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

[William Schryver]

Members of the current leadership at the Maxwell Institute -- there are, effectively, four of them, although they've just hired a possible fifth -- sometimes insist that they intend to continue doing apologetics. (Sometimes they don't, which makes the situation more than a little confusing.) The basic question, though, is what they mean by that word.

We can be certain, on the basis of their actions to date, that they do not believe what was being done at the MI conforms to whatever species of "apologetics" they intend to pursue henceforth.

Edited February 25, 2013 by William Schryver

[cinepro]

I've never seen John as an "apologist" or even someone who was trying to lead people....at least, not in or out of the church. I see him as a man with a lot of questions, who set about trying to answer some of them. Sometimes, he thought he had found the answers, sometimes he was disappointed...and sometimes he changed his mind about the answers he thought he had.

Based on what you read in Smith's essay, do you feel that is an accurate description of John Dehlin in 2011?

[Mayan Elephant]

Based on what you read in Smith's essay, do you feel that is an accurate description of John Dehlin in 2011?

i think your question itself addresses the biggest flaw in the whole report. this was supposedly a review of mormon stories, it is instead an unauthorized biography of john dehlin with super duper bad quotes from facebook. it also has diagnosed dehlin as an anti-cult counselor, giving justification for the biography. i don't think anyone could read smith's piece and make a conclusion that mormon stories, on a stand alone basis, is persuading anyone to do anything.

[Louis Midgley]

Someone, I have lost track of who it was complained about people at a university publishing something as long as a hundred page manuscript. But a hundred pages of manuscript is hardly unusual for academic work, since books are very often much longer. And those engaged in academic work in universities are often engaged in this kind of publishing.

But do faculty in universities ever publish manuscripts in defense of a faith that are this long and detailed?

The defense of the faith of Roman Catholic and various brands or versions of Protestant faith by professors at universities is a thriving business. The best of this huge and impressive literature is not aimed at the faith of other Christians but is a response to the powerful influence of post-enlightenment hostility to any believe in God resting on scripture or tradition. In this game we are playing catch-up, and we also face enemies to the faith of the Saints from within. We have a long history of dedicated, articulate enemies to the faith of the Saints coming from those with at least nominal/cultural Mormon roots. Latter-day Saints efforts to defend our not at all out of the ordinary even in secular circles like most universities. BYU is financed by tithing money. If there is no place for scholarship on Mormon things, why not just close the place down or turn it into a secular university? FARMS/Maxwell Institute has published over one hundred thousand pages of scholarship, much or most of which has in various ways sustained and defended the Kingdom of God. The now cancelled Review is the largest single repository of this literature. In 23 years of publication Professor Peterson managed to publish essays of about 240 authors.

There were, of course, those within the Maxwell Institute who took steps to prevent the publication of Greg Smith's essay, and for a while they were successful. This seems very strange to me and others who have been fed by and been some small pat of this remarkable outpouring of faithful scholarship. I know for a fact that some of the Brethren who were aware of and profoundly appreciative of this endeavor were concerned about its eventually going south. The Brethren, including especially Elders Hinckley and Eyring, brought the old FARMS into BYU to ensure that there would a unified effort by LDS scholars to defend the faith and the Saints. They also worried about it going south, if they did not own it. I once had a conversation with Elder Eyring (when he visited BYU as Commissioner of Education) in which he insisted (1) that he and others loved the work that FARMS was doing under the direction first of Jack Welch and then Noel Reynolds, and (2) that, if the Church did not own FARMS, eventually it would go south.

For reasons that are not entirely clear, those in charge of the Maxwell Institute decided not to permit the publication of Greg's essay and they also cancelled the Review. I see this as unfortunate. And I am reminded of Elder Eyring's remarks that day when he explained why the Church must own FARMS. I do not enjoy the irony.

[Louis Midgley]

I like podcasts because I can do other things while listening to them.

