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

[Scott Lloyd]

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).

In the words of Paul Simon, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" (from "The Boxer").

[Libs]

I skipped a few pages and went directly to the "conclusion". I am really left wondering about the motivation of this paper. Who is the intended audience and what did Greg expect his audience to conclude? He is giving a bunch of, supposed, reasons why John's survey of why people leave the church, may not be accurate. From my personal experience and the experiences of many others I have known, who leave, John's survey is spot on, in regards to issues that people struggle with.

When all is said and done, I am left wishing that Greg had expended his efforts in dealing with one or more of those issues that cause people to leave...rather than this broad (dubious, IMO) "critique" of John Dehlin.

Apologists, please help us with the "real" issues. John is not the issue.

[tyler90az]

A NOM is not necessarily a cultural Mormon. The only requirement, from what I have seen, to be a NOM is that you want to remain a member in some way.

[Calm]

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.

I think Greg's work is an interesting case study of the latest version newly appearing on the scene of a social dynamic linked with new religious movements. i think going into the role and community's variations over the years to show how it has developed and to show how this latest version fits and as well as perhaps predicting how it may further develop is something that would be a very interesting scholarly paper, but not necessarily relating to what the MI was doing.

For an example of a similar work focusing on a very closely related subject, one can point to Seth Payne's paper which Greg referenced many times in his own paper and Seth's paper seems to be perfectly at home in the academic world.

What differences do you believe exist between Seth and Greg's papers such that one is acceptable academia and the other is not? And do you see it relatively easy to correct those differences or are the gaps too broad to bridge?

Edited February 25, 2013 by calmoriah

[why me]

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.

This is true. Unfortunately, he may have had the opposite effect when he interviewed critics and when he became a critic himself. And this is the whole point. When John swayed to an fro like a jellyfish, he took some fish with him in both directions.

[Calm]

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.

Nothing new under the sun surely....

[Scott Lloyd]

A NOM is not necessarily a cultural Mormon. The only requirement, from what I have seen, to be a NOM is that you want to remain a member in some way.

And that differs from a "cultural Mormon" in what respect? Perhaps i am not grasping your definitions.

[Tacenda]

I skipped a few pages and went directly to the "conclusion". I am really left wondering about the motivation of this paper. Who is the intended audience and what did Greg expect his audience to conclude? He is giving a bunch of, supposed, reasons why John's survey of why people leave the church, may not be accurate. From my personal experience and the experiences of many others I have known, who leave, John's survey is spot on, in regards to issues that people struggle with.

When all is said and done, I am left wishing that Greg had expended his efforts in dealing with one or more of those issues that cause people to leave...rather than this broad (dubious, IMO) "critique" of John Dehlin.

Apologists, please help us with the "real" issues. John is not the issue.

It all boils down to the spirit giving us confirmation, I believe. To some it works to others not so much. Therefore, the apologist or the MS support is there to help us stay or get by if that is our choosing. No answers I believe. Of course I'm tired after many years of trying to "know" and am probably jaded.

[why me]

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.

And if this is what happened the people involved in the firing should be ashamed of themselves since the piece in question is well written, well documented and informative. It would have been worthy of the Maxwell Institute. But...hearsay should never be the judge.

Edited February 25, 2013 by why me

[William Schryver]

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?

I think I will have to reply that, in a way, yes, it is morally wrong to waver in faith on the basis of anything in the form of "unknown facts." In the first place, all "facts" are of men, and therefore are subject to interpretation, manipulation, distortion, etc. Faith, as I understand it, is a product of revelation from God, the Father of us all, and therefore should not, in my opinion, be subject to any "facts" of men. The only useful "fact" I can think of, right off hand, is this:

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

In relation to how we can at least "know in part," I recommend the entirety of D&C 46, including the 7th verse:

But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils.

[why me]

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.

I hear that you are now working for the Maxwell Institute. If so, don't you think that this piece could have been published by the MI? And don't you think that it was unfortunate that it was censored by the MI with the repercussions that followed?

[William Schryver]

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.

Here is an account of two such instances: The Calculated Suppression of Mormon Apologetics

[volgadon]

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.

