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

[BlueDreams]

I haven't seen any change in attitudes on either side of this question, since the publishing of this article. Most who support John Dehlin are still calling the article a "hit piece" (and they genuinely believe it is) and the other side is still insisting that it isn't...which is kind of disappointing.

Probably just shows the power of bias and another stellar example as to why objectivity is generally a figment of people's imaginations. Once we believe something and have it pretty ingrained into our head, it's hard to shake that perception.

Personally I've read to about pg 36 (I'm a slow reader and enjoyed my sunday too much to read much of it). And knowing little about Dehlin, I don't feel it comes down hard on Dehlin....A character assassination isn't the main point. He pointed out the point of his article pretty clearly: giving breadth to more of the social phenomenon than the man himself. So the problems mentioned, at least for me, don't read as much of a direct critique of Dehlin but moreso the perceived faults in his logic/approach and the overall movement. The worse I could say from what I read is that he's a people pleaser, wishy-washy, and hasn't thoroughly done his research. Which on all three accounts isn't all that mind blowing. I realized he was a people pleaser and wishy-washy from his interview about his faith reconstruction.

If anything, I think he comes down pretty hard and could be described as labeling someone a wolf in sheep's clothing, it would be mormonthink....though honestly I don't even think context will help those quotes. So far the worse I could say he's inferred about Dehlin is that he's intellectually sloppy. Which isn't glamorous, but isn't exactly what I'd label a hitpiece and falls far below the dire expectations about this piece that were given.

With luv,

BD

Edited February 25, 2013 by BlueDreams

[David Bokovoy]

In light of the very public nature of these issues, I’m going to break my self-imposed exile from public message boards to share just a couple of thoughts. Having read the review, I don’t share the opinion that it is a “hit” piece, nor do I believe that Greg Smith is an angry apologist. Greg is clearly a sincere individual who cares deeply about setting the record straight on Mormon Stories (at least as he understands the movement). That having been said, for what it’s worth, here are my two issues with the piece:

1. Any critique should seek for balance. I’m grateful that Greg pointed out all of what he perceives as problematic assessments in Dehlin’s podcasts concerning his approach to Mormon history, doctrine, and theology. Greg has every right to do so, and since Dehlin’s podcasts are in the public domain, they should be critiqued. However, I did not feel that the critique Greg offered was fair and well-balanced.

Personally, I don't think I've ever listened to any of the podcasts myself, but I know several people that truly have been blessed spiritually by Dehlin’s efforts and that through his interviews with people like Phillip Barlow, Terryl Givens, Richard Bushman, and Daniel Peterson have, after years of inactivity, gone back to Church. This needs to be acknowledged to a greater extent than it was in a fair, accurate review.

As President Hinckley taught several years ago, if a cartoon chooses to over-exaggerate one aspect of a person’s physical appearance, that characterization distorts, and therefore misses the beauty of the person so characterized. So while I appreciate Greg’s efforts to point out John's missteps, I believe that a fair review (like a fair biography of Joseph Smith, for example) that avoids false characterization would have attempted to present a fuller picture.

2. I really dislike placing people into categories or lists, especially when it comes to their spiritual journey. Those of us who question (and make no mistake about it, questioning is an important part of our spiritual growth) move back and forth between various positions and therefore “categories." This is the problem, in my opinion, with making things personal, and trying to nail down an individual, whether it's Daniel Peterson or John Dehlin into a certain position such as “apostate/leavetaker,” or even “apologist." Making it personal and placing individuals into socio-religious categories like those identified in the review drives a wedge between people and frustrates the divine goal of unity in the Gospel.

Anyway, for what it's worth, that’s my critique of the critique. Despite my issues with the piece, I’m grateful for both Greg’s and John’s efforts and would hope that we can all learn from this experience and that those involved can continue moving forward in their respective efforts to contribute to the Mormon story.

[Tacenda]

I don't buy into the "its nobody's fault" mentality. When your wrong your wrong whether you thought so or not. When you find out you are wrong repent.

I saw the quote below, today on another board. Don't you think we should give a person the benefit of doubt? How do you know for asurety that you're not wrong too?

"Joseph Smith said: "I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." (DHC 5: 340.)

I think JS would give them a break, he questioned or doubted at one time.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Tacenda

[BlueDreams]

I think JS would give them a break, he questioned or doubted at one time.

