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

[mfbukowski]

On 7/31/2017 at 3:36 PM, 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.

 

 

 

 

And a hundred more rep points I cannot give you.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

You disagree with Jeff's response?

I've only read through Jeff's response once, and quickly, at that. I intend to re-read it now that I (as of this morning) have finished reading Part 1 of the Boyce paper.

But for now, where the two clash, I'm inclined to side with Duane Boyce. (I hasten to add that I hold Jeff's work in apologetics over the years in very high esteem, and I have great respect for him as an apologist.)

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Then why the need for Prophets?  

We need prophets for the same reason people have needed prophets throughout the ages: to convey the mind and will of God.
 

Quote

 

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. 

 

 

 

If you have not yet done so, you need to read Part 1 of Boyce's paper to get an understanding of this in the context of the pattern whereby God generally gives instruction but not explanation. When mortal men and women undertake to come up with explanations for the commandments of God where God Himself has not provided it, they are "on their own" to use Elder Oaks's words. They are thus subject to being wrong; in the cases of the conjectural explanations for the priesthood ban, "spectacularly wrong," to use Elder Oaks's words again.

But Boyce makes the point that nothing in the Gospel Topics essay affirms that the ban itself was a mistake, just the speculative reasons given for it. In this, Boyce is correct. Boyce also furnishes compelling quotations from prophets and apostles to the effect that the ban was not contrary to the will of God.

Quote

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.

It is not blind obedience to hold in abeyance one's rejection of the words of prophets while one goes to the Lord in prayer and seeks a spiritual witness of their verity, recognizing even as one seeks and receives that witness that an understanding of the reason behind the revelation might not be granted immediately. On the contrary, it is being humbly responsible.

Quote

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

It's also true that hero worship is not wise with respect to academic professors, authors and philosophers.

But perhaps you need to ponder the difference between wholesome love, respect and confidence vs. "hero worship."

Incidentally, nothing I have read in Part 1 of Boyce's paper (which I finished reading this morning) advocates hero worship of Church leaders.

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We need prophets for the same reason people have needed prophets throughout the ages: to convey the mind and will of God.

But, with no reasons given for their commandments?

If that's the case (that God gives "instruction but not explanation"), then it's definitely on blind faith if you just follow everything they ask you to do.  I have no issue with that if this works for you, but I choose to get my own confirmation or inspiration.  Sometimes I agree with them, but sometimes I don't.  

I'll try to take a look at this paper this weekend if I can, thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But, with no reasons given for their commandments?

If that's the case (that God gives "instruction but not explanation"), then it's definitely on blind faith if you just follow everything they ask you to do.

As I said, it's not blind faith if one seeks and receives a spiritual witness. An understanding of the reason is not essential to that witness. As Nephi said, "I know that [God] loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things” (1 Nephi 11:17).

Quote

I have no issue with that if this works for you, but I choose to get my own confirmation or inspiration.  Sometimes I agree with them, but sometimes I don't.  

A test of faith is in seeking [and receiving] a witness of what they say at those times when we don't agree with them.

I have to say, however, that almost all of the time, I agree with them at the outset. If I were pressed to come up with an occasion when I didn't, it would probably be a few years ago after it was widely anticipated the Church was going to end its relationship with Scouting due to certain changes in policy by BSA. There were strong indications pointing to that eventuality, including a strong hint in a statement from the Church itself.

As it turned out, the decision was that the Church would retain its relationship with BSA. I was disappointed and confused at first, but the divine assurance came to me, "Be still, and know that I am God." I still didn't understand the reason, but I did receive the witness.

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I said, it's not blind faith if one seeks and receives a spiritual witness. An understanding of the reason is not essential to that witness. As Nephi said, "I know that [God] loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things” (1 Nephi 11:17).

A test of faith is in seeking [and receiving] a witness of what they say at those times when we don't agree with them.

I have to say, however, that almost all of the time, I agree with them at the outset. If I were pressed to come up with an occasion when I didn't, it would probably be a few years ago after it was widely anticipated the Church was going to end its relationship with Scouting due to certain changes in policy by BSA. There were strong indications pointing to that eventuality, including a strong hint in a statement from the Church itself.

As it turned out, the decision was that the Church would retain its relationship with BSA. I was disappointed and confused at first, but the divine assurance came to me, "Be still, and know that I am God." I still didn't understand the reason, but I did receive the witness.

Ok, thanks for the example.  Seems you still followed (or at least didn't reject) even though you felt it was wrong, but I probably see it differently than you do.  Each of us has to do what feels right and I respect that.

[hope_for_things]

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But, with no reasons given for their commandments?

If that's the case (that God gives "instruction but not explanation"), then it's definitely on blind faith if you just follow everything they ask you to do.  I have no issue with that if this works for you, but I choose to get my own confirmation or inspiration.  Sometimes I agree with them, but sometimes I don't.  

I'll try to take a look at this paper this weekend if I can, thanks.

