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

[William Schryver]

Pahoran

Hmmm let's see..honest people agree with you, dishonest people who are viscious will agree with me.

I figured if you posted long enough on this thread, you'd finally say something I agree with.

None of this has a thing to do with the paper. Everybody get back to talking about the paper.

[Chaos]

This thread is to discuss a paper that can be seen by all with one click. It is not to argue about who is on the right or wrong side. Critiques must reference the paper and use page numbers,or posts will be subject to removal. Otherwise the thread will be nothing more than yelling.

[William Schryver]

I figured if you posted long enough on this thread, you'd finally say something I agree with.

None of this has a thing to do with the paper. Everybody get back to talking about the paper.

Excuse me? I've talked about nothing but the paper in every post prior to this one, which was obviously just a tongue-in-cheek quip. Exactly why are you singling me out for something I have not done?

Because yours was the last post in an extended argument. That is why it said everybody. It's not just you, sorry.

[Sky]

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.

Was this really the intent of the paper? Seems to me that using terms like "evil apostate" and "wolf in sheep's clothing" are a tad hyperbolic, and only serve to poison the discourse. To the best of my knowledge, nobody said those things. We just want to see an honest assessment of Dehlin's work. That doesn't mean that we hate him as a person. In fact I've said several times that I like Dehlin, and nothing would make me happier than to see him return as a faithful, fully believing member of the Church.

The intent of the paper is more or less prefaced in the beginning:

One group, sometimes termed “New Order Mormons,” is increasingly visible on-line and even in the national media. New Order Mormons (NOM)— a loose designation that parallels what some have called “cultural Mormons,”—maintain familial, social, or cultural ties to the Church while rejecting many of its core tenets. (Many who fit this definition would also not self-identify as NOM.) Some former members go even further, and become ex- Mormons. One student at Yale Divinity School noted that “an entire ex-Mormon movement has emerged in the past several years.... Ex-Mormonism, as it were, has long-existed as a subset of a larger, and largely Evangelical counter-cult movement. This latest ex-Mormon iteration, however, is characterized by its mostly secular focus.

The intent of the paper, to me, was ultimately to bring increased awareness of an entire social/religious phenomenon, not necessarily limited to John Dehlin himself. I learned a lot from the reading the review, aside from anything to do with John Dehlin himself. So the piece happens to be critical. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Maybe the paper is not entirely balanced, but what if most of what he wrote, if not all of it, happens to be true?

If your faith has been genuinely helped through Mormon Stories, then I think that's great. But I probably wouldn't recommend it as a place that everybody struggling with their faith should go to. Dehlin openly admitted that MS has probably helped more people leave the Church than stay.

[Mayan Elephant]

If your faith has been genuinely helped through Mormon Stories, then I think that's great. But I probably wouldn't recommend it as a place that everybody struggling with their faith should go to. Dehlin openly admitted that MS has probably helped more people leave the Church than stay.

where has this openly been admitted? Perhaps he has, where?

I still have not seen anyone address the part about Smith's piece where he compares the LDS church and the apologists to a cult, including citing the Jim Jones incident. The review describes Dehlin as an anti-cult leader and the apologists and church as a cult, I have not seen that addressed anywhere on this board.

Use page numbers and quotes from the paper if you want to discuss what is in the paper.

Last warning to EVERYONE.

[Calm]

I still have not seen anyone address the part about Smith's piece where he compares the LDS church and the apologists to a cult, including citing the Jim Jones incident. The review describes Dehlin as an anti-cult leader and the apologists and church as a cult, I have not seen that addressed anywhere on this board.

Please provide an actual citation rather than just your interpretation.

where has this openly been admitted? Perhaps he has, where?

If you read the paper you should know where it was stated. Did you read it? Edited February 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[Mayan Elephant]

Page 13 of the Unread Review cites Jim Jones.

page 64, 65, 80 of the main piece.

my apologies.

[Mayan Elephant]

these are a few of the pages that describe dehlin as an anti-cult person, meaning, he is leading a group out of a cult (where the apologists and/or the LDS church are the cult.)

[volgadon]

Thanks, volg, for sharing these thoughts from David Bokovoy. He's a class act. And I very much appreciate his irenic tone and wish it was more widely adopted by all parties. But I will register one disagreement. As one who has listened to most of Dehlin's podcasts over a period of several years, I think Greg Smith's critique was fair and appropriate.

Edit: Oops, I see that Brother Bokovoy himself commented on the thread. I should have read back a little further.

