"Review" Of Greg Smiths Review Of Mormon Stories

[cinepro]

Assuming the original author doesn't have a problem with it, I don't see how it violates board guidelines, so I'll post it. But it deserves its own thread.

Here.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm being told if I post Rollo's review here I'll get banned from this board?

Would it be against the rules to post it here?

I believe that it's at about this time, according to the dogma over at the Contempt and Defamation Board, that I'm supposed to instruct my brain-dead robotic minions here to ban you.

The truth is, though, that I don't do that -- I'm not even sure who the moderators here are -- and also, for what it's worth, that I'm fine with your or anybody else's posting of "Rollo Tomasi's" essay.

I don't know whether or not Greg Smith plans a response to "Rollo Tomasi" -- Greg is both a physician and a bishop, so he has a life offline and he's rather busy -- but I rather hope that he will.

[awyatt]

(Note: I originally posted the comment, below, in the other thread where Rollo's review was posted. I am putting the comment here, as well, in case that thread is deemed inappropriate by the Mods and closed. --Allen)

I read Rollo's review of the GS review, and it boils down to a very long essay as to why Rollo didn't like GS's review. One would expect such an approach if one were, say, reviewing a movie or, perhaps, the newest song from some musical group. Rollo boiled his reasons for disliking the GS review to these:

1. The Dubious Review is a "Hit Piece" on Dehlin, NOT a review of Mormon Stories
   
2. The Dubious Review is Outdated
   
3. Did Smith Bait Dehlin for Juicier Quotes and Material to Use in the Essay?
   
4. Smith’s Manipulation of Dehlin Quotes
   
5. Other Misquotes
   
6. Smith attacks Dehlin’s work with LDS homosexuals
   
7. Smith calls himself to serve as Dehlin’s bishop
   
8. Smith uses Dehlin’s interview of Dr. Michael Coe as a "Case Study"
   
9. Smith attacks Dehlin’s survey of Ex-Mormons that the LDS Church has reviewed
   

The problem is that these things criticize (1) how Greg organized his review, (2) how GS used some of JD's quotes, (3) how GS disagrees with JD on some issues. What it doesn't do is engage the substantive points brought up in GS's review. These are just a few of those points:

• What does Rollo feel about GS's placement of JD within the larger NOM movement?
  
• What does he feel about GS's characterization of JD as a "particularly vocal and visible leavetaker[] from traditional or literal-faith Mormonism?"
  
• What about GS's point that it is critics, serious doubters, and former Mormons who tend to be JD's biggest supporters? (And, does that demographic say anything about the work that JD actually does?)
  
• Does Rollo feel it is proper for JD to present himself to different ideological groups as being in line with the purposes of those groups, even when such positioning is self contradictory?
  
• Does Rollo see any significance in the fact that JD's approach to counseling doubters adopts much of the "tone, mthods, and approach" of anti-Mormon ministries toward Mormon matters?
  
• Does he see any disparity between the teachings exemplified through Mormon Stories and traditional counsel from LDS leaders on the same topics?
  

Each of the above (and many other points) were raised by GS relative to Mormon Stories and supported with evidence. Yet, these and many other substantive matters were never engaged by Rollo in his review. While he did a good job explaining why he didn't like the GS review (and why he thinks it is, beyond question, a "hit piece"), he never touches the real substance of the review.

Continuing with my original point, GS has produced what would be, in the film world, a documentary that examines issues and raises questions. Rollo's review is similar to saying "I didn't like the documentary because of the camera angles chosen, the nasal sound of the narrator, and the way the editing was done." I don't doubt that it is true that Rollo didn't like the approach or the execution of the approach, but he never once addresses the matters raised and supported by GS. Because of this, Rollo's review remains "one man's opinion," not an indictment of the issues raised and opinions expressed by GS.

(This, despite the fervent back-slapping evident in the comments to Rollo's review over at the other board. They amount to nothing more than "yeah, I didn't like it either" comments being shouted in an echo chamber.)

-Allen

[Teancum]

Haven't read it so can't comment.

You should. It seems to point out some major flaws in Smith's paper.

[Scott Lloyd]

You should. It seems to point out some major flaws in Smith's paper.

So far, I've yet to find a single one pointed out.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

If attempting to use one's influence to hinder or halt publication of a writing is not attempted censorship, I wonder what censorship looks like.

Day old fish it is!

[wenglund]

You should. It seems to point out some major flaws in Smith's paper.

