It Is Not Personal

[Bill Hamblin]

I’ve noticed several very strange things about the unfolding of this phase of the Dehlin Affair. First, no one I’ve seen has actually criticized the substantive content of Greg Smith’s articles. No one that I have heard of has claimed that Greg got it wrong. The only claim is that he is incomplete. Second, some of those who criticize Smith’s article do so with a litany of ad hominem insults. Greg (and even more so, his editors) are bad people who have done a bad thing. For some of Dehlin’s supporters, this is a personal vendetta, not a rational discussion of ideas and their implications.

Everyone needs to realize that the article is not about Dehlin as a person. It is not personal. The article is a review of Dehlin’s ideas and practices as reflected in Mormon Stories. That’s it. There is absolutely no reason to personalize this, and neither Greg nor his supporters have tried in the slightest to personalize it. We want the discussion to be about ideas. Dehlin and his supporters have consistently cast this as a war between Good Dehlinites, and Bad Danites. (In fact, one Dehlin supporter sent me an email saying he was going to war against me. Really?) It is Dehlin and his supporters who have consistently ignored ideas and attacked personalities.

Imagine if professor X wrote a book about the Roman army. I write a review of his book saying he misunderstood the nature of the Roman army, and give a list of a dozen serious errors in his book. Then imagine that professor X’s friend began to object that X is a really nice man, who volunteers at a homeless shelter each weekend, and is a loving husband and father. The friend then says I am a vile and nasty man for criticizing X, while not mentioning X’s good qualities in my review of his book on the Roman army. My reply would simply be that X’s marvelous character has precisely nothing to do with whether or not he is right about the Roman army. This is, in fact, the reverse ad hominem--to argue that because professor X has many noble and endearing qualities, we should not criticize his book on the Roman army. And it’s hogwash.

Some people have criticized the article saying that it does not present a full picture of Dehlin. That’s very true. But the article never claimed to. And there is not reason to think it should have. Dehlin may be a marvelous and loving father. But this has nothing to do with the review. I’m sure Dehlin sincerely believes he is trying to help people. But this has nothing to do with the review. Dehlin may be a veritable saint among men, but it would still have nothing to do with the review.

Greg did not set out to write a complete biography or intellectual history of Dehlin. If he had Greg would certainly have included things about Dehlin’s wonderful qualities. But, the article is not about Dehlin as a person. It is a critique of Dehlin’s ideas and practices on Mormon Stories. The abysmal failure of many of Dehlin's supporters to separate ideas from personalities means that their only response is about the wickedness of Greg and his supporters.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Bill Hamblin

[phaedrus ut]

It's funny you say this isn't personal but that's all I seemed to get. After reading the review the strangest thought occurred to me. This type of review would only be possible if there was organized information gathering about certain people to build a dossier to use against them. In his "not personal" & "hot a hit piece" review of Mormon Stories the author cites John's personal postings from exmormon.org, postmormon.org, thefoyer.org, LDS.net, mormonexpression.com, reddit.com, mormonstories.org, mormon discussions.com, and this board. In addition, Smith cites John's personal Facebook wall 45 times. Here is an example:

March 2011 (2:56 PM),https://www.facebook.com/johndehlin/posts/153090308088491

. The page has either expired or been deleted, copy in my possession

What I noticed with this footnote, along with quite a few others, is that he is quoting deleted posts from John's personal Facebook. So Smith was collecting John Dehlin's personal postings on the internet, including his personal Facebook wall, for years to build a dossier for his not personal review.

If he had put at least as much effort into his coverage of Mormon Stories content you wouldn't have to spend so much time arguing why it's not personal.

Phaedrus

Edited February 25, 2013 by phaedrus ut

[Curious]

Hi Bill,

I read about the first 30 pages (I just wasn't that interested in reading much more as I am not LDS nor have I ever been LDS) but what I did read struck me to be about as personal as personal can get.

Curious

[Pahoran]

It's funny you say this isn't personal but that's all I seemed to get. After reading the review the strangest thought occurred to me. This type of review would only be possible if there was organized information gathering about certain people to build a dossier to use against them.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Tell it to "Doctor" Scratch.

In his "not personal" & "hot a hit piece" review of Mormon Stories

Something no honest person denies,

the author cites John's personal postings from exmormon.org, postmormon.org, thefoyer.org, LDS.net, mormonexpression.com, reddit.com, mormonstories.org, mormon discussions.com, and this board. In addition, Smith cites John's personal Facebook wall 45 times. Here is an example:

All of which are either (1) talking about MS, or (2) commenting upon something directly related thereto.

