Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill Hamblin

Greg Smith'S Review Of Dehlin'S "Mormon Stories" Is Now Available

Recommended Posts

To the extent he makes himself a public figure and to the extent he publicizes these views it becomes the business of others. His reparation efforts with his stake president should have been confidential but to a certain extent he (John) has made them public. When one seeks public attention then one should have no expectation of privacy for what they have revealed publicly.

And he still is a public figure since his podcasts are still being made. And he is still making comments. When a person has a blog or makes podcasts and statements, such blogs, podcasts and statements can be or should be critiqued when necessary. And they should also be lauded when necessary.

And since John followed the critics in believing their 'hit piece' angle, he made it all so much worse and yet, he got the publicity that he wanted. Somehow he become the central actor in a critic play about the lds.

Share this post


Link to post

He wants to serve God without offending the devil.

I really agree with your first paragraph analysis of John Dehlin and, thus far, the above quotation is the best analysis I've yet read about Dehlin.

As for liking him, and giving Dehlin credit for wanting to do what is right, I cannot be so charitable. John Dehlin knows basic commandments like not baring false witness against others yet when called on it, he simply denies doing it. We even have Lou Midgley blantly say that John Dehlin is making a "bal;d face lie" about Midgley telling Dehlin that Dehlin is connected to a missionary's death. I think John Dehlin knows right from wrong on something as basic as telling the truth and not being a vehicle to share false information about others. I do not find his intend at all "honorable" when basing his intent on the outcome of his works.

Share this post


Link to post

I am suggesting he does not have to own up to you Wade. Owning up to his past is between him and his leaders and God. That's it. I know that may be tough for you to understand.

It's also making restitution to those you msay have hurt. Thus far via a facebook dialogue on Dan Peterson's facebook account, John Dehlin expressed happiness in helping ruin the character of LDS apologists. This, before he decided to erase all his facebook posts from that thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Anybody else notice how the critics continue to foam at the mouth against Daniel Peterson, Lou Midgley, and Bill Hamblin for their supposedly awful tactics, but it was Greg Smith who wrote the review? Does anybody else find this kind of odd? I need a break from exposing myself to their world; it's killing my spirit.

Share this post


Link to post

Anybody else notice how the critics continue to foam at the mouth against Daniel Peterson, Lou Midgley, and Bill Hamblin for their supposedly awful tactics, but it was Greg Smith who wrote the review? Does anybody else find this kind of odd? I need a break from exposing myself to their world; it's killing my spirit.

Where is Greg, btw? Does he post here at all? Why should they get the brunt? It would be nice if Greg spoke on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post

Anybody else notice how the critics continue to foam at the mouth against Daniel Peterson, Lou Midgley, and Bill Hamblin for their supposedly awful tactics, but it was Greg Smith who wrote the review? Does anybody else find this kind of odd? I need a break from exposing myself to their world; it's killing my spirit.

I don't find it odd. There are a number of very emotionally disturbed people over there. Their years-long pattern of obsessive hatred and cyberstalking is clearly pathological.

The bizarre thing is, I had absolutely nothing to do with the article besides encouraging its publication after it was censored. The main reason I believed that it should be published was that I felt it was necessary to publicly resist the intimidation tactics used by Dehlin to censor and suppress its publication. Nobody should be allowed to get away with that. Even more bizarrely, they have been clamoring for months to get the thing published! Dehlin himself demanded that we publish it! Now they're mad it's been published?! Will their wackiness never cease?

For the rest, I think that Dehlin is small potatoes, intellectually speaking.

Edited by Bill Hamblin

Share this post


Link to post

He's already had quite a bit to say, by the way.

I believe that he's on vacation somewhere, with fairly spotty and slow internet access.

But no, he doesn't post here.

Share this post


Link to post

Anybody else notice how the critics continue to foam at the mouth against Daniel Peterson, Lou Midgley, and Bill Hamblin for their supposedly awful tactics, but it was Greg Smith who wrote the review? Does anybody else find this kind of odd? I need a break from exposing myself to their world; it's killing my spirit.

I just noticed that Bishop Wang Chung is threatening "hit pieces" for me, Dan and Bill -- and still Greg gets a pass! Go figure. He must have teflon armor.

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone loves Canadians.

Share this post


Link to post

Anybody else notice how the critics continue to foam at the mouth against Daniel Peterson, Lou Midgley, and Bill Hamblin for their supposedly awful tactics, but it was Greg Smith who wrote the review? Does anybody else find this kind of odd?

It's an odd thing isn't it. These critics assert that Peterson et. al. are villainous, then when they're anything but that, it only proves their theory. Rather a lot like 9/11 truther conspiracy promulgators.

Which makes me wonder about an interview between Dehlin and Alex Jones....

So many logical fallacies, so little time.

Edited by emarkp

Share this post


Link to post

Where is Greg, btw? Does he post here at all? Why should they get the brunt? It would be nice if Greg spoke on the matter.