Food for thought.

[Libs]

It all boils down to the spirit giving us confirmation, I believe. To some it works to others not so much. Therefore, the apologist or the MS support is there to help us stay or get by if that is our choosing. No answers I believe. Of course I'm tired after many years of trying to "know" and am probably jaded.

Honestly, I have gotten answers from apologists...some good ones, I believe. I got a lot of help with the Book of Mormon, from Daniel Peterson and some new ways to look at the Book of Abraham, from various apologists. I could even see a different scenario for polygamy than the one I originally entertained (which was very negative). Some of my searching for answers was stimulated by John Dehlin and his journey. Despite his terrible struggles (worse than my own, as he almost stopped believing in God, altogether) I knew that deep down he really wanted to reconcile with his church. I felt and saw that all through his journey, these past few years....I believe this has all been extremely painful for him. That's why I was very happy for him, when he decided to return to full activity. I know it doesn't suddenly make him a believer, but I think, what he is doing brings hope for himself and his family.

[Calm]

I skipped a few pages and went directly to the "conclusion". I am really left wondering about the motivation of this paper. Who is the intended audience and what did Greg expect his audience to conclude? He is giving a bunch of, supposed, reasons why John's survey of why people leave the church, may not be accurate. From my personal experience and the experiences of many others I have known, who leave, John's survey is spot on, in regards to issues that people struggle with.

When all is said and done, I am left wishing that Greg had expended his efforts in dealing with one or more of those issues that cause people to leave...rather than this broad (dubious, IMO) "critique" of John Dehlin.

Apologists, please help us with the "real" issues. John is not the issue.

I did get the feeling that Greg tried to deal with too many things at once....possibly he picked up things along the way he thought were important to included but ended up with too many to treat them all fairly. I can see at least 3 potentially useful papers coming out of it for just examining the sociological side of things.

Apologists, please help us with the "real" issues. John is not the issue.

But John is part of the media from which many receive input about the issues, thus he provides context to the issues. It would be like studying the presidency (church or country) and how it functions and what it achieves without referring to the men that hold that office and ignoring how their different approaches impacted the impact that office had and has on the people.

Over the years it has become obvious to everyone I would think that simply supplying as factual and as complete as possible answers is not all that is needed to provide an effective method for dealing with people looking to learn, to receive reassurance, looking for understanding and acceptance, looking to increase knowledge and find better ways to serve and for whatever other reasons people look to places like FAIR and FARMS/MI or even this board for answers.

In my view, we have combined a huge amount of material on the "real issues" that works for some, but there are those it is not helping, perhaps even alienating because they may in reality be looking for a dynamic answer, not a factual one or an emotional approach rather than an intellectual one. To better reach those in need, we need to examine what the next step should be and that would seem to me to be presentation. And we have on our doorstep a great example of how presentation affects the message and the various consequences choices made for presentation can cause. We would be idiots in my opinion if we didn't use all the resources out there in order to improve our own outreach and support efforts and I think Greg's work is a good start to look at what is out there in a systematic way, though certainly only a beginning and at times it's over board and others not detailed enough, but someone has to do it first so others can build on it.

While some people see focusing on trying to provide an accurate as possible historical and doctrinal background for belief and behaviour as dealing with the real issues....if people walk away unsatisfied and still unable to make a choice of yea or nay, it is obvious that the real issue is more than just knowing about the 'facts'. Dehlin has set up several communities and venues where he claims to be able to fill those needs in better ways than the traditional apologetic approach does and it would seem from the size of his audience that he has managed to do so for a good number of people. The argument then becomes even if his approach is effective....if there is change occurring on a significant scale...is this a desirable change, is it successful for what his foundation's stated goal promotes or is it more effective in some other way?

And for those of us who would prefer to create a more faithsupportive environment rather than attempt the mythological neutral/balanced environment, what can we learn from what he does that would work for us while ensuring those elements that are unnecessary to effective learning and exploration that are included in whatever it was that according to Dehlin at one time caused him to conclude that more were leaving the Church than staying were removed as much as possible as we see such things as detrimental.