I think you're probably not talking about the same thing. When I first read your quote I thought you were talking about it's no one's fault that there was a ton of misinformation and speculation about this paper and the issues surrounding it. In which case, I'm pretty sure there are some people at fault to one level or another.

With luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

I think you're probably not talking about the same thing. When I first read your quote I thought you were talking about it's no one's fault that there was a ton of misinformation and speculation about this paper and the issues surrounding it. In which case, I'm pretty sure there are some people at fault to one level or another.

With luv,

BD

I feel like maybe we're not giving each other the liberty or freedom of thought. Do you think JD lied about things to get people to quit believing the church? I doubt you do, do you think Greg Smith or the apologists lie? I doubt you do, so who is at fault?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

SeekingUnderstanding, I don't want to misunderstand you so am seeking clarification...when you say:

are you saying that you see/saw Dehlin as educated on the critical side and thus able to ask the really tough questions of the believers, but he was not educated on the believing side of things so he was not able to ask tough questions of the critics?

I'm not sure how educated he is on the critical side. That is, I don't think that he is like the Tanner's digging into historical documents and coming up with things on his own. He often says things like, didn't I hear that JS did something like 'xyz.' I think being critical/cynical is easy, especially if you lack belief or are having significant doubts. It's easy to come up with hard questions for a believer. As one who experienced doubt, I found it refreshing to hear from those that had faced doubt and found belief (people like Peterson, Bushman, Givens, Hardy etc etc). You don't get to ask those types of questions in Sunday School and if you ask most faithful members those types of questions they just don't know what to say.

And since you have listened to many of his podcasts, did you feel like he should have known some of the tough questions for the critics based on responses from believers to his tough questions in their podcasts? Or do you feel he picked up knowledge as he went along and used that knowledge on the critics as well as on the believers?

It seems like he should have been more knowledgeable (the interviews would have been much better if had done his homework) but I've never found John to be like an intellectual in that manner. Again I think that his inherent doubt / disbelief hampered him in this area. Of course Grant Palmer has it right - he believes just like me. Of course Micheal Coe knows what he is talking about - he disbelieves the historicity of the BOM just like me. I would have loved to hear something like "People like John Sorenson / Brant Gardner say 'xyz' - what do you think?"

So I don't think that he studied any harder on the critical arguments, I just think that at the time he was critical of the church. Just to add, I have also really enjoyed his non historical/doctrinal interviews as well. Interviews with people like Carol Lynn Pearson, Edward Kimball, Dustin Jones, William Bradshaw - just people with interesting stories to tell.

Edited February 25, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rodheadlee]

I doubt you do, so who is at fault?

Those who attempted to have Greg's paper censured and those who got Dan and Lou fired, or at least think they did. Those who were dishonerable at MI. It's not about the paper, apologetics or even Mormon Stories, it's about the actions of the people invloved.

[Tacenda]

People have mentioned this already, it's almost impossible to c/p from the "Mormon Interpreter". So I'll do a terrible job of a paraphrase here...in Greg's comments of the review, he quotes John Dehlin and in the quote John said he has a video of the day that Lou and him had an altercation (at the UVU Campus) and John said Lou tied him into the death of a missionary on his mission and something about Grant Plamer in 1992, (don't know what that's about). It'd be nice if John posted the video but understand it might be harmful to both parties very unflattering to both. But it's probably going to show who might have lied, in that circumstance.

[Tacenda]

I probably should start another thread on this but think it is pertinent here. So a question, looking at "ebb & flow" of history, could the occurrence in the article below occur again, in a modern way? To separate the "wheat and chaff"?

From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Jump to: navigation, search

See this page in the original 1992 publication.

Author: Peterson, Paul H.

A rejuvenation movement initiated by Church leaders in 1856-1857 to rekindle faith and testimony throughout the Church has long been known as the Mormon Reformation. Motivations for reform had as much to do with the lofty expectations of Church leaders as with the spiritual complacency or deficiency of the Saints. The Reformation occurred in a period of optimism and anticipation, as Church leaders hoped to create the unified society viewed as a necessary precursor to the Millennium. With the Saints now secluded in their Rocky Mountain retreat, a reemphasis of basic principles seemed especially appropriate.

The Mormon Reformation commenced in early September 1856, when President Brigham Young sent his counselor Jedediah M. Grant to preach reform in settlements north of Salt Lake City. While speaking to assembled Saints, Grant was prompted to commit them to reform and to counsel them to signify that commitment through rebaptism. Grant's success had a contagious effect, and within days Saints in other settlements showed their commitment by being rebaptized.

