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

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

You said, "It seems pointless to respond to poorly crafted critiques [meaning the Boyce paper]."

I'm not sure why that would be, unless you think the paper is so gosh-awful that no one takes it seriously. Yet, according to your post quoted here, you don't think that. So I'm not clear on why you think it would be pointless to respond to the paper.

 

[stemelbow]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"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) called 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.

Doesn't matter when you thought of it. You've called for it more than once -- which amounts to doing it repeatedly.
 

ugh...tedious.  Thanks, Scott.  I'll move on from this. 

[ttribe]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No hyperbole in this case.

Well, apparently, that is in the eye of the beholder.

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You said, "It seems pointless to respond to poorly crafted critiques [meaning the Boyce paper]."

I'm not sure why that would be, unless you think the paper is so gosh-awful that no one takes it seriously. Yet, according to your post quoted here, you don't think that. So I'm not clear on why you think it would be pointless to respond to the paper.

I think the paper is crafted poorly, yes.  I said that not everyone has the same opinion on the paper as I do.  

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, apparently, that is in the eye of the beholder.

So is "poorly crafted," it would seem.

 

[ttribe]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

So is "poorly crafted," it would seem.

 

Of course. Not sure why that would be controversial. 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Of course. Not sure why that would be controversial. 

hope for things apparently thinks that a paper that, in his view, is poorly crafted, doesn't merit or warrant any response. Funny thing is, we have this thread that's up to five pages now in which hope for things among others are giving their responses to this allegedly sorry paper that Duane Boyce wrote. And some people are spun up over it on Dan Peterson's Facebook page as well, and, to some extent, in the responses on Interpreter.

For being so unworthy of notice, it seems to have drawn a fair amount of attention.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Got it.

This strikes me as a very subjective assessment.

That's rather the point. That is there's a subjective element to approval that isn't even consistent for the same person. I suspect that had Dan read it at a different time he might have thought the level of editing suggestions would be different.

Again, I think it's an important conversation to have. I just wish it was conducted in a slightly different fashion.

Edit: To be clear in saying that I'm not saying Dan would necessarily do things differently. I have zero knowledge of that. It appears he disagrees with Boyce's views, but thinks that they're fine to have at the Interpreter. And I should note that in that I agree. I think a multitude of views is important. I just think that perhaps some editing guidance would have been helpful to make it a better paper. That doesn't mean I think it unworthy of publication. Just that I think it's helpful for editors to provide structural feedback to authors with works being a kind of joint effort between editor and author.

Likewise I feel very strongly that because apologetics always has that theological element that we should discuss and debate theology. While some might disagree I'd actually argue that apologetics has probably pushed more general LDS scriptural scholarship and theology more than any other movement. I think it was Nibley who used to joke that if it weren't for our critics we'd neglect our scriptures.

Edited August 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

hope for things apparently thinks that a paper that, in his view, is poorly crafted, doesn't merit or warrant any response. Funny thing is, we have this thread that's up to five pages now in which hope for things among others are giving their responses to this allegedly sorry paper that Duane Boyce wrote. And some people are spun up over it on Dan Peterson's Facebook page as well, and, to some extent, in the responses on Interpreter.

For being so unworthy of notice, it seems to have drawn a fair amount of attention.

One, I am not hope-for-things and I'm not adopting his opinions.  Two, I don't know how many other message boards, and on what topics, you might frequent, but I see very little relationship between the merit of a topic and the volume of bandwidth consumed in its discussion.  In short, I guess I would say - So what?

Edited August 1, 2017 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's rather the point. That is there's a subjective element to approval that isn't even consistent for the same person. I suspect that had Dan read it at a different time he might have thought the level of editing suggestions would be different.

Again, I think it's an important conversation to have. I just wish it was conducted in a slightly different fashion.

Edit: To be clear in saying that I'm not saying Dan would necessarily do things differently. I have zero knowledge of that. It appears he disagrees with Boyce's views, but thinks that they're fine to have at the Interpreter. And I should note that in that I agree. I think a multitude of views is important. I just think that perhaps some editing guidance would have been helpful to make it a better paper. That doesn't mean I think it unworthy of publication. Just that I think it's helpful for editors to provide structural feedback to authors with works being a kind of joint effort between editor and author.

