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

[Teancum]

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?

Give me another plaisible explanation for Smith's paper and I will consider it.

[awyatt]

Give me another plaisible explanation for Smith's paper and I will consider it.

Personally, I take Greg at his word as to his intent:

I intended my review to present data about what Mormon Stories says and does, to examine the rhetoric it employs, and to analyze its claims about LDS scripture, belief, and scholarship. When these data are assembled, it then becomes possible to step back and understand Mormon Stories’ activities more generally through the lens of the sociology of religion—as I undertake in Part 5 of the review. ("Return of the Unread Review," pg. 7.)

It would seem that any other assessment as to intent would be mind reading, would it not?

-Allen

Edited March 1, 2013 by awyatt

[Teancum]

Well Allen your fellow apologists here think the paper will certainly diminsh Dehllin's influence. So if the papers attempt was simply to examine MS and better understand its actvities I think it failed because once again of the tremendous bias Smith used in what he left out of the paper.

[stemelbow]

Well Allen your fellow apologists here think the paper will certainly diminsh Dehllin's influence. So if the papers attempt was simply to examine MS and better understand its actvities I think it failed because once again of the tremendous bias Smith used in what he left out of the paper.

Teancum, I would find it infinitely more helpful if you described why what Smith left out demonstrated tremendous bias. What specifically would ruin Smith's paper?

you see, this has been teh problem of the criticisms regarding it. just a bunch of dogmatic rhetoric. Nobody is actually saying much other than "I don't like it because I don't like it".

[wenglund]

Well Allen your fellow apologists here think the paper will certainly diminsh Dehllin's influence. So if the papers attempt was simply to examine MS and better understand its actvities I think it failed because once again of the tremendous bias Smith used in what he left out of the paper.

I am quite certain that you haven't correctly comprehended Greg's paper, but I will give you a chance to prove me wrong. Please pick one of the five parts in Greg's paper and provide some of your own example's from Mormon Stories or elsewhere that you believe balance out or counters Greg's analysis. It is time now for you to move beyond baseless counter assertions to actually substantiating your criticisms of Greg and his paper.

Feel free to consort with other Dehlin supporters, like Mayan Elephant. Time to put up, or...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Somebodyz]

In fact, now that I reflect on it, an apt question to ask someone who is struggling -- or for the struggler to ask him/herself -- is this: Do you want to have your questions resolved, or are you merely seeking to have your doubts validated?

That could go a long way toward ascertaining motive and true desire.

It seems to me that an apologist's self-defined role is to resolve questions, not to validate doubts. Therefore, my hunch is that the problems questioners say they have with apologists might stem from the fact that the apologist is trying to resolve the question when the questioner only wants to have his/her doubts validated. They are thus at cross purposes. Accordingly, the questioner becomes annoyed or angry and makes charges against the apologist such as "He drove me out of the Church."

I think you've hit a nail on the head, when I had questions and concerns, seeking answers at FAIR, MI resolved any issues.. Also posters like Lightbearer, Dan, Pahoran and others here helped with their responses to false information. I'm grateful to all those who refute misinformation, knowing it must get frustrating to hear the same misinformation repeated over and over again. I was no where near leaving the Church having a firm conversion, but who knows were those little niggles lead, if the truth isn't sought.

[Teancum]

Teancum, I would find it infinitely more helpful if you described why what Smith left out demonstrated tremendous bias. What specifically would ruin Smith's paper?

you see, this has been teh problem of the criticisms regarding it. just a bunch of dogmatic rhetoric. Nobody is actually saying much other than "I don't like it because I don't like it".

I provided a summary earlier in the thread.

[Teancum]

I am quite certain that you haven't correctly comprehended Greg's paper, but I will give you a chance to prove me wrong. Please pick one of the five parts in Greg's paper and provide some of your own example's from Mormon Stories or elsewhere that you believe balance out or counters Greg's analysis. It is time now for you to move beyond baseless counter assertions to actually substantiating your criticisms of Greg and his paper.

Feel free to consort with other Dehlin supporters, like Mayan Elephant. Time to put up, or...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I will think about it Wade. But I am rather busy and don't need your orders to set my agenda. As noted I provided a macro summary earlier in this thread.

[stemelbow]

I provided a summary earlier in the thread.

I've followed the thread, and have just skimmed it to find whatever it is you are referring to. Please help me narrow down my search. I don't believe I've located it.

[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.