What I noticed with this footnote, along with quite a few others, is that he is quoting deleted posts from John's personal Facebook. So Smith was collecting John Dehlin's personal postings on the internet, including his personal Facebook wall, for years to build a dossier for his not personal review.

"For years?" You're exaggerating. (And I'm grossly understating when I merely say you're exaggerating.) Take a look at the timeline in the second article. There was no "dossier." He simply started researching the article a couple of months before he started writing it.

If he had put at least as much effort into his coverage of Mormon Stories content you wouldn't have to spend so much time arguing why it's not personal.

Phaedrus

Rubbish. The hate clique decided in advance that it was going to be a "hit piece," and they'll never let the facts get in the way of their "perceptions."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Hi Bill,

I read about the first 30 pages (I just wasn't that interested in reading much more as I am not LDS nor have I ever been LDS) but what I did read struck me to be about as personal as personal can get.

Curious

Then you need to get out more.

And if you're not willing to read about LDS things, why do you bother commenting on them?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bill Hamblin]

If I published an article stating I believed in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and then publicly chatted on Facebook about how I didn't really believe in the historicity, I suspect my critics might note the contradiction. Indeed they wouldn't be doing due diligence if they didn't.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi Bill,

I read about the first 30 pages (I just wasn't that interested in reading much more as I am not LDS nor have I ever been LDS) but what I did read struck me to be about as personal as personal can get.

Curious

I am sure you can back this up. It should not be that hard to do.

[sethpayne]

Imagine if professor X wrote a book about the Roman army. I write a review of his book saying he misunderstood the nature of the Roman army, and give a list of a dozen serious errors in his book. Then imagine that professor X’s friend began to object that X is a really nice man, who volunteers at a homeless shelter each weekend, and is a loving husband and father. The friend then says I am a vile and nasty man for criticizing X, while not mentioning X’s good qualities in my review of his book on the Roman army. My reply would simply be that X’s marvelous character has precisely nothing to do with whether or not he is right about the Roman army. This is, in fact, the reverse ad hominem--to argue that because professor X has many noble and endearing qualities, we should not criticize his book on the Roman army. And it’s hogwash.

How much did you write about Professor X's temple recommend?

[Scott Lloyd]

How much did you write about Professor X's temple recommend?

Not a fair comparison, as hypothetical professor X did not make his temple worthiness an issue in the ongoing dialogue as Dehlin did.

[Pahoran]

How much did you write about Professor X's temple recommend?

Hypothetically, probably nothing, unless Professor X had claimed on Facebook that he was a faithful Temple Recommend holding LDS and that therefore we should all take notice of what he says about the Roman army.

IOW, what Dr Smith said about Mister Dehlin's claimed TR is relevant only because (1) Mister Dehlin has previously waved it at us as a credential, and (2) he has published a guidebook on how to lie in a TR interview with a straight face.

And this is directly connected with his MS activities.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Curious]

Then you need to get out more.

And if you're not willing to read about LDS things, why do you bother commenting on them?

Regards,

Pahoran

I am sure you can back this up. It should not be that hard to do.

Tough crowd around here.

Okay, I take my last post back.

If Bill starts a thread and suggests that it wasn't personal then it wasn't personal.

Curious

[Pahoran]

Tough crowd around here.

Okay, I take my last post back.

If Bill starts a thread and suggests that it wasn't personal then it wasn't personal.

Curious

No, if you think it was personal, then by all means tell us why.

The essay focused upon Mister Dehlin's public activities in opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ. Why don't you point out whatever you can find in the essay that isn't talking about his public activities? That seems like a reasonable guide to whatever might be "personal" in it, wouldn't you say?

But of course, if your claim that it was "personal" was merely a drive-by remark, then we'll understand.

Regards,

Pahoran

[sethpayne]

Hypothetically, probably nothing, unless Professor X had claimed on Facebook that he was a faithful Temple Recommend holding LDS and that therefore we should all take notice of what he says about the Roman army.

Bolded part is your assumption about John's motive. Maybe that was his goal and maybe it wasn't. Perhaps it was more benign, perhaps it wasn't. My point is, we don't know but that there exist other possible motives.

IOW, what Dr Smith said about Mister Dehlin's claimed TR is relevant only because (1) Mister Dehlin has previously waved it at us as a credential, and (2) he has published a guidebook on how to lie in a TR interview with a straight face.

Dehlin's local leaders can't read? How is Dehlin lying if he's publishing exactly what he's doing and what his thoughts are on the matter?

