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

[Daniel Peterson]

Meaning that Lou and I and a few of my friends pretty consistently get slammed as mean-spirited and vicious by people who are far nastier than I've ever been in my entire life, who say vicious things and make the most base possible accusations.

I was responding to awyatt's suggestion that you were quiet while John Dehlin was slamming us in far harsher terms than Lou Midgley has used. Perhaps that's factually incorrect, but, if it isn't, it seems to be consistent with the first paragraph, above.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Daniel Peterson

[wenglund]

A good paper adds value to the reader's life.

Brilliant!

Now, I'm not quite as ready as you to provide a grade for Greg's paper in this category; but do you agree that it's possible to have high marks in one category, but low marks in another (say an 'A' for a thesis, but a 'D' in taking dissenting evidence into account)?

Sure. It is just that to me, your #7 should be weighted as heavily as the 6 other criteria combined.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

you are flattering yourself and your buddies to think that was a bright light. however, you are right that the subject of the light, be it dim or bright, was dehlin and not mormon stories as a publisher or as a community.

will, do you think this review will provide more followers of the apologists? i would think that would be a higher priority than just knocking down dehlin.

If I recall, Dehlin was (is?) hoping to start a career in counseling, focusing on LDS with issues with doubts. If you were a Church leader or friend or family member of such a person and were hoping they would retain their faith in the basic principles of the gospel, would you refer them to Dehlin for counseling?

After reading that article, you'd have to be crazy to. Not because of what Greg Smith said, but because of what Dehlin has said. If someone were on their way out of the Church and was having a rough time but they were pretty sure they weren't going to be staying in the Church (or were going to continue going, but weren't trying to maintain a belief in the basic principles of the gospel), I would absolutely refer them to Dehlin's resources (they've apparently already been very popular with people who are leaving or who have left).

I personally have no problem with Dehlin's "faith journey", wherever it has lead him. But it is an entirely legitimate question to look at someone who would be a counselor to doubting LDS and ask "What does he believe about basic LDS beliefs?" and "What will be his purpose in such counseling?" As far as I know, Greg Smith is the first person to try and answer those questions.

Over on the other board, someone suggested that Greg Smith "cherry picked" his quotes, and that they don't present a well-rounded portrait of Dehlin during that time period. If anyone believes that, I would be curious to see even a few quotes that contradict Greg Smith's version of Dehlin. Is anyone up to the task?

Edited March 1, 2013 by cinepro

[Calm]

i hope you are not wondering why so many people despise you. You may not agree with them, but it must be clear when you write and share comments like these that you are being unkind, at best.

And it is clear you are not reading everything Lou has written or are just going for sensationalism. Lou is clear over what type of support he is concerned with:

The ones we are talking about are simply not some Latter-day Saints with doubts, but those who have turned against their former faith and are now making war against it. Read the comments on Mormon Stories that follow John Dehlin's comment on Greg Smith's paper. They are not challenging Greg's picture of what is going on with Mormon Stories but celebrating it. They denounce Greg Smith the same way they denounce the faith itself. Those comments are additional evidence the Greg got it exactly right, are they not?

I will say no more in respect of the mods' decree, but felt it important to point this out.

Edited March 1, 2013 by calmoriah

[Mayan Elephant]

If I recall, Dehlin was (is?) hoping to start a career in counseling, focusing on LDS with issues with doubts. If you were a Church leader or friend or family member of such a person and were hoping they would retain their faith in the basic principles of the gospel, would you refer them to Dehlin for counseling?

After reading that article, you'd have to be crazy to. Not because of what Greg Smith said, but because of what Dehlin has said. If someone were on their way out of the Church and was having a rough time, I would absolutely refer them to Dehlin's resources (they've apparently already been very popular with people who are leaving or who have left).

I personally have no problem with Dehlin's "faith journey" where ever it has lead him. But it is an entirely legitimate question to look at someone who would be a counselor to doubting LDS and ask "What does he believe about basic LDS beliefs?" and "What will be his purpose in such counseling?" As far as I know, Greg Smith is the first person to try and answer those questions.