Irenic is a perfect label... =)

[why me]

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.

A paper doesn't need to be balanced. But it should show the author's truth and this the paper did. The author of the paper took a position. He defended that position. Now it is up to John to refute the key arguments in the paper. This is how academia works: a position is taken in a paper, evidence is presented, the evidence is weighed by the reader and from a careful reflection of the arguments, the reader takes a position by engaging the ideas in the paper. But such an engagement cannot be shallow based on emotional reactions to the ideas.

But a paper does not need to be balanced.

Edited February 26, 2013 by why me

[Mayan Elephant]

A paper doesn't need to be balanced. But it should the author's truth and this the paper did. The author of the paper took a position. He defended that position. Now it is up to John to refute the key arguments in the paper. This is how academia works: a position is taken in a paper, evidence is presented, the evidence is weighed by the reader and from a careful reflection of the arguments, the reader takes a position by engaging the ideas in the paper. But such an engagement cannot be shallow based on emotional reactions to the ideas.

But a paper does not need to be balanced.

this is not just a paper. whatever it is, it should stand on it's own without rebuttal. it is a review and it is meant to have real research. it is a critique. the assertion by the author, on page 13 of his second authorship, where he compares his cohorts and institution to jim jones deserves some explanation, in my opinion.

[Calm]

Page 13 of the Unread Review cites Jim Jones.

page 64, 65, 80 of the main piece.

my apologies.

Are you unable to use the quote function?

[emarkp]

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.

I have to say I find the fixation anyone has on "balance" to be bizarre. Balanced according to who? Based on what metric?

In any review, you're going to have conclusions, and you justify the conclusions by citing sources and explaining your reasoning. If you conclude A instead of ~A that isn't a lack of balance. Would you demand that "for balance" someone conclude the logically inconsistent "Both A and ~A"?

Smith's paper very clearly demonstrates that "Mormon Stories" is not net-beneficial or even neutral, even according to Dehlin himself. Since Dehlin is the principal spokesman of the podcasts, showing his duplicity is important to understanding both the podcasts and the greater impact of MS on the culture.

Would you expect a detailed review of each individual podcast? What percentage is faith promoting vs. deceptive vs. exit-counseling? Such a study would far exceed 100 pages.

[Calm]

Are these the references for "anti-cult" that you were referring to?

pg 64:

This analysis, coupled with Dehlin’s description of his approach, is striking because it precisely echoes the approach taken by anti-cult “exit counselors.”

pg 65:

215 The parallels with anti-cult exit counseling are again striking. Compare, for example, the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA)’s local meetings and special events, which include “talks by experts, discussions, videos, poetry readings, and other activities. Special events may be 2-3 hours in length, or they may be one day or more.” (“Local Meetings and Special Events,” ICSA Home,

pg 80

Mormon Stories merits study partly because of its secular parallels to anti-cult ministries and exit counselors and for what it illustrates about religious leavetaking.

[Calm]

Is this the J Jones' reference you are citing?

A moral panic is an exaggerated reaction to a real social ill.37 For example, it was inarguably a bad thing when Jim Jones encouraged 909 people in his People’s Temple sect to commit suicide after the murder of a U.S. Congressman and four others. Religiously motivated suicide and murder are clearly social ills. Yet, most new religious movements are not violent and do not cause suicide. The events at Jonestown, however, were repeatedly invoked to create a moral panic about the dangers of “cults,” out of proportion to the facts.

Are you suggesting that the above is in any way equating the People's Temple with the LDS Church? Edited February 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[Mayan Elephant]

Are these the references for "anti-cult" that you were referring to?

pg 64:

pg 65:

pg 80

sure, those work. there are more. i think what is relevant is that these examples show that smith is describing dehlin as an anti-cult personality. dehlin is the anti-cult persuader who is opposite the cult, where, the cult is the apologists or their defended institution. i have yet to see an explanation for this.

[Louis Midgley]

it is a review and it is meant to have real research. it is a critique. the assertion by the author, on page 13 of his second authorship, where he compares his cohorts and institution to jim jones deserves some explanation, in my opinion.

