort of collective statement from the "Old Guard" -- I note the apparent naïve chronological snobbery -- about the "new course" at the Maxwell Institute.

Who are you quoting with this "Of Guard" and "new course" stuff?  I don't think that was part of the discussion here at all. 

16 hours ago, Daniel Peterson said:

 

Duane Boyce wasn't involved much, if at all, in FARMS or the Maxwell Institute prior to the putsch of 2012, and nobody who was involved much commissioned or wrote his article.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for saying.

to be fair, I titled this thread as I did in hopes you'd saunter in and comment.  We just needed to know you're still willing to check in on us.  Nice to see you.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, Daniel Peterson said:

Just to be clear:

 

Contrary to the title of this thread, "Interpreter," as such, hasn't declared that "Givens, Mason, Hardy are wrong."

 

Interpreter isn't a monolith, as Jeff Lindsay's dissenting responses plainly show.  (He's on Interpreter's board.)

 

Nor, as I read him, has even Duane Boyce said, simply, that "Givens, Mason, Hardy are wrong."

 

I doubt that he believes that.  I certainly don't.  I see much of value in the work of all three, and have repeatedly said so, publicly.

 

Nor is this any sort of collective statement from the "Old Guard" -- I note the apparent naïve chronological snobbery -- about the "new course" at the Maxwell Institute.

 

Duane Boyce wasn't involved much, if at all, in FARMS or the Maxwell Institute prior to the putsch of 2012, and nobody who was involved much commissioned or wrote his article.

 

 

 

 

Part of the reason I welcome the Boyce article is that for too long, what Clark Goble is characterizing as "liberal theology creeping in via apologetics" has been allowed to transpire largely unchallenged. Predictably, now that a challenge is occurring, there is a lot of heartburn over it, particularly among those of the progMo stripe.

Perhaps it relates to the Hegelian model of thesis-antithesis-synthesis which, in my view, is a good thing. To the extent that Interpreter is facilitating that process, it is to be applauded.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That seems to be pushing it a tad. If nothing else the style is quite unlike what you'd find at those journals. I personally think it was likely a mistake for the Interpreter to have published it. I think the point Boyce is trying to make could have and probably should have been done in a somewhat different way. I'm somewhat sympathetic to his point, but man the way he went about it was problematic IMO.

I have something half written responding, but I'm not sure I'll finish it. It's really hard to figure the best way of engaging with his points (which is about a kind of fear of liberal theology creeping in via apologetics) without falling into the same traps his paper did.

I'm not understanding you clearly, Clark. Are you taking a position in favor of or opposed to "liberal theology creeping in via apologetics"?

[stemelbow]

4 hours ago, Grant Hardy said:

From my reading of parts 1 and 2, Duane Boyce's answer to the question posed in his title is a resounding "Yes!" Which means that his thesis is that "Givens, Mason, and Hardy are deteriorating the quality of LDS scholarship by undermining prophets and revelation in ways that cast a shadow over the Restoration." One would think that an editor would have seen this. Readers of course can judge for themselves whether such a thesis, or Boyce's tone and handling of evidence, qualify as regular "academic give-and-take." 

I'm really confused by his title.  I know Dan gave me flak for my title, but his seems egregious too, particularly if mine is so considered.

A Lengthening Shadow: Is Quality of Thought Deteriorating in LDS Scholarly Discourse Regarding Prophets and Revelation?

I don't see him addressing the three of you, or your works, from a scholarly angle.  It seems to me he wants to critique the quality of your scholarship based on revelation.  I liked John Lund's response in the comments section of part two, On the Interpreter Website

Quote

Boyce’s counter-arguments of Hardy’s textual analysis is apt but utterly fails his thesis. This is a strange series of papers that ironically reveal the shadow side of LDS culture. Boyce has framed his argument as “A Lengthening Shadow: Is Quality of Thought Deteriorating in LDS Scholarly Discourse…?” So his argument is not rooted in particular truth-claims but in LDS scholarly thought.

One would expect, therefore, Boyce to discuss scholarly methodology, the practice and “art” of history making and historical interpretation, i.e. primarily hermeneutics, with special attention to cultural prejudice in the interpretation of texts. One would also expect him to contrast the work of the scholars he criticizes with established norms in academic procedure and show how these scholars are not conforming to strict academic standards. This is the argument Boyce has framed.

But he does none of that. He entirely skips the framing of his argument and jumps right into textual criticism himself, contrasting his interpretation with those other scholars he accuses of deteriorating scholarly discourse.

This maneuver is a sort of ironic suicide. By framing the argument in scholarly thought and by ignoring the principles of hermeneutics, Boyce has taken the de facto stance that his method and procedure of textual criticism is the standard of quality of thought that all other scholars must meet. But this approach entirely ignores hermeneutics—the very thing he was supposed to argue.