Over on the other board, someone suggested that Greg Smith "cherry picked" his quotes, and that they don't present a well-rounded portrait of Dehlin during that time period. If anyone believes that, I would be curious to see even a few quotes that contradict Greg Smith's version of Dehlin. Is anyone up to the task?

this has been discussed in other forums. i am not disagreeing with you that dehlin's public positions pose a threat, or create an opportunity, for his new career. however, that does not give the apologists a licence to publicly assault him by stalking him or cherry picking his quotes. and, the onus is absolutely not on dehlin or his supporters to give you quotes or highlights that smith's research is complete or thorough. that is laughable. smith's research should stand alone, it does not. he should give all sides of dehlin's character if dehlin is the target. smith proposes that he was researching and reviewing Mormon Stories, he then went on a one-sided tangent about dehlin. ask him for references. smith's assertions and research should stand alone. the lack of a rebuttal by dehlin, or by anyone else, is not a submission to smith's delusions.

You have not provided one bit of documentation for your ongoing attacks and you have over 100 pages to cherry pick from. If you write one more nasty post without referencing a page on that paper you are out.

[emarkp]

If Mormon Stories is such a bad forum (podcasts), why have Dan Petersen and so many other faithful LDS participated on it? Any of you care to answer?

And why was that Jesus dude hanging out with prostitutes and publicans if he was so holy?

Edited March 1, 2013 by emarkp

[emarkp]

he is upset when others have support for something he does not condone.

That's not only wrong, it's taking your wrong reading and overgeneralizing it.

Hint: how did the commenters expressing support for Dehlin address Smith's paper?

[Scott Lloyd]

On pages 12 and 13 of Greg Smith's paper "The Return of the Unread Review," he discusses how Mormon Stories fosters a moral panic and creates "folk devils" with unfounded accusations against apologists about alleged attacks of individuals who are losing their faith.

In the demonizing of Professors Peterson and Midgley by Mayan Elephant and others, are we not witnessing before our very eyes an illustration of such creation of moral panic and folk devils?

[cinepro]

Here's another question:

In January of this year, "A Thoughtful Faith" published a podcast in which they discussed John Dehlin's "faith journey" of the last few years, including problems he had with his wife and children, and problems in the Mormon Stories community (including a perception of "hero worship" towards Dehlin, gross immorality such as "wife swapping" and drug usage associated with some Mormon Stories events) and other such things.

Which was more of a "hit piece" as far as delving into Dehlin's personal life and negative aspects of Mormon Stories not directly related to its mission and services for doubting LDS? The Smith essay, or the Thoughtful Faith podcast?

[William Schryver]

Over on the other board, someone suggested that Greg Smith "cherry picked" his quotes, and that they don't present a well-rounded portrait of Dehlin during that time period. If anyone believes that, I would be curious to see even a few quotes that contradict Greg Smith's version of Dehlin. Is anyone up to the task?

I seriously doubt you will see any takers to your invitation. In fact, I think it far more likely that you will soon find yourself in their crosshairs, as an alleged apologist for the apologists (which, you should understand, is even more despicable than a clear-cut case of apologia.)

But now that Ambien I took 20 minutes ago is starting to ... do ... funny ... things ... to ... my ... brain. And especially things seen via my peripheral vision. I shall therefore set a five-minute time limit, at which time my laptop will turn into a pumpkin (or perhaps a dabbit or a ruck) and I will have fallen asleep, drooling on the keyboard until I wake up about 3:00 am with an overwhelming need to relieve my shrunken middle-aged bladder ...

[Louis Midgley]

Do you really think Greg pointed out anything Dehlin's 'followers' hadn't already seen? Most likely, they've listened to more of his podcasts than Greg, and followed his Facebook more closely than Greg.

I doubt that Dehlin's followers follow his, from my perspective at least, often dreadfully boring podcasts nearly as closely as Greg Smith has.

But it seem clear, does it not, that Dehlin's more dedicated and devoted disciples already knew that what Greg Smith pointed out in his essay.was true. It was exactly what Greg has demonstrated in his essay that has attracted a core of really loyal followers to Dehlin and hence made him the leader of a divisive movement on the fringes of the Church. And his apologists who lined up to testify on his behalf, when his Stake President first showed concern about his endeavors, and who also helped provide him with the 3000+ testimonials that constitute his Survey, and now his friends who have posted support for him on his Mormon Stories website are actually vindicating what Greg has argued in his essay. This is ironic. If Greg Smith had put words in Dehlin's mouth and painted a picture of him that was utterly false, would not Dehlin be denying that he ever said or did those things? Would he not rise up in righteous indignation? He he has not done this. Why? One possible reason is that to do so would shock and disillusion his more secularized disciples.

In addition, Dehlin has to hope that Greg Smith's paper does not cut into his appeal to those who genuinely have questions and are seeking some information or help in sorting out issues they may have. In addition, since he sees himself.in direct competition with faithful Latter-day Saints who volunteer for FAIR, he routinely denounces them in florid terms. And he blasts away at those like Dan Peterson, and any other name that pops into his head, who he sees as having something to say to those he sees as his target audience.