I am reading it now and doing a critical analysis, and finding the alleged "flaws" to be irrational and besides the substance of Greg's papers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Teancum]

the Review itself? not so bad. I mean he went overboard for sure in claiming personal attacks. many things he said can't be seen as attacks at all let alone personal. The attempt to paint Smith as someone who sent out emmissaries to poke and prod Dehlin so he could get more out of him is pretty pathetic too.

but by and large the worst part was the comments that came in that thread--particularly one by some guy who calls himself stemelbow.

I think Cinepro's response was pretty good, though.

I think the writer showed that it was highly likely Smith used a few people to "poke and prod" Dehlin. He also showed how a number of time Smith used elipses in such a way to misconstrue what Dehlin actually said as well as stringing comments together that also distorted the original message. Isn't that a common complaint of LDS aplogists against LDS critics?

[stemelbow]

I think the writer showed that it was highly likely Smith used a few people to "poke and prod" Dehlin. He also showed how a number of time Smith used elipses in such a way to misconstrue what Dehlin actually said as well as stringing comments together that also distorted the original message. Isn't that a common complaint of LDS aplogists against LDS critics?

That's what Rollo thinks too. he actually acknowledged that I may be right in suggesting his effort to paint Smith in a such a light isn't all that credible. That was a pretty weak part of his review, though. I don't see how there is any reason to accept that Smith used a few people to poke and prod Dehlin.

[Teancum]

I am reading it now and doing a critical analysis, and finding the alleged "flaws" to be irrational and besides the substance of Greg's papers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No doubt you do. What don't you point them out to the writer on that board?

[Teancum]

You've gone where no-one has gone before ALarson. This site is as anti as anti can go. Isn't it posted on the MD board also according to the OP?

I would not say that board is anti. It is an open board that is hardly moderated. A free speech zone. Lots of critics there though. Mostly EX LDS or fringe LDS. Not many EVs.

[wenglund]

I think the writer showed that it was highly likely Smith used a few people to "poke and prod" Dehlin....

On the other thread, Scott Gordon has provided information from both of the accused parties authoritatively denying Rollo's wild conjecture.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Teancum]

John Dehlin is back to demonizing his chosen enemies, I see.

While his comments were not flattering to you and others I would hardly call them demonizing.

[why me]

Since the review is published on a different thread, maybe this one should be closed. Just an opinion.

[wenglund]

No doubt you do. Wh[y] don't you point them out to the writer on that board?

Metaphorically, I prefer not to swim in cesspools. The writer is free to read my response here in chlorinated waters of this board, and in the other thread where his "Review" is quoted.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

He also showed how a number of time Smith used elipses in such a way to misconstrue what Dehlin actually said as well as stringing comments together that also distorted the original message. Isn't that a common complaint of LDS aplogists against LDS critics?

Use of ellipses is not necessarily bad or deceptive. It is only so when it materially changes or conveys the wrong impression of a speaker or writer's intended meaning.

I just read through the portion of RT's essay where he alleges manipulation of quotes. I don't think he makes a strong case. That is to say, upon reading the full quote, I come away with the same impression of Dehlin's intended meaning as I had before.

[William Schryver]

John Dehlin is back to demonizing his chosen enemies, I see.

Yeah, that didn't last long, did it?

Speaking of "demonizing ... enemies" ... earlier today I was searching through Bridget Jeffries' "infamous 2011 hit-piece" on yours truly* and couldn't help but be quite amazed that it has stretched to 77 pages and has more than 48,000 views! Yes, you read correctly: 77 pages and 48,000+ views! Unless I am mistaken, that is far and away the record for any thread on any Mormon-related message board.

There is a delicious irony at work here when you consider that these same people who have condemned Greg Smith for writing what they characterize as a "hit-piece" have no problem whatsoever when one of their own produces a classic specimen of an ad hominem attack piece designed to achieve the censorship of an article written by someone they don't like. (An article which, ironically enough, contains not one sentence that could be accurately characterized as "apologetic" in nature.)

Something else I find ironic (and which I was reminded of as I searched through that massive thread earlier today) is the reaction of Jeffries and her anti-Mormon cohorts whenever anyone showed up on that thread and expressed opinions contradictory to those of the majority mob: unless it was definitively known otherwise, in each and every case the poor souls were accused of being my sock puppets. Then they were subjected to a good old-fashioned MDB mobbing and harassed until they finally just left the place, never to return. I only know the IRL identity of a couple of those who spoke in my defense. One of them was a very intelligent, well-educated young woman, formerly from my ward, who was ultimately banned from MDB, that bastion of "free speech."