Early reform efforts, influenced by President Grant's unbridled enthusiasm, were somewhat spontaneous. The revivalistic spirit, the anxious confession, and the mass rebaptisms, however, gradually gave way to more judicious and ordered reform. The reform became especially systematic at Church headquarters, where a policy was established to have two home missionaries assigned to each ward. Equipped with a twenty-seven-question catechism to help measure the worthiness of the Saints, the home missionaries assisted families with everything from hygiene and church attendance to obeying the Ten Commandments. Only after some months of missionary-member visits were Saints in the Salt Lake City wards rebaptized in early spring of 1857. In Salt Lake City, rebaptism generally marked the formal end of the Reformation, though reform fervor continued until mid-1858.

Under instructions from President Young, the Reformation was carried to settlements and missions throughout the world. While procedures differed somewhat in areas away from Utah, rebaptism was a strong recommendation for all the Saints. It symbolized both forgiveness of sin and a recommitment to obey commandments. Those who refused to be rebaptized might lose their membership in the Church. In Britain, zealous application of Reformation principles resulted in trimming from Church rolls a large number of the less-committed.

The era of the Reformation is often regarded as a controversial period. Some critics have erroneously claimed that blood Atonement was practiced at this time. While President Young did preach that forgiveness for certain sins could come only through the sinner's shedding his blood, such comments reflect his style more than his intent. Many of Brigham Young's utterances were rhetorical and designed to encourage (or sometimes even frighten) Saints into gospel conformity. With equal force, he also instructed Church leaders to forgive those who expressed sorrow for sin and repented.

For many Latter-day Saints, the Reformation was a period of spiritual rejuvenation. Attending meetings, paying tithing and other free-will offerings, and showing other outward indicators of renewal increased dramatically. The Reformation also had the effect of separating "wheat from chaff." Some members were disconcerted by the processes and the effects of reform and chose to leave LDS settlements. Perhaps the most damaging legacy from the point of view of Latter-day Saints was the grist the Reformation provided anti-Mormon writers who for decades would inaccurately characterize the period as a "reign of terror" (see Anti-Mormon Publications).

It may be that both critics and apologists have claimed too much for the Reformation. Certainly the reform impulse was on the whole more structured and restrained than has often been believed. Conversely, it appears that the major impact was of short duration and only moderate consequence-perhaps because the Utah expedition and impending armed conflict abruptly ended the main thrust of the movement less than a year after it began.

Bibliography

Larson, Gustive O. "The Mormon Reformation." Utah Historical Quarterly 26 (Jan. 1958):45-63.

Peterson, Paul H. "The Mormon Reformation of 1856-1857: The Rhetoric and the Reality." Journal of Mormon History 15 (1989):59-87.

PAUL H. PETERSON

Edited February 25, 2013 by Tacenda

[Daniel Peterson]

in Greg's comments of the review, he quotes John Dehlin and in the quote John said he has a video of the day that Lou and him had an altercation (at the UVU Campus) and John said Lou tied him into the death of a missionary on his mission and something about Grant Plamer in 1992, (don't know what that's about). It'd be nice if John posted the video but understand it might be harmful to both parties very unflattering to both. But it's probably going to show who might have lied, in that circumstance.

I wasn't there.

But I can say this: Greg Smith's paper never contained any mention of a missionary death in Guatemala. Not in any iteration of it that I ever saw. And I don't recall hearing the missionary's death mentioned, and knew nothing about the matter, until after that encounter between John Dehlin and Lou Midgley..

[Verum]

Once again we are confronted with what a professor of logic would characterize as a "text book example" of misunderstanding the meaning of the ad hominem logical fallacy. Fortunately we have available to us an extraordinarily apropos counter-argument to "Verum's" assertions:Smith's follow-up article, Return of the Unread Review: A Mormon Story, wherein Smith addresses the many and varied allegations of the prevalence of ad hominem attacks in LDS apologia.

As for (to take a specific example) the cited references to Dehlin's disbelief in God, Jesus Christ, the Atonement, etc., these things are entirely appropriate in that they serve as specific evidence against the image Dehlin has assiduously sought to promulgate as an objective observer of Mormonism whose sole interest is to provide Latter-day Saints an unbiased source of information. As Smith correctly observes:

Therefore, an analysis of Dehlin's personal posture of belief in fundamental Mormon doctrines and texts is entirely appropriate in the context of Smith's review of Mormon Stories.

