Jump to content

The Dehlin Affair–The Current Uncivil War


Recommended Posts

And I would also appreciate your pointing to where I have ever mentioned his name in something I published.

you cannot be serious. how about the top of this page, for starters.

The Dehlin Affair–The Current Uncivil War

Started by Louis Midgley, A day ago

yeah. start there. "Dehlin" is the name you were asking about. and you can read down about three paragraphs for the first example in this thread. Lou, be serious. are you really pretending to have never mentioned his name?

Edited by Mayan Elephant
Link to post
you are the chairman of the board at the interpreter. smith's piece was published under your watch, after your review, and following many consequences related to the authorship and editing of the piece. please tell me yourself, whether or not you would like to stand by the assertion made by lou, that you have never published anything about dehlin.

You're exploiting the ambiguity of what it means to "publish." Hemingway published a number of novels. So, in a sense, did the company that printed them. But Hemingway wrote them all; his publisher wrote none of them.

I'll respond, on your behalf, to my own request: I've written essentially nothing (if not altogether nothing), and published essentially nothing (if not altogether nothing), about John Dehlin. I'm not particularly interested in him or his activities. Some people are quite interested; I'm not among them.

And, incidentally, what "blog" are you talking about? I can't think of anything that I've posted about John Dehlin (apart from perhaps two announcements of the publication of Dr. Smith's article) on my blog, Sic et Non, on Patheos. And I have only the one blog.

.

Edited by Daniel Peterson
Link to post

you cannot be serious. how about the top of this page, for starters.

yeah. start there. "Dehlin" is the name you were asking about. and you can read down about three paragraphs for the first example in this thread. Lou, be serious. are you really pretending to have never mentioned his name?

I doubt that Professor Midgley considers posting on a message board the equivalent of "publishing." I certainly don't.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I doubt that Professor Midgley considers posting on a message board the equivalent of "publishing." I certainly don't.

I have addressed the hairsplitting before you asked this question. i already addressed the fact that you were hiding behind the fact that there was not an official publication. had you read that, and also that i had not mentioned you, you may not have needed a clarification. you see no significance that you, as chairman, are allowing posts at mormon interpreter, posts of material you reviewed and may have edited in part. but, at this point, your position is that you have never posted anything about dehlin, he does not matter to you or interest you. you have nothing to report as published, correct? including smith's piece, nothing to do with you, correct?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I'm not sure why you want to insinuate bad faith on my part. Disagreement should be enough; it's clear that we disagree. But I note it, and will do my best not to bother with you any more.

i am not insinuating bad faith. i am trying to figure out if you separating yourself from smith's piece, or whether you stand by it as chairman. i did not include you in my response to lou, and i am asking why you still feel you have not published anything about dehlin. you must believe that the last name on that report, and only name, is greg smith. correct?

Link to post

I stand by Dr. Smith's two essays. I'm fine with them. But I didn't write them. I'm not interested enough in John Dehlin to have researched and written them.

No journal editor is responsible for an article published by her journal in the same way that the article's own author is responsible. So, in that sense, yes, Greg Smith is responsible for what he wrote in a way that I'm not.

But I'm not distancing myself from Dr. Smith at all, and I feel no need to do so.

Please note, though, incidentally, that Dr. Smith's articles appear on the Interpreter site but are neither typeset nor paginated for publication in the Interpreter journal, proper. That's deliberate. As of now, at least, there is no plan to include either of them in the journal itself. Not because we disagree with them, but because they don't neatly fit the mission of the journal. (The decision could change, but I don't expect that it will.) The website of The Interpreter Foundation is a broader thing, including news, a blog, "roundtables," and etc.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I doubt that Professor Midgley considers posting on a message board the equivalent of "publishing." I certainly don't.