Greg Smith is currently a Bishop, and makes his living in a family practice medical clinic. He has a truly remarkable background in the natural science, and he works on the FAIR wiki and answers AtA queries. But he does not blog or post on message boards. I should and will soon retire from posting on this board. I find it profoundly annoying.

For example, I have tried to have a conversation on a couple of threads I launched and had them taken over by someone who posts under the name "wayfarer" (aka Shazi Daoren). To get a line on this fellow, Google his name and/or The TAO Bums. This fellow has been raving on for the entire time I have been punishing myself by posting on this board. He posted the following on the Shades board on Sunday Feb 24, 2013 6:53 am:

i have read about half of Smith's "Dubious 'Mormon' Stories" and skimmed the entire thing.

While the tone is scholarly, the intent is unmistakably to discredit John Dehlin by any means necessary, and Smith uses a nmber of fallacious techniques to do so. The major falacy is strawman, but Smith takes this well-known fallacy to a new level: he cherry-picks Dehlin quotes to construct the negative straw-man of Dehlin, while constructing a positive straw-man of LDS beliefs to condemn Dehlin. the positive strawman of what LDS are supposed to believe is entirely constructed of...the mopologist minority model of self-constructed beliefs that attempt to make sensible LDS doctrines and views, but are not held as stadard views by the majority. This competing straw-man model is novel in its breadth across all issues presented.

I was surprised to learn in this article that it is standard and widely accepted doctrine that God did not create man and Christ did not die for my individual sins. And of course, Dehlin is an apostate because he questions some of the common LDS mythology that doesn't really exist based upon the penal/substitutionary model of atonement, which no true scotsman would ever claim as LDS doctrine.

This paper is a phenomenal waste of time, and while it needs to be demostrated for the sham ot us, I have other things to do today.

so, to characterize: this is truly a "hit piece", intended to defame Dehlin based upon his critical comments of the mopologist community and recognition that there are valid reasons people question. The validity of exit reasons is impugned not based on the prevailing LDS widely-held beliefs, but rather, because people like Dehlin do not solve their faith issues by adopting the mopologists narrow interpretations. Shame in Dehlin.

Then Kishkumen (aka Trevor Luke) chimed in with the following:

Not only that, wayfarer, but he has spawned yet another hit piece in the 70-page article about the suppression of the first hit piece. In the second hit piece he likens John Dehlin to a cult leader who has demonized apologetics to strengthen his own movement. This guy is something else. Transforming two decades of growing discontentment with apologetics into something Dehlin made up to fuel his alleged cult group? Wow. Stunning.

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't seen any change in attitudes on either side of this question, since the publishing of this article. Most who support John Dehlin are still calling the article a "hit piece" (and they genuinely believe it is) and the other side is still insisting that it isn't...which is kind of disappointing.

Did I understand correctly that Greg only used two of John's podcasts to form his opinions?

I'm still reading (this is a long paper!). I'm about halfway through. I don't know if I will comment much (not that anyone is waiting with bated breath for my comments. lol). My general reaction, so far, is that, although, I wouldn't call it a "hit piece", it's not exactly complimentary. Not sure it is really a fair and balanced view of John Dehlin.

Share this post


Link to post

Not sure it is really a fair and balanced view of John Dehlin.

I don't think that was what Greg was trying to achieve---a global analysis of the man. Rather I think he was focusing on certain social roles that Dehlin had created for himself, such as the exit counsellor, and examining that specific context. For a more expansive treatment of Dehlin, it definitely would require much more use of other sources. I wouldn't mind seeing a debate about how Greg's limited number of sources detracts from his analysis...and certainly that is a possibly valid argument, but it needs to be focused on what Greg was actually trying to achieve and not on what someone thinks he was doing or thinks he should have been doing (such as the claim above that the review was about what Mormon Stories officially produced).

At least that was how I read the paper, but that view could have been influenced by my own personal interests.

Did I understand correctly that Greg only used two of John's podcasts to form his opinions?
If you go to the beginning of the paper, you will see the list what Greg is reviewing. Edited by calmoriah

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks, Cal.

I'll keep the "focus" in mind and just keep reading...

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not a Dehlin follower and have only listened to a couple of his podcasts (the Givens interview for the God who Weeps and the recent Dehlin 'returns to the fold' one as I was interested to know what the fuss was about. So no, I'm not entirely aware of the intellectual Utah saber rattling that's been going on.

.

(Bolded emphasis mine for reference)

I'm puzzled about your inclination to refer to the episode as "Utah saber rattling." The matter is quite beyond the confines of Utah, and has nothing, really, to do with Utah.

But perhaps I should chalk it up to your admitted need to get clued in.

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post

Good day people,

Rather than adding my personal judgements, accusations, and/or implied motives to and upon any of the human beings involved in this most recent episode, I will simply offer the following opinion as I watch this from my seat in the balcony.

Enormously sad and deeply disturbing!

Curious

Moderators have to wade through this long thread. Don't add anything unless it's on-topic, useful, and with references.

