Interpreter Takes Aim at Givens, Hardy, and Mason

[_Kishkumen]

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?

[_Kishkumen]

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?

Huh. Well, I don't know, Lemmie. He doesn't really get into the issue of explanations until the second section of this part of the paper. The first argument dealt with how frequently revelation is received. Perhaps I missed what you are talking about.

[_grindael]

Also, non-revelatory statements can be defined as such when they are found to be wrong or not fitting in with current position.

Because there is no real concept of continuing revelation except that which has been proven over time to be something that doesn't ruffle the feathers of society too much or has been grandfathered in. And thank goodness for them most of the stuff that was grandfathered in that was controversial has been summarily dismissed with a shrug and a "we don't know where that came from", or a 'revelation' was given that repealed it such as with polygamy and the priesthood ban, rebaptism and the law of adoption, thus proving that YES we have continuing revelation!

The days of Joseph giving a revelation to basically anyone who asked, scribbling them down during Council meetings and flinging them at people, on just about everything but ass scratching and how to take a proper crap, are over.

Why not admit they are just like every other organized religion? The same ones they were condemning for what they are doing now?

[_Lemmie]

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?

Huh. Well, I don't know, Lemmie. He doesn't really get into the issue of explanations until the second section of this part of the paper. The first argument dealt with how frequently revelation is received. Perhaps I missed what you are talking about.

I know what you mean, he does go on and on! Not the easiest paper to read. Maybe I am referring to the wrong section. Here are some excerpts about it, from the OP link, indicated by page(which shows up on my screen on far right) and section.

from page 5, in section titled Terryl Givens and Patrick Mason:
“In All Patience and Faith” :

Givens thus interprets this passage to indicate that we are to have patience and faith toward the Brethren since they are not always “sage and inspired.”

... If the Lord is telling us to receive prophets’ words as if from his own mouth, it is not likely that he is simultaneously telling us to have patience and faith because those words might not be “sage and inspired.”

from page 19:

As will be discussed later, the Lord regularly gives instructions without explanations, and that often leaves all members (including leaders) on their own in trying to understand what the reasons might be in one case or another.

From section Overlooking a Key Distinction: Instructions vs. Explanations:

Non-Authoritative Attempts at Explanation

As briefly mentioned earlier, even when the Lord does not provide explanations for the direction he gives, members and leaders might still try to reason from the scriptures to determine what the explanation might be. Unless otherwise explicitly so declared, however, these explanatory efforts do not enjoy the same official status as the action itself. This is true regardless of whom the speaker(s) might be.

and from page 27:

Those who seek to provide explanations are thus “on their own,” and what they say in that domain is not authoritative if it contradicts or exceeds the clear teachings of scripture. Significant and impressive men of God have done this regarding the priesthood-temple restriction, of course — including Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R. McConkie — but, for the reasons we have seen, their explanations are not authoritative, and they never have been.

My bolding at the end, to indicate where it seems he is agreeing with Givens, although his initial argument seemed to be in opposition.

[_Lemmie]

Boyce seems to be arguing that if a prophet's words can be construed as "non-revelatory explanation," then if those words are later found wrong, they don't really count as prophet's words. In other words, the prophet always speaks as a prophet, except when he doesn't.

The circular logic is bizarre: the prophet's words are always from god. If they are not revelatory, then they were non-revelatory "explanation" and don't count as the prophet's "revelatory instruction," and therefore, don't count as god's words from the prophet. Therefore, the prophet's words are always from god.

[_grindael]

Of course Brigham Young claiming that anything he said when he was sermonizing was scripture matters not. This is simply childish BS to wiggle out of their own "prophets" claims. Claims like what you hear in Conference is what they Lord would say if he were here are also just windbagging, I suppose. This is why I despise Mormon Apologists. But if they want to claim that their prophets are pretty much irrelevant, more power to 'em.

[_Maksutov]

What is the real description of the President of the Church? Never mind the theobabble. They are the nominal CEO of the corporation. They are the face of the brand. They are the ceremonial figure. They are the singular living human symbol of the organization. They don't have to be anything more than that and they haven't been. Everything else is a projection of the believer, encouraged by top down propaganda and down up bootlicking.

[_Kishkumen]

Boyce seems to be arguing that if a prophet's words can be construed as "non-revelatory explanation," then if those words are later found wrong, they don't really count as prophet's words. In other words, the prophet always speaks as a prophet, except when he doesn't.

The circular logic is bizarre: the prophet's words are always from god. If they are not revelatory, then they were non-revelatory "explanation" and don't count as the prophet's "revelatory instruction," and therefore, don't count as god's words from the prophet. Therefore, the prophet's words are always from god.

Ah, OK. I thought you were referring only to the first section of part one. Yes, this is a long discussion. What to do with all of the many things that fall from the lips of church leaders. Through a long process of sifting a small subset of all of this material has been canonized, and it is so troublesome that wisdom has cautioned against adding more material to that. Many things that appear to be revelation, or informed by revelation, can be dismissed as non-canonical, unless of course we want to talk about the constant revelation that guides the church in more general terms. Then it is all revelation.

[_I have a question]

Boyce seems to be arguing that if a prophet's words can be construed as "non-revelatory explanation," then if those words are later found wrong, they don't really count as prophet's words. In other words, the prophet always speaks as a prophet, except when he doesn't.

The circular logic is bizarre: the prophet's words are always from god. If they are not revelatory, then they were non-revelatory "explanation" and don't count as the prophet's "revelatory instruction," and therefore, don't count as god's words from the prophet. Therefore, the prophet's words are always from god.

Ah, OK. I thought you were referring only to the first section of part one. Yes, this is a long discussion. What to do with all of the many things that fall from the lips of church leaders. Through a long process of sifting a small subset of all of this material has been canonized, and it is so troublesome that wisdom has cautioned against adding more material to that. Many things that appear to be revelation, or informed by revelation, can be dismissed as non-canonical, unless of course we want to talk about the constant revelation that guides the church in more general terms. Then it is all revelation.

I think the Church could clear this mess up very easily by issuing a statement along the lines of...
"When the Prophet is speaking as a Prophet, it will be entered into the D&C. Other than that, treat everything he says as personal opinion."
...because that is the reality of how it always pans out after they are dead.

[_Lemmie]

Boyce seems to be arguing that if a prophet's words can be construed as "non-revelatory explanation," then if those words are later found wrong, they don't really count as prophet's words. In other words, the prophet always speaks as a prophet, except when he doesn't.

The circular logic is bizarre: the prophet's words are always from god. If they are not revelatory, then they were non-revelatory "explanation" and don't count as the prophet's "revelatory instruction," and therefore, don't count as god's words from the prophet. Therefore, the prophet's words are always from god.

Ah, OK. I thought you were referring only to the first section of part one. Yes, this is a long discussion. What to do with all of the many things that fall from the lips of church leaders. Through a long process of sifting a small subset of all of this material has been canonized, and it is so troublesome that wisdom has cautioned against adding more material to that. Many things that appear to be revelation, or informed by revelation, can be dismissed as non-canonical, unless of course we want to talk about the constant revelation that guides the church in more general terms. Then it is all revelation.

This is why I don't understand how upset he is at Givens, et. al. In essence he is making the same argument.