88 replies to this topic

[Senator]

Bill Hamblin, on 26 June 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

It is not clear to me why Dehlin feels he should be above criticism, especially considering how much he criticizes the LDS Church and many of its members.  

What has Dehlin written or published that would be worthy of review? I just don't know enough about him outside of his podcats etc..

[CASteinman]

Benjamin McGuire, on 26 June 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

At any rate, we can start with just this sort of technical dictionary definition:

Apolology: a formal justification : defense

Polemic: an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another

I sort of got the impression from your previous comments that a key aspect of polemcism is the attempt to divide, separate or polarize two sets of thoughts or (actually) two groups of people.  

Which would sort of make the dictionary -- and especially those two definitions -- an exercise in polemics.  eh?

OK, maybe not, if you also have to include an appeal to emotion as well.

[CASteinman]

Benjamin McGuire, on 26 June 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

what has happened is that the interest level in this paper has simply been pushed through the roof, and at some point one of those copies that is out there is going to find its way into the public awareness (either after being published someplace - or simply posted at Scribd anonymously). It will be read. It just seems unlikely that it will be published at BYU at this point.

Obviously, its publication is expected -- even anticipated -- by all interested parties at this point.  Not only that, but the population of "interested parties" is substantially larger now.

I would wager that somewhere on the Internet there is probably already a website discussion board that has set up a special place just to publish so-called "Hit Pieces" like this.   And the instant it is published, it will circle the globe at Relativistic velocities -- much faster than the time it will take to read it.

[Evangeline]

Senator, on 26 June 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

What has Dehlin written or published that would be worthy of review? I just don't know enough about him outside of his podcats etc..

You must have missed this part of Dr. Hamblin's post:

"The point is that Dehlin is a public figure engaged in public discourse of interest to Mormons.  He is not, and should not be immune from criticism. The standard form of academic discourse on such matters are essays.  That's what scholars do.  The standard response to an essay is an essay.  If Smith published an article critical of Dehlin and Dehlin objected, Dehlin could have written a response or done a podcast, etc. Rational discourse would ensue."

It doesn't matter if he has written essays or given podcasts -- they are all part of the discourse.

Edit:  I just realized that I may have misunderstood your question.  I'm sorry if I have.

Edited by Evangeline, 26 June 2012 - 09:19 PM.

[Senator]

Evangeline, on 26 June 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

You must have missed this part of Dr. Hamblin's post:

"The point is that Dehlin is a public figure engaged in public discourse of interest to Mormons.  He is not, and should not be immune from criticism. The standard form of academic discourse on such matters are essays.  That's what scholars do.  The standard response to an essay is an essay.  If Smith published an article critical of Dehlin and Dehlin objected, Dehlin could have written a response or done a podcast, etc. Rational discourse would ensue."

It doesn't matter if he has written essays or given podcasts -- they are all part of the discourse.

I'll confess that I have not listened to even one of his podcats. I what way is he in conflict with the church?

[Evangeline]

Senator, on 26 June 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

I'll confess that I have not listened to even one of his podcats. I what way is he in conflict with the church?

If you're looking for some ideas from the perspective of a conservative-minded LDS member, consider reading Ralph Hancock's blog entry from yesterday (I realize it's already been cited on a few other threads, but it's an informative and accurate read in my opinion):

http://www.johnadams...as-two-letters/

Edited by Evangeline, 26 June 2012 - 09:44 PM.

[Joe Thorpe]

"In the world but not of the world." But the world changes! And, during this election in particular, the world (the context of our religious speechifying) is changing. So it should not be surprising that the General Authority, or those in lesser authority, might change tack, or choose the smoothest waters, as wordly conditions change - whether this has anything to do with the ongoing election and increased scrutiny of the church, or other factors.

How the church chooses to present itself to others is a matter of choice (and inspiration) - not logic or necessity, so humility and discretion on all sides, amongst both the apparent "winners" and "losers", would seem wisest.