Professor Peterson is right, I never thought that someone would consider posting on a message board as "publishing." But think think that there is another dreadful message board that feature Doctor X and Doctor Y, and an imaginary university where mayan elephant could pick up such an idea.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

i am not insinuating bad faith. i am trying to figure out if you separating yourself from smith's piece, or whether you stand by it as chairman. i did not include you in my response to lou, and i am asking why you still feel you have not published anything about dehlin. you must believe that the last name on that report, and only name, is greg smith. correct?

Why do you care about Greg Smith's essay? If he is right, and he is, given what appears to be your stance on the Church, you should be pleased to find that Dehlin is an apologist for apostasy? Or have I radically misunderstood where you sand on this crucial issue?

Link to post

So does stalking somebody for 7 years(mainly Facebook then posting ad homineum attacks about him from the posts not count as personal attacks? In most states what they have dones is against the law http://www.ncsl.org/...ment-laws.aspx.

They are not as innocent as you want to believe. A bit of cognitive dissonance coming from both sides.

Please clarify this. If I understand it correctly, Greg's research was done over a period of six weeks or so, using material publicly available on Facebook and Mormon Stories. There was no "stalking". That is using loaded language and is not an accurate assessment of the work that Greg did.

It has been noted elswhere on this thread that some umm, critics, are bashing Gre's article and even Dan Peterson, Lou Midgley, and bill Hamblin over the article, while responding with nothing to the article itself. There have been a few on the "aplogetic" side that have voiced some reservations about the article, such as David Bokovy, although no one has questioned the accuracy of any of the actual statements/facts that have been presented. Maybe a little confusion about some of Greg's conclusions.

If anyone who is rally chagrined and supports John's position would care to do so, they are at liberty to produce a counterpoint essay for perusal to show just how unbalanced Greg's article is. The sources of greg's information are still there.

Glenn

Edited by Glenn101
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I have addressed the hairsplitting before you asked this question. i already addressed the fact that you were hiding behind the fact that there was not an official publication. had you read that, and also that i had not mentioned you, you may not have needed a clarification. you see no significance that you, as chairman, are allowing posts at mormon interpreter, posts of material you reviewed and may have edited in part. but, at this point, your position is that you have never posted anything about dehlin, he does not matter to you or interest you. you have nothing to report as published, correct? including smith's piece, nothing to do with you, correct?

For academics the wordpublishing means something other opining on a message board. This is not hairsplitting but just the way it is, at least for academics.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

For academics the wordpublishing means something other opining on a message board. This is not hairsplitting but just the way it is, at least for academics.

It means something otherthan that to the general public also.

pub-lish

verb (used with object)

1. to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.

2. to issue publicly the work of: Random House publishes Faulkner.

3. to announce formally or officially; proclaim; promulgate.

4. to make publicly or generally known.

5. Law. to communicate (a defamatory statement) to some person or persons other than the person defamed.

The "hairsplitting" seems to be coming from the elephant in the room.

Glenn

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

For academics the wordpublishing means something other opining on a message board. This is not hairsplitting but just the way it is, at least for academics.

Serious question: Does the Interpretor blog count as 'publishing'? BYU seems to have an opinion on the matter.

Link to post

Please clarify this. If I understand it correctly, Greg's research was done over a period of six weeks or so, using material publicly available on Facebook and Mormon Stories. There was no "stalking". That is using loaded language and is not an accurate assessment of the work that Greg did.

Glenn

There was no stalking. And Greg did the research and had a complete draft of his essay to us in six weeks.

Edited by Louis Midgley
Link to post
Serious question: Does the Interpretor blog count as 'publishing'?

No, the Interpreter blog doesn't and shouldn't count as publishing.

On the other hand, the peer-reviewed, type-set journal of The Interpreter Foundation, which is called Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, does, and should.

BYU seems to have an opinion on the matter.

Does it? That's news to me. (And you'd think that I, being both chairman of The Interpreter Foundation and a full professor at BYU, would know!)

  • Upvote 3
Link to post

I think Grimace is referring to the reasons for Bill Hamblin's departure from the Interpreter.