Oh, well ... as the old saw goes: "All's well that ends well." And this, too, will end well.

* = One can read my summary reply to Jeffries' hit-piece here: The Calculated Suppression of Mormon Apologetics: The Case of William Schryver. I am also in the process of preparing a much more detailed reply to Jeffries' May 2011 "hit-piece," as well as her ongoing malevolent online stalkeresque obsession with me, as also with Dan Peterson, Bill Hamblin, Lou Midgely, and (more recently) Greg Smith – all from this self-proclaimed "friend of Mormon apologetics."

Edited March 8, 2013 by William Schryver

[Scott Lloyd]

While his comments were not flattering to you and others I would hardly call them demonizing.

They revert to the same old defamation: unsubstantiated charges of ad hominem attack, giving the Church and apologetics a bad name, doing more harm than good, and so forth ad nauseum.

[William Schryver]

Read it? I haven't even reviewed it yet.

I don't care who ya are ... that is funny!

[Daniel Peterson]

While his comments were not flattering to you and others I would hardly call them demonizing.

Within recent weeks, he's called me a "thug" and a "pathological deceiver" and suggested that FAIR can only hope to redeem itself by severing its ties with me. He went silent for a few days, but now he's revving up again.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't care who ya are ... that is funny!

I wish I could say it was mine, but I stole it.

[William Schryver]

I believe that it's at about this time, according to the dogma over at the Contempt and Defamation Board, that I'm supposed to instruct my brain-dead robotic minions here to ban you.

The truth is, though, that I don't do that -- I'm not even sure who the moderators here are -- and also, for what it's worth, that I'm fine with your or anybody else's posting of "Rollo Tomasi's" essay.

I don't know whether or not Greg Smith plans a response to "Rollo Tomasi" -- Greg is both a physician and a bishop, so he has a life offline and he's rather busy -- but I rather hope that he will.

If I were Greg, I would only respond to the "review" on the condition that the cowardly "Rollo Tomasi" attach his real name to it.

[Daniel Peterson]

Yeah, that didn't last long, did it?

Speaking of "demonizing ... enemies" ... earlier today I was searching through Bridget Jeffries' "infamous 2011 hit-piece" on yours truly* and couldn't help but be quite amazed that it has stretched to 77 pages and has more than 48,000 views! Yes, you read correctly: 77 pages and 48,000+ views! Unless I am mistaken, that is far and away the record for any thread on any Mormon-related message board.

There is a delicious irony at work here when you consider that these same people who have condemned Greg Smith for writing what they characterize as a "hit-piece" have no problem whatsoever when one of their own produces a classic specimen of an ad hominem attack piece designed to achieve the censorship of an article written by someone they don't like. (An article which, ironically enough, contains not one sentence that could be accurately characterized as "apologetic" in nature.)

Something else I find ironic (and which I was reminded of as I searched through that massive thread earlier today) is the reaction of Jeffries and her anti-Mormon cohorts whenever anyone showed up on that thread and expressed opinions contradictory to those of the majority mob: unless it was definitively known otherwise, in each and every case the poor souls were accused of being my sock puppets. Then they were subjected to a good old-fashioned MDB mobbing and harassed until they finally just left the place, never to return. I only know the IRL identity of a couple of those who spoke in my defense. One of them was a very intelligent, well-educated young woman, formerly from my ward, who was ultimately banned from MDB, that bastion of "free speech."

Oh, well ... as the old saw goes: "All's well that ends well." And this, too, will end well.

* = One can read my summary reply to Jeffries' hit-piece here: The Calculated Suppression of Mormon Apologetics: The Case of William Schryver. I am also in the process of preparing a much more detailed reply to Jeffries' May 2011 "hit-piece," as well as her ongoing malevolent online stalkeresque obsession with me, as also with Dan Peterson, Bill Hamblin, Lou Midgely, and (more recently) Greg Smith – all from this self-proclaimed "friend of Mormon apologetics."

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/03/a-cartoon-that-catches-the-attitude-of-some-of-my-most-vocal-critics.html

[Scott Lloyd]

If I were Greg, I would only respond to the "review" on the condition that the cowardly "Rollo Tomasi" attach his real name to it.

Hear, Hear!

[William Schryver]

If attempting to use one's influence to hinder or halt publication of a writing is not attempted censorship, I wonder what censorship looks like.

Maybe this will help: The Calculated Suppression of Mormon Apologetics