[calmoriah]

CASteinman, on 26 June 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

I would wager that somewhere on the Internet there is probably already a website discussion board that has set up a special place just to publish so-called "Hit Pieces" like this.   And the instant it is published, it will circle the globe at Relativistic velocities -- much faster than the time it will take to read it.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

So it should not be surprising that the General Authority, or those in lesser authority, might change tack, or choose the smoothest waters, as wordly conditions change - whether this has anything to do with the ongoing election and increased scrutiny of the church, or other factors.

How the church chooses to present itself to others is a matter of choice (and inspiration) - not logic or necessity, so humility and discretion on all sides, amongst both the apparent "winners" and "losers", would seem wisest.

Let's take a look a this. First, we have a suggestion that there is someone in authority (either a GA or someone in "lesser authority" which I presume could come down to the level of Bradford himself - I suspect that in this case there isn't that much of a gap between a GA of some sort and Bradford) who has made a decision. Then, this decision by a GA or someone who is a lesser authority is equated with the desire of "the church" and the way that it "chooses to present itself". It then suggests that is not some kind of necessary change, so it must be the result of inspiration - and so invoking God into the equation (that is, God inspired his leaders - either at the GA level or some lesser level to fire Dan Peterson and eliminate apologetics from BYU). The reason, of course, is really irrelevant as this poster points out - it doesn't have to be an issue of logic or necessity. And then we get the suggestion that if we don't simply fall into line behind this GA or this lesser authority and their inspiration that we are being indiscreet or we are demonstrating a lack of humility (I read this as being akin to showing publicly a lack of trust and support for our GA's and their lesser authorities as well as, ultimately a lack of respect for the decisions that God makes that He has passed along via inspiration to those individuals).

This is a classic polemic. It is a highly emotionally charged post. It is a call to repentance to those on the other side of the discussion. And it is all based entirely on a model of belief over the situation that clearly has not been borne out, and is not supportable. The decision was not made by any General Authority that we can tell (no General Authority or even any lesser authority other than Bradford was willing to attach their name to this decision). Bradford, whether he receives inspiration or not, does not qualify as an authority in the church - he only functions as an authority within the NAMI where he has been given that authority. There is no sin in criticizing Bradford, there is no sin in being critical of the rather unconscionable way that this event has been handled. And this post provided absolutely no verifiable facts - merely speculation and assertions of what is right and wrong based entirely on those speculations.

Thank you Joe Thorpe for providing such a useful example for my thread.

Ben McGuire.

[Benjamin McGuire]

CASteinman writes:

Quote

I sort of got the impression from your previous comments that a key aspect of polemcism is the attempt to divide, separate or polarize two sets of thoughts or (actually) two groups of people.  

Which would sort of make the dictionary -- and especially those two definitions -- an exercise in polemics.  eh?

OK, maybe not, if you also have to include an appeal to emotion as well.

Not really - because, as I note, these two issues are quite closely connected, even though they seem to be polar opposites. When it becomes an exercise in polemics is when someone suggests that what I do is apologetics and what you do is polemics, claiming for myself the not so technical meaning that my apologetics are scholarly, and your polemics are a fear based appeal to emotion.

Ben M.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Bill Hamblin, on 26 June 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

Sure.  But that's not the point.

I didn't claim it was the point. I was making a point.  

Bill Hamblin, on 26 June 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

The point is that Dehlin is a public figure engaged in public discourse of interest to Mormons.  He is not, and should not be immune from criticism.  The standard form of academic discourse on such matters are essays.  That's what scholars do.  The standard response to an essay is an essay.  If Smith published an article critical of Dehlin and Dehlin objected, Dehlin could have written a response or done a podcast, etc.  Rational discourse would ensue.

