awyatt Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) The issue is that Smith's article claims to be a review of Mormon Stories. But as soon as he starts citing John Dehlin's personal Facebook wall, it becomes clear that the review is actually about everything John Dehlin ever wrote or said in any forum, and thus a review of John Dehlin himself. So yes, it's personal.Too bad nobody told JD that he shouldn't reference Mormon Stories on his Facebook wall, announce his Mormon Stories-related activities there, or explain his feelings about his Mormon Stories interviews.-Allen Edited March 1, 2013 by awyatt 2
Louis Midgley Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 The issue is that Smith's article claims to be a review of Mormon Stories. But as soon as he starts citing John Dehlin's personal Facebook wall, it becomes clear that the review is actually about everything John Dehlin ever wrote or said in any forum, and thus a review of John Dehlin himself. So yes, it's personal.Bunk! Greg Smith's first essay is personal, of course, just as any essay about the opinions of another person is personal.
Louis Midgley Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 How many months or years has Smith been working on this article, quietly surveilling John Dehlin's online movements and collecting evidence for his 100 page exposé? How fair is it to expect a rebuttal in just under a week? Besides, I don't think the factual accuracy of any particular statement in Smith's article is really at issue. The major apologetic criticism of One Nation Under Gods was not that Abanes got his facts and citations wrong. It was that, in the words of Midgley and Bitton, the work "falls squarely into the category of agenda-driven exposé."Greg Smith did the research and drafted his essay in no more then 6 weeks, while doing his work in as a family practice MD. There is nothing sinister about any of this.The only question is factual accuracy, which is what you do not dispute.Davis Bitton and I most certainly did challenge the factual accuracy of One Nation Under Gods. That is the reason we described it as an agenda-driven expose" rather than a reliable account of anything connected with Joseph Smith. 3
Libs Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 You can be factually accurate and still use those facts to paint a false picture.
rodheadlee Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 You can be factually accurate and still use those facts to paint a false picture.Those who work against the Church would never think of that. :crazy: 2
Louis Midgley Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 You can be factually accurate and still use those facts to paint a false picture.True. So one could say that someone was well-educated, handsome, engaging, energetic, determined, and so forth, and this could easily describe a thief or white collar criminal, could it not? So factual accuracy, which in the case of Dehlin is granted, must be accuracy on relevant issues of his opinions and actions.
Cobalt-70 Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 Greg Smith did the research and drafted his essay in no more then 6 weeks, while doing his work in as a family practice MD. There is nothing sinister about any of this.The only question is factual accuracy, which is what you do not dispute.Davis Bitton and I most certainly did challenge the factual accuracy of One Nation Under Gods. That is the reason we described it as an agenda-driven expose" rather than a reliable account of anything connected with Joseph Smith.You and Bitton challenged the "factual accuracy" in the sense that Abanes's citations, as he presented and synthesizes them, do not reflect what you believe to be the truth. That would be what a criticism of Smith's review would look like, as well.
Libs Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) True. So one could say that someone was well-educated, handsome, engaging, energetic, determined, and so forth, and this could easily describe a thief or white collar criminal, could it not? So factual accuracy, which in the case of Dehlin is granted, must be accuracy on relevant issues of his opinions and actions.I had more in mind that wrong motives can be attributed and wrong conclusions drawn, even from something which is factual.It's what LDS often say about the critics, when they critique Mormonism and Joseph Smith, in particular. All kinds of dubious motives are often assigned to Joseph, in conjunction with the "facts". Edited March 2, 2013 by Libs
Louis Midgley Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 You and Bitton challenged the "factual accuracy" in the sense that Abanes's citations, as he presented and synthesizes them, do not reflect what you believe to be the truth. That would be what a criticism of Smith's review would look like, as well.Really? Has that been demonstrated? By whom? Where? The dozen or so referees, including very distinguished scholars, who served as referees on Greg's essay did not notice this kind of problem. You are correct that Bitton and I found problems of many kinds, all fatal to what Abanes had written. Do you disagree with our judgment of that book, and if so why? And if not, why bring it up?
Calm Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 That would be what a criticism of Smith's review would look like, as well.CFR please
William Schryver Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 Too bad nobody told JD that he shouldn't reference Mormon Stories on his Facebook wall, announce his Mormon Stories-related activities there, or explain his feelings about his Mormon Stories interviews.-AllenAll under the watchful gaze of his many hundreds of "friends."
emarkp Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 You can be factually accurate and still use those facts to paint a false picture.Then please feel free to demonstrate (rather than vaguely wave your hands) how Greg Smith did this. If you feel you already have done so, please point me to your post(s) and I'll be happy to re-read them.
Recommended Posts