When he explains that interviews with Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens and quite a few other faithful LDS scholars are really useful because, as he explained to the Larsens, a Bushman is worth a Grant Palmer. The reason is that interviewing someone like Bushman gives the appearance of his giving what he considers both sides a voice, as if that is the way for those with doubts to make an informed decision of whether to abandon faith in God, violate their covenants, and so forth. Would anyone think that the Church of Jesus Christ ought to open General Conference to someone likeTalmage Bachman, Mike Quinn, or Grant Palmer and those others on clearly out of the Church whom he has featured and celebrated? I would have no objection if Dehlin had simply interviewed those with solid information and deep understanding of the contents and grounds of the faith of the Saints. But the notion that one is objective if and only if one balances faith with unfaith, truth and accuracy with error and confusion is just a bit odd, is it not?

Edited March 1, 2013 by Louis Midgley

[William Schryver]

On pages 12 and 13 of Greg Smith's paper "The Return of the Unread Review," he discusses how Mormon Stories fosters a moral panic and creates "folk devils" with unfounded accusations against apologists about alleged attacks of individuals who are losing their faith.

The manufactured "moral panic" and its accompanying creation of "folk devils" has been going on for quite some time now outside the Mormon Stories world. It's just that John saw how effectively it was employed in the suppression of an important scholarly article, authored by a known "apologist," so it occurred to John that he could employ this same tactic on a much larger scale and against much more detested "enemies."

And so he did.

[Calm]

But now that Ambien I took 20 minutes ago is starting to ... do ... funny ... things ... to ... my ... brain. And especially things seen via my peripheral vision. I shall therefore set a five-minute time limit

I always know it's time to turn off the laptop when the letters start coming off the page and doing a line dance...and if that isn't enough to remind me it's time to sleep, they then turn rainbow colours and set off some fireworks...great fun.

[William Schryver]

Would anyone think that the Church of Jesus Christ ought to open General Conference to Talmage Bachman, or Mike Quinn, or Grant Palmer and those others whom he has featured and celebrated?

That, of course, is a comical suggestion.

I propose a much more serious hypothetical for your consideration, and one which would explain a very important aspect of apologetics in the Church of Jesus Christ:

What if Daniel C. Peterson, or Louis C. Midgley, or William R. Schryver were invited to speak at General Conference? What would happen?

(I believe I know exactly what would happen, but I put it to you folks to offer your answers first.)

[William Schryver]

I always know it's time to turn off the laptop when the letters start coming off the page and doing a line dance...and if that isn't enough to remind me it's time to sleep, they then turn rainbow colours and set off some fireworks...great fun.

[minor threadjack alert]

You wanna have some real fun? Take two of them, then have your spouse drive you blindfolded to some area with which you are not familiar, then put you behind the wheel and force you to drive back home. (He can take the blindfold off first. )

[/end minor threadjack]

[Louis Midgley]

That, of course, is a comical suggestion.

I propose a much more serious hypothetical for your consideration, and one which would explain a very important aspect of apologetics in the Church of Jesus Christ:

What if Daniel C. Peterson, or Louis C. Midgley, or William R. Schryver were invited to speak at General Conference? What would happen?

(I believe I know exactly what would happen, but I put it to you folks to offer your answers first.)

I do have good friends who do speak in General Conference and for me much happens that is, despite the pain of repentance, I am profoundly blessed by their words. But I do not think that having Mike Coe lecture the Saints on how the Book of Mormon is rubbish would, and should be read as merely Joseph Smith opinions and not the Word of God, would enhance the faith of the Saints. But if the Church, understood as the community of Saints and Covenant People of God, is morphed into a kind of essentially secular social club in which the point staying in it is finding some way of being happy (without the love of God), then it really does not matter who speaks in Conference or even whether their is a Conference.

[William Schryver]

I do have good friends who do speak in General Conference and for me much happens that is, despite the pain of repentance, I am profoundly blessed by their words. But I do not think that having Mike Coe lecture the Saints on how the Book of Mormon is rubbish would, and should be read as merely Joseph Smith opinions and not the Word of God, would enhance the faith of the Saints. But if the Church, understood as the community of Saints and Covenant People of God, is morphed into a kind of essentially secular social club in which the point staying in it is finding some way of being happy (without the love of God), then it really does not matter who speaks in Conference or even whether their is a Conference.

Agreed. But my question remains: what would happen were you, Dan, or I invited to speak in General Conference? Think about it for a moment.