Is not this a bit like listening to General Conference while mowing the lawn and hoping that something sticks? I find it terribly annoying to listen to a rambling exchange of opinion. I have compared it to water boarding. And I think that those who listen to endless five hour sessions ought to get combat pay. But, of course, others see things differently.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Louis Midgley

[Louis Midgley]

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....Cultural_Mormon. Sorry.

Don't believe wikipedia. If that thing does not mention that I coined the phrase, and how and why, it is simply incomplete and inaccurate. Not that this is all that unusual or even a serious issue, except when people think that they have something nailed down because they had a glance at that thing. I don't own the expression but I was the one who coined it. See "The Secular Relevance of the Gospel," Dialogue 4/4 (Winter 1969): 76-85.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Louis Midgley

[Scott Lloyd]

My problem was the author's description of what is required to faithfully answer the TR questions, as though the author actually knows that. If the analysis had stopped at identifying the approach of teaching how to lie to keep one's recommend ---- which is the methodology objected to ----- that would not have concerned me. It was the authors declaration of what one has to believe in order to faithfullly answer that I question the right to impose. There is a reason why the questions are as simple as they are. And one church member doesn't get to decide what is required as a faithful answer (though since Bro. Smith is a bishop, he would surely have that obligation with his own flock). I'm just saying that things we members think of as orthodox, don't always turn out to be orthodox. And imposing a greater obligation that the official church imposes risks superimposing our own interpretations where we ought not to be doing that.

It was that "for sure this is the only way", that I think was over the top.

The fact that he is a bishop -- and one who is obviously knowledgeable in Church doctrine, policy and procedure -- gives him a definite credibility in my view regarding the intent behind the temple-recommend interview questions. Weighed in the balance, I think that supposition is more likely than not.

Moreover, I have always understood the questions to be a way of ascertaining that one does indeed believe Jesus Christ to be son of God who, through the Atonement, wrought eternal salvation for mankind on conditions of repentance.

The notion that the interview questions would contemplate anything less or other than this meaning strikes me, frankly, as weird.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Louis Midgley]

Hey you article publishing folks - just out of curiosity, have you ever witnessed something like this before? Has it ever happened before that a soon-to-be-published review was leaked to the producers of the material reviewed? Has any prior author made substantive efforts to avoid publication?

I know there are plenty of after-the-fact shennanigans, lawsuit threats, etc. But I'd be interested to know if anyone else has ever tried hard to keep something from being published in the first place.

For a tiny little look at problems in academic work in history, have a look at my review of Peter Charles Hoffer, Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, Fraud–American History from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis and Goodwin (New York: Public Affairs, 2004), in FARMS Review 20/1 (2008): 243-245. Have a close look at this book if you want to view the tip of an iceberg.

[Louis Midgley]

thanks for that clarification, Lou. I thought the MI was continuing, but without Dr. Peterson and you. I didn't realize it was not not continuing with apologetics at all.

There are, of course, several who clearly have and will continue to defend the faith who are employed in the Maxwell Institute. The question is what, if anything, will replace what came to be called, before it was cancelled, the Mormon Studies Review. We will just have to wait and see. But the comments of some employees (those Bill Hamblin calls the junta) indicate a clear hostility towards what has been the primary purpose of FARMS and then the Maxwell Institute. This bit of new came as a surprise to me. If you have followed the recent events surrounding the Maxwell Institute, you may have been pleased by some of them. For one thing, nothing I publish in the now cancelledReview will no longer drive you further from the Church. You will have to turn to Interpreter if you want to be annoyed by my meager efforts.

[Teancum]

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.