I like to think of our church leaders in the same way I think of leaders in other disciplines.  They are just as prone to error and bias, if not more so because they aren't even attempting to follow evidence in a disciplined way but rather are trying to uphold tradition and maintain a conservative posture.  So I will listen and then research and consider for myself whether or not their advice is wise on a number of issues.  

The problem is that our church leaders aren't specialists in the subjects that they often delve into.  If they give counsel about how to make your prayers more meaningful, I will listen very closely because this is in their area of expertise, but when they comment about subjects that they have very little knowledge about like LGBT issues or legalizing medical marijuana, I find their counsel to be seriously lacking.  

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok, thanks for the example.  Seems you still followed (or at least didn't reject) even though you felt it was wrong, but I probably see it differently than you do.  Each of us has to do what feels right and I respect that.

At length, I didn't feel it was wrong. I still didn't understand why it was right, but that's not the same thing as feeling it was wrong.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I like to think of our church leaders in the same way I think of leaders in other disciplines.  They are just as prone to error and bias, if not more so because they aren't even attempting to follow evidence in a disciplined way but rather are trying to uphold tradition and maintain a conservative posture.  So I will listen and then research and consider for myself whether or not their advice is wise on a number of issues.  

 

Boyce addresses this too.

He says Hardy and Mason argue erroneously that the prophets and apostles only receive revelation occasionally and the rest of the time they are left to muddle through on their own according to a teach-them-correct-principles-and-let-them-govern-themselves model (I'm paraphrasing here, of course).

Not so, says Boyce. He makes a compelling case, from various quotations from prophets/Church leaders, that the revelation comes much more often than only occasionally.

Quote

The problem is that our church leaders aren't specialists in the subjects that they often delve into.  If they give counsel about how to make your prayers more meaningful, I will listen very closely because this is in their area of expertise, but when they comment about subjects that they have very little knowledge about like LGBT issues or legalizing medical marijuana, I find their counsel to be seriously lacking.  

If  you are subject to receiving revelation -- and if you have that role because of the prophetic mantle you bear -- you don't have to be a specialist.

This is a corollary to the understanding that God's pattern is to give instruction, not explanation. If you are a divinely anointed prophet you don't have to have a knowldege of the reason -- or a technical understanding of the subject -- to know when God has revealed His will.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Boyce addresses this too.

He says Hardy and Mason argue erroneously that the prophets and apostles only receive revelation occasionally and the rest to the time they are left to muddle through on their own according to a teach-them-correct-principles-and-let-them-govern-themselves model.

Not so, says Boyce. He makes a compelling case, from various quotations from prophets/Church leaders, that the revelation comes much more often than only occasionally.

I haven't read the Boyce essay, but how is this not circular logic?  Prophets saying they get more revelation.  I find the Hardy/Mason approach lines up better with my observations of historical events.  Also, haven't some prophets eschewed claims that they received frequent revelation, like Brigham Young or Joseph F. Smith.  At any rate, I think the evidence of history is a more reliable measurement than a claim for revelation.  So me the money!  

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If  you are subject to receiving revelation -- and if you have that role because of the prophetic mantle you bear -- you don't have to be a specialist.

This is a corollary to the understanding that God's pattern is to give instruction, not explanation. If you are a divinely anointed prophet you don't have to have a knowldege of the reason -- or a technical understanding of the subject -- to know when God has revealed His will.

Theologically this opens up a lot of interesting questions.  What subjects are prophets even entitled to revelation on, or are there limitations to what God might inspire a prophet to do?  Did the prophet follow the proper process to qualify for revelation (study and ponder and more study and more pondering).  What is revelation, is it a gut feeling that people get, or is it a process that takes years of wrestling with an issue like the 1978 priesthood revelation.  What about revelation that is later changed, and then changed again, does that mean the first revelation was false, and what should we think about current revelations that we have if past revelations are no longer in force, should we get very comfortable with our current doctrines/teachings?  

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I haven't read the Boyce essay, but how is this not circular logic?  Prophets saying they get more revelation.  

You are not giving the essay a fair consideration if you rely solely on my extremely abbreviated recaps for your understanding of it. But I'm not going to make lengthy copy-and-pastes of it here just for your benefit when you are perfectly capable of going to the Interpreter web site and reading it on your own.

It's not circular logic if the prophets are telling the truth about their receipt of revelation. It comes down to a matter of whether or not you choose to believe them. Your choice to disbelieve is no more compelling than my choice to believe.
 

Quote

 

I find the Hardy/Mason approach lines up better with my observations of historical events.  

 

Read the paper. Hardy and Mason have essentially overlooked "numerous (and public) first-hand apostolic declarations regarding revelation."

Quote

Also, haven't some prophets eschewed claims that they received frequent revelation, like Brigham Young or Joseph F. Smith.

I don't know what you're referring to here. But, according to a response from Bob Crockett (who was actually arguing against Boyce's paper), Joseph F. Smith corrected himself in the Reed Smoot hearings and said the Holy Spirit is constantly guiding the Church. Evidently, Bob differentiates between "revelation" and guidance from the Holy Spirit, but I don't. I regard the Holy Ghost's guidance as a form of revelation. And if such guidance comes constantly, that's enough to qualify as "frequent" in my view.