ETA: Ok, we've now gotten to the point where, as Calmoriah warned, the letters on the screen begin dancing. Must be time to try to find my way back upstairs to bed ...

Edited March 1, 2013 by William Schryver

[Calm]

[minor threadjack alert]

You wanna have some real fun? Take two of them, then have your spouse drive you blindfolded to some area with which you are not familiar, then put you behind the wheel and force you to drive back home. (He can take the blindfold off first. )

[/end minor threadjack]

So much fun....no thank you.

A car for me is a deadly weapon...maybe because I drove around too often with my grandmas....not the best of drivers, I fear; I would be just as happy to be given a shotgun and unlimited ammo. In both cases keyes/ammo would be dropped on the ground where I couldn't easily get to it just in case I got stoned enough to forget the harm I would likely be causing.

[Hamba Tuhan]

But the notion that one is objective if and only if one balances faith with unfaith, truth and accuracy with error and confusion is just a bit odd, is it not?

Indeed!

[stemelbow]

this has been discussed in other forums. i am not disagreeing with you that dehlin's public positions pose a threat, or create an opportunity, for his new career. however, that does not give the apologists a licence to publicly assault him by stalking him or cherry picking his quotes. and, the onus is absolutely not on dehlin or his supporters to give you quotes or highlights that smith's research is complete or thorough. that is laughable. smith's research should stand alone, it does not. he should give all sides of dehlin's character if dehlin is the target. smith proposes that he was researching and reviewing Mormon Stories, he then went on a one-sided tangent about dehlin. ask him for references. smith's assertions and research should stand alone. the lack of a rebuttal by dehlin, or by anyone else, is not a submission to smith's delusions.

I'm just going to point out, when given a chance to support his accusations about the paper, Mayan Elephant elected not to support his accusations and instead dogmatically re-asserted he was right, basically because he says so. This is very much what the critics have produced, from what i've seen. Plain nastiness and character assassination.

If they would stop and think for one minute they might be able to realize one thing--if one were to not read Greg's piece, nor give much, if any, regard to Dehlin's movement, but would just read the nasty comments by critics or by folks like Mayan Elephant, one would come away with a very negative view of, perhaps, Greg Smith himself, or perhaps, some perceptive folks might actually see right through their hostility and not put much stock in what appears to be nothing more than a bunch of whiners. I hope they reconsider their attacks. I hope Dehlin does too--which if one reads his response in recent days, he may very well have done just that. I hope he moves on. I hope the best for him. I also hope the best for Mayan Elephant and others who are stuck in ornery mode like him.

[Teancum]

I doubt that Dehlin's followers follow his, from my perspective at least, often dreadfully boring podcasts nearly as closely as Greg Smith has.

Lou would you please let us know how many of the MS podcasts you have listened too?

But it seem clear, does it not, that Dehlin's more dedicated and devoted disciples already knew that what Greg Smith pointed out in his essay.was true.

Disciples? Really? Are those who support you your disciples? Do Will's complimentary posts here make his your disciple?

It was exactly what Greg has demonstrated in his essay that has attracted a core of really loyal followers to Dehlin and hence made him the leader of a divisive movement on the fringes of the Church.

T: I for one would not for a seconds deny any of the items Smith demostrated Dehin said. My complaint has been that Smith simply 98% focused on the things Dehlin said that makes Dehlin into a charecter that does not reflect the whole man. The paper also ended up NOT being what it claimed-a review of Mormon Stories. It in actuality was a review of the man, John Dehlin.

And his apologists who lined up to testify on his behalf, when his Stake President first showed concern about his endeavors, and who also helped provide him with the 3000+ testimonials that constitute his Survey,

T: The survery was not a testimonial. The survey was slanted toward person who were a range of slightly to dissaffected LDS or former LDS persons. I took the survery. I provided no testimonial of or for Dehlin in it. I tried to be honest and frank with my answers.

and now his friends who have posted support for him on his Mormon Stories website are actually vindicating what Greg has argued in his essay. This is ironic. If Greg Smith had put words in Dehlin's mouth and painted a picture of him that was utterly false, would not Dehlin be denying that he ever said or did those things? Would he not rise up in righteous indignation? He he has not done this. Why? One possible reason is that to do so would shock and disillusion his more secularized disciples.

T: How about maybe he just does not want to engage in the polemics you continue to perpetuate here?