While I found nothiing quoted from John or the podcasts untrue the paper is certianly not balanced. Smith references only two podcasts out of hundreds. I find that astounding. And the two he said he listened too were at the low point of Dehlin's testimony journey. Smith relies on FACEBOOK posts mostly as well as other message board posts where people opine about Dehiln. Smith notes and elaborates on an event where Dehlin was to see his SP and Dehlin asks supporter to find or send positive remarks about what MS had done for them and thus accuses Dehlin of cherry picking. Yet this is exactly what Smith does. He picks two podcasts that were likely referred to him as very negative. He ignores hundreds of others. He calls Dehlin and admirer of Grant Palmer because Dehlin refers some to the book by Palmer and interviewed him twice. Yet he ignores the fact the Dehlin interviewed Richard Bushman twice, had Bushman speak at an MS Conference, that he interviewed Given three times and loves Givens and his books. Why not call Dehling a Givens admirer as well. All his FB quotes and message board quotes are used to make Dehlin look as bad as possible as well as a wolf in sheeps clothing. Smith wants to make sure his audience finds little to nothing out about Dehlin that is positive so they simply stay away. I can provice more specifc examples later if I have time or the stomach for this stuff. I have it less and less.

[Louis Midgley]

Soon after Dan Peterson launched it in 1989, became the flagship publication of FARMS and then the Maxwell Institute. It has been an object of derision for those bent on pulling down the Church of Jesus Christ. The reason for this hostility that has resulted in a torrent of angry and unseemly verbal assaults on Professor Peterson. On two dreadful message boards there has been a torrent of often foul language directed at Dan.

About a year ago new was spread of about something going on at the Maxwell Institute. This brought joy to those of unfaith or whatever one might call the rancid passions of those who fear that what they despise might be true after all. Put another way, there have been those who think that they can read the tea leaves correctly and hence have seen signs in the recent events surrounding the abrupt firing of Dan Peterson (and his editorial team) and the cancelling of the Review, a clear indication of a sea change among the Brethren. It was imagined that the Brethren have turned against the publication of serious scholarship defending the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, and hence that the Brethren do not now want the faith of the Saints sustained and defended.

For those who have entertained this illusion, which from my perspective, is what this surmise amounts to, should perhaps now wonder at the publication of not just the essay those who had not read delighted in calling a “hit piece,” whatever that is, but then also a second essay in which Greg Smith has had a look at the reception of the most famous essay that only a relatively few had actually read. Though this essay, exactly like the one that did not appear in the cancelled issue of the Review was refereed by a large number of people, not a word was leaked to the Scratchy One.

I suggest to those who were delighted by what they imagined was a signal that their hope that the Brethren have turned against sustaining and defending the Kingdom might have been the product of their own imaginations. Put another way, would Greg Smith and those involved in the Interpreter Foundation have published these essays if there has been the sea change they, for whatever reason, so passionately desire?

[Pahoran]

While I found nothiing quoted from John or the podcasts untrue the paper is certianly not balanced. Smith references only two podcasts out of hundreds. I find that astounding.

Almost as astounding as your ability to count. See: http://www.mormondia...entry1209228454

Regards,

Pahoran

[Teancum]

Citing 15 to 20 podcasts is not listening to them all. Smith said he consulted a few podcasts and interviews. Pretty slim pickings when there were hundreds to choose from. Interestingly Smith avoided any that were positive. But I am sure you applaud his thoroughness and that is astounding as well.

From Smith's paper:

In preparation for this review, first Dehlin’s public Facebook feed and websites were consulted.

These led to an investigation of what LDS critics and former Mormons were saying about his work and

claims, via a search of few message boards. A few of Mormon Stories’s more popular podcast episodes

and two interviews with Dehlin on other podcasts were also consulted. One of the non-Mormon Stories interviews was conducted by a source that seems relatively friendly to the Church, and one by the hostile,

ex-Mormon Larsens.21 There were a few other podcasts or posts which I had read or heard about, and

colleagues helped locate them

[Teancum]

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.

As President Hinckley taught several years ago, if a cartoon chooses to over-exaggerate one aspect of a person’s physical appearance, that characterization distorts, and therefore misses the beauty of the person so characterized. So while I appreciate Greg’s efforts to point out John's missteps, I believe that a fair review (like a fair biography of Joseph Smith, for example) that avoids false characterization would have attempted to present a fuller picture.