Greg Smith's paper to which Mayan Elephant refers, has a section entitled "Moral Panics," in which Greg indicates that "a moral panic is an exaggerated reaction to a real social ill. For example, it was inarguably a bad thing when Jim Jones encouraged 909 people in his People's Temple sect to commit suicide after the murder of a U. S. Congressman and four others. Religiously motivated suicide and murder are clearly social ills. Yet, most new religious movements are not so violent and do not cause suicide. The events at Jonestown, however, were repeatedly invoked to create a moral panic about the dangers of 'cults,' out of proportion to the facts." Greg mentions the suicides as an illustration of a what scholars call moral panics. Then he points out that "action groups" tend to foster a moral panic by spreading misleading information and so forth, citing Richardson and Introvigne. Then he argues that "in the same vein, Dehlin repeatedly attacks Mormon apologists--his oppositional foil--for being mean-spirited, nasty, and engaging in ad hominem." Greg then adds that doing such things are clearly an ill and especially in the LDS community. Then he points out that if his review of John Dehlin's activities are such an ill, he must demonstrate it and not merely assert it. To this point all Dehlin has ever done is demonize those he calls apologist, in which category he includes Professor Peterson and me, as well as FAIR and the Maxwell Institute.

Has John Dehlin demonstrated that Greg's review of his activities caused some grave harm to the LDS community? Or has he generated a kind of moral panic over this essay which he had not even read in an effort to divert attention from his endeavors?

What Greg has done is set out an argument. He raises this question as part of an elaborate larger web of arguments, heavily documented, showing the reaction of Dehlin (and his followers) to the news of an academic paper that neither he or they have read. That clearly excessive reaction on the part of Dehlin and his disciples is an instance of the category moral panic. This is one part of a larger web of arguments supported by evidence of the extreme and rhetorically violent reaction to a paper none of those in this panic had read.

Greg clearly uses the Jim Jones example to illustrate what constitutes a moral panic and how they lead to bad things. Firing up people on message boards and in other ways about a paper that he has not read would seem to fit the categories of both panic and also moral panic, would it not? In even seems to me that Mayan has been influenced by what academics call a moral panic in his opposition to what Greg has written.

My own encounter with a moral panic being generated within the LDS community came when I first began teaching at BYU. After first generating a panic among some Saints about Communists everywhere in the United States (think of his book The Naked Communist), Cleon Skousen was then claiming that a huge London and Wall Street bankers conspiracy was behind communism and was in fact running everything that went on in the world with a book entitled The Naked Capitalist. Since there is hardly a conspiracy theory that Italians do not love, Massimo Introvigne told me that the Premier had the book translated into Italian and used it to manipulate Italians for his own purposes. It turned out, according to Introvigne, that this fellow was later shown to be himself in bed with the Mafia. What Greg is talking about it something real and something that can be seen going on in the affairs here below. But these kinds of things should not, I believe, be part of the community of Saints.

With this in mind, perhaps Mayan, if he cares to, could show the flaws in Greg's argument as I have explained and illustrated it..

Edited February 26, 2013 by Louis Midgley

[Mayan Elephant]

Is this the J Jones' reference you are citing?

Are you suggesting that the above is in any way equating the People's Temple with the LDS Church?

i am not. what i am saying is that smith did say that dehlin is anti-cult and that he compared dehlin to someone that attempts to help people escape a cult using tactical methods. it was smith that used the people's temple as a comparison to the apologists and the lds church. i am not making the same comparison. i am saying that his logic and words in his piece did make that comparison.

[Calm]

it was smith that used the people's temple as a comparison to the apologists and the lds church.

Not really, at least not in anything more than a very limited way. He was explaining the meaning of moral panic where a past ill of one organization/movement is improperly applied to a current situation with a very different organization/movement in order to create panic, etc.

The comment "most new religious movements are not violent and do not cause suicide" differentiates between most new religious movements and the People's Temple. If anything, Greg is showing the contrast between those movements where such moral panic is appropriately applied and those movements where it is not.

Edited February 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[Louis Midgley]

I have to say I find the fixation anyone has on "balance" to be bizarre. Balanced according to who? Based on what metric?

In any review, you're going to have conclusions, and you justify the conclusions by citing sources and explaining your reasoning. If you conclude A instead of ~A that isn't a lack of balance. Would you demand that "for balance" someone conclude the logically inconsistent "Both A and ~A"?

Smith's paper very clearly demonstrates that "Mormon Stories" is not net-beneficial or even neutral, even according to Dehlin himself. Since Dehlin is the principal spokesman of the podcasts, showing his duplicity is important to understanding both the podcasts and the greater impact of MS on the culture.

Would you expect a detailed review of each individual podcast? What percentage is faith promoting vs. deceptive vs. exit-counseling? Such a study would far exceed 100 pages.

