Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

What do they believe "wholeheartedly" in?

The church! I was one of them. I was the "cultural mormon" but always trying to do my best in the church, not really delving much into the doctrine or church history. I see it all the time. And they have it much better. They don't know alot of the doctrine or meat. And don't really care just living in the now, loving their neighbor and holding callings and enjoying the social end! I could be wrong on this of course, that's just my take. I want to be like them again!
Link to comment

There are alot of "cultural mormons" that believe wholeheartily, but seem to not care to know of any deep doctrine or issues. They are the lucky ones!!

ERay sort of beat me to it, but I was about to ask: What of those who believe wholeheartedly and understand the "deep doctrine or issues"? Where do we stand? Lucky or unlucky?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
In a not so shameless plug, on Tuesdays and Thursday nights this Fall beginning at 7:00 PM, I will be teaching their first-ever "Book of Mormon as Literature" course using Grant Hardy's Reader's Edition of the Book of Mormon as the primary text and would invite anyone at all interested to register through Continuing Education.

If anyone could tempt me to take the drive up...

How about making a podcast of your classes, any chance?

Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

The church! I was one of them. I was the "cultural mormon" but always trying to do my best in the church, not really delving much into the doctrine or church history. I see it all the time. And they have it much better. They don't know alot of the doctrine or meat. And don't really care just living in the now, loving their neighbor and holding callings and enjoying the social end! I could be wrong on this of course, that's just my take. I want to be like them again!

This is why you get kicked out of threads all the time. You seem to change threads into your issues and lead people down rabbit holes. Get and stay on topic or get out of the thread.

Nemesis

Link to comment

What do you mean by "deep doctrine" or "issues". I am well aware of most, if not all of what some think are issues? IMNSHO the most important question is, Have you received an affirmation that the gospel, as taught by the LDS church is true. If you have then no "deep doctrine" or "issues" are significant.

I did and think that was so much better to go along believing without knowing the "issues" and I know I don't need to spell them out, I think you know them. Of course I'm in a slump lately but most days I'm glad I know and trying to be strong having that truth. Oops, I'm wrong about Cultural Mormon's I guess. Here's the Wiki on it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Mormon. Sorry. Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment

If the sole purpose of the review was to address Mormon Stories I would most likely agree with you (there may be something I feel might be useful to add greater context). However from the way I read Greg's outlining of his purpose and how he developed his argument, this paper is not just about what Mormon Stories produces, but how a community has been created around it with the role of exit counsellor, etc. being explored.

This is not just an apologetic treatment that examines truth claims, etc. but it is also a sociological study with John Dehlin providing an excellent opportunity for a case study due to his choice to live a very public life.

Do you see anything inherently wrong with such sociological studies and if not, do you see something wrong with tying it to the apologetic aspects of the review as well?

Calmoriah, good question. I don't think there anything inherently wrong with such sociological studies about communities created around the role of exit counselors. In the introduction, Greg starts out doing an interesting breakdown of the five categories of members at the religious borders and beyond. But I disagree with extension Gregory takes with this concept when he said:

Understanding what Dehlin says and does is necessary if one wishes to appreciate the present-day NOM/leavetaker approach that the Internet has facilitated. The accounts proffered by such leaveteakers typically focus on historical, doctrinal, or cultural issues that leavetakers believe are relatively objective and open to neutral assessment. Yet, while the narratives--the "Mormon Stories"--told by many secular leavetakers invoke such concerns, they also reveal that other factors must be considered pg. 5

Here's another example of the lengths Greg is taking to use John Dehlins beliefs and character to "contextualize" these sociological groups.

An analysis of Mormon Stories will be more thorough and accurate if the data about its claims and approach can be maximized. A broader context may alter how we understand these efforts. We can contextualize Mormon Stories' teachings, claims, and techniques--and perhaps predict their consequences--best by examining the publicly accessible substance of its statements and claims. What, for example, does Dehlin say? What does he say in different venues to different audiences? What do those who follow him say and do? What do those who are hostile to the Church say about his claims and approach? What does Dehlin say about the effects of his activities upon members?