I don't have a problem with open, critical exchange. But in this case it's clear that many of the interlocutors actually believe that there are soteriological and emotional health considerations when it comes to discussing aspects of Mormonism. So the stakes are a bit higher, than say, an exchange on 17th century German literature. Further, the audiences are not necessarily (or likely) only viewing the exchanges as disconnected scholarly exchanges. To me it's a no-brainer to assume that it's in my best interest, as a critic of much of Dehlin's work, to analyze the most fruitful way to reach a broad audience. Where we disagree is on the appropriate approach, not in whether or not critical exchange is good or bad.

Bill Hamblin, on 26 June 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

But that is not the path Dehlin chose.  He chose 1- engage in a public ad hominen attack by claiming that the article (which he hadn't read) was an ad hominem hit piece. (Note that the leaker who let Dehlin know of the forthcoming article had not read it when he leaked the information.  When he was later asked to read the article by the editor of the Review, he was unable to point to any specific instance of ad hominem.  I've read it, and I haven't either.

I think the whole "ad hominem" charge is lame to begin with. Why? Because it's a term used to end rather than initiate discussion. Dehlin seems to misuse it. Is he saying the review he never read employs the logical fallacy of ad hominem? I haven't read it, I've only heard about aspects of it, but from what I've heard I'm not sure invoking "ad hominem" against it is correct, if the term is intended as a logical fallacy. And there is added irony in that Dehlin's charge of ad hominem is, itself, a manifestation of (his misunderstood type of) ad hominem. So I don't care about "ad hominem" as a descriptor for the review. Instead, I think it's clear that people are uncomfortable with the possibility that the review may include things about Dehlin's life--including things about his work as a missionary. Do we really need an in-depth analysis of John Dehlin's life over the past 20 years? I submit we simply don't. Let's deal directly with his claims about LDS history, or about lying in temple recommend interviews, and things like that. There is plenty of material to cover without treading into the more personal aspects of a person's life. In the present climate, moral considerations aside, you just end up looking like an *** to a pretty significant group of onlookers when your same goal could be accomplished in a way that doesn't so alienate.

Bill Hamblin, on 26 June 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

2- Try (apparently successfully) to (at least temporarily) suppress the publication of the article.

right, and I see the irony of a person who frequently expresses opinions about the LDS church "white-washing" its history and so forth, complaining about the suppression of various academics, etc. and at the same time objecting to an analysis of himself. Fawn Brodie's book wasn't particularly flattering of Joseph Smith in many ways, would Dehlin dismiss it as "ad hominem"? No. (Of course, other considerations should be mentioned, like Joseph Smith being dead, for instance, which doesn't pose a logical problem--which seems to be your chief criterion--but it does pose an aesthetic one--which is an important criterion to a sizable number of onlookers presently.)  

Bill Hamblin, on 26 June 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

It is not clear to me why Dehlin feels he should be above criticism, especially considering how much he criticizes the LDS Church and many of its members.  The proper response is to respond to the criticism through rational discourse.  Why is Dehlin unwilling to do this?

Because rational discourse, despite whatever pretensions to the contrary, aren't Dehlin's modus operandi. But a ton of people already know that. We don't need to be bludgeoned in a 100+ page review about it. Yes, plenty of people are misled into buying into pretensions of "objectivity," but there are other ways to provide a corrective to that view which don't include directly discussing Dehlin.

Again, my concern is about effectiveness, approach, tone, reach, in addition to whatever other academic or logical arguments one wants to employ.

Edited by LifeOnaPlate, 27 June 2012 - 07:14 AM.

[William Schryver]

LifeOnaPlate, on 27 June 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

Instead, I think it's clear that people are uncomfortable with the possibility that the review may include things about Dehlin's life--including things about his work as a missionary.

It doesn't.  

I have characterized it as (and I think this characterization is rather apt) a critical analysis of his "Evangelizing Apostates from Mormonism" ministry.

Edited by William Schryver, 27 June 2012 - 07:28 AM.

[LifeOnaPlate]

William Schryver, on 27 June 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

It doesn't.  

