clarkgoble Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm not understanding you clearly, Clark. Are you taking a position in favor of or opposed to "liberal theology creeping in via apologetics"? I think that's a valid worry but I'm not sure this paper was the best way to argue it.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 18 minutes ago, juliann said: 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. If stemelbow is calling for Interpreter to publish a response in the interest of balance, perhaps, in the same interest, Boyce should be invited to speak at the FairMormon Conference. Just sayin'.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I think that's a valid worry but I'm not sure this paper was the best way to argue it. Thanks. So if I'm understanding you correctly, then, your quarrel with Boyce's paper is not so much about message as it is about method.
stemelbow Posted August 1, 2017 Author Posted August 1, 2017 16 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 if there's no heartburn, why the invective? I'd just say for the sake of continuing the debate. If Boyce is representing something as you describe, a alternate view to a progressive view, then it'd be good to see a response. But, in the end, it does seem, as I'd agree with hope_for that he's out of his league on this. My concern as expressed here is that Interpreter published that part I piece at all--it was that bad to me. I'd say Part II was a little better, but I'd stand by my comment that it still seems to be a misrepresentation of his title.
juliann Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If stemelbow is calling for Interpreter to publish a response in the interest of balance, perhaps, in the same interest, Boyce should be invited to speak at the FairMormon Conference. Just sayin'. Well, it didn't turn out all that well when Hancock did it. As I said before, the vast majority don't like polemical call outs of fellow Saints. What I notice is that it is the faithful scholars that are being targeted rather than those who are off the reservation, so to speak. Is Mormonism, let alone LDS scholarship, that well positioned that we can afford such attacks? (Knowing what comes next, edited to add that I am certainly aware of the same from progmos or whatever label fits and speak up about that, too.) Edited August 1, 2017 by juliann 2
Scott Lloyd Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I'd just say for the sake of continuing the debate. If Boyce is representing something as you describe, a alternate view to a progressive view, then it'd be good to see a response. But, in the end, it does seem, as I'd agree with hope_for that he's out of his league on this. My concern as expressed here is that Interpreter published that part I piece at all--it was that bad to me. I'd say Part II was a little better, but I'd stand by my comment that it still seems to be a misrepresentation of his title. As I said, surprisingly harsh invective over something that supposedly isn't getting enough attention to bother anyone. Edited August 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted August 1, 2017 Author Posted August 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: As I said, surprisingly harsh invective over something that supposedly isn't supposedly isn't getting enough attention to bother anyone. harsh invective?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) 35 minutes ago, juliann said: Well, it didn't turn out all that well when Hancock did it. As I said before, the vast majority don't like polemical call outs of fellow Saints. What I notice is that it is the faithful scholars that are being targeted rather than those who are off the reservation, so to speak. Is Mormonism, let alone LDS scholarship, that well positioned that we can afford such attacks? There were a couple of things in particular from the Hardy and Mason talks that bothered me last year as a conference attendee, strident criticisms of certain points that have to do with our culture and administration, which I have already mentioned earlier on this board. I have a hard time believing I was the only one who was thus bothered. And for the record, I quite liked Hancock's speech. I hope he is invited back in the future. Edited August 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 21 minutes ago, stemelbow said: harsh invective? Castigating Interpreter for not spiking Part 1 of Boyce's paper strikes me as harsh. 1
stemelbow Posted August 1, 2017 Author Posted August 1, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Castigating Interpreter for not spiking Part 1 of Boyce's paper strikes me as harsh.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Come on. You have to be pretty spun up over it to declare the paper should not have been allowed to see the light of day, to start a thread on a message board for the express purpose of denouncing it and to repeatedly call on Interpreter to publish a rebuttal to it. Edited August 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I doubt any of them will publish a response. Seems pointless to respond to poorly crafted critiques. Sorry to have to break it to you but the paper's being "poorly crafted" is not obvious to everyone. Daniel Peterson can speak to this better than I, but I believe his standards of rigor are such that he would not have published it had it been poorly crafted. Edited August 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
hope_for_things Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Sorry to have to break it to you but the paper's being "poorly crafted" is not obvious to everyone. Daniel Peterson can speak to this better than I, but I believe his standards of rigor are such that he would not have published it had it been poorly crafted. Thats just an argument from authority.