Furthermore, Verum's comments on this thread are classic examples of the "moral panic" that Dehlin and his followers are attempting to foster, and which is at the very root of their strategic undertaking to first label their "enemies," and then to silence them.

Again, I'm not defending John's tactics or things that he has done to censor it. In fact, I have no idea why he wanted this to be censored. If it really was a hit piece, he should have just let it get published and let the article speak for itself. So I am not upset this article is published. And I don't agree with the measures he took to censor it were appropriate.

But, my point is that its unprofessional work from a scholarly perspective to dive into the personal beliefs and intents of John Dehlin if you are going to address Mormon Stories. There are plenty of valid criticisms that can be made against Mormon Stories in terms of content, objectivity, professionalism, accuracy, and even whether it is deceiving listeners etc. without publicly analyzing the beliefs of the creator involved. Analyzing and criticizing the creator diminishes your ability to effectively criticize the quality of work Mormon Stories produces as well as the impact it has on its listeners.

It's ironic for you William to make this claim that John's personal beliefs and intents all perfectly relevant, considering your own scholarly work on the KEP was allegedly being censored as a result of critics assassinating your character (http://imetatron.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-calculated-suppression-of-mormon.html?m=1. You yourself admit that these sort of allegations are ad hominem and have nothing to do with the research you preformed yourself, and BTW, I pretty much agree with that. Let the work speak for itself. I'm not saying "Dubious Mormon Stories" is assassinating John's character in the same way (I'm not claiming it is ad hominem), I am saying the tactic in general of pointing out the traits and biases of an opponent as a means to invalidate their work or arguments is fallacious and unprofessional. You also know that bias, or a disposition to make a certain argument, does not necessarily make the argument false, so I don't see how a deep, thorough analysis of anyones character is appropriate in a scholarly response to Mormon Stories. So what if John supposedly doubts the existence of Christ, or claims he still has a valid temple recommend, what evidence in official Mormon Stories publication are intent disproving the existence of Christ, or are encouraging people to dodge temple recommend questions? That is the sort of thing to me that is appropriate in a scholarly response, and is more effective.

I'm definitely not saying John's character and intent are off-limits to criticism. This criticism belongs more on the message boards, blogs, columns, or other non-scholarly publications, especially not in those that espouse to "to illuminate the eternal spiritual message of the scriptures-" or provide careful scholarly investigation and analysis of [LDS] scripture as stated in the Mormon Interpreter mission statement.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Verum

[BlueDreams]

I feel like maybe we're not giving each other the liberty or freedom of thought. Do you think JD lied about things to get people to quit believing the church? I doubt you do, do you think Greg Smith or the apologists lie? I doubt you do, so who is at fault?

I don't know about any of them to say one thing or another. What little I do know, I think Dehlin's vanity and fears got the best of him. I doubt he believes he's lied, but his own vulnerabilities caught up with him and his/those around him made a mountain out of a molehill. Most of this discussion seems somewhat of the same. When my own faults catch up with me, though others may be at fault for their own part of the case, I have no problem noting that something I've thought or done also plays and effect into the situation. I think it's far more healthier to be able to figure out what part I might have played, recognize the faults within, and change.

I think it's silly to say no one is at fault....like the situation just made everything inevitable and no party had any control on anything that occurred. That removes the idea of moral agency. It negates the idea that we can be held accountable for our actions. Having fault in the matter doesn't make you a demon. It just means that you're human and faulty and there's room to grow and change.

With luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

I don't know about any of them to say one thing or another. What little I do know, I think Dehlin's vanity and fears got the best of him. I doubt he believes he's lied, but his own vulnerabilities caught up with him and his/those around him made a mountain out of a molehill. Most of this discussion seems somewhat of the same. When my own faults catch up with me, though others may be at fault for their own part of the case, I have no problem noting that something I've thought or done also plays and effect into the situation. I think it's far more healthier to be able to figure out what part I might have played, recognize the faults within, and change.

I think it's silly to say no one is at fault....like the situation just made everything inevitable and no party had any control on anything that occurred. That removes the idea of moral agency. It negates the idea that we can be held accountable for our actions. Having fault in the matter doesn't make you a demon. It just means that you're human and faulty and there's room to grow and change.

