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

[Scott Lloyd]

That doesn't explain why an academic institution such as BYU should publish the 100 page paper as it stands.

My point wasn't that people staying in or leaving the Church is small potatoes; but rather what some grad student offers with a podcast offers, intellectually speaking, is bound to be small potatoes.

I've never been an academician, but I have to say I don't get how an argument to persuade or comment on a movement that is impacting a segment of society is somehow beneath the dignity of a scholarly publication or paper. It smacks of ivory-tower aloofness.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Louis Midgley]

No, I think they're worth bringing to light, and for some people it might be worth writing/reading a hundred page paper to get some idea of the issues. I think in general, though, an academic insitution shouldn't follow this particular approach in discussing the issues Greg raises. A primary purpose of the piece seems to be determining whether JD is "friend or foe." Greg's answer is "foe, for all the following reasons." I don't think an academic insitution should be invested in drawing the line between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. JD's inconsistencies as far as what he's up to and what he says when talking to whom all seem fair game, but a fitting goal for a piece published by an academic institution should be to understand the dynamics of the movement (and Greg's paper does this to a degree, so to answer Calmoriah, I do not think these gaps are too big to bridge), including what it claims to be, how people are affected by it (Greg's paper is one-sided here), what it might mean for the LDS community at large, etc.

I still don't think that the approach of determining who's in and who's out should fall on their shoulders. IMO, the points that JD is inconsistent, is a leave-taker, is not in clear conformity with LDS teaching, etc. could have been made in 7 pages; and then larger issues should be explored in terms why JD has drawn the audience he has, how the LDS community might respond to the valid concerns he raises, why different people respond to crises of faith differently, etc. These need not be dry, secular, detached studies. BYU is, after all, a Mormon institution; but as Bill said earlier in this conversation, much of this is "small potatoes," and so I don't see why an academic institution would be interested in a 100 page paper explaining why JD is essentially an exit counselor masquerading as a faithful member.

Why would I be asked by those in Salt Lake who speak for and to the Brethren when would we have something in print on the John Dehlin issue? Why would the current President of BYU wrote a memo saying that he did not support, agree with or accept anything the John Dehlin had ever done or said, followed by his opinion that he thought that the Brethren might wish to deal with the Dehlin problem in their own way and time, if there is not concern about his various business endeavors and their impact on faithful Saints? Why would FAIR received a stream of messages asking for help in dealing with the damage he had done to the faith of friends, children, and others, if his endeavors do not represent a problem for the Saints. I have gotten email message from and had exchanges with people who insist that I could not continue to be a believer if I would just visit one of Dehlin's websites. Why would I be told directly of deep concerns about Grant Palmer's bizarre book and be asked to write a response to it, and then not have similar and related concerns about Dehlin pushing Palmer's book? Keep in mind that Palmer paraded around as an insider telling the truth about the Mormon past. Of course he is skilled at what he has done. He has, by interviewing or having others interview, obviously faithful LDS scholars given the impression of balancing Palmer type error with Givens and Bushman type truth. And he has explained in public his tactic. Now he is unstable in his opinions and with his various initiatives. He has, of course, changed his mind and his tactics very often. Greg Smith's essay points some of this out. And, since he saw it useful to put Bushman/Givens honey on the rim of the cup, he has managed to provide some access to genuine scholars who know what they are talking about and this has obviously helped those who doubt, misgivings and little information to return to God. But the pretense of neutrality is just that. One who celebrates Grant Palmer is not neutral.

[Tacenda]

Is this first site functional and if not, are these materials that in your view would lead some members out be placed somewhere else or has he completely removed them?

He removed the one displaying a mormonthink.com link about the possibility of JS using hallucinogens to receive revelation.

[Calm]

That doesn't explain why an academic institution such as BYU should publish the 100 page paper as it stands.

The Maxwell Institute formally published papers such as Greg's when it dealt with those which challenged the truth claims of the LDS faith. BYU, at least under its former administrators and directors at the Maxwell Institute (formerly known as FARMS) seemed to feel it was appropriate for it to do so, perhaps because even while it was an academic institution, this never stopped it from pursuing efforts to support and protect the faith of those who went there or who were members of the LDS Church...evidence being its religions education department, which is more or less an Institute.

[Scott Lloyd]

The Maxwell Institute formally published papers such as Greg's when it dealt with those which challenged the truth claims of the LDS faith. BYU, at least under its former administrators and directors at the Maxwell Institute (formerly known as FARMS) seemed to feel it was appropriate for it to do so, perhaps because even while it was an academic institution, this never stopped it from pursuing efforts to support and protect the faith of those who went there or who were members of the LDS Church...evidence being its religions education department, which is more or less an Institute.