I have characterized it as (and I think this characterization is rather apt) a critical analysis of his "Evangelizing Apostates from Mormonism" ministry.

So you're saying the review as you saw it contains nothing regarding Dehlin's mission work, his time as a missionary, nothing connected to his life experiences while serving a mission? (Others have told me otherwise, people who have seen the review.)

[William Schryver]

LifeOnaPlate, on 27 June 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

So you're saying the review as you saw it contains nothing regarding Dehlin's mission work, his time as a missionary, nothing connected to his life experiences while serving a mission? (Others have told me otherwise, people who have seen the review.)

There is nothing concerning John Dehlin's missionary work, or his life experiences while serving a mission, except for a comment made in relation to the so-called "Limited Geography Theory" where he notes that Guatemalan Mormons consider themselves to be Lamanites, on account of things said to them by President Spencer W. Kimball.

[Kevin Christensen]

For discussion of John Dehlin' mission experiences, he has a podcast on his own background.  There were disillusioning abuses of missionary practice going on, involving the Mission President and it was in the aftermath of that sort of thing that he was in personal contact with a General Authority who hoped to help him deal with it.  I spent five months of my own mission in England cleaning up the records in Liverpool and Preston Districts from the mess of the Baseball era.  So I can relate to a degree,but I've not become embittered about it.  I loved my mission, even the eye-opening bits.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

Edited by Kevin Christensen, 27 June 2012 - 12:45 PM.

[William Schryver]

Kevin Christensen, on 27 June 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

For discussion of John Dehlin' mission experiences, he has a podcast on his own background.  There were disillusioning abuses or missionary practice going on, involving the Mission President and it was in the aftermath of that sort of thing that he was in personal contact with a General Authority who hoped to help him deal with it.  I spent five months of my own mission in England cleaning up the records in Liverpool and Preston Districts from the mess of the Baseball era.  So I can relate to a degree,but I've not become embittered about it.  I loved my mission, even the eye-opening bits.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

Some of the horror stories we have heard about other missions has made my wife and I extremely grateful for a mission led by a simply wonderful President: Lino Pablo Gambarotto, an Argentinian who presided over the Italy Catania Mission from 1978-1981.  He was a great man who sacrificed much to serve as a mission president, but who produced, as a direct consequence of his superb leadership qualities, hundreds of dedicated and disciplined missionaries, the majority of which have remained faithful to the present day.

/end derail

Edited by William Schryver, 27 June 2012 - 12:44 PM.

[William Schryver]

-Nevermind ...

Edited by William Schryver, 27 June 2012 - 01:28 PM.

[Wiki Wonka]

LifeOnaPlate, on 27 June 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

So you're saying the review as you saw it contains nothing regarding Dehlin's mission work, his time as a missionary, nothing connected to his life experiences while serving a mission? (Others have told me otherwise, people who have seen the review.)

LOAP,

Anyone who told you this has not actually read the essay. The essay does not discuss Dehlin's mission experiences or anything that happened in his mission during that time. The rumors that it did came from Dehlin's own description of his conversation with Dr. Midgley after the UVU conference.

WW

[LifeOnaPlate]

Sounds fine to me, I can take your word for it.

It doesn't change my overall argument that there are better ways to deal with the Dehlin phenomenon than a 100+ page review, and that attention to tone is especially crucial when dealing with it.

[wenglund]

LifeOnaPlate, on 27 June 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

It doesn't change my overall argument that there are better ways to deal with the Dehlin phenomenon than a 100+ page review, and that attention to tone is especially crucial when dealing with it.

Hi LoaP,

I respect your opinion and would be interested to learn specifically how you believe the "Dehlin phenomena" should be dealt with? I would also like to know how you figure there are better ways than Greg's article given that you also haven't read it? And, even if there may be better ways of dealing with the phenomena, is there a problem dealing with it as Greg has?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 27 June 2012 - 03:33 PM.