Likewise I feel very strongly that because apologetics always has that theological element that we should discuss and debate theology. While some might disagree I'd actually argue that apologetics has probably pushed more general LDS scriptural scholarship and theology more than any other movement. I think it was Nibley who used to joke that if it weren't for our critics we'd neglect our scriptures.

Interesting thought. You may be right about that.

But you said Dan disagrees with Boyce's views. I was unaware he had expressed any disagreement or agreement. Do you have a cite?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, ttribe said:

One, I am not hope-for-things and I'm not adopting his opinions.  

I see. You're just the kid on the sidelines at the sandlot baseball game who calls out, "Hey batter-batter-batter!"

Quote

Two, I don't know how many other message boards, and on what topics, you might frequent, but I see very little relationship between the merit of a topic and the volume of bandwidth consumed in its discussion. 

Me neither, actually. It was Mr. hope for things who said a "poorly crafted critique" does not merit or warrant a response.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But you said Dan disagrees with Boyce's views. I was unaware he had expressed any disagreement or agreement. Do you have a cite?

I was going by his blog post yesterday where he goes out of his way to talk about his admiration for Hardy, that Boyce was criticizing. He linked to two articles by him where he went through that. 

I suppose one could argue that by thinking much of Hardy, Givens and company he's not necessarily disagreeing with Boyce's content. But given Boyce's strong comments and Dan's feeling the need to make them I think there's some disagreement there.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I was going by his blog post yesterday where he goes out of his way to talk about his admiration for Hardy, that Boyce was criticizing. He linked to two articles by him where he went through that. 

I suppose one could argue that by thinking much of Hardy, Givens and company he's not necessarily disagreeing with Boyce's content. But given Boyce's strong comments and Dan's feeling the need to make them I think there's some disagreement there.

I'm aware of the blog post, and I do believe you're making an unsustainable assumption. He also expressed admiration for Duane Boyce. 

And he felt the need to express his admiration for Hardy, Givens and Mason to quell the unhinged rabble who are saying Interpreter has "declared war" on them by publishing the Boyce piece.

Dan is registered here, of course, and can speak for himself, but I don't believe your assumption is justified. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I see. You're just the kid on the sidelines at the sandlot baseball game who calls out, "Hey batter-batter-batter!"

Well, this raises an interesting question - Do I have a duty to take a side in every argument?  If so, I have a great deal of work to do; the Internet is FULL of arguments on which I've yet to opine.  I'm not sure how I can take time to even sleep at night.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, this raises an interesting question - Do I have a duty to take a side in every argument?  If so, I have a great deal of work to do; the Internet is FULL of arguments on which I've yet to opine.  I'm not sure how I can take time to even sleep at night.

Of course you don't have to take a side. You can remain silent. That is an option that is always open to you. 

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Of course you don't have to take a side. You can remain silent. That is an option that is always open to you. 

So, remain silent or take a side. Got it.  Very interesting, by the way.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, ttribe said:

So, remain silent or take a side. Got it.  Very interesting, by the way.

If I suggest that options A and B are open to you, that doesn't mean I have ruled out C, D, E or F. 

Why are you looking for to me to give you permission anyway? That seems a bit weird. 

In fact this conversation is seeming a bit nutty. I think I'll choose option B, remain silent. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm aware of the blog post, and I do believe you're making an unsustainable assumption. He also expressed admiration for Duane Boyce. 

And he felt the need to express his admiration for Hardy, Guvens and Mason to quell the unhinged rabble who are saying Interpreter has "declared war" on them by publishing the Boyce piece.

Dan is registered here, of course, and can speak for himself, but I don't believe your assumption is justified. 

You're possibly right. I got the impression though both from saying those things about Boyce's target plus pushing Jeff's critique there was more to it. However you may also be right that he was just trying to shoot down "war talk." 