The annual Campus Education Week and the Sperry Symposium are evidences that the university serves a more broad-based community than academia, though it does so in a scholarly way. Classic FARMS/Maxwell Institute were consistent with this mission.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Mayan Elephant]

I am having a hard time understanding the merit in the analogy that the Apologists/LDS church are like a cult, even comparing the Apologists to Jim Jones. And, Dehlin is pretending to be an exit counselor or anti-cult leader. So Dehlin is pretending to help people get out of or away from the Apologists cult, by using deceptive or scary tactics as a self-proclaimed healer or anti-cult person.

I can understand why someone at BYU would spike this thing. Like me they may not have understood the value in publishing something that self identifies the publisher and author as a cult, but then says that cult fear is hyped. Makes sense to me.

[diahman]

This is a common sentiment I hear, but I must disagree. Academic journals have published papers on how the Church is portrayed by South Park and Big Love - examining what is specifically said and what also seeking an underlying message (which may or may not actually contradict what is actually being said).... If South Park - really, South Park - episodes are worthy of a study like that, why not an influential Mormon internet personality?

My point isn't that JD/Mormon Stories shouldn't be studied. It should; just as South Park, BoM musical, Big Love, etc. should be studied. A valid part of the study could even be the disconnect between the latent text and preferred text, as you mention. The primary purpose of Greg's piece, though, isn't to study. It isn't to ask what the Mormon Stories as a phenomena might mean for LDS, why it's been popular, what the implications of Mormon Stories are, what might JD be doing from his own point of view, etc. To the extent that these are investigated, they are investigated only in so much as they serve Greg's primary purpose--to show why JD is an exit counselor masquerading as a faithful member.

At the very least you don't need 100 pages to do that.

I've never been an academician, but I have to say I don't get how an argument to persuade or comment on a movement that is impacting a segment of society is somehow beneath the dignity of a scholarly publication or paper. It smacks of ivory-tower aloofness.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be commented on, or that an argument for or against it cannot be made. I'm not saying that academia is too good for this kind of thing (although I am saying that it doesn't take 100 pages to firmly establish Greg's point because it's quite easy to point out JD's inconsistencies, etc.). I'm saying that academia, even BYU as part of the academy, shouldn't be invested in a 100 page document whose primary purpose is to demonstrate how an individual is unorthodox and the equivalent of an anti-Mormon. That's not studying or understanding the movement; that's doing the job of the Church.

Why would I be asked by those in Salt Lake who speak for and to the Brethren when would we have something in print on the John Dehlin issue? Why would the current President of BYU wrote a memo saying that he did not support, agree with or accept anything the John Dehlin had ever done or said, followed by his opinion that he thought that the Brethren might wish to deal with the Dehlin problem in their own way and time, if there is not concern about his various business endeavors and their impact on faithful Saints? Why would FAIR received a stream of messages asking for help in dealing with the damage he had done to the faith of friends, children, and others, if his endeavors do not represent a problem for the Saints.

I'm not saying that BYU doesn't have an obligation to deal with damaged faith. I'm saying that this isn't the way that BYU, as an academic institution, should go about doing that. This doesn't mean it isn't appropriate for other venues.

FWIW, why do you think those at BYU decided not to publish the article?

[William Schryver]

I don't think an academic insitution should be invested in drawing the line between orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

I can agree that this was the question that was asked and, apparently, answered in the form of a memo to President Samuelson. Consequently, the article was instantly withdrawn from publication.

However, the larger question of whether the Maxwell Institute should continue doing apologetics was also answered, notwithstanding the fact that it was not previously in question.

That, to me, is the issue is at hand.

[Mayan Elephant]

my previous post refers to the unread review, page 13.

[ERayR]

His newer site is a lot less that way. I remember the first one had some things on it that probably would lead some members out. The current one not so much.

Is the door open or shut? Not so much still seems to me he is still going in the same direction. Perhaps backing up in hopes people won't notice which way he is going. Moon walking Maybe?

[Mayan Elephant]

I can agree that this was the question that was asked and, apparently, answered in the form of a memo to President Samuelson. Consequently, the article was instantly withdrawn from publication.

However, the larger question of whether the Maxwell Institute should continue doing apologetics was also answered, notwithstanding the fact that it was not previously in question.

That, to me, is the issue is at hand.

thanks for that clarification, Lou. I thought the MI was continuing, but without Dr. Peterson and you. I didn't realize it was not not continuing with apologetics at all.

[Mayan Elephant]

where is the edit button. Sorry William.

Note: We do not allow comparisons to mass murderers, whether it is Hitler or Jim Jones. You are new so you will be warned rather than removed.

[Calm]

25 posts and you will be able to edit.

[ERayR]

My point wasn't that people staying in or leaving the Church is small potatoes; but rather what some grad student offers with a podcast offers, intellectually speaking, is bound to be small potatoes.

The same might be said of someone who posts on a discussion board using an alias.

[Tacenda]

Is the door open or shut? Not so much still seems to me he is still going in the same direction. Perhaps backing up in hopes people won't notice which way he is going. Moon walking Maybe?