This is where I disagree. I think its entirely appropriate to study these various groups a long with the "publicly accessible" data out there produced by Mormon Stories, but instead its primarily about "what Dehlin says, and does, and believes" and less about the general leavetaker approach in a mormon context, or the podcasts themselves and their effectiveness, the various group missions and dynamics and their impact. The article goes to the point of questioning his honesty (pg. 22) , and saying things like "he [Dehlin] reports that he spent a difficult three years pursuading his wife to follow him into unbelief (pg. 21), and pointing out that he is not well-read (pg.12), an the inconsistencies of his own personal beliefs regarding church doctrine (pp. 36- 43), all of which may be true, but it out to be much more about a smear on John that about the sociological examination of what I call "fringe Mormonism". There is plenty to discuss on whether these podcasts or groups claim to be objective and definitely evidence on the negative/positive impacts they have on listeners or doubters, but it can be done I think with out all the smearing.

Edited by Verum
Link to comment

I have no connections whatsoever with BYU or the Maxwell Institute and no opinions on what they should or should not publish. I'm actually under contract to continue teaching Bible and Mormon Studies next year at the University of Utah (a place I have grown to love and where I feel quite comfortable). In a not so shameless plug, on Tuesdays and Thursday nights this Fall beginning at 7:00 PM, I will be teaching their first-ever "Book of Mormon as Literature" course using Grant Hardy's Reader's Edition of the Book of Mormon as the primary text and would invite anyone at all interested to register through Continuing Education.

Best,

--DB

On the other board, I believe that they have you working for MI. You should check it out. I don't think that I am mistaken about this.

Link to comment

On the other board, I believe that they have you working for MI. You should check it out. I don't think that I am mistaken about this.

Given the cognitive level of some on the other board, perhaps they think that, because David has written articles for MI publications, that makes him an employee of MI.

Link to comment

So I take it, then, that although you share Greg's perspective about the problems he identifies, you don't feel they are worth bringing to light.

Or is that you don't think an academic institution should be the entity that does it? If not, why not?

No, I think they're worth bringing to light, and for some people it might be worth writing/reading a hundred page paper to get some idea of the issues. I think in general, though, an academic insitution shouldn't follow this particular approach in discussing the issues Greg raises. A primary purpose of the piece seems to be determining whether JD is "friend or foe." Greg's answer is "foe, for all the following reasons." I don't think an academic insitution should be invested in drawing the line between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. JD's inconsistencies as far as what he's up to and what he says when talking to whom all seem fair game, but a fitting goal for a piece published by an academic institution should be to understand the dynamics of the movement (and Greg's paper does this to a degree, so to answer Calmoriah, I do not think these gaps are too big to bridge), including what it claims to be, how people are affected by it (Greg's paper is one-sided here), what it might mean for the LDS community at large, etc.

I realize that BYU is not an academic institution in the simple sense, and that the Maxwell Institute has/had a particular mission as far as apologetics is concerned, but I still don't think that the approach of determining who's in and who's out should fall on their shoulders. IMO, the points that JD is inconsistent, is a leave-taker, is not in clear conformity with LDS teaching, etc. could have been made in 7 pages; and then larger issues should be explored in terms why JD has drawn the audience he has, how the LDS community might respond to the valid concerns he raises, why different people respond to crises of faith differently, etc. These need not be dry, secular, detached studies. BYU is, after all, a Mormon institution; but as Bill said earlier in this conversation, much of this is "small potatoes," and so I don't see why an academic institution would be interested in a 100 page paper explaining why JD is essentially an exit counselor masquerading as a faithful member.

Link to comment

No, I think they're worth bringing to light, and for some people it might be worth writing/reading a hundred page paper to get some idea of the issues. I think in general, though, an academic insitution shouldn't follow this particular approach in discussing the issues Greg raises. A primary purpose of the piece seems to be determining whether JD is "friend or foe." Greg's answer is "foe, for all the following reasons." I don't think an academic insitution should be invested in drawing the line between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. JD's inconsistencies as far as what he's up to and what he says when talking to whom all seem fair game, but a fitting goal for a piece published by an academic institution should be to understand the dynamics of the movement (and Greg's paper does this to a degree, so to answer Calmoriah, I do not think these gaps are too big to bridge), including what it claims to be, how people are affected by it (Greg's paper is one-sided here), what it might mean for the LDS community at large, etc.