In any case Jeff clearly was unhappy with the paper. And there are clearly a few websites not fans of Hardy, Givens and Mason along with people on Twitter who feel the same. My sense, perhaps wrong, is that Boyce was much more in tune with those groups and Dan was distancing the Interpreter from them without necessarily bringing such issues out in the open.

Ultimately it doesn't matter I suppose. Several people have written forcefully against Boyce's paper. I'm still trying to decide if I write something - probably not as I have to finish my post on Adam Miller's book plus finish a review of that new Kofford apologetics book. I also am trying to decide if I try to submit something to the Interpreter I've been working on and off about. Lots to do and I'm not sure the best use of time is necessarily criticizing Boyce. (Which suggests I should drop out of commenting on this thread further)

Like I said I really think Boyce broached a topic that needs dealt with. I just think we need something different as a means to do it.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

You're possibly right. I got the impression though both from saying those things about Boyce's target plus pushing Jeff's critique there was more to it. However you may also be right that he was just trying to shoot down "war talk." 

In any case Jeff clearly was unhappy with the paper. And there are clearly a few websites not fans of Hardy, Givens and Mason along with people on Twitter who feel the same. My sense, perhaps wrong, is that Boyce was much more in tune with those groups and Dan was distancing the Interpreter from them without necessarily bringing such issues out in the open.

Ultimately it doesn't matter I suppose. Several people have written forcefully against Boyce's paper. I'm still trying to decide if I write something - probably not as I have to finish my post on Adam Miller's book plus finish a review of that new Kofford apologetics book. I also am trying to decide if I try to submit something to the Interpreter I've been working on and off about. Lots to do and I'm not sure the best use of time is necessarily criticizing Boyce. (Which suggests I should drop out of commenting on this thread further)

Like I said I really think Boyce broached a topic that needs dealt with. I just think we need something different as a means to do it.

Whatever. 

When you said Dan disagrees  with Boyce, I thought you meant he had said so directly, using words to that effect. I now see that is not the case. You were only surmising on what appears to me to be a very tenuous basis. 

Of course, it is very possible Dan does disagree with him. But he has not said so insofar as I am aware. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm still working my way through Part 1 of the Duane Boyce paper. I'm a slow reader, especially when I don't have a deadline to meet. 

But I will just comment here that Boyce makes a very credible argument that God's pattern is to give instruction but not explanation, that when we try to come up with reasoning on matters that God has not given reasons for, we are on our own and quite prone to error. It is an exercise of our faith to obey the law or commandment, trusting that the reason for it will one day be clear. 

Boyce gives a very thought provoking quote from Elder Neal A. Maxwell that prophets and apostles are subject to having their faith tested as are other Church members. 

So far, I am liking Boyce's essay. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So far, I am liking Boyce's essay. 

You disagree with Jeff's response?

[ttribe]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I suggest that options A and B are open to you, that doesn't mean I have ruled our C, D, E or F. 

Why are you looking for to me to give you permission anyway? That seems a bit weird. 

I wasn't; that you assumed I was makes this exchange all the more humorous...to me, anyway.

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But I will just comment here that Boyce makes a very credible argument that God's pattern is to give instruction but not explanation, that when we try to come up with reasoning on matters that God has not given reasons for, we are on our own and quite prone to error. It is an exercise of our faith to obey the law or commandment, trusting that the reason for it will one day be clear. 

Then why the need for Prophets?  Take the Priesthood ban for example.  We now are being taught that no explanation was given for it and that what the Prophets came up with (supposedly through their divine inspiration) is no longer believed or taught.   But members trusted those Prophets and taught those reasons given for the ban for years.  

That's why I believe that the Prophets are just men (who are good men), but we need to use our own prayers and inspiration rather than just blindly following or believing everything they state.

Blind obedience is not wise and neither is the hero worship that many engage in regarding church leaders.   

Edited August 2, 2017 by ALarson

[USU78]

35 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Blind obedience is not wise and neither is the hero worship that many engage in regarding church leaders.   

Nice BY paraphrase.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Nice BY paraphrase.

Thank you.  It's good advice.