I do see the line you are drawing, though, between the blog posts and the actual journal.

Link to post

I don't think most people think in such black and white terms. Either you are "for us" or "against us". A lot of John's group (including me) are somewhere in the middle. That's why they want to build bridges. For me, this whole debacle has been a source of confusion and frustration. Wouldn't the brethren want to build a bridge that could, potentially, bring members back?

And, yes, I used to believe that my testimony was absolutely unshakable and I made fun of people who left over personal quibbles. But, there is quit a bit more to it, when you add in some real concerns over church history and Joseph Smith, himself. That's a whole new ballpark. And, when you see those issues dealt with, primarily, with ad hom, that doesn't exactly instill confidence in the author of such an article.

I donno. It's all rather discouraging. Especially, when people in the church don't seem very interested in building bridges.

Elder Holland has made it abundantly clear that Mormons can be of almost any stripe and not be in danger of their membership -- unless actively inveighing against the Church -- so a good deal of the ranting and raving about this matter is nonsense. The LDS Church is constantly building bridges of understanding both within and without the Church.

Moreover, if one's hard and fast testimony is based on false information, i.e., the sort of rigid and ridiculous claims about Joseph or the Book of Mormon which were not true to begin with, then of course the fall is going to be all the more hard for the perceived disappointment. I would prefer that members be given the straight scoop from the outset, our leaders described as they really are, warts & all.

However, having said that, I see no reason for members to read one book or hear one claim and uncritically accept it as gospel without taking a closer look. During that careful examination (if someone actually wants to take the time to do it), one must be prepared to spend the requisite time and energy acquiring the skills with which to make their own judgment. Most people are not prepared to make that commitment and rail against those who have spent the time and energy and find that the world is a good deal more complicated than first appears on the surface. One of the reasons for our failed political system, for example, is that ordinary people are too lazy to take the time to fully inform themselves. Free agency is meaningless in participatory democracy unless one participates. So also in matters of religion. As Mike Quinn has said: "The unexamined faith is not worth having."

I have yet to meet a former Mormon who has left that faith for a legitimate reason. I have heard a good deal of false information bandied about, along with some pretty lousy excuses -- on a par with "the dog ate my homework." What I would just like to hear for once is a substantive, legitimate excuse for leaving Mormonism, Do you know of any?

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
I have yet to meet a former Mormon who has left that faith for a legitimate reason. I have heard a good deal of false information bandied about, along with some pretty lousy excuses -- on a par with "the dog ate my homework." What I would just like to hear for once is a substantive, legitimate excuse for leaving Mormonism, Do you know of any?

That, after careful examination, you have come to believe it is not what you thought it was.

I started to say, "have come to believe it is not true"...but, that seems a little too black and white.

Would you stay in a church that you felt was, basically, false?

I'm not saying that is "my" position, but it is the position of a lot of good people, who have left.

I don't think we can judge for others what is "legitimate". We each have to live in our own skin.

Link to post
So does stalking somebody for 7 years(mainly Facebook

CFR, please.

then posting ad homineum attacks about him from the posts not count as personal attacks?

1. The expression is ad hominem. The ad hominem fallacy consists of arguments similar to, "She is a bad person therefore you should ignore what she writes about polynomial expressions." I have yet to see anything plausibly resembling an ad hominem argument in Greg Smith's essay.

2. However, in this very thread, I have seen several apparent ad hominem arguments; but the targets have been Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, Lou Midgley and "apologists" in general.

In most states what they have dones is against the law http://www.ncsl.org/...ment-laws.aspx.

I await the forthcoming prosecution.

But I'm not holding my breath.

They are not as innocent as you want to believe. A bit of cognitive dissonance coming from both sides.

I really find this patronising, sanctimonious cant about "both sides" most irritating. What would it take for you to see where the fault lies? A gang of Dehlinites attacking an LDS apologist on the street and beating him to a pulp, perhaps?