I realize that BYU is not an academic institution in the simple sense, and that the Maxwell Institute has/had a particular mission as far as apologetics is concerned, but I still don't think that the approach of determining who's in and who's out should fall on their shoulders. IMO, the points that JD is inconsistent, is a leave-taker, is not in clear conformity with LDS teaching, etc. could have been made in 7 pages; and then larger issues should be explored in terms why JD has drawn the audience he has, how the LDS community might respond to the valid concerns he raises, why different people respond to crises of faith differently, etc. These need not be dry, secular, detached studies. BYU is, after all, a Mormon institution; but as Bill said earlier in this conversation, much of this is "small potatoes," and so I don't see why an academic institution would be interested in a 100 page paper explaining why JD is essentially an exit counselor masquerading as a faithful member.

Maybe because many people have left the Church because of Mormon Stories?

Link to comment

Yeah. I was just thinking that if I had a friend or a loved one whose loss of faith had been facilitated by Dehlin's hero worship of Grant Palmer and his admiration of the Tanners and Fawn Brodie, this thing wouldn't seem like "small potatoes" to me.

The spiritual issues are extremely important, hence the review. I know of several people who went to Dehlin's web page seeking guidance for spiritual concerns and left the church because of his site. People should know that it is not a pro-Mormon site, nor even a neutral site.

My point is that Dehlin's personal intellectual contribution to understanding and elucidating the issues is virtually nil. Intellectually speaking, he is little more than a talk-show host.

Link to comment

The spiritual issues are extremely important, hence the review. I know of several people who went to Dehlin's web page seeking guidance for spiritual concerns and left the church because of his site. People should know that it is not a pro-Mormon site, nor even a neutral site.

My point is that Dehlin's personal intellectual contribution to understanding and elucidating the issues is virtually nil. Intellectually speaking, he is little more than a talk-show host.

His newer site is a lot less that way. I remember the first one had some things on it that probably would lead some members out. The current one not so much.
Link to comment

I thought a Cultural Mormon was somebody who is only in the church for the culture.

I have previously gone over this same ground in another thread where someone complained that I did not understand the ;meaning of the expressions cultural Mormonism and cultural Mormon. But it just so happened that I was the one who fashioned those very useful categories. See my essay entitled "The Secular Relevance of the Gospel," Dialogue 4/4 (Winter 1969): 76-85. I had noticed the German for cultural Protestantism (and hence also cultural Protestant) in a collection of essays on immediate post WW II neo-orthodox (or dialectical) theology. The other more common label was Protestant liberalism (and liberals), but there is no need to spoil that lovely word liberal by associating it with narrow theological movement even then on the decline in Europe.

Link to comment

Maybe because many people have left the Church because of Mormon Stories?

That doesn't explain why an academic institution such as BYU should publish the 100 page paper as it stands.

Yeah. I was just thinking that if I had a friend or a loved one whose loss of faith had been facilitated by Dehlin's hero worship of Grant Palmer and his admiration of the Tanners and Fawn Brodie, this thing wouldn't seem like "small potatoes" to me.

Intellectually speaking, he is little more than a talk-show host.

My point wasn't that people staying in or leaving the Church is small potatoes; but rather what some grad student offers with a podcast offers, intellectually speaking, is bound to be small potatoes.

Link to comment

The spiritual issues are extremely important, hence the review. I know of several people who went to Dehlin's web page seeking guidance for spiritual concerns and left the church because of his site. People should know that it is not a pro-Mormon site, nor even a neutral site.

Which just proves Greg's and the Mormon Interpreter's main focus on vilifying John and any other affiliated group or participant of Mormon Stories instead of trying to provide thoughtful scholarship.

My point is that Dehlin's personal intellectual contribution to understanding and elucidating the issues is virtually nil. Intellectually speaking, he is little more than a talk-show host.

And John D. said himself in a podcast the he used Charlie Rose as a mentor or model, so your comparison to a talk show host is consistent with one of the main goals of Mormon Stories. The goal was to provide a safe forum for where people could discuss all issues surrounding Mormonism.

Link to comment

I remember the first one had some things on it that probably would lead some members out. The current one not so much.