With luv,

BD

Okay, then the church leaders are at fault, the apologists, the dissaffected are at fault and the disallusioned are at fault, the anti mormons are at fault and the ex mormons are at fault, the athiests are at fault and the ex mormons are at fault, and even the Christian, non and LDS, are at fault. Everyone has a part of fault in them. Only Christ is perfect. Sorry to do this because I know what you mean, but here we have a vast amount of information and no real clear cut answers, to put someone at fault. And I'm as dumb as a doornail sometimes and can't help but think of it this way.

[Daniel Peterson]

In light of the very public nature of these issues, I’m going to break my self-imposed exile from public message boards to share just a couple of thoughts.

Thanks, David, for your reasonable response.

I can certainly see your position, and it's plain that reflective and good people can differ about this or that aspect of Dr. Smith's essay, or about the idea of the essay as a whole.

[BlueDreams]

Okay, then the church leaders are at fault, the apologists, the dissaffected are at fault and the disallusioned are at fault, the anti mormons are at fault and the ex mormons are at fault, the athiests are at fault and the ex mormons are at fault, and even the Christian, non and LDS, are at fault. Everyone has a part of fault in them. Only Christ is perfect.

I assume by saying sorry, you mean this more to exaggerate in order to point out why you think that's ridiculous....but yep, I have no problem with that idea. And I'd be even more enthusiastic about it if you said "the _____ have faults." The moment you think someone's without it, you're exalting them above what they are (human). As soon as you remove any possibility of fault, you make them a victim of their environment and encourage deterministic idealism to their behavior. I don't believe there's necessarily a "clear cut answer" that I understand. But just because there isn't doesn't mean that suddenly no one needs to feel accountable for their actions.

With luv,

Bd

Edited February 25, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Scott Lloyd]

Good day people,

Rather than adding my personal judgements, accusations, and/or implied motives to and upon any of the human beings involved in this most recent episode, I will simply offer the following opinion as I watch this from my seat in the balcony.

Enormously sad and deeply disturbing!

Curious

Maybe I'm callous or something, but I'm not feeling any great melancholy over the whole affair.

On the contrary, I'm relieved -- and somewhat glad -- that an informative and useful article that never should have been suppressed in the first place has at long last seen the light of day.

If a silver lining can be perceived from the cloud of controversy, it's that the article is getting more attention than it otherwise might have.

[Tacenda]

I assume by saying sorry, you mean this more to exaggerate in order to point out why you think that's ridiculous....but yep, I have no problem with that idea. And I'd be even more enthusiastic about it if you said "the _____ have faults." The moment you think someone's without it, you're exalting them above what they are (human). As soon as you remove any possibility of fault, you make them a victim of their environment and encourage deterministic idealism to their behavior. I don't believe there's necessarily a "clear cut answer" that I understand. But just because there isn't doesn't mean that suddenly no one needs to feel accountable for their actions.

With luv,

Bd

BD, in a previous post I said it as being a particular case. I think someone is clearly at fault in other situations. But this particular case and other cases where there is different religious or non religous opinions I wonder who can be blamed? Now if someone harms someone in the name of religion that is someone's fault. And maybe both in this situation can take the blame but is it clear cut? Is it morally wrong to waver in faith if some unknown facts come up that may have dissauded some from that particular faith if one had known? Is it morally wrong to paint that unsavory fact in a different or faith promoting light? I think not. I think John wanted to help people out in the beginning and had good intentions but maybe led a few, or many out of the church or did he help members stay too? There's some evidence that he did both. Did the apologist or the fairlds board help people stay or provide some historical warts that led people out? Again I've seen evidence of both, in my world both ends of the spectrum helped me stay. This is my experience with it. And so it's personal and not everyone has to agree. And I wasn't exaggerating being sorry, I am sorry to disagree with someone like you and others that I respect. Edited February 25, 2013 by Tacenda

[Rivers]

I agree with Smith's observation about podcasts, and I always saw that as one of the drawbacks about Mormon Stories. Who has the time to sit through and listen to an hours-long, sometimes rambling podcasts? I would prefer to at least have the option of reading text.

.

I like podcasts because I can do other things while listening to them.

[wenglund]

I haven't seen any change in attitudes on either side of this question, since the publishing of this article. Most who support John Dehlin are still calling the article a "hit piece" (and they genuinely believe it is) and the other side is still insisting that it isn't...which is kind of disappointing.

