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

[sjdawg]

To my outside eye this whole situation around Dehlin, this article, and the MI fiasco just looks like a case of too much ego on all sides.

[Rivers]

I thought it was an interesting paper. Although I would like to see more empathy shown toward the people who struggle with all the issues discussed in the mormon stories podcasts.

For example, the article discusses Dehlin's views on homosexuality and states that his views are contrary to the the teachings of the church. I would like to see more acknowledgement of how difficult of an issue this is for some people. I think more empathy and understanding on all the different issues would fuel more productive dialogue.

[volgadon]

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?

It is imperative to strike balance in biographies of men such as Hitler and Stalin. If one were to dwell solely on their evil, their atrocities and barbarity, they become inhuman monsters to which none can relate. They were in fact very human monsters, something which both author and readers must face. The best biographies show the positive qualities of both Hitler and Stalin. My mind has blanked on Hitler biographies, but Simon Sebag Montefiore does a fantastic job with Stalin.

All the more so, then, should balance be sought in any work on John Dehlin, who has as much relationship to the subjects of this Godwin's Law violation as chinchillas do to pterodactyls.

Edited February 26, 2013 by volgadon

[Louis Midgley]

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.

Mayan: You are beginning to get this figured out--you are almost on the right track. What you need to do is realize that Greg Smith in his "Return of the Unread Paper" had demonstrated that John Dehlin and his associates were attempting to generate what sociologists call a moral panic by blasting away at a supposedly dangerous cult-like apologetic movement bent on causing harm by blasting away at Greg Smith (supported by Dan Peterson and other dreaded, lying evil apologists, including me) who had said false things about him in a paper he and his associates had not even read. Has not Greg Smith this his essay on the panic Dehlin created demonstrated by citing and quoting language from message boards, facebook and so forth, that Dehlin (and his disciples) were busy creating indignation, hostility, anger, outrage--a moral panic--about a paper none of them had read?

Please note that Greg Smith then continues his argument by drawing on the sociological literature in which it is held that moral panics need "folk devils." And exactly who are John Dehlin’s "folk devils"? Greg demonstrates that his demonology includes such evil people at Dan Peterson and me. Greg argues that "for Dehlin to successfully institutionalize opposition to apologetics, he is best served by portraying the matter as a decision" to block publication of Greg Smith's paper "as a decision reached at the highest levels. He describes his intent in nearly textbook-perfect terms, saying that he wants to ‘us the church's own levers of power to try to keep D[aniel] C[.] P[eterson], [Lou] Midgley, etc. from harming the church, LDS apologetics, BYU and many others more than they already have.’"

Recently on this message board John Dehlin was generously offering his services to FAIR to help them clean up their rather tarnished image. What did he think they needed to do? Boot Professor Peterson from FAIR, and never ever again have him address an annual conference held by FAIR. Dehlin seems to thrive on blasting away at his little group of "folk devils." Greg Smith has identified who Dehlin's "folk devils" are and exactly why they are necessary for his own narrative.

So it does not help to talk about what you think Greg Smith was "insinuating." He does not insinuate--that is the language of someone caught up in a moral panic generated by Dehlin--but he sets out an argument supported by textual evidence. Among other things, this distinguishes Greg Smith from John Dehlin, does it not?

Let me suggest an alternative way of approaching Greg Smith's essay. Why not try to use Greg's own arguments and turn them against the dreaded and unspeakably evil apologists? Why not try to show that Dan Peterson has been creating a moral panic and his own "folk devils" such a the unseemly folks on the Recovery board and the Shades board. Is it not true that Professor Peterson spends day and night stalking his Malevolent Stalker? And doing harm Kish (a.k.a. Trevor Luke)? The problem with this kind of response is that those on the Recovery board and many on the Shades board and some who post on this board really are trying their very best to harm the Church of Jesus Christ in any way they possibly can. And they do this for the most part while remaining anonymous--that is hiding behind handles, and playing silly games with phony university titles and so forth.

[Daniel Peterson]

To my outside eye this whole situation around Dehlin, this article, and the MI fiasco just looks like a case of too much ego on all sides.

That seems to me a very eccentric reading of the situation, and of the articles.

[awyatt]

It is imperative to strike balance in biographies of men such as Hitler and Stalin. If one were to dwell solely on their evil, their atrocities and barbarity, they become inhuman monsters to which none can relate. They were in fact very human monsters, something which both author and readers must face. The best biographies show the positive qualities of both Hitler and Stalin. My mind has blanked on Hitler biographies, but Simon Sebag Montefiore does a fantastic job with Stalin.

All the more so, then, should balance be sought in any work on John Dehlin, who has as much relationship to the subjects of this Godwin's Law violation as chinchillas do to pterodactyls.

Good advice should anyone ever write a biography of John Dehlin.

-Allen

[sjdawg]

That seems to me a very eccentric reading of the situation, and of the articles.

I guess I'm eccentric then.

