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

[diahman]

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.

Lou, I'm not making a distinction between apologetics and good academic discourse. I'm making a distinction between good academic discourse and sub-par academic discourse. FWIW, I think good apologetics can have a significant overlap with good academic discourse. Much of FARMS material fits that category. I just don't think Greg's piece does. I'm also not saying that Greg's paper is not of value for the LDS community. I just don't think we should assert that it meets academic standards of publication (and not because of Greg's confessional stance).

[Louis Midgley]

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

These are mostly guidelines for beginners. But the crucial questions of whether Greg's essay are flawed by reference to some academic standards remains unexamined. To this point all I have seen are assertions of partisans anxious to find ways of brushing aside the argument and supporting evidence Greg has provided. I have seen no effort to confront the textual evidence and analysis provided in Greg's two essays. Has Dehlin or one of his apologists tried to demonstrate that what Greg attributes to Dehlin do not exist? Or that something has been taken out of context? Or that what Greg has written is not true? A glance at the comments to John Dehlin's statement now posted on his Mormon Stories website, for example, reveals not much more than carping by those hostile to the community of Saints and also anxious to defend their secular religious ideology. There are, it seems, many apologists for apostasy who seem eager to defend Dehlin. But unwilling to engage Greg's arguments. For them Dehlin is a heroic liberator from the oppression of a false set of beliefs. They seem to know Dehlin exactly at Greg Smith has found exactly him in his own words in many public places. In an effort to defend Dehlin his most ardent supporters have ended up showing that Smith has hit the nail on the head. Dehlin does not enemies with many of his ardent apologists that he has gathered and surveyed.

[Calm]

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.

CFR please.

[Calm]

if we (meaning those interested in this discussion) can come to an agreement of what academic standards are

So if you haven't laid out your version yet, how about doing so please.

[Louis Midgley]

Lou, I'm not making a distinction between apologetics and good academic discourse. I'm making a distinction between good academic discourse and sub-par academic discourse. FWIW, I think good apologetics can have a significant overlap with good academic discourse. Much of FARMS material fits that category. I just don't think Greg's piece does. I'm also not saying that Greg's paper is not of value for the LDS community. I just don't think we should assert that it meets academic standards of publication (and not because of Greg's confessional stance).

I don't think you understand the issues. All good or bad academic discourse is in one way or another an apology--the word means defense or vindication or a giving of reason--for some opinion held by its author(s). One in a propaganda war in which slogan are used to score points is a distinction made between academic discourse and setting out and defending some opinion. Where this false distinction is made is when we begin to talk about matters of faith or what can be called religion. Any defense for any opinion can be done either well or not so well. The only alternative to offering reasons is the use of fists or censorship. And even in the most repressive regimes it has been possible to present and defend competing opinions. Some have in the past done this by writing esoterically. This has yielded some very remarkable literature within both Jewish, Islamic and Christian communities. But there is no need at all for esoteric writing for even the most radical dissenters in the LDS community. They are not trying to address a tiny elite of readers. So one can say virtually anything and no consequences will follow except being ignored. Message boards illustrate this every day. And one can parade as an authority or a bringer of light and sell all kinds of heterodox ideas and even gain a following. No one can prevent anyone from thinking and saying whatever they want. In some instances, however, censorship is sought. And an open and free discussion is not desired. In the case of Greg Smith's essay, censorship did not work. Now we are witnessing Plan B. The irony is that if Greg Smith paper had been published without the intrigue, far less attention would have been given to it, and there would have never been a second essay.

So it is silly to claim that Greg Smith's essay would never have appeared in some secular journal. Dehlin should have paid some editor of a secular journal to ask for and publish the thing and thereby send it to the usual death most essays get and probably most deserve.

[alter idem]

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.

Hi Stem, nice to see you!

I agree with you. I think that the criticisms have been unwarranted. While I doubt The Journal of the American Academy of Religion would be have been interested in publishing his article, it is not because it did not meet their standards of Academia--but because the subject is of limited interest to the majority of their readers and their contributors.

I may be wrong, but I would assume it is difficult for LDS scholars to get their work published in non LDS Journals--not because it doesn't meet their academic standards, but because it doesn't interest them.

[Louis Midgley]

While I was having a look to see if more comments had been added to collection of praise for John Dehlin's response to Greg Smith's essays from his more secular disciples, they simply disappeared. Amazing. I wonder why. I had already copies them. And, just in case, someone has not seen them, here they are:

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 Dehlin

Now the comments on John Dehlin’s Mormon Stories website to what he had sent Stephen Smoot that was published in the BYU Student Newspaper:

michael

February 26, 2013 at 9:58 pm

Very kind John. Good job.

mike

Chris MacAskill

February 26, 2013 at 10:14 pm

That is the high road and the reason I have so much respect for Mormon Stories.

