It Is Not Personal

[sethpayne]

Ah, yeah. It's not as if Greg set out to say nice things about it. That would have interfered with his whole train of thought.

Ahab, I'm not sure I follow.

Many book reviews include commentary on both the positive and negative aspects of a given work..... A review of any work should, generally, include mention/evaluation of its positive aspects.

Edited February 26, 2013 by sethpayne

[Senator]

Without drawing attention to the many good things borne of Mormon Stories, the essay does read a bit lopsided.

I think it has been readily admitted that a comprehensive, balanced view was not the objective of the essay. I think the objective was successfully obtained.

[Ahab]

Ahab, I'm not sure I follow.

Many book reviews include commentary on both the positive and negative aspects of a given work..... A review of any work should, generally, include mention/evaluation of its positive aspects.

So would you say Greg's review was a balanced review, with positive and negative aspects weighed equally?

Most people I've heard from say he was being very negative. Maybe we just need more people to say he was very positive?

[sethpayne]

I think it has been readily admitted that a comprehensive, balanced view was not the objective of the essay. I think the objective was successfully obtained.

Ahh... and I think that is the main point of contention. On on hand you have people like me who feel reviews, in general, should be balanced.

On the other hand you have people who feel that reviews focussed solely (or primarily) on the negative should be the norm.

The reason I personally favor balance when I write is because I want my readers to walk away with as accurate a picture of my subject as possible.

Now, one of the most entertaining polemicists in the last few decades was Christopher Hitchens. His books were not fair. They were not balanced. But Hitchens is up front about his polemic. When you read his book on Mother Teresa you know, after reading the introduction, that Hitchens seeks to discredit her work as much as possible. So there is a time and place for polemics to be sure but polemics must be identified as such.

The word review, at least to me, implies that the author will provide a fair overview of some book/movie/whatever.

Edited February 26, 2013 by sethpayne

[Mark Beesley]

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

Fair enough. Dehlin made it personal, and Smith, in responding, had to make it personal as well. It is rather disingenuous to say the piece was not personal. Of course it was. it had to be, because it critiques Dehlin's own professed personal journey that he lives out for all the world to see.

[Senator]

Ahh... and I think that is the main point of contention. On on hand you have people like me who feel reviews, in general, should be balanced.

On the other hand you have people who feel that reviews focussed solely (or primarily) on the negative should be the norm.

The reason I personally favor balance when I write is because I want my readers to walk away with as accurate a picture of my subject as possible.

Yeah, I'm not really in a position to offer much comment on the essay since I've only read four pages. But of those four pages and the numerous quotes that I've read, I find the label of "Review" to be a bit gracious. An "apolgetic expose'" would be how I would classify the article.

[sethpayne]

So would you say Greg's review was a balanced review, with positive and negative aspects weighed equally?

No. I think Greg's review is a mostly negative take on MS. I think even Dan, Bill, and Greg would agree with that.

[Calm]

Fair enough. Dehlin made it personal, and Smith, in responding, had to make it personal as well. It is rather disingenuous to say the piece was not personal. Of course it was. it had to be, because it critiques Dehlin's own professed personal journey that he lives out for all the world to see.

Perhaps the issue is a confusion between private and public and some equating "personal" with the first and others having a more broader application.

[wenglund]

So would you say Greg's review was a balanced review, with positive and negative aspects weighed equally?

Most people I've heard from say he was being very negative. Maybe we just need more people to say he was very positive?

I hope I am not the only one to catch the irony.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mark Beesley]

Perhaps the issue is a confusion between private and public and some equating "personal" with the first and others having a more broader application.

I agree. I understand what Bill was saying in his opening post, but I found Smith's piece deeply personal and wondered if Bill was perhaps conflating private with personal. I dunno. I do know that this whole matter has got be be rather distressing to our Father in Heaven who really just wants us all to love one another. Might be easier if everyone had a better understanding of what their personal stewardship entailed and just stuck with that.

And now I gotta do some preparation for a trip to Hawaii this week. Life is rough.

[Bill Hamblin]

No. I think Greg's review is a mostly negative take on MS. I think even Dan, Bill, and Greg would agree with that.

The review was highly critical, but completely accurate.