clarkgoble Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Thanks. So if I'm understanding you correctly, then, your quarrel with Boyce's paper is not so much about message as it is about method. Well I wouldn't go that far. I'm not saying my views are the same as his. I'm not 100% sure what his theological perspective is. My guess is that he thinks the text should be trusted in a straightforward way far more than me. While it's somewhat misleading example my guess is he prefers something closer to how McConkie reads scripture whereas I'm for giving a burden of proof that needs overcome for any GA statement but simultaneously see the authors of the texts (Nephi, Joseph, Mormon, etc.) as having more influence on its meaning than Boyce likely does. My point is more that I think there is a reasonable concern that as people do apologetics there's always a theological component that gets pushed. So independent of whether I agree with Boyce's theology, I think it's fair and even important for people to critique each other on these theological presumptions that affect their hermeneutics. Does that make more sense? Both those points (Boyce's particular theology and the more general theological danger in apologetics) are somewhat independent of how well Boyce argues both in terms of soundness or persuasiveness. Quote Sorry to have to break it to you but the paper's being "poorly crafted" is not obvious to everyone There's different sorts of "poorly crafted" and of course different degrees. While I respect Dan a great deal, let's be honest. Over the years lots of questionable things have gotten in at times. I think Boyce would have benefitted from some critical requests from the editor before publishing. (Although I've not yet read the second part I should hasten to add) Edited August 1, 2017 by clarkgoble 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Thats just an argument from authority. I thought you might say that. It is not an argument from authority. It is a rebuttal to your implied notion that the reason the paper does not merit a response is that everyone (or perhaps everyone qualified to make a judgment) knows it is poorly crafted (which would be argumentum ad populum). The fact of the matter is that it is not obvious to everyone that it is a poorly crafted paper. It is not poorly crafted to some, not the least of which is Dr. Peterson, who deemed the paper worthy of publication and who is known to have rigorous standards for publication. Edited August 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 2
Scott Lloyd Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Well I wouldn't go that far. I'm not saying my views are the same as his. I'm not 100% sure what his theological perspective is. My guess is that he thinks the text should be trusted in a straightforward way far more than me. While it's somewhat misleading example my guess is he prefers something closer to how McConkie reads scripture whereas I'm for giving a burden of proof that needs overcome for any GA statement but simultaneously see the authors of the texts (Nephi, Joseph, Mormon, etc.) as having more influence on its meaning than Boyce likely does. My point is more that I think there is a reasonable concern that as people do apologetics there's always a theological component that gets pushed. So independent of whether I agree with Boyce's theology, I think it's fair and even important for people to critique each other on these theological presumptions that affect their hermeneutics. Does that make more sense? Both those points (Boyce's particular theology and the more general theological danger in apologetics) are somewhat independent of how well Boyce argues both in terms of soundness or persuasiveness. Got it. Quote There's different sorts of "poorly crafted" and of course different degrees. While I respect Dan a great deal, let's be honest. Over the years lots of questionable things have gotten in at times. I think Boyce would have benefitted from some critical requests from the editor before publishing. (Although I've not yet read the second part I should hasten to add) This strikes me as a very subjective assessment.
hope_for_things Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I thought you might say that. It is not an argument from authority. It is a rebuttal to your implied notion that the reason the paper does not merit a response is that everyone knows it is poorly crafted (which would be argumentum ad populum). The fact of the matter is that it is not obvious to everyone that it is a poorly crafted paper. It is not poorly crafted to some, not the least of which is Dr. Peterson, who deemed the paper worthy of publication and who is known to have rigorous standards for publication. I'm not saying everyone thinks the paper is poorly crafted, clearly there are those that don't agree with that sentiment. I was saying that just because it was published by Dr. Peterson, isn't a persuasive argument for me personally neither should we assume that just because something is published by the Interpreter it is of rigorous quality.
Calm Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 "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" If you edit your opening post, you should be able to edit the title at the same time unless things have changed.
stemelbow Posted August 1, 2017 Author Posted August 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Come on. You have to be pretty spun up over it to declare the paper should not have been allowed to see the light of day, to start a thread on a message board for the express purpose of denouncing it and to repeatedly call on Interpreter to publish a rebuttal to it. I certainly do not have to be pretty spun up over it to do any of the above, even if some of that which was attributed to me is not true. I certainly did not "repeatedly call on Interpreter to publish a rebuttal. I just thought of it today when I responded to Dan.
stemelbow Posted August 1, 2017 Author Posted August 1, 2017 Just now, Calm said: "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" If you edit your opening post, you should be able to edit the title at the same time unless things have changed. I fixed it already.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 12 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I fixed it already. May want to fix it again to correct the erros
stemelbow Posted August 1, 2017 Author Posted August 1, 2017 14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: May want to fix it again to correct the erros Ah dang it.
ttribe Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: harsh invective? Meh, if there's one thing Brother Lloyd has mastered it's the craft of hyperbole. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, stemelbow said: I certainly do not have to be pretty spun up over it to do any of the above, even if some of that which was attributed to me is not true. I certainly did not "repeatedly call on Interpreter to publish a rebuttal. "Any of the above" comprises three things: declaring that the Boyce paper should not have been published, starting this thread for the express purpose of denouncing the paper and repeatedly (meaning more than once) calling on Interpreter to publish a response. You've done all three of those things. One would reasonably get the impression you were spun up (agitated, excited) over the matter. Quote I just thought of it today when I responded to Dan. Doesn't matter when you thought of it. You've called for it more than once -- which amounts to doing it repeatedly. Edited August 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 8 minutes ago, ttribe said: Meh, if there's one thing Brother Lloyd has mastered it's the craft of hyperbole. No hyperbole in this case.
Recommended Posts