[Louis Midgley]

To my outside eye this whole situation around Dehlin, this article, and the MI fiasco just looks like a case of too much ego on all sides.

I agree with several of the things that sjdawg has packed into his pity remark. The Dehlin Affair and the Maxwell Institute fiasco has involved far, far too much ego on all sides. In saying this I must also admit that I do not have the luxury of having an "outside eye." These two somewhat related events have been the result of passions that even or especially those involved cannot sort despite their best efforts. Much of what is said, either by those involved directly in the Affair or the Fiasco is self-justification, or by more or less stunned or amused bystanders involves what sjdawg calls ego. Aristotle I believe argued that passion perverts the best of men. But those without passion about something are hardly human. So we must all have deep, passionate concern about the most important things, while all the time seeking the cardinal virtue most often called in English moderation. But above the cardinal virtues--courage, justice, moderation and wisdom, if we are genuine Saints or seeking to become such, we must also manifest love, hope and faith in God. And none of these virtues is possible outside a community in which each is willing as far as possible to sustain and defend the Kingdom of God. This has to be what this petty but still important squabble is ultimately about..

[Louis Midgley]

I guess I'm eccentric then.

I have no way of judging such a thing. But, as I previously tried to say, your "outside eye" manifest a bit of ego, just as does the passion of those deeply in the fray.

[Verum]

I really just want this nonsense to stop on both sides. I see no benefit in scholarly publications that set out do the following (in the following order)

1) Identify the who the enemy is

2) Prove why he/she is an enemy by pointing out there bias, intentions, personal beliefs, actions, etc.

3) Discredit the enemy's work to the intended audience mainly through establishing numbers 1 and 2 above

Church-critics are also guilty and have vilified apologists as well, no question. When the whole Dan Petersen. and John Dehlin debacle was at its height, John D. referenced a blog post the someone wrote that was dedicated to ripping the apologists and the MI (can't find the source at the moment) and I was one of the first to comment on John's FB page that this was not helpful for anyone. I feel the article with Smith could have focused more on the sociological dynamic and impact of fringe Mormonism without using the tactics above, which the parts that he does discuss I thought were enlightening (even if it puts Mormon's like me in a bad light). I hope more constructive dialogue takes place in the future.

My last $.02,

Edited February 26, 2013 by Verum

[awyatt]

When the whole Dan Petersen. and John Dehlin debacle was at its height, John D. referenced a blog post the someone wrote that was dedicated to ripping the apologists and the MI (can't find the source at the moment) and I was one of the first to comment on John's FB page that this was not helpful for anyone.

I'd be curious to know if your negative comment to JD was removed from his Facebook. He's done that with others (including me).

-Allen

[Louis Midgley]

I feel the article with Smith could have focused more on the sociological dynamic and impact of fringe Mormonism without using the tactics above, which the parts that he does discuss I thought were enlightening (even if it puts Mormon's like me in a bad light). I hope more constructive dialogue takes place in the future.

Verum, you seem to have missed Greg Smith's "Return of the Unread Review: A Mormon Story," which is what you seem to be mean when you say that you would appreciate an article in which "Smith...focused more on the sociological dynamic and impact of fringe Mormonism." As is common in the scholarly literature on religious quarrels, he does this by illustrating certain aspects of this dynamic by giving close attention to the demonizing of those who do perfectly proper and necessary Mormon studies (as in the name Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) which is mocked and ridiculed some on the margins of the community of Saints.

[volgadon]

Good advice should anyone ever write a biography of John Dehlin.

-Allen

Not for biographies only.

[ERayR]

I really just want this nonsense to stop on both sides. I see no benefit in scholarly publications that set out do the following (in the following order)

So let it be written so let it be done.

[emarkp]

To my outside eye this whole situation around Dehlin, this article, and the MI fiasco just looks like a case of too much ego on all sides.

Bwuh? Every account I've read is that Peterson was 1) asked to not publish the article, and then 2) didn't publish the article. Oh and then 3) Peterson was dismissed from MI.

How exactly is that ego on all sides?

Smith's review reads to me as a dispassionate but unflinching examination of Mormon Stories, and the surrounding miasma. Interpreter only published it once the other board started claiming to have read it and Scratch made a remarkably dishonest summary -- oh and then Dehlin demanded it be published.

There's definitely some serious ego flying, but it's hardly "on all sides".

[Calm]

How exactly is that ego on all sides?

Well, Dan did get upset with being dismissed instead of taking it silently and just going home and falling on his sword like a good soldier would do. Edited February 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, Dan did get upset with being dismissed instead of taking it silently and just going home and falling on his sword like a good soldier would do.

I haven't made any secret of the fact that I strongly disapprove of the change in direction at the Maxwell Institute. It's not just personal. I resigned as director of advancement for the Institute because I felt that I had no ethical alternative.