[Pahoran]

I agree. I understand what Bill was saying in his opening post, but I found Smith's piece deeply personal and wondered if Bill was perhaps conflating private with personal. I dunno. I do know that this whole matter has got be be rather distressing to our Father in Heaven who really just wants us all to love one another. Might be easier if everyone had a better understanding of what their personal stewardship entailed and just stuck with that.

And now I gotta do some preparation for a trip to Hawaii this week. Life is rough.

I wonder if our Father in Heaven, who really just wants us all to love one another, was rather distressed when His Son drew attention to those whose actions did not match their religious professions, or warned against false prophets?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Ahab]

The review was highly critical, but completely accurate.

And not to mention, subjective.

Too bad we can't please everybody all of the time.

[Mark Beesley]

I wonder if our Father in Heaven, who really just wants us all to love one another, was rather distressed when His Son drew attention to those whose actions did not match their religious professions, or warned against false prophets?

Regards,

Pahoran

Christ understood His stewardship. Do you understand yours?

[Pahoran]

The review was highly critical, but completely accurate.

Which Mister Dehlin's apologists tacitly concede when they have nothing to say about the factual accuracy of the piece, but only about whether it was kind enough.

Did you notice that one of those apologists recently tried to argue that Mister Dehlin's possession of a Temple Recommend, at a time when he was coaching people on how to lie in TR interviews, implied some sort of ecclesiastical endorsement of his activities? And that almost as soon as it became impossible for him to deny it any more, said apologist dropped that argument like a hot potato?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Christ understood His stewardship. Do you understand yours?

Mark, go get ready for Hawaii.

[Libs]

The review was highly critical, but completely accurate.

The references were accurate. I would disagree that some of the implications/conclusions were accurate.

[Pahoran]

Christ understood His stewardship. Do you understand yours?

Is there something about my stewardship that makes it not okay to correct others when they are wrong?

Is there something different about your stewardship that makes it okay for you to correct me when you think I'm wrong?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mark Beesley]

Is there something about my stewardship that makes it not okay to correct others when they are wrong?

Is there something different about your stewardship that makes it okay for you to correct me when you think I'm wrong?

Regards,

Pahoran

I simply posed a question. If you take it as correction, so be it.

[Mark Beesley]

Mark, go get ready for Hawaii.

Ok.

[Louis Midgley]

Actually, no. It was in his public statements on the Internet. But not a message board.

This should have been clear from even a glance at either of Greg's essays.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is there something about my stewardship that makes it not okay to correct others when they are wrong?

Is there something different about your stewardship that makes it okay for you to correct me when you think I'm wrong?

Regards,

Pahoran

Reminds me of some of the posts on threads that were here around Christmas time where people were calling people to repentance for calling people to repentance.

It was pretty weird.

[sethpayne]

Did you notice that one of those apologists recently tried to argue that Mister Dehlin's possession of a Temple Recommend, at a time when he was coaching people on how to lie in TR interviews, implied some sort of ecclesiastical endorsement of his activities? And that almost as soon as it became impossible for him to deny it any more, said apologist dropped that argument like a hot potato?

CFR that any claim was made about ecclesiastical endorsement of Dehlin's activity.

[phaedrus ut]

Trying to make sense of one’s spiritual feelings during a crisis of faith can be a very difficult experience. At times, the person may feel bitter and say things that he or she later regrets. John has clearly made some mistakes in terms of his understanding of apologetic issues and the Book of Mormon and to the extent that his views have negatively influenced others it is truly unfortunate. For whatever reason, John is clearly a person who has made his own spiritual journey very public (he seems to me sincere in so doing), so it’s only natural that a critic will see different sides of John Dehlin depending upon where he's at religiously at any given moment.

David,

I consider your fair and reasonable attitude on this issue an ad hominem attack on the majority of the participants in this thread. Someone may build a dossier of your thoughtful arguments and use it against you one day.

Phaedrus

[Ahab]

CFR that any claim was made about ecclesiastical endorsement of Dehlin's activity.

I saw someone make a claim about that on the thread named 'John Dehlin Responds By Podcast'.

I don't recall the page or post#, but you can find it if you look for it there.