Well, the point I was attempting to make is that I am quite confident, were one of us invited to speak in General Conference, it would ultimately be impossible to distinguish our address from that of any of the other speakers in terms of its overall tenor, tone, substance, etc. Why? Because I am confident each of us would appeal to the same source that would have inspired all the other addresses: the Holy Ghost. This is the difference between us and he who "walketh in his own way and after the image of his own god," seeking to mold the Church according to his own conception of how and what it should be.

[wenglund]

I will think about it Wade. But I am rather busy and don't need your orders to set my agenda. As noted I provided a macro summary earlier in this thread.

It isn't so much an order as it is a request for your side of the discussion to move from airy emoting to substantive reasoning. It's a call to elevate your discourse to the intellectual level of the article you have thus far been mindlessly berating. Use the time you have devoted to harangue Greg and others and put it to productive use.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 1, 2013 by wenglund

[Teancum]

It isn't so much an order as it is a request for your side of the discussion to move from airy emoting to substantive reasoning. It's a call to elevate your discourse to the intellectual level of the article you have thus far been mindlessly berating. Use the time you have devoted to haranguing Greg and others and put it to productive use.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Mindlessly berating? Airy emotion? Substantive reasoning? Haranguing?

Right Wade.

This is speciman A from a self proclaimed aplogist of what some critics are talking about.

I have not interest in dailoguing with you Wade. None.

I provided a reasonable summary earlier. I noted the Smith focused solely on the negative aspects of what Dehlin said. I noted that he accuses Dehlin of being a heavy Grant Palmer admirer because Dehlin interviewed him twice. I noted that Dehlin interviewd Bushman twice and had him at once conference and interviewed Givens I believe three times and gushes about Givens books. I asked why Smith did not note that and call Dehlin a Bushman or GIvens admirer. I noted that Smith himslef said he only listened to a few podcasts and that those were in the period of time where John was much more negative and the rest of the podcast material used was not from Smith but provided by others. I noted that Smith was very selective about the facebook quotes he uses as well as quotes by ex LDS people who commented that John was more useful inside the Church because he could lead people out better that way-both to put Dehlin in the most negative light. He does not use any positive facebook quotes.

That is it. I don't have time to write a paper to rebut all this. If that summary is not good enough to show what I find fault with so be it.

[awyatt]

I noted that he accuses Dehlin of being a heavy Grant Palmer admirer because Dehlin interviewed him twice.

I don't believe that the frequency of interviews of Palmer are why he "accuses" JD of being a Grant Palmer admirer. It is because JD has said he is a Grant Palmer admirer.

(Let me check...)

Yep. It was JD who used the adjective "incomparable" to describe Palmer. It was JD who glowingly referenced Palmer's "really good book" when interviewing Michael Coe. JD never did either of those when referencing Bushman or Givens. (That's probably why GS didn't refer to Dehlin as "a Bushman or Givens admirer.")

-Allen

[wenglund]

Mindlessly berating? Airy emotion? Substantive reasoning? Haranguing?

Right Wade.

This is speciman A from a self proclaimed aplogist of what some critics are talking about.

I have not interest in dailoguing with you Wade. None.

I provided a reasonable summary earlier. I noted the Smith focused solely on the negative aspects of what Dehlin said. I noted that he accuses Dehlin of being a heavy Grant Palmer admirer because Dehlin interviewed him twice. I noted that Dehlin interviewd Bushman twice and had him at once conference and interviewed Givens I believe three times and gushes about Givens books. I asked why Smith did not note that and call Dehlin a Bushman or GIvens admirer. I noted that Smith himslef said he only listened to a few podcasts and that those were in the period of time where John was much more negative and the rest of the podcast material used was not from Smith but provided by others. I noted that Smith was very selective about the facebook quotes he uses as well as quotes by ex LDS people who commented that John was more useful inside the Church because he could lead people out better that way-both to put Dehlin in the most negative light. He does not use any positive facebook quotes.

That is it. I don't have time to write a paper to rebut all this. If that summary is not good enough to show what I find fault with so be it.

I gave you a chance to elevate the level of your criticism, and as with the rest of your fellow haranguers, you refused. I didn't ask you to write a paper. I simply requested that you take one of the five parts of Greg's paper and provide evidence that either balances out or conflicts with Greg's assessment of that part. The several undocumented and cherry-picked assertions in your so-called summary do not, in the least, qualify.

My reason for making the request, in addition to asking "Where's the beef?", was in hopes of getting you to look beyond your evidently superficial reading of the article, to actually grasping what Greg said.

Sadly, your last dismissive response not only underscores my previous comments--particularly about your lack of accurate comprehension, but confirms my suspicions that you have had no real intent all along to correctly grasp Greg's paper, and that you just want to continue on undeterred your misdirected harangues.

