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

[wenglund]

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

Yes...in the war of ideas, as with any war, the least responsible thing to do is identify the enemy because one's greatest assurance of security and defense is always sheer ignorance.

And, do not doubt that it is the high calling of academia to provide this kind of security and defense. Ignorance is their specialty and expertice.

Please, folks, for the love of Pete, pay heed to these self-appointed academic police, or perish.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 27, 2013 by wenglund

[ERayR]

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 don't see any commitment to changing direction.

[Teancum]

FYI:

http://thestudentreview.org/controversial-paper-critiquing-popular-mormon-podcast-published/

[Louis Midgley]

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. .

I certainly hope this is the case.

[rpn]

I don't see any commitment to changing direction.

Funny, I did see what could be interpreted as a commitment to do things differently. Don't see why we wouldn't assume that until he proves it wrong. Why would anyone want to freeze him in the past?

[Louis Midgley]

FYI: http://thestudentrev...cast-published/

This is a good essay, but some of the rather florid language in the the comments from Dehlin's groupies manifest a kind of strange veneration/worship that would more appropriate for God.

[diahman]

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.

Let me try to provide some substance. When a professor grades an essay or evaluates an article/manuscript he or she gauges how well it might do some of the following things: understands the subject under discussion, properly assess the subject under discussion, is self-aware of its own methdology and the limitations of its methodology, is self-reflexive in terms of taking dissenting evidence into account, contextualizes itself in larger issues at stake, etc. So if I were to grade Greg's essay, I would give it a C because it does some of these things, but it doesn't do them well. He takes a thesis (that JD is an exit counselor that maintains membership in a Church he really doesn't believe in), and engages in these activities only in as much as they serve to prove his thesis. Rather than his thesis emerging out of an understanding of the material, a self-awareness of his methodology, and an eye toward the larger issues at stake; he makes a thesis that seems quite unaware of any of these other goals (that JD is not on 'our' team) and asserts it over and over and over again for 100 pages.

If you tried to do something like this and submit it to the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, for instance, how well do you think it would go over?

So, yes, analyzing movements or others' positions and then staking out your own position is a time-honored tradition in academia; but it must be done according to certain guidelines to be taken seriously within academia.

This may (or may not) be effective apologetics; but it shouldn't be conflated with good academic discourse.

Also, FWIW, I'm not a supporter of JD.

[Daniel Peterson]

If you tried to do something like this and submit it to the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, for instance, how well do you think it would go over?

It wouldn't. But the Journal of the American Academy of Religion -- to which I perforce subscribe as a member of the American Academy of Religion -- isn't the be-all and end-all even of academic writing, let alone of serious discourse. In fact, for what it's worth, I find the Journal rather boring, by and large, and have to force myself to read it.

And there are many varieties of serious discourse that would never fit in even at a meeting of the American Academy of Religion. (I'm a veteran of such meetings, over the course of many years.) Those meetings are huge, and extremely eclectic, but not infinitelys so. The president of the Evangelical Philosophical Society and I once had a really interesting conversation about precisely that topic, during a long Delta flight back from one of the annual AAR meetings on the east coast to Salt Lake City. He had heard testimonials from Wiccans and a whole variety of "New Religious Movements," but remarked that such a testimonial from an evangelical would be considered far out of bounds in such meetings. I told him that I thought he was precisely right, and that I agreed that it represented a flagrant double standard.

[William Schryver]

Let me try to provide some substance. When a professor grades an essay or evaluates an article/manuscript he or she gauges how well it might do some of the following things: understands the subject under discussion, properly assess the subject under discussion, is self-aware of its own methdology and the limitations of its methodology, is self-reflexive in terms of taking dissenting evidence into account, contextualizes itself in larger issues at stake, etc. So if I were to grade Greg's essay, I would give it a C because it does some of these things, but it doesn't do them well. /snip remainder/

Of course, anyone presuming to "grade" Smith's article should recognize that s/he ought to possess the requisite knowledge/training to proffer such an assessment.

What knowledge/training do you consider requisite in this case?

Do you perceive that some engaging in this discussion are more qualified than others to assess the scholarly merit of Greg Smith's article?

[diahman]

No big disagreements with your assessment of JAAR or the AAR meetings.

That doesn't answer the question, though, of how Greg's article measures up to academic standards; and why anything like it wouldn't be included in JAAR.

[diahman]

Do you perceive that some engaging in this discussion are more qualified than others to assess the scholarly merit of Greg Smith's article?

No, except for the fact that some might have more experience than others in doing this. I think that if we (meaning those interested in this discussion) can come to an agreement of what academic standards are; we are then in a position to see the degree to which Greg's article meets those standards.

[sethpayne]

This is a good essay, but some of the rather florid language in the the comments from Dehlin's groupies manifest a kind of strange veneration/worship that would more appropriate for God.