[why me]

I really just want this nonsense to stop on both sides. I see no benefit in scholarly publications that set out do the following (in the following order)

1) Identify the who the enemy is

2) Prove why he/she is an enemy by pointing out there bias, intentions, personal beliefs, actions, etc.

3) Discredit the enemy's work to the intended audience mainly through establishing numbers 1 and 2 above

My last $.02,

This has nothing to do with discrediting the "enemy". Rather is has something to do with critiquing a body of work by one individual and that is perfectly okay. It is done all the time in academia. And one can find books being critical of certain social thinkers, philosophers, etc.

Edited February 27, 2013 by why me

[Calm]

I haven't made any secret of the fact that I strongly disapprove of the change in direction at the Maxwell Institute. It's not just personal. I resigned as director of advancement for the Institute because I felt that I had no ethical alternative.

Has to be ego, it been proclaimed, Dan, can't be investment or loyalty or commitment or a sense of responsibility to those you made promises to in proxy for the Mi or actually caring about your work and what it accomplished in helping others.

[Louis Midgley]

For any who have not seen this.

Note the following from John Dehlin. There is no mention of a hit piece.

MORMON STORIES BOOK CLUB

Please support Mormon Stories by clicking this link before making any Amazon purchases.

Moving Forward

February 26, 2013

By John Dehlin

Stephen Smoot of the Student Review recently asked me to comment on the Greg Smith article. This was my response to Stephen, and it is the only public thing I plan on saying about the affair going forward.

========

Stephen,

I think my biggest regret in this whole ordeal is that I’ve allowed myself to be become a distraction to the real issue: that there are thousands of sincere LDS church members and former members who are struggling with their faith and/or their church-related experiences. I believe that they are in desperate need of greater empathy and support, and that they should be our collective focus.

I have no substantive response to Greg Smith’s article, other than to say that as I move forward with Mormon Stories, it will be with a renewed commitment to constructive dialogue centered around helping those in need.

Thanks for inquiring.

John DehlinI

[why me]

For any who have not seen this.

Note the following from John Dehlin. There is no mention of a hit piece.

MORMON STORIES BOOK CLUB

Please support Mormon Stories by clicking this link before making any Amazon purchases.

Moving Forward

February 26, 2013

By John Dehlin

Stephen Smoot of the Student Review recently asked me to comment on the Greg Smith article. This was my response to Stephen, and it is the only public thing I plan on saying about the affair going forward.

========

Stephen,

I think my biggest regret in this whole ordeal is that I’ve allowed myself to be become a distraction to the real issue: that there are thousands of sincere LDS church members and former members who are struggling with their faith and/or their church-related experiences. I believe that they are in desperate need of greater empathy and support, and that they should be our collective focus.

I have no substantive response to Greg Smith’s article, other than to say that as I move forward with Mormon Stories, it will be with a renewed commitment to constructive dialogue centered around helping those in need.

Thanks for inquiring.

John DehlinI

I think that John does realize that it wasn't a hit piece but an honest critique of his work. Lets hope that he can help those who are struggling as he did in the past with his first podcasts. It is not good to flip flop in public in podcasts and blogs and show bias as one flip flops back and forth in belief and unbelief. .

[Calm]

I think that John does realize that it wasn't a hit piece but an honest critique of his work.

If his tolerance of others calling it a hit piece is any sign of what he realizes, I would suggest it is not a good sign so far. Perhaps this will change in the morning.

[why me]

If his tolerance of others calling it a hit piece is any sign of what he realizes, I would suggest it is not a good sign so far. Perhaps this will change in the morning.

I was referring to what John said to Stephen in louis' post. John seemed rather mellow in tone and no mention of a hit piece.

Edited February 27, 2013 by why me

[diahman]

This has nothing to do with discrediting the "enemy". Rather is has something to do with critiquing a body of work by one individual and that is perfectly okay. It is done all the time in academia. And one can find books being critical of certain social thinkers, philosophers, etc.

I think I'm with Verum on this. This isn't an academically responsible critique of an individual's body of work. If you'd like to put it in that category I would see it as 'C' level work. Its purpose is not to study a phenomenon, understand the full implications of someone's work, or assess the strengths and weaknesses of someone's claims. To the extent it does these things, it does them to serve a different purpose--to show why LDSs shouldn't trust JD. No legitimate books or articles do this kind of thing in academia.

[awyatt]

No legitimate books or articles do this kind of thing in academia.

I'm not sure that summation really says anything of substance. If someone does find books or articles that do, in fact, do that kind of thing in academia, you always have an out by judging them illegitimate.

Analyzing movements or others' positions and then staking out your own contra position is, indeed, a time-honored tradition in academia. The traditional response (again, in academia) is to analyze the analysis and publish a response.

-Allen

PS: It is interesting to me that JD's supporters, in this very thread, have said that the 'appropriate response to JD's survey of leavetakers is to conduct your own survey and publish the results.' Yet those same supporters don't take their own advice in relation to GS's analysis and review of JD's entrepreneurial endeavors.