PS: if this is too disjointed and rambling, please say so, I have a night drug lasting longer than usual that is causing problems with carrying thoughts through in a systematic manner so I may have dropped a thought here and there and never got back to it.

Edited February 25, 2013 by calmoriah

[tyler90az]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind. - Gandhi

[tyler90az]

And that differs from a "cultural Mormon" in what respect? Perhaps i am not grasping your definitions.

I thought a Cultural Mormon was somebody who is only in the church for the culture.

[Scott Lloyd]

And for those of us who would prefer to create a more faithsupportive environment rather than attempt the mythological neutral/balanced environment, what can we learn from what he does that would work for us while ensuring those elements that are unnecessary to effective learning and exploration that are included in whatever it was that according to Dehlin at one time caused him to conclude that more were leaving the Church than staying were removed as much as possible as we see such things as detrimental.

Your comment makes me wonder if we are seeing the Hegelian triad of thesis, antithesis and synthesis at work here.

That is to say, what some are calling "old guard" or "traditional" apologetics would be the thesis, Dehlin's approach would be the antithesis, and the synthesis would emerge from thoughtful reflection of the two.

Just thinking out loud here -- or rather, thinking in typed words.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

I thought a Cultural Mormon was somebody who is only in the church for the culture.

There are alot of "cultural mormons" that believe wholeheartily, but seem to not care to know of any deep doctrine or issues. They are the lucky ones!! Edited February 25, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

There are alot of "cultural mormons" that believe wholeheartily, but seem to not care to know of any deep doctrine or issues. They are the lucky ones!!

What do they believe "wholeheartedly" in?

[awyatt]

When all is said and done, I am left wishing that Greg had expended his efforts in dealing with one or more of those issues that cause people to leave...rather than this broad (dubious, IMO) "critique" of John Dehlin.

Apologists, please help us with the "real" issues. John is not the issue.

So you think that John played no part in contributing to any issue? Really?

An author always has motivations, and those motivations affect how the author approaches his or her task. Is John somehow excluded from such affect? If he is not, then are his motivations appropriate to examine? (If he is excluded from such affect, then he would be the first in history.) If his self-stated motivations don't match his behavior in various venues, then is it "fair" to examine that disconnect? If not, why not? If not, then why do historians of all stripes examine the behavior of historical figures?

-Allen

[Scott Lloyd]

I thought a Cultural Mormon was somebody who is only in the church for the culture.

I thought that pretty-well described a "new-order Mormon."

I guess it's a fine distinction; perhaps one is a subset of the other.

[David Bokovoy]

I hear that you are now working for the Maxwell Institute. If so, don't you think that this piece could have been published by the MI? And don't you think that it was unfortunate that it was censored by the MI with the repercussions that followed?

I have no connections whatsoever with BYU or the Maxwell Institute and no opinions on what they should or should not publish. I'm actually under contract to continue teaching Bible and Mormon Studies next year at the University of Utah (a place I have grown to love and where I feel quite comfortable). In a not so shameless plug, on Tuesdays and Thursday nights this Fall beginning at 7:00 PM, I will be teaching their first-ever "Book of Mormon as Literature" course using Grant Hardy's Reader's Edition of the Book of Mormon as the primary text and would invite anyone at all interested to register through Continuing Education.

Best,

--DB

[ERayR]

There are alot of "cultural mormons" that believe wholeheartily, but seem to not care to know of any deep doctrine or issues. They are the lucky ones!!

What do you mean by "deep doctrine" or "issues". I am well aware of most, if not all of what some think are issues? IMNSHO the most important question is, Have you received an affirmation that the gospel, as taught by the LDS church is true. If you have then no "deep doctrine" or "issues" are significant.

[Nevo]

Food for thought.

Thanks, volg, for sharing these thoughts from David Bokovoy. He's a class act. And I very much appreciate his irenic tone and wish it was more widely adopted by all parties. But I will register one disagreement. As one who has listened to most of Dehlin's podcasts over a period of several years, I think Greg Smith's critique was fair and appropriate.

Edit: Oops, I see that Brother Bokovoy himself commented on the thread. I should have read back a little further.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Nevo