Hi Lou,

Which comment are you referring to?

Seth

[awyatt]

That doesn't answer the question, though, of how Greg's article measures up to academic standards; and why anything like it wouldn't be included in JAAR.

Your choice of wording seems to indicate that you believe "academic standards" are rather homogenous and monolithic. Am I misreading you?

On a semi-related tangent, what grade would you give JD's survey of a little over a year ago? Do you think it would be accepted for publication in a scholarly journal?

-Allen

[William Schryver]

No, except for the fact that some might have more experience than others in doing this. I think that if we (meaning those interested in this discussion) can come to an agreement of what academic standards are; we are then in a position to see the degree to which Greg's article meets those standards.

I am more than willing to have you offer up a definition of what academic standards are.

[sethpayne]

I am more than willing to have you offer up a definition of what academic standards are.

Hi Will,

Obviously any definition of "academic standards" is subjective. In any case, here are some opinions:

From Wendy Belcher, professor at Princeton:

http://www.wendybelcher.com/pages/documents/WritingtheAcademicBookReview.pdf

Avoiding Five Common Pitfalls

1. Evaluate the text, don’t just summarize it. While a succinct restatement of the text’s points is

important, part of writing a book review is making a judgment. Is the book a contribution to

the field? Does it add to our knowledge? Should this book be read and by whom? One

needn’t be negative to evaluate; for instance, explaining how a text relates to current debates

in the field is a form of evaluation.

2. Do not cover everything in the book. In other words, don’t use the table of contents as a

structuring principle for your review. Try to organize your review around the book’s

argument or your argument about the book.

3. Judge the book by its intentions not yours. Don’t criticize the author for failing to write the

book you think that he or she should have written. As John Updike puts it, “Do not imagine

yourself the caretaker of any tradition, an enforcer of any party standards, a warrior in any

ideological battle, a corrections officer of any kind.”

4. Likewise, don’t spend too much time focusing on gaps. Since a book is only 200 to 500

pages, it cannot possibly address the richness of any topic. For this reason, the most common

criticism in any review is that the book doesn’t address some part of the topic. If the book

purports to be about ethnicity and film and yet lacks a chapter on Latinos, by all means,

mention it. Just don’t belabor the point. Another tic of reviewers is to focus too much on

books the author did not cite. If you are using their bibliography just to display your own

knowledge it will be obvious to the reader. Keep such criticisms brief.

5. Don’t use too many quotes from the book. It is best to paraphrase or use short telling quotes

within sentences.

From the University of Colorado's CYE Journal:

http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/CYE_BookReviewGuidelines.htm

The most important point in developing a book review is to address the Journal’s readership: international and interdisciplinary. The review should consider:

• The intended audience for the book and who would find it useful;
  
• The background of the author;
  
• The main ideas and major objectives of the book and how effectively these are accomplished;
  
• The soundness of methods and information sources used;
  
• The context or impetus for the book - - political controversy, review research or policy, etc.;
  
• A comparison with other works on this subject;
  
• Constructive comments about the strength and weaknesses of the book;
  
• For edited books: dominant themes with reference to specific chapters as appropriate; and implications of the book for research, policy, practice, or theory.
  

From Oxford:

http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jwelb/bookreviewguidelines.html

The following information should be given about the book being reviewed at the start of each review:

Author / Editor Name, Book Title, Publisher, Year of Publication, ISBN: 000-0-00-000000-0, Number of Pages, Price

Book reviews should be timely and objective and should consider the following:

• The intended audience for the book and who would find it useful
  
• The main ideas and major objectives of the book and how effectively these are accomplished
  
• The soundness of methods and information sources used
  
• The context or impetus for the book - political controversy, review research or policy, etc
  
• Constructive comments about the strength and weaknesses of the book
  

Like I said, just opinions.

Seth

[Daniel Peterson]

That doesn't answer the question, though, of how Greg's article measures up to academic standards

Then I'll answer it: I think it does.

and why anything like it wouldn't be included in JAAR.

I already suggested part of the answer to that: Expressly partisan or confessional statements aren't welcome there. And Greg Smith's paper very obviously presumes a belief in Mormonism.

[alter idem]

I've been following this story since last year so when Greg's article was published, I took the time to read it--including the footnotes.

I think he did an excellent job and I'm glad The Interpreter published it. IMO, LDS should be apprised of the contradictions between what John Dehlin says to an LDS audience and what he says to an exLDS audience. It was not a 'hit piece'. While it exposed evidence that was negative, this was not the fault of the writer--it was the fault of his subject; If he felt condemned, he must admit, it was his own words which condemned him.