Jeralee

February 26, 2013 at 10:14 pm

Perfect! Amen.

james

February 26, 2013 at 10:17 pm

John, there will always be a place for you outside, in this great mystery of uncertainty. Where Dr. Coe tells wonderful stories under real stars. Where those once stifled in a musty tent of fear and loathing can breathe in the fresh night air. I’ve been rooting for you, like Atreyu, as you too battle The Nothing. Although to be honest I’m worried about the swamp of sadness. Please don’t turn MormonStories into a mouthpiece for the uptrodden…they have enough greg-like word-offending voices. The downtrodden need you, please don’t “help us” by making us listen inside the tent.

Randy

February 26, 2013 at 10:25 pm

I am fascinated how we try to construct or deconstruct complex rationalizations which have at their foundation the mystical and supernatural, when simple, straightforward evidence is all around us – and, we might see, if we stop, look and listen to it.

Reality is right there staring us in the face and it continues to SIMPLY BE, despite our best efforts to fabricate alternative, very convoluted explanations. Why does reality induce such fear in us that we fantasize so frantically?

Michelle

February 26, 2013 at 11:15 pm

A very classy response to a very below-the-belt “hit piece” by Greg Smith. Kuddos!

Jordan H

February 26, 2013 at 11:19 pm

This couldn’t have been said any better.

Tom Haws

February 26, 2013 at 11:25 pm

John, I can’t tell you how dismayed I was to land at Greg Smith’s article and find that I wasn’t able to read even past its title if I valued my own tenuous tenancy in the land of productivity and healing. Landing on this page to find your earnest and exemplary reply was a type of restoration. Big loves to you, brother.

Jef

February 27, 2013 at 2:12 am

So I read all 70 pages. It was as boring as sacrament meeting. I did understand that John declined somehow went back in time and altered history introducing unanswerable questions and being a psychologist is probably controlling our minds.

Back to reality. Hasn’t it been an amazing trip to see how one man has had to reconstruct his entire belief system? How he has tried to help others when he was finding his way? Very different from the ” what do you mean you didn’t know he put a rock in a hat to translate the Book of Mormo? Every good member knows that. It’s published by the church every 15 years in some obscure article no one reads”

Keep it up man, love the ride

Simon in Oz

February 27, 2013 at 3:58 am

It is great to see that you still have your eyes on the ball John. The attack apologists are so focussed on the man that they have lost sight of the game. I hope that one day Greg Smith feels the shame he ought to feel for the unprofessional dross he has just published.

square peg

February 27, 2013 at 5:35 am

Your response was perfect and simple, just as it should be. I’m sorry you have to endure criticism just for trying to offer support and empathy to those struggling. Your focus is exactly where it needs to be.

Mary Vogwell

February 27, 2013 at 5:37 am

Well done. The perfect response.

Elizabeth Scott

February 27, 2013 at 6:57 am

Thanks for posting this, John! Very classy response. I look forward to more podcasts.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Louis Midgley

[Calm]

Let us hope it is because he didn't want the negative responses about apologists, etc. up there which would in many ways defeat the neutral tone of his comments.

[Louis Midgley]

Let us hope it is because he didn't want the negative responses about apologists, etc. up there which would in many ways defeat the neutral tone of his comments.

I have exactly the same hope. If this is the case, and let us pray that it is, why has he not, I wonder, posted something at least hinting that this is the case?

[diahman]

My apologies for not responding sooner. The approach I'll take to defining academic standards is as follows. I'll toss out some general statements about the qualities I think academic research (of religion, at least in the humanities) should aspire to; and see if we can't come to a shallow consensus first on these general statements. In other words, I realize that we may disagree on the specifics (what counts as "significant" or "self-aware", for instance), but I'd like to see if we can first generate some parameters of the discussion. If there is anything anyone thinks should be added (or subtracted) I am open to hearing about it. (I didn't add things like grammar, consistent citation style, etc., although those are also important.)

1. A good paper sets out to explore significant questions
   
2. A strong thesis is usually: clear, arguable, original, and self-aware
   
3. A good paper accurately describes the phenomenon under investigation
   
4. A good paper uses appropriate methodlogy and demonstrates an awareness of the limitations of its methodology
   
5. A good paper is self-reflexive in terms of taking dissenting evidence into account
   
6. A good paper contextualizes itself in larger issues at stake (i.e., it answers the "so what" question)
   

I don't think you understand the issues. All good or bad academic discourse is in one way or another an apology--the word means defense or vindication or a giving of reason--for some opinion held by its author(s). One in a propaganda war in which slogan are used to score points is a distinction made between academic discourse and setting out and defending some opinion. Where this false distinction is made is when we begin to talk about matters of faith or what can be called religion. Any defense for any opinion can be done either well or not so well....