Not sure of his motive for that. But the Mormon Think link that I tried to find awhile back wasn't there anymore. Also, the podcasts seem different to me.

[Mayan Elephant]

25 posts and you will be able to edit.

thanks. that is clever.

[Daniel Peterson]

I thought the MI was continuing, but without Dr. Peterson and you. I didn't realize it was not not continuing with apologetics at all.

Members of the current leadership at the Maxwell Institute -- there are, effectively, four of them, although they've just hired a possible fifth -- sometimes insist that they intend to continue doing apologetics. (Sometimes they don't, which makes the situation more than a little confusing.) The basic question, though, is what they mean by that word. It may not be what others have historically meant and understood.

In any event, owing to sheer inertia, there will continue to be a few works of apologetics in the previously understood sense that will be published by the Institute. They were already in the pipeline (e.g., John Sorenson's magnum opus on the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica), and they'll appear in due course.

[ERayR]

I think John Dehlin is a good guy and lots of his podcasts are great. Just that his followers are a gang of morons.

By their followers they shall be known. Birds of a feather. Nuff said.

[Mayan Elephant]

In any event, owing to sheer inertia, there will continue to be a few works of apologetics in the previously understood sense that will be published by the Institute. They were already in the pipeline (e.g., John Sorenson's magnum opus on the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica), and they'll appear in due course.

Do you think Sorenson will want to do a podcast at Mormon Stories after his publication? probably not, right.

Thanks for the clarification.

[diahman]

The same might be said of someone who posts on a discussion board using an alias.

Not to mention the fact that he doesn't proofread very well.

My apologies.

[Tacenda]

Do you think Sorenson will want to do a podcast at Mormon Stories after his publication? probably not, right.

Thanks for the clarification.

You never know. It'd be great to hear one with both Dr. Coe and Dr. Sorenson. I believe they are on friendly terms. Edited February 25, 2013 by Tacenda

[rpn]

rpn, on 24 February 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

1) I thought the part about the temple recommend worthiness was a bit over the top.

As a member of the bishopric, I am deeply interested in the temple-recommend status of my ward members. The temple-recommend status of anyone else is absolutely none of my business ... right up to the point where that person starts telling members of my ward, 'Come on, you can trust me; after all, I have a temple recommend...'

My problem was the author's description of what is required to faithfully answer the TR questions, as though the author actually knows that. If the analysis had stopped at identifying the approach of teaching how to lie to keep one's recommend ---- which is the methodology objected to ----- that would not have concerned me. It was the authors declaration of what one has to believe in order to faithfullly answer that I question the right to impose. There is a reason why the questions are as simple as they are. And one church member doesn't get to decide what is required as a faithful answer (though since Bro. Smith is a bishop, he would surely have that obligation with his own flock). I'm just saying that things we members think of as orthodox, don't always turn out to be orthodox. And imposing a greater obligation that the official church imposes risks superimposing our own interpretations where we ought not to be doing that.

It was that "for sure this is the only way", that I think was over the top.

Edited February 25, 2013 by rpn

[ERayR]

At the very least you don't need 100 pages to do that.

It depends on how thorough you want to be.

[Paddy]

FWIW I just finished the articles. I have been a follower of MS for a while and have listened to most of the podcasts. I follow most other mormon related things as well. Can't say I have had a faith crisis but my faith has change and developed over the years. Anyway I found Dr. Smith's articles pretty much on the money. In terms of a "hit piece" it was pretty benign. Seemed to me that Delhin was not the main focus. I found Smith's arguements on the social impact insightful. Overall it helped clarify my perspective on what I currently think about the MS movement.

Well done Dr. Smith.

[Libs]

A good writer is always, both thorough and concise. I thought Greg's article was too long and a bit too meandering. I really had a difficult time reading it. (But, then, I'm just one of John Dehlin's "moron followers" ). Sorry, but the article and some of this discussion is kind of irritating.

I've never seen John as an "apologist" or even someone who was trying to lead people....at least, not in or out of the church. I see him as a man with a lot of questions, who set about trying to answer some of them. Sometimes, he thought he had found the answers, sometimes he was disappointed...and sometimes he changed his mind about the answers he thought he had. He's a very typical seeker/questioner, IMO, and, so, he invited many people, who were walking in his shoes, along for the "ride"...the journey to find some answers. He sought out those whom he believed might help him answer the difficult questions. He didn't have faith in apologists, for his own reasons. And, Bishops don't always have answers, either....it's been my experience that, not only do they not have answers, but many do not really even want to talk about the problems, to begin with. That was my experience and probably one of the reasons I didn't stay in my second and third attempts to reconcile with the church. I mention Bishops, because I know that some will simply tell you to talk with your Bishop. That's the proper "channel"...but, it's not always a helpful channel. So, what to do? John certainly seemed like a good third or fourth alternative, after trying others. He did help some people back into the church...and ultimately has even helped himself back in, it seems.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Libs