Some have been upset with Bro. Smith for what they perceive as criticism or even attacks of a fellow member of the church. This has brought about a lot of arguing as we've taken sides on this issue. I think members of the church need to be careful of what the Book of Mormon describes as 'contentions and disputations' which can arise--this was one of the first things Christ mentioned when he appeared to the Nephites. I think we should try to love eachother and have patience, However, I do not think we should be naive about the danger of dissension and apostasy among the Saints and we cannot ignore the threat of 'false prophets' and 'false teachers' who pervert the doctrines of the church and can lead people astray.

There is a place for apologetics in the defense of the saints--if any member disagrees with me, just read some of the altercations between Book of Mormon Prophets and dissenters from the faith they labeled 'anti-christs'. The confrontation between Sherem and Jacob is an excellent example (Jacob 7). Read the account in the New Testament when Paul and Barnabus encounter a false prophet. The scripture says that Paul was moved by the Holy Ghost and challenged the man saying 'O full of subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?' (Acts 13:10) Sadly, if modern prophets or apologists said something like that today, they'd find themselves hotly condemned by not only angry apostates but some offronted, but well-intentioned members as well!

While we need to be careful of contention, we also must look out for the church and the members. I think Greg Smith and other apologists who are often criticized by their detractors are doing their best to help defend the gospel and protect the saints--and they do a good and valuable work.

[diahman]

Your choice of wording seems to indicate that you believe "academic standards" are rather homogenous and monolithic. Am I misreading you?

On a semi-related tangent, what grade would you give JD's survey of a little over a year ago? Do you think it would be accepted for publication in a scholarly journal?

-Allen

Not necessarily; but I believe we can come to some kind of consensus about such standards. While I imagine we might disagree on some of the specifics, do you agree with my general list: understands the subject under discussion, properly assess the subject under discussion, is self-aware of its own methdology and the limitations of its methodology, is self-reflexive in terms of taking dissenting evidence into account, contextualizes itself in larger issues at stake...?

I haven't looked closely at JD's survey. Greg raises some very important critiques of it; and I imagine it would not be accepted in a legitimate scholarly journal.

[diahman]

I am more than willing to have you offer up a definition of what academic standards are.

Let me see what I can do. I tossed out some general ideas a few posts back. I'll try to elaborate on them.

[diahman]

Then I'll answer it: I think it does.

I already suggested part of the answer to that: Expressly partisan or confessional statements aren't welcome there. And Greg Smith's paper very obviously presumes a belief in Mormonism.

I've at least offered a brief explanation of why I do not think it meets said standards. Why do you think it does?

Also, what do you mean by "partisan"? And how is Greg's paper confessional?

[stemelbow]

I've been following this story since last year so when Greg's article was published, I took the time to read it--including the footnotes.

I think he did an excellent job and I'm glad The Interpreter published it. IMO, LDS should be apprised of the contradictions between what John Dehlin says to an LDS audience and what he says to an exLDS audience. It was not a 'hit piece'. While it exposed evidence that was negative, this was not the fault of the writer--it was the fault of his subject; If he felt condemned, he must admit, it was his own words which condemned him.

Some have been upset with Bro. Smith for what they perceive as criticism or even attacks of a fellow member of the church. This has brought about a lot of arguing as we've taken sides on this issue. I think members of the church need to be careful of what the Book of Mormon describes as 'contentions and disputations' which can arise--this was one of the first things Christ mentioned when he appeared to the Nephites. I think we should try to love eachother and have patience, However, I do not think we should be naive about the danger of dissension and apostasy among the Saints and we cannot ignore the threat of 'false prophets' and 'false teachers' who pervert the doctrines of the church and can lead people astray.

There is a place for apologetics in the defense of the saints--if any member disagrees with me, just read some of the altercations between Book of Mormon Prophets and dissenters from the faith they labeled 'anti-christs'. The confrontation between Sherem and Jacob is an excellent example (Jacob 7). Read the account in the New Testament when Paul and Barnabus encounter a false prophet. The scripture says that Paul was moved by the Holy Ghost and challenged the man saying 'O full of subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?' (Acts 13:10) Sadly, if modern prophets or apologists said something like that today, they'd find themselves hotly condemned by not only angry apostates but some offronted, but well-intentioned members as well!

While we need to be careful of contention, we also must look out for the church and the members. I think Greg Smith and other apologists who are often criticized by their detractors are doing their best to help defend the gospel and protect the saints--and they do a good and valuable work.

Hey Alter.

Yep. Your comments are great. I'm probably not as pleased with Smith's piece as you, but I think your ideas are spot on.

While it exposed evidence that was negative, this was not the fault of the writer--it was the fault of his subject; If he felt condemned, he must admit, it was his own words which condemned him.

I'm just surprised some are being so dogmatic about how it's poor. In truth, I see some things he might have went overboard on, but I also think he tried hard to get a very needed message out there.