In addition, Dehlin has to hope that Greg Smith's paper does not cut into his appeal to those who genuinely have questions and are seeking some information or help in sorting out issues they may have. In addition, since he sees himself.in direct competition with faithful Latter-day Saints who volunteer for FAIR, he routinely denounces them in florid terms. And he blasts away at those like Dan Peterson, and any other name that pops into his head, who he sees as having something to say to those he sees as his target audience.

T: Thjis certainly is dramtic. Dehlin does not routinely denounce FAIR or other apologists. In a recent presentation he referred people to FAIR. He doed periodically comment that he finds the tactic of apologists mean or personal in nature. And yes he has named Peterson as well as yourself. However having listened to Dehlin on podcasts for quite a few hours I would suggest his comments about apologists are a small percent of what he has to say.

When he explains that interviews with Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens and quite a few other faithful LDS scholars are really useful because, as he explained to the Larsens, a Bushman is worth a Grant Palmer. The reason is that interviewing someone like Bushman gives the appearance of his giving what he considers both sides a voice, as if that is the way for those with doubts to make an informed decision of whether to abandon faith in God, violate their covenants, and so forth.

T: This repeated argument you make is purte bunk and really is polemical. You take one statement from one podcast and use it to convict Dehlin of only intervieiwing more faithful member in order to appear faithful? And you wonder why Dehlin has a problems with some apologetics? Really? He interviewd Bushman more than once. Barlow he had for four hours. Gardner about the same. Givens more than once and promoted Givens books all the time, had Bushman speak at an MS conference. All this just to appear faithful in order to snare a more faithful saint? Hogwash.

Would anyone think that the Church of Jesus Christ ought to open General Conference to someone likeTalmage Bachman, Mike Quinn, or Grant Palmer and those others on clearly out of the Church whom he has featured and celebrated? I would have no objection if Dehlin had simply interviewed those with solid information and deep understanding of the contents and grounds of the faith of the Saints. But the notion that one is objective if and only if one balances faith with unfaith, truth and accuracy with error and confusion is just a bit odd, is it not?

Conference and a podcast on LDS topics is a ludicrous comparison. How about FAIR symposiums which certainly brings up all sorts of conterversial issues. I could put a hald my ward in a FAIR conference and they would walk out knowing things they never had heard about the certainly could shake their faith even though presented in a faithful way.

BTW, Sorry for the lack of the quote feature. I cannot seem to make it work for more than one or two quotes.

[stemelbow]

T: I for one would not for a seconds deny any of the items Smith demostrated Dehin said. My complaint has been that Smith simply 98% focused on the things Dehlin said that makes Dehlin into a charecter that does not reflect the whole man. The paper also ended up NOT being what it claimed-a review of Mormon Stories. It in actuality was a review of the man, John Dehlin.

here is my concern with your complaints Teancum. I hope you take it in the spirit I intend it.

You complain that Smith focused on certain public statements and views expressed by Dehlin and by doing so he painted for you, anyway, a picture of an incomplete person. But then you complain the review did review the man.

I'm not sure you actually got the message. It was either a review of the man, as you say, or it was a review of what his expressed positions are pertaining to his Mormon Stories movement. I don't think it was ever intended to give a reader an indepth view of Dehlin as a whole. Maybe i"m wrong though.

Edited March 1, 2013 by stemelbow

[Teancum]

Right Stem

It was not intended to give an in depth review. Its purpose was to show people that Dehlin in reality is/was a dangerous apostate who only maintained his membership in order to appear more palatable to those who might be wary of him. And the paper succeeded in that. But as others have pointed out here and elsewhere, the paper cannot parade itself as a scholarly review of Mormon Stories and what Mormon Stories was really all about.

That is all I am saying.

[stemelbow]

Right Stem

It was not intended to give an in depth review. Its purpose was to show people that Dehlin in reality is/was a dangerous apostate who only maintained his membership in order to appear more palatable to those who might be wary of him. And the paper succeeded in that. But as others have pointed out here and elsewhere, the paper cannot parade itself as a scholarly review of Mormon Stories and what Mormon Stories was really all about.

That is all I am saying.

Sure it can. Indeed, I don't see why not at all. It is a review of his movement. It just so happens that his movement is largely of his creation. His expressed views are exactly what he is suggesting is the purpose of his movement. If he is going to put himself out there as one who is helping people, it is only fair to examine his claims of helping people and review what he has expressed as his personal views regarding the movement. It is also fair to include his remarks that are critical of other's efforts.

[awyatt]

If Teancum can draw conclusions about GS's intent from a single example of GS's writing, why does he complain about GS drawing conclusions about JD's intent from a much broader selection of statements over a longer period of time in a greater number of venues?