2. I really dislike placing people into categories or lists, especially when it comes to their spiritual journey. Those of us who question (and make no mistake about it, questioning is an important part of our spiritual growth) move back and forth between various positions and therefore “categories." This is the problem, in my opinion, with making things personal, and trying to nail down an individual, whether it's Daniel Peterson or John Dehlin into a certain position such as “apostate/leavetaker,” or even “apologist." Making it personal and placing individuals into socio-religious categories like those identified in the review drives a wedge between people and frustrates the divine goal of unity in the Gospel.

Anyway, for what it's worth, that’s my critique of the critique. Despite my issues with the piece, I’m grateful for both Greg’s and John’s efforts and would hope that we can all learn from this experience and that those involved can continue moving forward in their respective efforts to contribute to the Mormon story.

David you are a fine human being and said what I would like to have said so much better than I would ever be able to. Thank you. I agree with you.

[Pahoran]

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.

Then maybe you shouldn't have started it. Because there's no "smear" in the article.

Dehlin himself admits that he isn't well-read. He admits that he doesn't do much, if any advance preparation before his interviews.

And the article doesn't say that Dehlin spend three years talking his wife out of the Church; that was David Twede, then-editor of "Mormonthink," Dehlin's preferred (most recommended) internet resource for Mormon things.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Citing 15 to 20 podcasts is not listening to them all. Smith said he consulted a few podcasts and interviews. Pretty slim pickings when there were hundreds to choose from. Interestingly Smith avoided any that were positive. But I am sure you applaud his thoroughness and that is astounding as well.

This is, as you know, a red herring. If he'd gone through all the podcasts (which by their nature are not searchable, and require hundreds of hours of listening) and included material from all of them, you'd now be whining that the article is too long.

The question of balance is not whether material should be selected; it absolutely must. It's whether the material excluded would significantly alter the conclusions before us.

Well, you're Mister Dehlin's loyal apologist, so you tell us: does it?

Here's a little thought experiment: suppose I know of a Mormon named Jack who robbed a bank. Suppose you know that Jack also volunteers at a homeless shelter. Suppose Jack comes to trial on the bank-robbing charge. Are his charitable activities relevant?

They might be taken into account come sentencing, but as far as answering the question of whether or not he robbed the bank, the answer is -- no, they aren't.

Now it happens that Smith does discuss Mister Dehlin's interviews of faithful LDS scholars, a fact no-one would learn from your angry rants. However, it turns out that he is the one who, at the end of the day, is providing balance; because it is Mister Dehlin who tells the world that he is happy that more people are turned away from the Church than towards it by his efforts.

That is the "balance" that Mister Dehlin wants people to know about -- especially when those people are anti-Mormons or apostates from whom he is seeking support. So why shouldn't we know about it as well?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Paddy]

Someone, I have lost track of who it was complained about people at a university publishing something as long as a hundred page manuscript. But a hundred pages of manuscript is hardly unusual for academic work, since books are very often much longer. And those engaged in academic work in universities are often engaged in this kind of publishing.

Got to agree. This article looks like it is double spaced and about a third of it is foot notes. It is a good length. Also it seems from some comments people have not read the 2 articles. It worth the 30 - 60 minutes it takes to read it to ensure one is informed.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Paddy

[Teancum]

Pahoran

Whatever dude.

You are buliding a straw man. I never said listen to all of them. Stop your disingenous petty remarks. Of course that is all you have because my point was proven. Smith limited his review to a very small percent of Dehlin's material. And it was entirely negative. SInce you cannot dispute that you stoop to being snide. Oh wait.....

So to answer your snot nosed question (as Dehlin's so called "loyal apologist") yes I think adding additional more balanced material would change the conclusion. Not in your concrete infexible mind of course., But to the more reasonable open mind. Absolutly. Providing a more balanced approach is what a reviewer does. One who wants to smear someone does what Smith did.

Yet still I noted that Smith brought up much that was correct to bring up considering his position. I essentially agree with David B.