My opinion is Dehlin's local leaders are in the best position to make that call.

[sethpayne]

Not a fair comparison, as hypothetical professor X did not make his temple worthiness an issue in the ongoing dialogue as Dehlin did.

Understood. You make a fair point. I simply think there may be more benign reasons for the TR being part of the conversation. It seems that Smith assumes that Dehlin is trying to be deceptive and then runs with that assumption.

I'll be honest, I haven't followed MS since 2006 when he had some interesting interviews. I've personally never seen the appeal of communities or exploring finding my "authentic self." That stuff is too much like Oprah for my liking. However, I've always seen Dehlin as a sympathetic figure who is sincerely trying to figure stuff out. So I guess I'm inclined to interpret his actions in a more positive, more sincere light.

I think that may be what it comes down to. Could that be the difference between people who are put off by the essay and those who love it? The assessment of John's motives/sincerity? Just thinking out loud....

My .02.

Seth

Edited February 26, 2013 by sethpayne

[Teancum]

I’ve noticed several very strange things about the unfolding of this phase of the Dehlin Affair. First, no one I’ve seen has actually criticized the substantive content of Greg Smith’s articles. No one that I have heard of has claimed that Greg got it wrong. The only claim is that he is incomplete. Second, some of those who criticize Smith’s article do so with a litany of ad hominem insults. Greg (and even more so, his editors) are bad people who have done a bad thing. For some of Dehlin’s supporters, this is a personal vendetta, not a rational discussion of ideas and their implications.

Everyone needs to realize that the article is not about Dehlin as a person. It is not personal. The article is a review of Dehlin’s ideas and practices as reflected in Mormon Stories. That’s it. There is absolutely no reason to personalize this, and neither Greg nor his supporters have tried in the slightest to personalize it. We want the discussion to be about ideas. Dehlin and his supporters have consistently cast this as a war between Good Dehlinites, and Bad Danites. (In fact, one Dehlin supporter sent me an email saying he was going to war against me. Really?) It is Dehlin and his supporters who have consistently ignored ideas and attacked personalities.

Imagine if professor X wrote a book about the Roman army. I write a review of his book saying he misunderstood the nature of the Roman army, and give a list of a dozen serious errors in his book. Then imagine that professor X’s friend began to object that X is a really nice man, who volunteers at a homeless shelter each weekend, and is a loving husband and father. The friend then says I am a vile and nasty man for criticizing X, while not mentioning X’s good qualities in my review of his book on the Roman army. My reply would simply be that X’s marvelous character has precisely nothing to do with whether or not he is right about the Roman army. This is, in fact, the reverse ad hominem--to argue that because professor X has many noble and endearing qualities, we should not criticize his book on the Roman army. And it’s hogwash.

Some people have criticized the article saying that it does not present a full picture of Dehlin. That’s very true. But the article never claimed to. And there is not reason to think it should have. Dehlin may be a marvelous and loving father. But this has nothing to do with the review. I’m sure Dehlin sincerely believes he is trying to help people. But this has nothing to do with the review. Dehlin may be a veritable saint among men, but it would still have nothing to do with the review.

Greg did not set out to write a complete biography or intellectual history of Dehlin. If he had Greg would certainly have included things about Dehlin’s wonderful qualities. But, the article is not about Dehlin as a person. It is a critique of Dehlin’s ideas and practices on Mormon Stories. The abysmal failure of many of Dehlin's supporters to separate ideas from personalities means that their only response is about the wickedness of Greg and his supporters.

But the article does not even give a balanced view of what Dehlin does with Mormon Stories. Not one whit. That seems personal to me. Smith wanted to, and succeeded in, portraying someone who should totally be considered an enemy to Mormonism. Were I Dehlin's leader and were I to rely on that paper only to decide what to do about Dehlin I would have no choice but to excommunicate him. Look I think Smith pointed out some very valid things and for someone who views the Church as he does I think some of this was very proper. But he gave no balance at all. He met his goal. To make Dehlln out to be a very bad person as far as what he does and says about the Church.. Stay away from him . That seem pretty personal to me.

[Curious]

Hello Pahoran,

No, if you think it was personal, then by all means tell us why.

Because I read it (At least the first 30 or so pages)

Curious

[phaedrus ut]

Tell it to "Doctor" Scratch.

A unhealthy interest in someone's personal life is exactly what scratch seems to have. The individual or individuals that collected the same type of information on Dehlin seem to be in the same category. As someone who has so actively tried to protect their online privacy I would expect more empathy from you. Would you be ok if someone choose to make a similar review of you because of your publishing history with 90% focused on your personal life?

