Interpreter Takes Aim at Givens, Hardy, and Mason

[_zerinus]

So the deceased Moroni couldn't be present to instruct Joseph Smith where the plates were....

Angelic ministrations not included. Remember, we are talking about the First Presidency. When the President dies, he may be with God in heaven, but he is no longer acting as a member of the First Presidency here on earth. He is not just “absent”. He is no longer part of the FP. He is no longer Present. There is no First Presidency when when there is no President. His counselors don’t make up a First Presidency by themselves when there is no President. Whom are they “counselling” when there is no President for them to “counsel”? It is like a bishopric. When a bishop dies, there is no more bishopric. His counselors by themselves don’t constitute a bishopric when there is no bishop for them to counsel.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

From Jeff Lindsay disagreeing with the Interpreter article: http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2017/07/a ... l-lds.html

I hope Dr. Scratch can find some free time out of his busy schedule to let us know his thoughts.

This sure seems like a feeble attempt by DCP to steer the Interpreter towards a Mopologetic slant.

[_Doctor Scratch]

From Jeff Lindsay disagreeing with the Interpreter article: http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2017/07/a ... l-lds.html

I hope Dr. Scratch can find some free time out of his busy schedule to let us know his thoughts.

This sure seems like a feeble attempt by DCP to steer the Interpreter towards a Mopologetic slant.

A very intriguing article indeed. Dr. Shades and Dr. Robbers appear to be correct: this is, on some levels, an attempt to steer Mormon Interpreter back towards Chapel Mormonism. The attacks on Hardy, Givens, et al. is backfiring, though.... Or is it?

Contextually speaking, this is really a strange maneuver. I'm sure that the hardcore, classic-FARMS Mopologists are still angry at Hardy for the humiliation he dealt out to them at the last FAIR Conference (i.e., where he said that you didn't need to believe in a historical Book of Mormon to get into the Celestial Kingdom). But then again, Hardy was one of the keynote speakers at that conference... So what's going on? Why attack him? Don't the Mopologists need people like him on their side?

I think that Dr. Robbers was right to link to that review of Boyce's book on warfare vs. pacifism. It may be that this is a case where the Mopologetic lust for attacking, smearing, and rhetorical warfare is bubbling to the surface: they got bored with attacking the young "Mormon Studies" new guard, and so now they are going to go after Givens, Hardy, etc. Maybe they see these older, more established LDS academics as "enabling" the Mormon Studies trends that they find threatening.

The Editor in Chief of Mormon Interpreter had this to say about the article:

We hope that you’ll enjoy it and that you’ll find it stimulating.

So... Is that an endorsement? Does Dr. Peterson agree with Boyce's views? It's worth taking note of the fact that he doesn't really comment on the article at all. My prediction is that, if pressed on the matter, DCP would just reiterate what he said: that he doesn't have an opinion, or doesn't want to share it publicly, or something along those lines: he just published this because MI likes to publish provocative essays with different points of view. I mean, of course that is what he would say: can you imagine him openly attacking someone like Givens? Even when Hamblin and Gee were viciously going after Bokovoy and others, he tended to lay low. And, of course, beyond expressing "disappointment," he said nothing over the course of the Jenkins Incident. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, since he's taken up hard-core blogging (I think I saw the astonishing figure that he posts over a thousand blog entries per year???), his publicly expressed views are wishy-washy. It's is if he doesn't believe in much of anything at all.

It may be that what this article is showing is just how angry the apologists have been all this time with certain Mormon scholars, and this is--at last--all that hatred boiling to the surface. They've had to wear these false masks of camaraderie and now the disguises are coming off. The backlash against this article--from J. Lindsay, of all people--is telling. It will (to say the least) be interesting to see how this develops. I wonder what will happen at the FAIR Conference.

Meanwhile, there is that dumb little tidbit, reported by DoubtingThomas, about how Mormon Interpreter is now "endorsed" by the institutional Church. "Sic et Non" reports that "It may seem a small thing, but it’s not," and in the comments, someone remarks that, "I am looking forward to reading the modified conspiracy theories that will both explain why you were fired and the journal you help produce is praised."

Well, now. We seem to be forgetting that Mormon Interpreter was penalized with a double-asterisk, meaning that it's "independent," and not actually connected to the Church. Certainly, it's not connected in the same way as the Maxwell Institute, which is part of BYU, and therefore carries a far more official "stamp of approval." But I'll tell you what: I'm willing to grant this as an "endorsement" if it turns out that the Church is also funneling money to Interpreter in the same way it was for FAIR--i.e., by buying tickets to the conference, or using "shell" organizations (e.g., The More Good Foundation) to pass funding along. Otherwise, no: this is definitely a "small thing." (Funny to think that these people might imagine that the Brethren approve of them attacking Grant Hardy and Terryl Givens--funny, at least, until you realize that this is indeed exactly what they think, even if that thinking is of the wishful variety.)

[_Philo Sofee]

Herr Doktor Sir Scratch.......

As always your insights and analysis are so interesting, right on point, and even the speculation has more grounding than any of the church essays........