I have no desire to attempt to change your mind nor am I under the allusion to think I will. Readers can decide themselves who is more fair and balanced in their comments as well as whether Smith's paper is or not.

And by the way, my comments were not an angry rant. And such comments are rich coming from you, the king of the angry rants.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Teancum

[Pahoran]

Pahoran

Whatever dude.

You are buliding a straw man. I never said listen to all of them. Stop your disingenous petty remarks.

I'm afraid I can't "stop" something until after I have started it. I haven't made any "disingenous petty remarks."

Of course that is all you have because my point was proven.

How? By mere assertion?

Smith limited his review to a very small percent of Dehlin's material. And it was entirely negative. SInce you cannot dispute that you stoop to being snide. Oh wait.....

Oh wait.... you've made a false claim. Smith's article mentions Mister Dehlin's interviews of faithful LDS scholars on pages 34-35.

Are Smith's conclusions "negative?" Yes, they are. No-one disputes that.

Now show that they're not valid.

Mister Dehlin is an actively proselytizing apostate. This is a fact, established by a preponderance of available evidence. And that is precisely why you and your ilk think he's such a stand-up guy, and the only reason any of you have ever liked him. If you think there is evidence that leads to a different conclusion, produce it. But don't just sit there whining about the fact that the darling of the apostate set has just been subjected to the kind of scrutiny that is going to hamper his ability to deceive the unwary.

So to answer your snot nosed question (as Dehlin's so called "loyal apologist") yes I think adding additional more balanced material would change the conclusion. Not in your concrete infexible mind of course., But to the more reasonable open mind. Absolutly. Providing a more balanced approach is what a reviewer does. One who wants to smear someone does what Smith did.

That is, as you perfectly well know and fully intend, false. Smith's article does not "smear" Mister Dehlin, it shows him in his true colours.

And you are absolutely spitting chips about it.

Yet still I noted that Smith brought up much that was correct to bring up considering his position. I essentially agree with David B.

I have no desire to attempt to change your mind nor am I under the allusion to think I will. Readers can decide themselves who is more fair and balanced in their comments as well as whether Smith's paper is or not.

Certainly.

Those who share your ideology, or who have allowed the well to be poisoned by all the vicious "hit piece" rhetoric will agree with you.

Honest people who read the article without prejudice will reach different conclusions.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited February 26, 2013 by Pahoran

[Louis Midgley]

Pahoran

Whatever dude.

You are buliding a straw man. I never said listen to all of them. Stop your disingenous petty remarks. Of course that is all you have because my point was proven. Smith limited his review to a very small percent of Dehlin's material. And it was entirely negative. SInce you cannot dispute that you stoop to being snide. Oh wait.....

So to answer your snot nosed question (as Dehlin's so called "loyal apologist") yes I think adding additional more balanced material would change the conclusion. Not in your concrete infexible mind of course., But to the more reasonable open mind. Absolutly. Providing a more balanced approach is what a reviewer does. One who wants to smear someone does what Smith did.

Yet still I noted that Smith brought up much that was correct to bring up considering his position. I essentially agree with David B.

I have no desire to attempt to change your mind nor am I under the allusion to think I will. Readers can decide themselves who is more fair and balanced in their comments as well as whether Smith's paper is or not.

And by the way, my comments were not an angry rant. And such comments are rich coming from you, the king of the angry rants.

This entire comment by Teancum is an angry rant. Why, I wonder, all the nasty name calling and personal invective? Perhaps Teancum might try to explain where all the energy comes from, and why he cares about John Dehlin. What is his personal stake in all this?

Edited February 26, 2013 by Louis Midgley

[Teancum]

Pahoran

Hmmm let's see..honest people agree with you, dishonest people who are viscious will agree with me. Got it. That makes for real healthy civil dailogue.

But you see Pahoran if you could see clearly through your rage you would realize that more than once on this thread I said Smith made some valid points. And I think from his position he was right to make them.