All of which are either (1) talking about MS, or (2) commenting upon something directly related thereto.

That isn't even close to accurate.

"For years?" You're exaggerating. (And I'm grossly understating when I merely say you're exaggerating.) Take a look at the timeline in the second article. There was no "dossier." He simply started researching the article a couple of months before he started writing it.

Yes for years. That's exactly why I posted an example I did from 23 months ago. Many of these "deleted, copy in my possession" quotes he references were deleted long ago, don't exist in archived or cached sources, and would only be available to someone who decided to manually archive it themselves.

It's funny how often I hear people complain about Scratch but fail to see the same behavior in others. Pot meet kettle.

Phaedrus

[tyler90az]

I’ve noticed several very strange things about the unfolding of this phase of the Dehlin Affair. First, no one I’ve seen has actually criticized the substantive content of Greg Smith’s articles. No one that I have heard of has claimed that Greg got it wrong. The only claim is that he is incomplete. Second, some of those who criticize Smith’s article do so with a litany of ad hominem insults. Greg (and even more so, his editors) are bad people who have done a bad thing. For some of Dehlin’s supporters, this is a personal vendetta, not a rational discussion of ideas and their implications.

Everyone needs to realize that the article is not about Dehlin as a person. It is not personal. The article is a review of Dehlin’s ideas and practices as reflected in Mormon Stories. That’s it. There is absolutely no reason to personalize this, and neither Greg nor his supporters have tried in the slightest to personalize it. We want the discussion to be about ideas. Dehlin and his supporters have consistently cast this as a war between Good Dehlinites, and Bad Danites. (In fact, one Dehlin supporter sent me an email saying he was going to war against me. Really?) It is Dehlin and his supporters who have consistently ignored ideas and attacked personalities.

Imagine if professor X wrote a book about the Roman army. I write a review of his book saying he misunderstood the nature of the Roman army, and give a list of a dozen serious errors in his book. Then imagine that professor X’s friend began to object that X is a really nice man, who volunteers at a homeless shelter each weekend, and is a loving husband and father. The friend then says I am a vile and nasty man for criticizing X, while not mentioning X’s good qualities in my review of his book on the Roman army. My reply would simply be that X’s marvelous character has precisely nothing to do with whether or not he is right about the Roman army. This is, in fact, the reverse ad hominem--to argue that because professor X has many noble and endearing qualities, we should not criticize his book on the Roman army. And it’s hogwash.

Some people have criticized the article saying that it does not present a full picture of Dehlin. That’s very true. But the article never claimed to. And there is not reason to think it should have. Dehlin may be a marvelous and loving father. But this has nothing to do with the review. I’m sure Dehlin sincerely believes he is trying to help people. But this has nothing to do with the review. Dehlin may be a veritable saint among men, but it would still have nothing to do with the review.

Greg did not set out to write a complete biography or intellectual history of Dehlin. If he had Greg would certainly have included things about Dehlin’s wonderful qualities. But, the article is not about Dehlin as a person. It is a critique of Dehlin’s ideas and practices on Mormon Stories. The abysmal failure of many of Dehlin's supporters to separate ideas from personalities means that their only response is about the wickedness of Greg and his supporters.

You can tell it is personal just by reading some posts on the other thread. This is personal for some(maybe even most) on both sides of this debacle.

It does not seem personal for you though, which is great.

Just one question

Why release this when information just came out about him returning to the fold?

"People can change." President Monson

[teddyaware]

John Dehlin is a controversial character because he says, writes and does controversial things -- things you would very rarely, if ever, find faithful local leaders or general authorities doing. Expecting that one can write a comprehensive review of Dehlin's borderline apostate activities without ruffling feathers would be like expecting a propaganda piece, written by a passionate pre-Civil War secessionist, to be reviewed by a faithful unionist editorial writer as if the secessionist had only written about the merits of Euclidean geometry.

When one deals with the gospel of Jesus Christ, he's dealing with God, salvation, precious souls, sin, death, the devil and eternal judgement -- very serious and momentous issues. In fact, these are the most serious and momentous issues of all. So expecting a review of Dehlin's work to be uncontroversial is both unreasonable and unrealistic. How is it possible for one to critique Dehlin's unorthodox work without bringing up the fact that his work is unorthodox, controversial, borderline apostate, and far out on a ledge the vast majority of active, faithful Latter-day Saints would find most uncomfortable and miserable to occupy.