[_Markk]

Reading the interpreter is like watching a regular season NBA game...just wait until the last 3 minutes to see if it is worth your time. I went to the summery and conclusions and all it really read was wait until 2 and 3 come out.

[_Kishkumen]

DCP took a real risk here, in my opinion. It would be one thing to publish a measured critique of the ideas of seasoned, serious, and committed Mormon scholars as written effectively by a scholar of similar distinction who simply differed in opinion. But this is far from what happened here. Instead DCP published a poorly argued piece by an undiplomatic amateur. Hell, Brant Gardner thought it was crap. And, it really is.

Regardless of the near-term outcome, this piece only succeeds in further marginalizing DCP in the LDS intellectual community. It is one thing to criticize, but it is quite another to criticize in such an inept fashion through the pen of a relative non-entity. It's actually quite an insulting swipe at Givens, Hardy, and Mason.

The LDS Church, in endorsing the Interpreter, has put its foot in a cow patty here, as this unfortunate event shows. The timing really couldn't be worse. The optics here are that serious, faithful scholars can expect to be betrayed and undermined by the very Church they work so hard to contribute to. If the powers that be think about this a little, they might conclude that DCP has clumsily put them in this unfortunate position.

What it shows, sadly, is that the Interpreter is not a reliable aid for Church members, after all. It is instead becoming yet another organ that erects walls in the chapel and sows discord in the temple, as was the FARMS Review before it. It's a real shame all of this happened. Poor judgment on the part of DCP. Too bad.

[_Philo Sofee]

Relax Kish, the loving and gentle Lou Midgley will win back the friends with his grace, care, and brotherly friendship. It's obvious his heart goes out to those who have sincere questions and doubts, and he really cares for them and their struggles. The Lord knew what he was doing sending in such a loving, gentle, and understanding man whom anyone would love to sit with for hours on end drinking from the cup of his vast learning and prophetic good natured spirit.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't disagree with you, Reverend, though I wonder if an effort was made to maintain plausible deniability: "Oh! It wasn't me! I don't necessarily endorse this article! I merely thought that readers would find it stimulating!"

As for potential fallout? My curiosity got the better of me and I went over and took a gander at the program for the upcoming FAIR Conference:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2017

Do you care to wager as to whether or not Grant Hardy has been invited back? Some of the titles of the forthcoming presentations are remarkable:

Neal Rappleye “Put Away Childish Things”: Learning to Read the Book of Mormon Using Mature Historical Thought

Michael Ash After the Manner of Their Language: The Key to Wisdom

Scott Peterson Jesus Christ, the Same Yesterday, Today, and Forever: A Restoration of Primitive Christianity

Ugo Perego What does the Church believe about evolution?

Tyler Griffin Book of Mormon Geographical References: Internal Consistency Taken to A New Level

So, we've got Neal Rappleye ridiculing the Chapel Mormons right out of the gate. (And as a sidenote, someone on "Sic et Non" observed that Rodney Meldrum's work was not mentioned in that list of recently "endorsed" websites and organizations. I guess the Church has formally declared that the Book of Mormon did not take place in the USA?) Ash seems to be doing his usual rhetorical spin-doctoring, and Peterson is apparently arguing the inerrancy of Mopologetic views. The title of Perego's talk is breathtaking in its hubris: What does the Church "believe"? Wow! Is he really going to be telling everyone at the conference what the Church "believes"? What, did his DNA work also grant him certain keys to declare LDS doctrine and beliefs like this? And then there's Griffin: forget Nahom! Forget Phililp Jenkins! The Book of Mormon evidence is at a WHOLE NEW LEVEL! Is this the Guy Fieri approach to doing Mopologetics? Chiasmus is a straight-up shortcut to Historytown?

I have to say, this lineup looks pretty god-awful. People who already purchased tickets ought to ask for a refund, something that is seemingly signaled by the title of Prof. P.'s talk: "What Difference Does It Make?"

[_Kishkumen]

Relax Kish, the loving and gentle Lou Midgley will win back the friends with his grace, care, and brotherly friendship. It's obvious his heart goes out to those who have sincere questions and doubts, and he really cares for them and their struggles. The Lord knew what he was doing sending in such a loving, gentle, and understanding man whom anyone would love to sit with for hours on end drinking from the cup of his vast learning and prophetic good natured spirit.

Priceless.

[_Kishkumen]

I don't disagree with you, Reverend, though I wonder if an effort was made to maintain plausible deniability: "Oh! It wasn't me! I don't necessarily endorse this article! I merely thought that readers would find it stimulating!"

Yes, the script is well worn.

I have to say, this lineup looks pretty god-awful.

I agree. It looks pretty bad, and Hardy is better off not speaking at such an event. It's unfortunate that the Church has chosen to associate itself more closely with such a mire of bad thinking and poor scholarship. After all, these are the very people who have, either despite their best efforts or through them, driven many fellow Mormons from the pews. The problem is that their general approach is abysmal, and Duane Boyce's work is typical in that regard.