I think a more accurate way of viewing the dichotomy is to suggest that those who considered Greg's article to be a "hit piece" before ever reading it, hold firm to that position regardless whether or not or how much of the article they have now read; whereas the rest of us have determined to reserve judgment until we have read it, and for the most part, whether we support Dehlin or not, now that we have read it, we tend not to consider it a "hit piece" (I don't include myself in the "we" since I have yet to read the article).

Be that as it may, the bigger issue to me isn't whether or not Greg's article may accurately be considered a "hit piece." but rather the astonishing level of prepublication fervor evidently intended to squelch and dismiss the article (which clearly continues on after publication) and to denigrate and punish those who were alleged involved in trying to get the article published to begin with, as well as those who have now supposedly been involved in it being recently published.

In other words, the self-appointed ad hominem police and interloping arbiters of full discloser have busied themselves leveling a relatively steady streams of baseless ad hominems, ironically in the process of decrying ad hominems, and with the clear intent of suppressing and marginalizing the article. The hypocrisy would be stunning were it not way overshadowed by the intense fear of those so engaged--bordering on paranoia. Fear of what? I can't really tell at this point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 25, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Good day people,

Rather than adding my personal judgements, accusations, and/or implied motives to and upon any of the human beings involved in this most recent episode, I will simply offer the following opinion as I watch this from my seat in the balcony.

Enormously sad and deeply disturbing! Curious

I am not sure that this kind of vague, though sweeping judgment is any more useful to progress as the alleged personal judgments, accusations, or implied motives. In some way it may be even less so. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

.

I like podcasts because I can do other things while listening to them.

Unfortunately it is what my eye is focused on that has my attention and memory. I can't remember more than the vaguest points of a talk someone gives usually unless they use concrete examples; reading on the other hand tends to stick with me for years.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Hey you article publishing folks - just out of curiosity, have you ever witnessed something like this before? Has it ever happened before that a soon-to-be-published review was leaked to the producers of the material reviewed? Has any prior author made substantive efforts to avoid publication?

I know there are plenty of after-the-fact shennanigans, lawsuit threats, etc. But I'd be interested to know if anyone else has ever tried hard to keep something from being published in the first place.

[Calm]

But, my point is that its unprofessional work from a scholarly perspective to dive into the personal beliefs and intents of John Dehlin if you are going to address Mormon Stories. There are plenty of valid criticisms that can be made against Mormon Stories in terms of content, objectivity, professionalism, accuracy, and even whether it is deceiving listeners etc. without publicly analyzing the beliefs of the creator involved. Analyzing and criticizing the creator diminishes your ability to effectively criticize the quality of work Mormon Stories produces as well as the impact it has on its listeners.

If the sole purpose of the review was to address Mormon Stories I would most likely agree with you (there may be something I feel might be useful to add greater context). However from the way I read Greg's outlining of his purpose and how he developed his argument, this paper is not just about what Mormon Stories produces, but how a community has been created around it with the role of exit counsellor, etc. being explored.

This is not just an apologetic treatment that examines truth claims, etc. but it is also a sociological study with John Dehlin providing an excellent opportunity for a case study due to his choice to live a very public life.

Do you see anything inherently wrong with such sociological studies and if not, do you see something wrong with tying it to the apologetic aspects of the review as well?

[diahman]

Just finished it. Didn't find anything scandalous. By and large I agree with the problems Greg draws attention to; and wish John the best on his path.

I also agree, though, with those at BYU who did not want this published in the MSR. What purpose does the article serve other than showing how some grad student with a podcast pretends to be more on the side of the Church than he really is? It doesn't seem like the kind of thing an academic institution should be concerned with; at least not to the extent of a 100-page review.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just finished it. Didn't find anything scandalous. By and large I agree with the problems Greg draws attention to; and wish John the best on his path.

I also agree, though, with those at BYU who did not want this published in the MSR. What purpose does the article serve other than showing how some grad student with a podcast pretends to be more on the side of the Church than he really is? It doesn't seem like the kind of thing an academic institution should be concerned with; at least not to the extent of a 100-page review.

So I take it, then, that although you share Greg's perspective about the problems he identifies, you don't feel they are worth bringing to light.

Or is it that you don't think an academic institution should be the entity that does it? If not, why not?

Edited February 25, 2013 by Scott Lloyd