Interpreter Takes Aim at Givens, Hardy, and Mason

[_Kishkumen]

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.

The problem with that suggestion is that they want the living prophet's words to be treated by members as more authoritative than all previous revelation, until they have to defend it to others, that is.

[_Kishkumen]

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

I think there are important distinctions to be drawn between how either writer portrays the prophet. For Boyce, every argument must tend toward promoting the reliability and divine authority of the prophet and other leaders. Givens shows the dangerous capacity to dare judge for himself what is reliable and authoritative. Old school Mopologists are all about the cult of leadership in the LDS Church, so they will naturally favor the former over the latter.

[_Kishkumen]

My answer to the problem of prophets and authority is to distinguish between Joseph Smith and every other president of the LDS Church. A number of problems are easily solved if Joseph Smith stands in a category of his own. Let's face it, the sections of the D&C on the martyrdom and the organization of the wagon trains don't really fit the genre of the other sections in any way. The Official Declarations and the Proclamation are not revelations either. The only non-Joseph-Smith-era section that arguably belongs in the D&C is Section 138. Frankly, as Water Dog wisely noted, one could do probably without that one too. The other advantage of jettisoning post-Joseph-Smith "revelations" is one can then easily dismiss Adam-God, spirit birth, and the priesthood ban as well. It would perhaps be easier to arrive at women's priesthood once Brigham is properly demoted.

consiglieri's argument is one of the keys. Let's just admit that the Q12 took over the LDS Church as a less-than-ideal necessity, but that the price of doing so was certain losses. The president of the LDS Church is not Joseph Smith's true successor. The apostolic LDS Church is not the same church as the pre-assassination LDS Church. In some ways that's not a bad thing, but it is dangerous and oppressive inasmuch as the leadership wants to portray itself as equal to the legacy of Joseph Smith. It simply isn't.

[_Kishkumen]

One friend of the board responded this way to the piece:

Unfortunately, this article represents some of the worst that religion brings out in people. I’ve never understood why some can’t simply live and let live. If an infallible, completely trustworthy prophetic leadership is a perspective that works for people like Duane Boyce, great!

....But attacking others for not holding the right, righteous viewpoints of religion is unethical. It certainly isn’t “academic,” nor is it scholarship.

[_Maksutov]

I wonder if this is less about scholarship and more a battle over the definition of "faithful Mormon" and therefore the powers and privileges attached to that.

[_Kishkumen]

I wonder if this is less about scholarship and more a battle over the definition of "faithful Mormon" and therefore the powers and privileges attached to that.

Absolutely! No question this is about who the truly faithful are.

[_Lemmie]

I wonder if this is less about scholarship and more a battle over the definition of "faithful Mormon" and therefore the powers and privileges attached to that.

Excellent point. There is a section titled something like "plausibility," and I was quite surprised to find that its contents were all faith promoting stories where apostles informed others that apostles receive revelation. The proof? Stories told by apostles of the revelation they receive. How does that constitute "plausibility"? At that point, I looked back to see if the author had a middle initial and what lds positions he had held, as I vaguely began to suspect what you articulated so well.

[_grindael]

...they want the living prophet's words to be treated by members as more authoritative than all previous revelation, until they have to defend it to others, that is.

Better and more succinctly said than I could muster.

[_Philo Sofee]

Kishkumen

All of this shows me that there is a fundamental intellectual incoherence at the heart of the LDS Church today.

And a lack of actual revelation. I just can't help but think that if anytime an actual and real revelation was needed, today is that day, but none comes. The prophets won't prophesy, the apostles won't teach what they say Jesus tells them in person. And with the literally tens of thousands leaving the church (I joined Reddit when the ex-Mormon group had 19,000. Now it has over 50,000 in just over two years) I would wonder why Heavenly Father doesn't make it a priority to do something about it. I mean holy cow, what will it take to get God to talk, let alone actually show up and do something yet?! Of course, I assume the actual existence of said deity for the sake of the argument. It's a question faithful LDS and doubting LDS are going to have to work out for themselves, I've already done it for myself.

[_consiglieri]

I'm just glad The Interpreter isn't making it personal.

These examples are useful because the first element of our two-part question asks whether errors of this type are to be found in scholarly gospel discussions regarding prophets and revelation. After all, it would seem that a significant number of mistaken claims and arguments have appeared on the topic in recent years. The subject is certainly significant, so the only real question is whether the errors are so obvious and so important to the topic that there is no justification for them. Do they, too, constitute a betrayal of the intellect?

So people who disagree with this piece aren't just mistaken, they are betraying their own intellect?