Quote

At any rate, I think the evidence of history is a more reliable measurement than a claim for revelation.  So me the money! 

I don't concede that the "evidence of history" contradicts the prophets and apostles all that compellingly. Maybe it's a "your mileage may vary" sort of thing.

Quote

Theologically this opens up a lot of interesting questions.  What subjects are prophets even entitled to revelation on, or are there limitations to what God might inspire a prophet to do?

I believe God calls the shots on that.

 

Quote

Did the prophet follow the proper process to qualify for revelation (study and ponder and more study and more pondering).

I believe part of what qualifies an anointed prophet for his calling is skill and experience at seeking and recognizing revelation. I don't have a problem with this.

 

Quote

 What is revelation, is it a gut feeling that people get, or is it a process that takes years of wrestling with an issue like the 1978 priesthood revelation.

You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy here. Or maybe I'm not understanding you.

Quote

 What about revelation that is later changed, and then changed again, does that mean the first revelation was false, and what should we think about current revelations that we have if past revelations are no longer in force, should we get very comfortable with our current doctrines/teachings?

I've  never had a problem with this either, recognizing as I do that God will give instruction that is appropriate to changing times and circumstances; i.e. what is appropriate in one time period might need to be altered for another. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel Peterson]

I like Grant Hardy, Patrick Mason, and Terryl Givens very much, and I like their work.

 

I also like to include a variety of approaches and voices in Interpreter -- we don't have a rigid party line -- and I think open discussion is a very good thing.

 

Furthermore, I thought that Duane Boyce's article makes some important points, sounds some important warnings, and contains some very interesting material.

 

Moreover, it passed our peer review process -- with which I'm not even directly involved.

 

Had our peer reviewers regarded it as worthless junk, it would not have appeared.  Had I thought so, it would not have appeared.  Had our managing editor thought so, it would not have appeared.

 

Some bright readers have liked it very much.  Others have not.  On the whole, I think it's generating a valuable conversation.  That doesn't upset me.

 

If Duane Boyce is taken to argue that the work of Hardy, Mason, and Givens is wholly without merit and dangerous, I disagree with him.  I don't take him to be arguing that.

[stemelbow]

21 hours ago, Daniel Peterson said:

PI like Grant Hardy, Patrick Mason, and Terryl Givens very much, and I like their work.

 

I also like to include a variety of approaches and voices in Interpreter -- we don't have a rigid party line -- and I think open discussion is a very good thing.

 

Furthermore, I thought that Duane Boyce's article makes some important points, sounds some important warnings, and contains some very interesting material.

 

Moreover, it passed our peer review process -- with which I'm not even directly involved.

 

Had our peer reviewers regarded it as worthless junk, it would not have appeared.  Had I thought so, it would not have appeared.  Had our managing editor thought so, it would not have appeared.

 

Some bright readers have liked it very much.  Others have not.  On the whole, I think it's generating a valuable conversation.  That doesn't upset me.

 

If Duane Boyce is taken to argue that the work of Hardy, Mason, and Givens is wholly without merit and dangerous, I disagree with him.  I don't take him to be arguing that.

Fair enough.  I think Duane Boyce said he liked their work in some measure too.  So I didn't take him as suggesting that he disagreed with all three completely.  I will add part I had me more concerned then part II.  I say that not necessarily alluding to tone, as some have indicated as being a problem.  Mostly because the issues raised in part II hardly seem worth noting. 

I quoted John Lund's response in the comments from the Interpreter ealier in this thread.  So far I'm siding with his perspective on these.  Hopefully part III is better than them all.

[Scott Lloyd]

For quick reference, the claims that Boyce contests in Part 1 of his treatise are summarized in endnote 112 of his article as follows:

Quote

The claims are (1) that “in all patience and faith” refers to being patient with prophets, (2) that God intervenes only occasionally in guiding the Church, (3) that Spencer W. Kimball thought the priesthood-temple restriction was a possible error and asked forgiveness for it, (4) that President Kimball had to fight his personal prejudices along the way to overturning the priesthood-temple restriction, and (5) that the Lord may have been waiting on his prophets — rather than their waiting on him — with regard to removing the restriction.

For the record, I too disagree with each of those claims and feel that Boyce was right to contest them. He presents a strong rebuttal of each one.

 

Edited August 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[BHodges]

On 8/1/2017 at 5:28 AM, 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 agree, Grant. Boyce seems to be rhetorically situating the authors as wolves in sheep's clothing. Jeff Lindsay noted in the comments over at Interpreter that it was unfair to depict these scholars as "apostates," suggesting he picked up on Boyce's intention as well. The comments section there is interesting. Many readers are judging for themselves and finding Boyce's piece wanting. I suspect the writings of Givens, Mason, and you will have a positive impact on far more readers in the coming years than this article will have a negative impact. So keep up the good work!