But was he balanced.

The honest answer is no. A mere mention of a few podcasts where favorable people

But of course my opinion is not worth dirt because people of my "ilk" are simly not worth listening to.

Yet on the other shoe we have the raging apologist who applauds anything and everything the defends what he view as the one and only truth. This requires defense at all cost. So then those of your ilk are quite pleased with this paper because it serves your purpose.

And you think that is fine because being more balanced would not change the pre decided conclusion. Dehllin like the theif example on the other thread you gave is guilty. It does not matter what positive things he may have done. Mere window dressing. That Dehlin is an evil apostate and a wolf is sheeps clothing is the point. He is guilty. That was the whole intent of the paper. That was the whole clarion call of the Dehlin haters who wanted to see him put in his place. I imagine you may be disappointed that his leaders have not seen fit to give him the boot.

I have no energy left today to deal with your nasty angry posts. When you learn what is means to be civil perhaps we can talk. I made concessions. I believe I try to be civil. But it breaks down when dealing with your smug piety and heralded self righteous indignation. I will leave it with you that I simply agree with David Bs post. I am not as well spoken as he nor can I write as well. I am not as witty nor sharp and biting in my writing style as you. Where I live it is late. I will sign off before I stoop further into your level of posting.

[Teancum]

This entire comment by Teancum is an angry rant. Why, I wonder, all the nasty name calling and personal invective? Perhaps Teancum might try to explain where all the energy comes from, and why he cares about John Dehlin. What is his personal stake in all this?

Lou

When you are as condemning in what your cohorts say in their nasty posting style your condemnation of my post will mean something to me. Till then I think your post reeks of bias and borders on hypocrisy.

My angry rant was in direct response to the invective drivel that comes from your fellow so called defender Pahoran. Speak like wise to him. Then your comment will mean something to me and perhaps I will agree with you.

As for what John Dehlin means to me I will tell you. He is a decent human being. He was there when I needed something and his approach to working through a faith crisis helped me stay active in the LDS Church. If you had bothered to read what I posted earlier in this thread you would have seen that ironically the two online internet people who have helped me maintain my activity in the Church as I work through things were John Dehlin and Dan Peterson. I have met both in real life. I have corresponded privately with both. Dan has offered to meet me for a lunch when I am I Provo and I still need to take him up on it.

So that is what my personal stake is. That is why I care about John. And Dan. When I needed someone’s to turn to they were both decent human beings to me. Unlike others who post here on this board. And in all my posting I here or elsewhere I challenge anyone to find one thing negative I ever said or wrote specifically about Dan Peterson or about FARMS. I am almost certain you will not succeed. I have defended Dan. I have complained about and challenged others on that other board for the spin doctoring and in particular the one you all call Dan’s stalker.

Now I will concede that perhaps John brought this on himself. Just as Dan is a lightening rod to those who are very critical of the Church so John is for strong defenders. In fact I am a bit surprised it has taken so long for someone to write a paper like this. And part of me understands why it was written. As noted I do not think it was balanced at all. I think it had one intent which it met. Pahoran noted it above when he said:

“But don't just sit there whining about the fact that the darling of the apostate set has just been subjected to the kind of scrutiny that is going to hamper his ability to deceive the unwary.”

So congratulations to Mr. Smith for meeting this goal. This is just not my style

All I hope now for John Dehlin is he can find peace and happiness in whatever course he chooses.

[Pahoran]

Please be aware that Teancum thinks getting "personal" is bad.

Pahoran

Hmmm let's see..honest people agree with you, dishonest people who are viscious will agree with me. Got it. That makes for real healthy civil dailogue.

But you see Pahoran if you could see clearly through your rage

Remember, Teancum thinks getting personal is bad.

you would realize that more than once on this thread I said Smith made some valid points. And I think from his position he was right to make them.

But was he balanced.

The honest answer is no.

But you haven't shown that he wasn't. You've merely asserted it. Over and over.

