Interpreter Takes Aim at Givens, Hardy, and Mason

[_Kishkumen]

I tried reading the comments. Couldn't make it through.

The comments are quite interesting. As one would expect, Brant Gardner doesn't think much of Boyce's piece, finding it lacking in charity. Allen Hansen and Nathaniel Givens both provide solid rebuttals and point out some of the dubious argumentation. Once again one wonders what passes for peer review at the Interpreter. This has some of the feel of the old hit pieces, albeit in the guise of a debate about doctrine and history.

In any case, Duane Boyce seems to want to drag Mormon scholarship back a few decades to uphold views that have been rightly cast aside by better scholars than he. The only purpose his piece seems to serve is to call into question the scholarship of those better scholars. And the only people it seems to be pleasing are the usual coterie of McConkie/Packer style of conservatives.

Most interesting of all, in my view, is Kevin Christensen's response, which fights Boyce on his own territory and defeats him handily.

[_Philo Sofee]

Frank Staheli in the discussion part of the articlesaid

The spirit seems to be perceived by iron rod Mormons differently than by liahona Mormons.

So it's a failure then. If the Spirit can't unify, and teach the same truth to all involved, then of what point is it?! This is a staggering concession. Not only will men disagree when men speak and try to teach each other and learn from each other, but so will they when God Himself speaks. There is simply no way for truth to unify then. Again, the most staggering concession made in the discussion.

[_Kishkumen]

It will be interesting to see how he treats Richard Bushman. I have been reading the sections on the early life of Smith and find he is quite open in citing sources by Dan Vogel (Early Mormon Documents) and Walters and Marquardt's Inventing Mormonism. In one footnote he states there is supportive evidence that the Smith family joined the Presbyterian Church as a result of the 1823-24 revival not 1920 as mentioned in the official version. Smith Senior was said not to have joined because the preacher said their son Alvin who died in 1823 had gone to hell.

Yes, I agree. It would be interesting to see that. I am not sure he has plans to do so. Did you see anything in his piece indicating such plans?

[_Kishkumen]

Frank Staheli in the discussion part of the articlesaid

The spirit seems to be perceived by iron rod Mormons differently than by liahona Mormons.

So it's a failure then. If the Spirit can't unify, and teach the same truth to all involved, then of what point is it?! This is a staggering concession. Not only will men disagree when men speak and try to teach each other and learn from each other, but so will they when God Himself speaks. There is simply no way for truth to unify then. Again, the most staggering concession made in the discussion.

I am tired of the Iron Rod vs. Liahona Mormon construct. Perhaps it is because I am too far from being either.

[_Kishkumen]

Interesting...... of course, everyone else but they interpret things incorrectly. And, once again, the scepter of an absent Holy Ghost appears. Why can't or won't it simply testify to all what the truth actually is? It is breath taking that it doesn't feel the need to do so, as past leaders powerfully testified it would. Apparently, no one in Mormonism is sincere enough. After all, it's always OUR faults... I also have to say it odd the leaders simply don't come out and guide and correct and teach true doctrine for all the imbibe in. Apologists simply have interpretation in the Interpreter. So what. It is when the leadership speaks that would make it important. Until then all we have are just men speaking as men.

Well, here's the sad thing about this debacle. As you note, this is all about faith tests and purity of belief. At a time when scholars like Givens and others are reaching out to people struggling with their faith in a more respectful and constructive way, the Interpreter decides to publish a poorly written piece that punishes them for their efforts. For the Interpreter crowd, the important thing is to have an unquestioning belief and obedience to the Brethren as the nigh-unto-perfect mouthpieces of God. I don't think this works any more. This is the faith of Brigham's Mormon Reformation. It sadly lived on in the posture of too many Latter-day Saints. The Interpreter would have things stay that way, regardless of how many members they shed in the process.

The other loss here is that Givens, Mason, and Hardy are not just out to save doubting members. They aim to uncover what they see as the beauty and richness of Mormon texts and thought. Here comes the Interpreter to quash any attempt to provide interesting and historically informed readings of texts. The Interpreter seems to want to raise up the Frankenstein of Mormon Neo-orthodoxy and put it back in the driver's seat of Mormon discourse.

[_Kishkumen]

I just noticed that our friend David Bokovoy is included in a footnote:

8. See the chapter, “In All Patience and Faith,” in Patrick Q. Mason, Planted: Belief and Belonging in an Age of Doubt (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 2015). Although he does not refer to this particular verse, David Bokovoy shares thoughts along similar lines in his “How to Save LDS Youth in a Secular Age,” Patheos, December 26, 2014, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokov ... cular-age/.

[_grindael]

The Interpreter seems to want to raise up the Frankenstein of Mormon Neo-orthodoxy and put it back in the driver's seat of Mormon discourse.

Actually, the Frankenstein of Mormon Neo-orthodoxy is being piloted by the Hierarchy. The only case I am aware of where this has been deviated from (to a certain extent) is with the current Essays. But they were kind of in a bind there, weren't they?

[_Kishkumen]

Actually, the Frankenstein of Mormon Neo-orthodoxy is being piloted by the Hierarchy. The only case I am aware of where this has been deviated from (to a certain extent) is with the current Essays. But they were kind of in a bind there, weren't they?

Yeah, I suppose. To be honest I have quit following what the leaders say. My impression was that they articulate very little regarding doctrine and do a lot of moralizing, much of it being of a very trivial nature. The essays, yes, were an attempt at addressing the thorny issues. This work was farmed out to trusted PhDs et al. The results were committee efforts that not infrequently contradict themselves. All of this shows me that there is a fundamental intellectual incoherence at the heart of the LDS Church today.

[_Maksutov]

Actually, the Frankenstein of Mormon Neo-orthodoxy is being piloted by the Hierarchy. The only case I am aware of where this has been deviated from (to a certain extent) is with the current Essays. But they were kind of in a bind there, weren't they?

Yeah, I suppose. To be honest I have quit following what the leaders say. My impression was that they articulate very little regarding doctrine and do a lot of moralizing, much of it being of a very trivial nature. The essays, yes, were an attempt at addressing the thorny issues. This work was farmed out to trusted PhDs et al. The results were committee efforts that not infrequently contradict themselves. All of this shows me that there is a fundamental intellectual incoherence at the heart of the LDS Church today.

Oh dear. Reverend, are you saying that rhetorical duct tape and dialectical baling wire are no longer suitable? How else will this work go forth?

[Guest]

So the first argument of the paper is that it is wrong to say prophets' statements are not always inspired because they are human.

The author gets around the issue by dividing prophet's words into "revelatory instructions" and "non-revelatory explanations," and then explains that when prophets are giving non-revelatory explanations, they may be wrong because it came from a human, not god. Also, non-revelatory statements can be defined as such when they are found to be wrong or not fitting in with current positions.

So, the author is arguing that prophets' (non-revelatory explanation-type) statements are not always inspired because they are human.

Did I miss something?