Regards,

Pahoran

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
you're missing the whole point. Lou is criticized for attacking Palmer personally, where it would have been enough to just address the content of his book. Lou is pretending, without any reference, that he was assailed for publishing about the book and the method of research and facts. i dont think anyone is arguing that midgley was obliged to not publish or review the book. there is however, a powerful and loud objection to his review of palmer personally, and his multi-year public crusade to discredit him personally, and not just counter Palmer's research or publication.

So investigating the origin and development of an idea is a "personal attack" on the person who originated it, is it?

Who knew?

If I were you, I would be a little less inclined to rant about "personal attacks." It's that whole glass house, throw stones thing.

i see what you are doing here, you clever man. since you didn't "publish" a review or anything that was commissioned by the university or your board, you can declare that you have said exactly nothing about John Dehlin. all these comments on this board, are unsaid because they are unpublished. bit of a double standard, yes? should not the things written here be considered just as "said" as those of your shared blog, facebook, mormon stories or nom?

you have said a lot about dehlin. the hair splitting is not necessary.

No hairs have been split. Your insinuation of dishonesty proceeds from no evidence and is therefore the product of your own unassisted mind. IOW, it tells us more about you than about the target of your libel.

I have addressed the hairsplitting before you asked this question. i already addressed the fact that you were hiding behind the fact that there was not an official publication. had you read that, and also that i had not mentioned you, you may not have needed a clarification. you see no significance that you, as chairman, are allowing posts at mormon interpreter, posts of material you reviewed and may have edited in part. but, at this point, your position is that you have never posted anything about dehlin, he does not matter to you or interest you. you have nothing to report as published, correct? including smith's piece, nothing to do with you, correct?

Mayan Heffalump, there are those who are likely to get somewhat disgusted when they see a rather ill-mannered newbie such as yourself harassing not just one but two high-value posters.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

You have also been removed from the thread for attacks.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post

Elder Holland has made it abundantly clear that Mormons can be of almost any stripe and not be in danger of their membership -- unless actively inveighing against the Church -- so a good deal of the ranting and raving about this matter is nonsense. The LDS Church is constantly building bridges of understanding both within and without the Church.

Moreover, if one's hard and fast testimony is based on false information, i.e., the sort of rigid and ridiculous claims about Joseph or the Book of Mormon which were not true to begin with, then of course the fall is going to be all the more hard for the perceived disappointment. I would prefer that members be given the straight scoop from the outset, our leaders described as they really are, warts & all.

However, having said that, I see no reason for members to read one book or hear one claim and uncritically accept it as gospel without taking a closer look. During that careful examination (if someone actually wants to take the time to do it), one must be prepared to spend the requisite time and energy acquiring the skills with which to make their own judgment. Most people are not prepared to make that commitment and rail against those who have spent the time and energy and find that the world is a good deal more complicated than first appears on the surface. One of the reasons for our failed political system, for example, is that ordinary people are too lazy to take the time to fully inform themselves. Free agency is meaningless in participatory democracy unless one participates. So also in matters of religion. As Mike Quinn has said: "The unexamined faith is not worth having."

I have yet to meet a former Mormon who has left that faith for a legitimate reason. I have heard a good deal of false information bandied about, along with some pretty lousy excuses -- on a par with "the dog ate my homework." What I would just like to hear for once is a substantive, legitimate excuse for leaving Mormonism, Do you know of any?

.

How about if someone determines Mormonism is false. Is that a legitimate reason?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

.

How about if someone determines Mormonism is false. Is that a legitimate reason?

Would that not depend on how they determined the faith is false?
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

If anyone who is rally chagrined and supports John's position would care to do so, they are at liberty to produce a counterpoint essay for perusal to show just how unbalanced Greg's article is. The sources of greg's information are still there.

Glenn

Granted, it's only been a week, but if someone doesn't at least produce something in the next few months, we'll have to acknowledge that Smith got an uncontested slam dunk.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...