So it is silly to claim that Greg Smith's essay would never have appeared in some secular journal. Dehlin should have paid some editor of a secular journal to ask for and publish the thing and thereby send it to the usual death most essays get and probably most deserve.

I understand the use of apology in the broad sense of defending a position. I imagine that you would agree that each context is going to accept different parameters for what kinds of assumptions are permittable; and that within a religious context there very well may be assumptions that are made that are not going to be accepted in other contexts. So an academic context may not publish confessional material because it has different parameters for permittable assumptions. I also believe that the lines between contexts are not always clear, and that faithful scholarship can also meet academic standards.

My point, here though, isn't to say that Greg's article should meet the standards of an academic venue; just that we shouldn't assert that it does, when it does not. Apologetics (in the technical sense) can be effective without meeting these standards. My point is simply that we should not go so far as to call this kind of approach academic scholarship.

Hi Stem, nice to see you!

I agree with you. I think that the criticisms have been unwarranted. While I doubt The Journal of the American Academy of Religion would be have been interested in publishing his article, it is not because it did not meet their standards of Academia--but because the subject is of limited interest to the majority of their readers and their contributors.

I may be wrong, but I would assume it is difficult for LDS scholars to get their work published in non LDS Journals--not because it doesn't meet their academic standards, but because it doesn't interest them.

LDS scholars actually have published their work in non-Mormon academic venues because there is an interest. A few examples from the past 3 years: Hardy, _Understanding the Book of Mormon_ (Oxford University Press, 2010). Brown, _In Heaven as it is on Earth_ (Oxford University Press, 2012). Givens and Grow, _Parley P. Pratt_ (Oxford University Press, 2011), and Fluhman, _A Peculiar People_ (University of North Carolina Press, 2012).

[wenglund]

I have exactly the same hope. If this is the case, and let us pray that it is, why has he not, I wonder, posted something at least hinting that this is the case?

...or better yet, were he to have made an appeal to his followers that they join him in the neutrality.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

...or better yet, were he to have made an appeal to his followers that they join him in the neutrality.

Do you really hold out hope that, in that event, they would not rapidly label him a sell-out?

[wenglund]

My apologies for not responding sooner. The approach I'll take to defining academic standards is as follows. I'll toss out some general statements about the qualities I think academic research (of religion, at least in the humanities) should aspire to; and see if we can't come to a shallow consensus first on these general statements. In other words, I realize that we may disagree on the specifics (what counts as "significant" or "self-aware", for instance), but I'd like to see if we can first generate some parameters of the discussion. If there is anything anyone thinks should be added (or subtracted) I am open to hearing about it. (I didn't add things like grammar, consistent citation style, etc., although those are also important.)

1. A good paper sets out to explore significant questions
   
2. A strong thesis is usually: clear, arguable, original, and self-aware
   
3. A good paper accurately describes the phenomenon under investigation
   
4. A good paper uses appropriate methodology and demonstrates an awareness of the limitations of its methodology
   
5. A good paper is self-reflexive in terms of taking dissenting evidence into account
   
6. A good paper contextualizes itself in larger issues at stake (i.e., it answers the "so what" question)
   

These are excellent suggestions, though I wonder if they inadvertently ignore the essential purpose of academia-i.e. to educate.

To explain what I mean by this, I will tell a story (as my mentor, Lou, is fond of saying). Awhile back, and for several years, I was employed as an instructor for a large, multi-national corporation. And in accordance with best practices, my superiors would often observe and critique my instructions. And, while this was all well and good, they would go to great lengths picking apart the way I was dressed, the lack of favored hand gestures and vocal intonations, the poor aesthetic quality of my course material, the seemingly lack of flow of my presentation, my need to constantly consult my notes, and most importantly, my noticeable departure from the course outline prepared by the department's curriculum designers.

In short, their criticism had everything to do with form, and little or nothing to do with function, or more importantly, results. In spite of their professional background, or even perhaps because of their professional background (as contrasted with my lack thereof), they didn't consider the most important aspect of what I was about. They didn't stop to assess whether my students were actually learning, and how well they were learning.