Share this post


Link to post

Enormously sad and deeply disturbing!

This is exactly how I have felt for over a year.

Share this post


Link to post

This is exactly how I have felt for over a year.

I hope the Greg Smith's & the John Dehlin's, the NOM's & the Apologists, know it's not your faults. It is not even the LDS leaders fault.. Some want the truth no matter what and some are afraid the truth will hurt without realizing it's a refiner's fire or something like it. If this church is true the leaders, apologist, & NOM/disillusioned need toTRUST that it is!

ETA: I don't even know what I just said. But I think both sides have a good reason for what they're doing. But to TRUST puts us back to square one again too. Help us dear Lord.

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post

Greg Smith is currently a Bishop, and makes his living in a family practice medical clinic. He has a truly remarkable background in the natural science, and he works on the FAIR wiki and answers AtA queries. But he does not blog or post on message boards. I should and will soon retire from posting on this board. I find it profoundly annoying.

For example, I have tried to have a conversation on a couple of threads I launched and had them taken over by someone who posts under the name "wayfarer" (aka Shazi Daoren). To get a line on this fellow, Google his name and/or The TAO Bums. This fellow has been raving on for the entire time I have been punishing myself by posting on this board. He posted the following on the Shades board on Sunday Feb 24, 2013 6:53 am:

i have read about half of Smith's "Dubious 'Mormon' Stories" and skimmed the entire thing.

While the tone is scholarly, the intent is unmistakably to discredit John Dehlin by any means necessary, and Smith uses a nmber of fallacious techniques to do so. The major falacy is strawman, but Smith takes this well-known fallacy to a new level: he cherry-picks Dehlin quotes to construct the negative straw-man of Dehlin, while constructing a positive straw-man of LDS beliefs to condemn Dehlin. the positive strawman of what LDS are supposed to believe is entirely constructed of...the mopologist minority model of self-constructed beliefs that attempt to make sensible LDS doctrines and views, but are not held as stadard views by the majority. This competing straw-man model is novel in its breadth across all issues presented.

I was surprised to learn in this article that it is standard and widely accepted doctrine that God did not create man and Christ did not die for my individual sins. And of course, Dehlin is an apostate because he questions some of the common LDS mythology that doesn't really exist based upon the penal/substitutionary model of atonement, which no true scotsman would ever claim as LDS doctrine.

This paper is a phenomenal waste of time, and while it needs to be demostrated for the sham ot us, I have other things to do today.

so, to characterize: this is truly a "hit piece", intended to defame Dehlin based upon his critical comments of the mopologist community and recognition that there are valid reasons people question. The validity of exit reasons is impugned not based on the prevailing LDS widely-held beliefs, but rather, because people like Dehlin do not solve their faith issues by adopting the mopologists narrow interpretations. Shame in Dehlin.

Then Kishkumen (aka Trevor Luke) chimed in with the following:

Not only that, wayfarer, but he has spawned yet another hit piece in the 70-page article about the suppression of the first hit piece. In the second hit piece he likens John Dehlin to a cult leader who has demonized apologetics to strengthen his own movement. This guy is something else. Transforming two decades of growing discontentment with apologetics into something Dehlin made up to fuel his alleged cult group? Wow. Stunning.

Greg helped me in the beginning of my faith crisis with questions that I'd ask on Fair. He is extremely intelligent. His answers were a little too intelligent or I am a lazy person, couldn't understand sometimes or didn't want to take the time to read all the Fair articles. Very nice person, sad that it's come to this, I think everyone involved is only trying to do the best they can, honestly don't think anyone is doing anything unrighteous. I think both sides believe one way, but apparently one side believes and the other is going on faith alone. I've appreciated everyones input, it's better to discuss and come to conclusions or agree's to disagree's, than hide it all away. I especially appreciate the apologists for this reason!

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post

I just noticed that Bishop Wang Chung is threatening "hit pieces" for me, Dan and Bill -- and still Greg gets a pass! Go figure. He must have teflon armor.

The force is strong with that one.

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone loves Canadians.

I once tried to warn someone not to mess with Canadians. But that is a long and painful story perhaps for another time.

Share this post


Link to post
TBH, I haven't gotten around to reading all of Greg's paper or the review of it. I'll need to make it a point to try though. I don't think Greg has time for discussing a whole lot on boards since, I've just learned, he's a bishop! Besides like you've noted, he has replied apparently, with the review, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

I hope the Greg Smith's & the John Dehlin's, the NOM's & the Apologists, know it's not your faults. It is not even the LDS leaders fault.. Some want the truth no matter what and some are afraid the truth will hurt without realizing it's a refiner's fire or something like it. If this church is true the leaders, apologist, & NOM/disillusioned need toTRUST that it is!

ETA: I don't even know what I just said. But I think both sides have a good reason for what they're doing. But to TRUST puts us back to square one again too. Help us dear Lord.

I don't buy into the "its nobody's fault" mentality. When your wrong your wrong whether you thought so or not. When you find out you are wrong repent.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×