[wenglund]

Let me try to provide some substance. When a professor grades an essay or evaluates an article/manuscript he or she gauges how well it might do some of the following things: understands the subject under discussion, properly assess the subject under discussion, is self-aware of its own methdology and the limitations of its methodology, is self-reflexive in terms of taking dissenting evidence into account, contextualizes itself in larger issues at stake, etc. So if I were to grade Greg's essay, I would give it a C because it does some of these things, but it doesn't do them well. He takes a thesis (that JD is an exit counselor that maintains membership in a Church he really doesn't believe in)

Where did you come up with this thesis statement?

I ask because from what I gathered, the thesis was more along the lines of: JD is a self-appointed exit counselor who claims to be neutral and objective, but whose approach, like many self-appointed exit counselors before him, "has a persistent bias and it is oriented against the Church’s truth claims, its moral teachings, its leaders, and the doctrine of Christ."

If I am correct, then before you presume to grade Greg's paper, it may prove useful to correctly understand what it is actually about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

Where did you come up with this thesis statement?

I ask because from what I gathered, the thesis was more along the lines of: JD is a self-appointed exit counselor who claims to be neutral and objective, but whose approach, like many self-appointed exit counselors before him, "has a persistent bias and it is oriented against the Church’s truth claims, its moral teachings, its leaders, and the doctrine of Christ."

If I am correct, then before you presume to grade Greg's paper, it may prove useful to correctly understand what it is actually about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

uh yeah...i'm with Wade on this. I don't think the thesis was anything close to what the teacher suggested.

[Louis Midgley]

Let me try to provide some substance. When a professor grades an essay or evaluates an article/manuscript he or she gauges how well it might do some of the following things: understands the subject under discussion, properly assess the subject under discussion, is self-aware of its own methodology and the limitations of its methodology, is self-reflexive in terms of taking dissenting evidence into account, contextualizes itself in larger issues at stake, etc. So if I were to grade Greg's essay, I would give it a C because it does some of these things, but it doesn't do them well. He takes a thesis (that JD is an exit counselor that maintains membership in a Church he really doesn't believe in), and engages in these activities only in as much as they serve to prove his thesis. Rather than his thesis emerging out of an understanding of the material, a self-awareness of his methodology, and an eye toward the larger issues at stake; he makes a thesis that seems quite unaware of any of these other goals (that JD is not on 'our' team) and asserts it over and over and over again for 100 pages.

If you tried to do something like this and submit it to the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, for instance, how well do you think it would go over?

So, yes, analyzing movements or others' positions and then staking out your own position is a time-honored tradition in academia; but it must be done according to certain guidelines to be taken seriously within academia.

This may (or may not) be effective apologetics; but it shouldn't be conflated with good academic discourse.

Also, FWIW, I'm not a supporter of JD.

Professor Peterson has dealt well with much of Diahman's comments. I wish to make some other comments. Diahman make a false distinction between what he calls "apologetics" and "good academic discourse" as part of a defense of criticisms of Greg Smith's essays. Put another way he is an apologist for whatever he is setting out. Hence, he is not engaged in "good academic discourse." Why? He merely opines without much in the way of carefully thought out methodology, or of it limitations, and he brushes aside much evidence set out by Greg Smith in his essay or simply ignores the textual evidence Greg sets out. He has not taken the considerable dissenting arguments and evidence into account, or made any effort at all of setting Greg's essays into the context of important issue at stake within and on the fringes of the community of Saints. Greg's first essay was refereed by perhaps a dozen people. None of said a thing that matches Diahman's apologetic for dismissing Greg's essay. Instead, with one exception, all of them had essentially the same opinion--the essay was far too long. But all of them also said that they realized that to support the thesis Greg was developing, they could not come up with a way of cutting out much of anything. In addition, the argument that this sort of essay would not fit in some secular academic journal does not address the fact that the topic Greg addresses is of vital concern the both faithful Latter-day Saints and to critics of the Church. And hence very much deserves to be published.

If something like Mormon Stories were to become the rage in Roman Catholic or Conservative Protestant or Muslim circles, would one not expect scholars from those faiths to address the issues raised by its existence and agenda? There are in fact many academic journals in which the sort of thing John Dehlin is undertaking would immediately be given considerable very serious academic consideration. But much of the very best conservative Protestant scholarship, and there is a great deal of now available journals and book form, is not published in secular journal or presses, and the same is obviously true for Roman Catholic scholarship as well.

[diahman]

Where did you come up with this thesis statement?

I ask because from what I gathered, the thesis was more along the lines of: JD is a self-appointed exit counselor who claims to be neutral and objective, but whose approach, like many self-appointed exit counselors before him, "has a persistent bias and it is oriented against the Church’s truth claims, its moral teachings, its leaders, and the doctrine of Christ."

If I am correct, then before you presume to grade Greg's paper, it may prove useful to correctly understand what it is actually about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree. That is ideed his thesis.