Had they done so, they would have found, as I had (I tested my students, not only in class, but by observing them in the work environment), that their grasp of the material was superior, if not far superior, to students under other instructors tutelage. The fact that students had expressed preferences to me over other instructors, also didn't clue in my superiors.

This is the long way of saying that your suggestions, while good in one respect for distinguishing good academics, seem overly focused on form, at the expense of function and results. To me, the best test of academics is how well it informs and teaches.

On that basis, I would give Greg's paper an "A", since I learned considerable by reading it.

Yet, I can respect that others my see it differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 28, 2013 by wenglund

[rongo]

Simon in Oz

February 27, 2013 at 3:58 am

It is great to see that you still have your eyes on the ball John. The attack apologists are so focussed on the man that they have lost sight of the game. I hope that one day Greg Smith feels the shame he ought to feel for the unprofessional dross he has just published.

Think this one is from Simon Southerton?

[Pahoran]

Think this one is from Simon Southerton?

That's what I wondered too. Regardless, what we're really seeing is a kind of in-group identity affirmation. The mantra that Greg Smith's article is a "hit piece" has become a shibboleth with these people, regardless of its unsupportability.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tacenda]

Do any of you wonder what the comments would be if the shoe were on the other foot? Might be similar to these....

Edited February 28, 2013 by Tacenda

[rongo]

That's what I wondered too.

The irony is that Simon believes the Church is false and evil and all that ---- yet, considers John a good investment for the portfolio ("It is great to see that you still have your eyes on the ball John," etc.). This, despite John's ostensible return to orthodoxy and obedience.

I think it's pretty clear that Dehlin's supporters see him in the same light as his detractors ---- even while pulling the passive-aggressive stunt of "why-are-you-guys-going-after-him-can't-you-see-he's-back-in-the-fold?" He's still seen as a useful tool to those who want to see the Church change substantially from within.

[Louis Midgley]

Let us hope it is because he didn't want the negative responses about apologists, etc. up there which would in many ways defeat the neutral tone of his comments.

I just checked and all the comments are now back on line and the total has grown to 35.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The irony is that Simon believes the Church is false and evil and all that ---- yet, considers John a good investment for the portfolio ("It is great to see that you still have your eyes on the ball John," etc.). This, despite John's ostensible return to orthodoxy and obedience.

For the record, John is going back to Church and orthopraxy, but has definitely not claimed orthodoxy. Quite the opposite in fact. John's return to church is a return to the spirituality and community he felt was missing from his life.

[Scott Lloyd]

For the record, John is going back to Church and orthopraxy, but has definitely not claimed orthodoxy. Quite the opposite in fact. John's return to church is a return to the spirituality and community he felt was missing from his life.

He and others may one day come to understand the truth of Elder Hartman Rector Jr.'s words given years ago in a general conference talk: "You can't have the fruits of Mormonism without having the roots of Mormonism."

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The irony is that Simon believes the Church is false and evil and all that ---- yet, considers John a good investment for the portfolio ("It is great to see that you still have your eyes on the ball John," etc.). This, despite John's ostensible return to orthodoxy and obedience.

I think it's pretty clear that Dehlin's supporters see him in the same light as his detractors ---- even while pulling the passive-aggressive stunt of "why-are-you-guys-going-after-him-can't-you-see-he's-back-in-the-fold?" He's still seen as a useful tool to those who want to see the Church change substantially from within.

Also CFR that Simon Southerton considers the church to be "evil."

[ERayR]

For the record, John is going back to Church and orthopraxy, but has definitely not claimed orthodoxy. Quite the opposite in fact. John's return to church is a return to the spirituality and community he felt was missing from his life.

In other words he still doesn't believe in the truth claims of the church but is willing to go through the motions to retain his membership. I hope it works for him and he doesn't get tired of straddling the fence.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

In other words he still doesn't believe in the truth claims of the church but is willing to go through the motions to retain his membership. I hope it works for him and he doesn't get tired of straddling the fence.

I would say that he still doesn't believe in the truth claims of the church, but finds value in the community and spirituality he gets from attending church.

[Scott Lloyd]

Do any of you wonder what the comments would be if the shoe were on the other foot? Might be similar to these....

I guess we can never know for sure, but so long as we're engaging in speculation, I will say I doubt it.

I've been reading boards for a long time, and I haven't seen a level of bitterness directed by apologists toward those who have forsaken the faith that I've seen coming in the other direction, the constant vilification of Daniel Peterson and others notwithstanding.

[Hamba Tuhan]

"You can't have the fruits of Mormonism without having the roots of Mormonism."

Oh, I like this quotation! Too many times I've watched members who merely go through the motions 'burn out' because, despite all their 'effort', the fruit never comes.