Had he framed his papers in a completely different way, i.e. “Contrasting Textual Criticisms: Boyce Versus Givens and Hardy” he would be proclaiming that he is giving a contrasting point of view within the scholarly realm. This would at least put everyone on notice that what they should expect is contrasting textual criticisms, which is the only thing Boyce provides.

But Boyce does not do that. And the end result shows an arrogance and snobbishness that is, above all, lacking in quality of thought. Lengthening shadow indeed—the shadow turns out to be the preconceptions inherent in a tradition that considers itself truer than the rest and does not take kindly to criticism, academic or otherwise.

yep.  Exactly. 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Part of the reason I welcome the Boyce article is that for too long, what Clark Goble is characterizing as "liberal theology creeping in via apologetics" has been allowed to transpire largely unchallenged. Predictably, now that a challenge is occurring, there is a lot of heartburn over it, particularly among those of the progMo stripe.

Perhaps it relates to the Hegelian model of thesis-antithesis-synthesis which, in my view, is a good thing. To the extent that Interpreter is facilitating that process, it is to be applauded.

I hope they publish a response. I will say, Part I was abysmal.  Part II was a little better, but certainly lacked an effort to really fulfill the mission one would expect based on his title.  There's no heartburn, Scott.  You're getting a little too worked up in your characterizations.

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by stemelbow

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Part of the reason I welcome the Boyce article is that for too long, what Clark Goble is characterizing as "liberal theology creeping in via apologetics" has been allowed to transpire largely unchallenged. Predictably, now that a challenge is occurring, there is a lot of heartburn over it, particularly among those of the progMo stripe.

Perhaps it relates to the Hegelian model of thesis-antithesis-synthesis which, in my view, is a good thing. To the extent that Interpreter is facilitating that process, it is to be applauded.

Actually, I haven't seen very many posts about this at all in the progMo circles that I'm a part of.  This reinforces my earlier question wondering who the audience is for Boyce and his article.  Perhaps there are some people who find his critiques relevant or some very narrow niche of progressive apologists that feel challenged by his critiques.  I think he's largely irrelevant, and his critiques are missing the mark and not causing the heartburn that you've characterized at all.  More like a yawn.  

[juliann]

4 hours ago, Grant Hardy said:

From my reading of parts 1 and 2, Duane Boyce's answer to the question posed in his title is a resounding "Yes!" Which means that his thesis is that "Givens, Mason, and Hardy are deteriorating the quality of LDS scholarship by undermining prophets and revelation in ways that cast a shadow over the Restoration." One would think that an editor would have seen this. Readers of course can judge for themselves whether such a thesis, or Boyce's tone and handling of evidence, qualify as regular "academic give-and-take." 

I was lucky enough to be at CGU as the Mormon Studies program was developed. I think the problem with Boyce's ideology is that he wants to rope off "LDS" scholarship into a small and isolated corral. We need to, we must, interact with scholarship. It's a whole new world out there, one that must be pioneered. Thank heavens for those willing to do it. Your (and Mason's) presentation at the last FairMormon conference were among the most highly rated and coming from an audience filled with apologists, that says it all as far as I am concerned. (I believe there was also some standing ovations which are rare at an FM conference.)

Why this has to be made into an internal battle mystifies me, and I think weakens Mormonism as we step into a new era with a disturbing loss of our youth who are obviously not responding to traditional methods. I do like to see the variety of positions and I am impressed with the depth of the responses to this article from those like Jeff Lindsay. That there can be a civil discussion on the Interpreter site gives me some hope that we won't need articles like this one to enable that. 

[juliann]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm really confused by his title.  I know Dan gave me flak for my title, but his seems egregious too, particularly if mine is so considered.

 

Can you edit your title?

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I hope they publish a response. I will say, Part I was abysmal.  Part II was a little better, but certainly lacked an effort to really fulfill the mission one would expect based on his title.  There's no heartburn, Scott.  You're getting a little too worked up in your characterizations.

 

 

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Actually, I haven't seen very many posts about this at all in the progMo circles that I'm a part of.  This reinforces my earlier question wondering who the audience is for Boyce and his article.  Perhaps there are some people who find his critiques relevant or some very narrow niche of progressive apologists that feel challenged by his critiques.  I think he's largely irrelevant, and his critiques are missing the mark and not causing the heartburn that you've characterized at all.  More like a yawn.  

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. -- Shakespeare, "Hamlet," c. 1600.

If it's getting so little attention, why the need to publish a response? And if there's no heartburn, why the invective?

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. -- Shakespeare, "Hamlet," c. 1600.

If it's getting so little attention, why the need to publish a response? And why the invective?

 

I doubt any of them will publish a response.   Seems pointless to respond to poorly crafted critiques.