Edited February 26, 2013 by teddyaware

[Pahoran]

A unhealthy interest in someone's personal life is exactly what scratch seems to have. The individual or individuals that collected the same type of information on Dehlin seem to be in the same category.

Unfortunately for your artificial indignation, it wasn't "the same type of information." It was about Mister Dehlin's public activities in opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ.

As someone who has so actively tried to protect their online privacy I would expect more empathy from you. Would you be ok if someone choose to make a similar review of you because of your publishing history with 90% focused on your personal life?

If it was "90% focused on [my] personal life" then it would certainly not be "a similar review."

And if you think it would be, then you just can't read.

That isn't even close to accurate.

As much as it burns you, I'm afraid it is.

Yes for years. That's exactly why I posted an example I did from 23 months ago. Many of these "deleted, copy in my possession" quotes he references were deleted long ago, don't exist in archived or cached sources, and would only be available to someone who decided to manually archive it themselves.

Since reading something you've decided in advance to despise is so clearly beneath you, I will help you out. Here is the first line of the timeline I recommended to you:

3 September 2011; GLS research for review of Mormon Stories begun.

Now Phaedrus: can you prove that anything he quoted was archived before that time? Because if not, your childish conspiracy theory fails immediately.

It's funny how often I hear people complain about Scratch but fail to see the same behavior in others. Pot meet kettle.

Phaedrus

That's because it isn't even remotely "the same behavior in others."

Regards,

Pahoran

[diahman]

Imagine if professor X wrote a book about the Roman army. I write a review of his book saying he misunderstood the nature of the Roman army, and give a list of a dozen serious errors in his book. Then imagine that professor X’s friend began to object that X is a really nice man, who volunteers at a homeless shelter each weekend, and is a loving husband and father. The friend then says I am a vile and nasty man for criticizing X, while not mentioning X’s good qualities in my review of his book on the Roman army. My reply would simply be that X’s marvelous character has precisely nothing to do with whether or not he is right about the Roman army. This is, in fact, the reverse ad hominem--to argue that because professor X has many noble and endearing qualities, we should not criticize his book on the Roman army. And it’s hogwash.

Bill, I think you should stop using academic metaphors; otherwise a more apt metaphor would be as follows: Imagine if Grad Student X ran a podcast about the Roman Army. I write a 100-page review of several podcasts and his Facebook page saying that he's really not who he claims to be, and give a list of 92 serious errors in things he said on websites.

The problem with the piece isn't that it's illegitimately personal. It's that it isn't geared to do much more than demonstrate that JD is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Given the parameters of what Greg is working with, demonstrating such isn't hard to do. But it leaves aside some real substantive issues (why are people attracted to JD in the first place, for instance). I'm not sure how your academic field is, but in mine no serious journal would publish a piece that subjects aims of understanding and contextualization to determining whether or not so-and-so is a hypocrite.

[Pahoran]

Hello Pahoran,

Because I read it (At least the first 30 or so pages)

Curious

You're ducking the question. I've read all of it, and portions of it more than once. I don't find it "personal" to examine the controversial public acts and statements of a controversial public figure, as those acts and statements relate to the specific controversy in which that figure has chosen to participate.

If you can substantiate your claim with specific quotes, please do so. Until then, you clearly have nothing to say. Feel free to stop wasting our bandwidth.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Curious]

You're ducking the question. I've read all of it, and portions of it more than once.

Then I can't imagine how it is even possible (wirth a single reading, not to mention your suggested multiple readings)) that you don't think that it was personal. It does not get more personal than this!

Feel free to stop wasting our bandwidth.

You have long been one of my favorites on these boards, Pahoran.

Really!

Curious

[Pahoran]

Then I can't imagine how it is even possible (wirth a single reading, not to mention your suggested multiple readings)) that you don't think that it was personal. It does not get more personal than this!

So, I've read it more thoroughly than you have, and you can't imagine how it is possible for me to see it differently than you.

Perhaps because I've read it more thoroughly than you have.

Think about it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[diahman]

Also, for those criticizing Greg's piece for being a personal attack, here's why it isn't illegitimately personal:

The primary purpose of the piece is to answer the question--should LDSs trust JD, or is JD on 'our' team? It isn't a review in the sense of discussing why JD does what he does, what makes Mormon Stories tick, etc. (although it might get into those issues in as much as it needs to in order to answer its primary question).

Once we reframe our expectations of what the piece is, it makes sense why the personal is permitted. It also follows that Greg's piece shouldn't be made into more than it is--primarily an attempt to cast JD as "foe" rather than "friend."