sjdawg Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 there is an interesting review on the Mormon Discussions site of Greg's Smith's review of Mormon Stories. I'd link to it but I'm not sure if that is allowed.I have mixed feelings on both Smith's original review and the review of the review. Link to comment
LoudmouthMormon Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I notice John Dehlin has participated in that thread. He claims he wasn't trying to censor the publication of Smith's article when he alerted the church to it. Link to comment
Calm Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I notice John Dehlin has participated in that thread. He claims he wasn't trying to censor the publication of Smith's article when he alerted the church to it.And yet when it was, I could have sworn I saw some claim of credit for that. Link to comment
sjdawg Posted March 8, 2013 Author Share Posted March 8, 2013 And yet when it was, I could have sworn I saw some claim of credit for that.Yes, I disregard that part of the thread too.What did you think of the actual review of the review? Link to comment
Calm Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Haven't read it so can't comment. Link to comment
sjdawg Posted March 8, 2013 Author Share Posted March 8, 2013 I like Cinepro's comments on the thread..If someone were to ask which was the greater misrepresentation: Greg Smith's essay about John Dehlin, or the comments being made about Greg Smith's essay, I'd probably have to flip a coin. Link to comment
ALarson Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Haven't read it so can't comment.Here's a link to it (I hope that's ok. If not, please just remove it):removed because of inapproprate content on site, sorryI haven't read it either, but I will try to get a chance to do this today. Link to comment
stemelbow Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 the Review itself? not so bad. I mean he went overboard for sure in claiming personal attacks. many things he said can't be seen as attacks at all let alone personal. The attempt to paint Smith as someone who sent out emmissaries to poke and prod Dehlin so he could get more out of him is pretty pathetic too.but by and large the worst part was the comments that came in that thread--particularly one by some guy who calls himself stemelbow.I think Cinepro's response was pretty good, though. 1 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Here's a link to it (I hope that's ok. If not, please just remove it):I haven't read it either, but I will try to get a chance to do this today.You've gone where no-one has gone before ALarson. This site is as anti as anti can go. Isn't it posted on the MD board also according to the OP? Link to comment
Calm Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Here's a link to it (I hope that's ok. If not, please just remove it):Any site that discusses explicit temple content is not okay...that is the rule, I believe. You can check and remove it yourself. Link to comment
SeekingUnderstanding Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I notice John Dehlin has participated in that thread. He claims he wasn't trying to censor the publication of Smith's article when he alerted the church to it.This does leave out a little context. For clarity John's actual quote was:For the record, I wasn't trying to censor the publication of the article when I alerted the church to it. I knew it would ultimately be published one way or another. What I was trying to do was disrupt BYU/Maxwell Institute/Church-sponsored ad hominem attacks led by the likes of Greg Smith, Daniel Peterson, and Lou Midgley. 1 Link to comment
ALarson Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Any site that discusses explicit temple content is not okay...that is the rule, I believe. You can check and remove it yourself.Oops, sorry. I am not familiar with what's on that site (I just did a search and found the review there). Looks like the link is already removed. I apologize if I offended anyone.Is there anywhere else it's posted that is a safe site to post? Link to comment
Darren10 Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 And yet when it was, I could have sworn I saw some claim of credit for that.Cuz he did take credit for it being censored and you did read his very words taking credit for it. John Dehlin doesn't stay on one version of a story, does he? Well, at least not one which makes him look bad. Link to comment
Daniel Peterson Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 John Dehlin is back to demonizing his chosen enemies, I see. 4 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 John Dehlin is back to demonizing his chosen enemies, I see.Consistent with the moral panic/folk devils meme. 2 Link to comment
ERayR Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Do you think anything on that site could be anything but a parody of a review? Link to comment
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted March 8, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted March 8, 2013 This does leave out a little context. For clarity John's actual quote was:QuoteFor the record, I wasn't trying to censor the publication of the article when I alerted the church to it. I knew it would ultimately be published one way or another. What I was trying to do was disrupt BYU/Maxwell Institute/Church-sponsored ad hominem attacks led by the likes of Greg Smith, Daniel Peterson, and Lou Midgley.If attempting to use one's influence to hinder or halt publication of a writing is not attempted censorship, I wonder what censorship looks like.Dehlin's rationalization here does not pass the smell test. 5 Link to comment
stemelbow Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 John Dehlin is back to demonizing his chosen enemies, I see.I was hoping his stated silence was going to prevail. Of course he just had to say something. Link to comment
Calm Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) Mormonstories:So why did I fight the article? I did it because I believe in my heart that the old school, disingenuous, ad hominem-style apologetics a la Daniel Peterson and Louis Midgley are very, very damaging: to the church, to its members, to its former members, and mostly to its targets. My strategic hope was that fighting this article within the ranks of church leadership could be used to help bring light to these destructive tactics, and hopefully drive a death nail or two into them. Edited March 8, 2013 by calmoriah 1 Link to comment
SeekingUnderstanding Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 If attempting to use one's influence to hinder or halt publication of a writing is not attempted censorship, I wonder what censorship looks like.Dehlin's rationalization here does not pass the smell test.No argument here (I don't think he can have it both ways). Just wanted to post the quote in full. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 No argument here (I don't think he can have it both ways). Just wanted to post the quote in full.And thanks for doing that. I'm always in favor of providing context. Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 No, thanks. I'll wait for the review of the review of the review. 2 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 No, thanks. I'll wait for the review of the review of the review. Read it? I haven't even reviewed it yet. 3 Link to comment
Darren10 Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 If attempting to use one's influence to hinder or halt publication of a writing is not attempted censorship, I wonder what censorship looks like.I wonder what John dehlin's logic looks like? Ooops, ad hominem. Link to comment
stemelbow Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I'm being told if I post Rollo's review here I'll get banned from this board? Would it be against the rules to post it here? Link to comment
Recommended Posts