A mere mention of a few podcasts where favorable people

But of course my opinion is not worth dirt because people of my "ilk" are simly not worth listening to.

Yet on the other shoe we have the raging apologist who applauds anything and everything the defends what he view as the one and only truth.

Remember, Teancum thinks getting personal is bad.

This requires defense at all cost. So then those of your ilk are quite pleased with this paper because it serves your purpose.

And you think that is fine because being more balanced would not change the pre decided conclusion.

What evidence do you have that the conclusion was "pre-decided?"

Dehllin like the theif example on the other thread you gave is guilty. It does not matter what positive things he may have done. Mere window dressing. That Dehlin is an evil apostate and a wolf is sheeps clothing is the point. He is guilty. That was the whole intent of the paper. That was the whole clarion call of the Dehlin haters

What "Dehlin haters?" The paper doesn't hate Dehlin, it simply shines a light that some people would prefer had not been shone.

who wanted to see him put in his place. I imagine you may be disappointed that his leaders have not seen fit to give him the boot.

Yes, you imagine. But your imagination has no connection to reality.

At one time, your good buddies at MDB were fantasising about Dan and others being subject to Church discipline for bucking the leaders of the Church in what they were publishing. Of course they were doing no such thing, but if I go over there now, will I see a revival of such empty daydreams?

I rather think I will.

I have no energy left today to deal with your nasty angry posts. When you learn what is means to be civil perhaps we can talk. I made concessions. I believe I try to be civil. But it breaks down when dealing with your smug piety and heralded self righteous indignation. I will leave it with you that I simply agree with David Bs post. I am not as well spoken as he nor can I write as well. I am not as witty nor sharp and biting in my writing style as you. Where I live it is late. I will sign off before I stoop further into your level of posting.

But Teancum thinks getting personal is bad.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Teancum]

I know I fall short of your wit Pahoran but really I was just trying to follow your stellar example.

And the whole paper and weight of it shows it was not balanced. One simply needs to read it. I noted numerous examples in my first post today. I don't need to cut and paste the entire paper.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Teancum

[Pahoran]

I'd like to add more to this point.

And you think that is fine because being more balanced would not change the pre decided conclusion. Dehllin like the theif example on the other thread you gave is guilty. It does not matter what positive things he may have done. Mere window dressing. That Dehlin is an evil apostate and a wolf is sheeps clothing is the point. He is guilty. That was the whole intent of the paper. That was the whole clarion call of the Dehlin haters who wanted to see him put in his place. I imagine you may be disappointed that his leaders have not seen fit to give him the boot.

You clearly misunderstood the purpose of the analogy. Which is a shame, because I didn't think it was very obscure.

The question before that jury was not, Is the accused an unmitigated rotter, but simply, Did the accused rob the Last National Bank on the 15th ult? The accused's unrelated good acts are relevant to the first question, but not the second.

Note that the answer to the second question is in no sense "pre decided;" it simply is a much narrower one, and consequently, depends upon a much smaller set of evidence.

The question Greg Smith set out to answer was not, Is John Dehlin a great guy who is kind to animals and little children, but simply, Is Mormon Stories really friendly or neutral towards the Church of Jesus Christ? In answering that question, there's no need to examine everything that might please Mister Dehlin's buddies, but only those podcasts -- and public comments made by Mister Dehlin on the subject -- that provide a definitive answer.

Now you, and others like you, like Mister Dehlin, and you don't like Smith's paper. AFAICT, that's primarily because it demonstrates, with good sound evidence, that Mister Dehlin's "Mormon Stories" really isn't making any genuine effort to be friendly or even neutral towards the Church of Jesus Christ. Interviewing someone like Richard Bushman is simply the price Dehlin is willing to pay to get believing Latter-day Saints to listen uncritically to someone like Grant Palmer. It seems that for you, a "balanced" paper would have ignored that fact, or buried it under a mountain of irrelevant stuff about how nice he is.

But that's not the question. It was never the question.

Regards,

Pahoran