Is this first site functional and if not, are these materials that in your view would lead some members out be placed somewhere else or has he completely removed them?
Link to comment
In light of the very public nature of these issues, I’m going to break my self-imposed exile from public message boards to share just a couple of thoughts. Having read the review, I don’t share the opinion that it is a “hit” piece, nor do I believe that Greg Smith is an angry apologist. Greg is clearly a sincere individual who cares deeply about setting the record straight on Mormon Stories (at least as he understands the movement). That having been said, for what it’s worth, here are my two issues with the piece:

1. Any critique should seek for balance. I’m grateful that Greg pointed out all of what he perceives as problematic assessments in Dehlin’s podcasts concerning his approach to Mormon history, doctrine, and theology. Greg has every right to do so, and since Dehlin’s podcasts are in the public domain, they should be critiqued. However, I did not feel that the critique Greg offered was fair and well-balanced.

Personally, I don't think I've ever listened to any of the podcasts myself, but I know several people that truly have been blessed spiritually by Dehlin’s efforts and that through his interviews with people like Phillip Barlow, Terryl Givens, Richard Bushman, and Daniel Peterson have, after years of inactivity, gone back to Church. This needs to be acknowledged to a greater extent than it was in a fair, accurate review.

AFAICT, it was acknowledged.

What was also acknowledged is that Mister Dehlin (1) regards such people as the exception rather than the rule, (2) is delighted that the majority of those he influences go the other way, and (3) really uses the interviews you've mentioned as a kind of ideological camouflage.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

I also agree, though, with those at BYU who did not want this published in the MSR. What purpose does the article serve other than showing how some grad student with a podcast pretends to be more on the side of the Church than he really is? It doesn't seem like the kind of thing an academic institution should be concerned with; at least not to the extent of a 100-page review.

This is a common sentiment I hear, but I must disagree. Academic journals have published papers on how the Church is portrayed by South Park and Big Love - examining what is specifically said and what also seeking an underlying message (which may or may not actually contradict what is actually being said). This kind of process can be referred to as preferred text (explicit, intentional message) vs. latent text (implicit message). John Dehlin had a preferred text for his project: that he is not trying to lead people out the Church with it, and is just exploring issues in a neutral, balanced, way. But, there was also a latent text. Though Greg does not use the preferred text vs. latent text terminology, his showing that Dehlin said one thing while doing another is basically the same kind of study, and such a study is entirely appropriate for an academic journal. If South Park - really, South Park - episodes are worthy of a study like that, why not an influential Mormon internet personality?

I blogged more about this back in June while debate over the appropriateness of publishing the paper was still hot:

http://ldsreasonandr...on-maxwell.html

I was not at liberty to say, at the time, but suppose it will do no harm now to make it clear that I had, in fact, read a daft of the paper at the time I wrote that blog post.

Edit: I figured some might ask for a CFR on the articles on South Park and Big Love. So I figured I would just give them: David W. Scott, "Religiosity in South Park: Struggles Over Institutional and Personal Piety Among Residents of a 'Redneck Town'," Journal of Media and Religion, Vol. 10, no. 3 (2011): 152-163 - This discusses religion in general, but does make reference to South Park's discussion of Mormonism. Michael Austin, "Four Consenting Adults in the Privacy of Their Own Subrub," in Peculiar Portrayals: Mormons on the Page, Stage, and Screen, ed. Mark T. Decker and Michael Austin (Logan, UT: Utah State University, 2010), 37-61 - This is actually a book, not a journal, so sorry about that confusion. The point, nonetheless, is that if a popular sitcom is worth the ink of a university press, then I don't see why a podcast isn't.

Edited by nealr
Link to comment

The spiritual issues are extremely important, hence the review. I know of several people who went to Dehlin's web page seeking guidance for spiritual concerns and left the church because of his site. People should know that it is not a pro-Mormon site, nor even a neutral site.

My point is that Dehlin's personal intellectual contribution to understanding and elucidating the issues is virtually nil. Intellectually speaking, he is little more than a talk-show host.

I definitely got the feeling as I read through the article that he was attempting to serve at least two purposes, one the more apologetically driven analysis of the accuracy and impact of his claims on people's spiritual status in the Church, the other the creation and context of the exit counsellor and the new movement. Sometimes it meshed well, other times not so much and sometimes I felt it was even jarring. If he gets the time I think it would be a great idea to peel off the more sociological aspects into a new paper to focus on...something that continues to build on Seth Payne's work as he's started to do here and either himself or someone at FAIR use the spiritual impact critique to create a FAIR wikipage dealing with Mormonstories such as there is for MormonThink.
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...