But, as you said, "so be it."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

After reading that essay, I think the eight most terrifying words for a church to hear would be "I'm John Dehlin, and I'm here to help."

[Teancum]

After reading that essay, I think the eight most terrifying words for a church to hear would be "I'm John Dehlin, and I'm here to help."

Yep

[Scott Lloyd]

I think you've hit a nail on the head, when I had questions and concerns, seeking answers at FAIR, MI resolved any issues.. Also posters like Lightbearer, Dan, Pahoran and others here helped with their responses to false information. I'm grateful to all those who refute misinformation, knowing it must get frustrating to hear the same misinformation repeated over and over again. I was no where near leaving the Church having a firm conversion, but who knows were those little niggles lead, if the truth isn't sought.

It was something of an epiphany for me to realize the other day that the problem with so many people is that they are looking for their doubts to be validated rather than their questions to be resolved. It's not so much that I hadn't already understood this, it's just that in my mind I hadn't articulated it in those terms.

I've seen this demonstrated repeatedly in years of reading message boards on Mormonism. The same objections and complaints get repeated time and again by people who then refuse even to take cognizance of plausible explanations that are given, much less engage or debate them

[Helen47]

Hamblin resigns from Interpreter

http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/why-im-resigning-from-interpreter/

wow so many changes in the lds church - new edition of scriptures, purges of some people.

[Calm]

The sacrifices that Bill Hamblin has made over the years just adds to the value of the great work that he has done. What a shame that he has been forced to choose.

[Storm Rider]

Hamblin resigns from Interpreter

http://mormonscriptu...om-interpreter/

Having lived in Utah for a few years decades ago I came away with one piece of advice for myself - never, under any circumstances, work for the Church or work for any general authority of the Church. It is just much easier for me to live my life with an understanding that they are all just humans without needing to see constant reminders of just how human they are and the organization is. I strongly reject opinion being presented as inspiration or revelation, narrow mindedness presented as piety, and stupidity presented as enlightenment. BYU is an institution to be appreciated from afar, but getting too close to it creeps me out. It is not unique, it occurs to almost all religious organizations when they become the predominant religion. Trying to close on a positive note, Bill, maybe what they are seeking is publication in higher profile media outlets (I am using this more narrowly for the milieu of secular universities). Now, if someone asked me to not criticize a group that I feel fully deserving of such criticism? I would kindly and firmly tell that individual to ....a, understand that my thoughts and opinions are not sold so cheaply, but as a disciple of Jesus Christ I will follow the Spirit in all things. It tends to leave them with their bottom jaw on their chest and with the clear understanding of their own stupidity. Of course, you can only use that when you know full well the honesty of the declaration. May your mind be focused on the path that will lead to both peace and success.

[Teancum]

The sacrifices that Bill Hamblin has made over the years just adds to the value of the great work that he has done. What a shame that he has been forced to choose.

I feel bad for Bill and this turn of events. It even looks like that his FARMs work was frowned upon.

But also I wonder what this means as far as what the powers at BYU may think of apologetics.

[diahman]

A few post of interest for those still following this thread: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2013/03/wheat-and-tares-apologetics/

[diahman]

And this one too: http://ldsreasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2013/03/schologetics-response.html

[tyler90az]

Why does Greg Smith use what was written by 'followers' of Dehlin as some sort of fact? How does what they think in anyway reflect what Dehlin thinks? Is random peoples opinions usually included in scholarly work?

[cinepro]

It was something of an epiphany for me to realize the other day that the problem with so many people is that they are looking for their doubts to be validated rather than their questions to be resolved. It's not so much that I hadn't already understood this, it's just that in my mind I hadn't articulated it in those terms.

I've seen this demonstrated repeatedly in years of reading message boards on Mormonism. The same objections and complaints get repeated time and again by people who then refuse even to take cognizance of plausible explanations that are given, much less engage or debate them

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I don't know what the success rate of apologists is for "resolving concerns", but I suspect it would increase dramatically if the first step were to acknowledge the validity of peoples' concerns before trying to resolve them*. Speaking from experience, it can be a great comfort and relief to have someone say "yes, that is a problem."

For example, I was attending a Q&A with Richard Bushman shortly after RSR came out and someone asked about a particular issue they had with Joseph Smith, and the first thing Bushman said was "I agree, that is a problem". When he said that, you could feel the tension leave the room, and the questioner (and everyone else) seemed much more receptive to Bushman's thoughts on the subject.

If apologists already do this, then great.

*Obviously, this only works for things that can reasonably considered "valid problems." I wouldn't recommend this tack with someone who has concerns with lizard-people running the Church or stuff like that. Obviously.