I have the same problem with all the talk about balance. In a biography of Hitler or Stalin, should all the evil be balanced by very considerable attention to their fondness for dogs?

In the case of John Dehlin, if there really is evidence that he has not as a matter of routine demonized those who defend the faith and the Saints and in fact given proper credit to a genuinely competent scholarship supporting the Book of Mormon, rather than to trashing it by parading Grant Palmer's book as the best of the best on such matters, then someone needs to offer that evidence. Greg does not go into this, but from 2002 the fact is that Dehlin has been in thrall to Grant Palmer's book, and right up to his interview of Mike Coe, he has ridiculed the Book of Mormon whenever he could, and blasted away at those who take it seriously.

Latter-day Saints who are curious about and enjoy and even benefit from listening to Dahlin interview Bushman, Givens and so forth, should be aware that those interviews are honey on the rim of a cup that contains a bitter medicine.

[Louis Midgley]

i am not. what i am saying is that smith did say that dehlin is anti-cult and that he compared dehlin to someone that attempts to help people escape a cult using tactical methods. it was smith that used the people's temple as a comparison to the apologists and the lds church. i am not making the same comparison. i am saying that his logic and words in his piece did make that comparison.

Mayan:

You are wrong. You have not understood the argument at all. I am wondering if this way of reading is what has led you to claim that something I wrote drove you out of the Church.

[Mayan Elephant]

Mayan:

You are wrong. You have not understood the argument at all. I am wondering if this way of reading is what has led you to claim that something I wrote drove you out of the Church.

you are one of the people i would choose to meet in person and discuss any and all of this with. if you have followed the discussions on the other boards, you know already that i have met with other people. i would fly across many states to meet with you. you absolutely triggered me. there is no question in my heart that your writing sent me on a path that sent me out of the church. there is not even a small question in my mind about how your writing triggered me. and, for that, i would welcome the chance to meet you and discuss it. i am not a bitter or angry guy. i have been on all sides of this. clearly i am out of the church and critical, but i am so very defensive too of what my family owns, built, deserves, and knows. my family includes your loyalist subscribers, and critics. my family built this church you are defending, we were there and have a ton of history.

[Mayan Elephant]

Mayan:

You are wrong. You have not understood the argument at all. I am wondering if this way of reading is what has led you to claim that something I wrote drove you out of the Church.

perhaps you can explain what smith was intending by describing dehlin as an anti-cult leader? where readers expected to interpret this as something other than him being an anti-cult leader where the cult was you and your institution? again, i reference the second piece/response.

You need to stop. Do NOT repeat this again without supporting it with quotes that can be dicussed.

[Mayan Elephant]

perhaps you can explain what smith was intending by describing dehlin as an anti-cult leader? where readers expected to interpret this as something other than him being an anti-cult leader where the cult was you and your institution? again, i reference the second piece/response.

You need to stop. Do NOT repeat this again without supporting it with quotes that can be dicussed.

here is where smith cites the jones stuff.

A moral panic is an exaggerated reaction to a real social ill.37 For example, it was inarguably a bad

thing when Jim Jones encouraged 909 people in his People’s Temple sect to commit suicide after the

murder of a U.S. Congressman and four others. Religiously motivated suicide and murder are clearly

social ills. Yet, most new religious movements are not violent and do not cause suicide. The events at

Jonestown, however, were repeatedly invoked to create a moral panic about the dangers of “cults,” out

of proportion to the facts.

the insinuation is that the reaction to cults, even as extreme as jones' group, is overdone, or out of proportion.

and smith suggests that dehlin has modeled himself as a person that is a leader or counselor in an anti-cult movement. however, by taking that angle, smith acknowledges and asserts that dehlin, as an anti-cult character, is opposing a cult which is the apologists and the LDS church.

smith defines it as such, by footnote,

The anti-cult movement (ACM) is a sociological category which refers to the more secular oppositional

groups which array themselves against new religious movements (as opposed to the sectarian, usually

conservative Christian, opponents designated the counter-cult movement [CCM]). On the mental-health

connections of this movement, see also “Dubious Mormon Stories,” note 300

i may have a lot of things wrong, but it seems clear that smith portrays dehlin as an anti-cult figure, with the cult being the apologists and institution.

[Calm]

the insinuation is that the reaction to cults, even as extreme as jones' group, is overdone, or out of proportion.

Not even close. It is using the appropriate reaction to something extreme as the People's Temple and applying it to nonextreme movements. Thus there is no comparison being done between Jones' group and either the Church or apologists, unless by comparison you mean contrast.