Protecting Mormons online

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

To make that happen, I think the loved ones, priesthood leaders, and caring friends will need to do more than just read Smith's piece. 

I never insisted the Greg Smith piece is the only resource that should be used. It is just one tool, a good one in my view, but just one in what might need to be a full arsenal in the conflict of truth vs. error.

 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Because you attributed apriori bad intent to Gregory Smith -- to discredit Dehlin.  A scholar doesn't approach an issue with negative intent, but rather with the expectation that he might even be surprised at the results of his fair, impartial analysis.  If someone is of a mind to, he can always find fault.  A balanced approach weighs the evidence and provides substantive reasons for any conclusions reached.  Since you agree that Gregory Smith was fair, that ought to be enough for you.

As for your annoyance with my rhetorical questions, keep in mind that I both asked and answered them.  Was I wrong in my conclusions or principles?

I'm not annoyed that you don't answer my questions, it just makes productive dialogue difficult.  I especially like how you dodged my question in the very response where you claim to be answering.

So, from your generic response can I assume that you do NOT believe that Smith was trying to discredit Dehlin?

For me, saying that he was fair doesn't mean that he was scholarly.  I still don't consider his writings on Dehlin to be scholarship.  As I wrote above to Scott, I agree that it was written as a caveat emptor.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not annoyed that you don't answer my questions, it just makes productive dialogue difficult.  I especially like how you dodged my question in the very response where you claim to be answering.

So, from your generic response can I assume that you do NOT believe that Smith was trying to discredit Dehlin?

For me, saying that he was fair doesn't mean that he was scholarly.  I still don't consider his writings on Dehlin to be scholarship.  As I wrote above to Scott, I agree that it was written as a caveat emptor.

Sorry that I am making productive dialogue so difficult, but am puzzled that you "like" my supposed dodging of any of your questions.  I don't think that I did.  Indeed, I am very surprised that you still think that I haven't adequately confirmed my belief that Gregory Smith did not set out to discredit Dehlin.  I don't consider it wise to think in such cynical and partisan ways.  This should not be a mere game, especially not a zero sum game.

Reminds me of efforts by the totalitarian Right to do away with PBS-TV or with  NPR-Radio, simply because they don't want factual news to be broadcasted far and wide.  Vlad Putin takes the same approach in his resurrected Soviet Union.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sorry that I am making productive dialogue so difficult, but am puzzled that you "like" my supposed dodging of any of your questions.  I don't think that I did.  Indeed, I am very surprised that you still think that I haven't adequately confirmed my belief that Gregory Smith did not set out to discredit Dehlin.  I don't consider it wise to think in such cynical and partisan ways.  This should not be a mere game, especially not a zero sum game.

Reminds me of efforts by the totalitarian Right to do away with PBS-TV or with  NPR-Radio, simply because they don't want factual news to be broadcasted far and wide.  Vlad Putin takes the same approach in his resurrected Soviet Union.

Interesting that in your first paragraph you say that it isn't wise to think in cynical and partisan ways.  Then, in your second paragraph, you cynically misrepresent the position of the Right regarding PBS and NPR.  Way to not be partisan!

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 10:45 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Scholars don't base their conclusions on apriori assumptions, hidden agendas, or guesswork.  In contrast to the Dehlin approach, a scholar actually reads material in extenso over a period of many years, subjects himself to demanding mentors (usually but not necessarily in a rigorous university environment) and peer review, and cites his sources.  He must leave himself open to correction in all circumstances.  Humility and collegiality are important ingredients in scholarly give and take.  Insofar as a scholar sincerely tries to meet those demands, he may successfully participate in and contribute to what is a communal, non-partisan enterprise.

The hoi polloi just don't get that, and they feel that everybody makes the same sort of prejudicial and biased judgments that they make.

So do you approach Dehlin and his work based on your parameters above?

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 0:04 AM, Calm said:

Yeah, trying to stop something from being published...how does that expose truth?

I was not referring to Greg Smith's papers.  I was referring to the overall body of work on both sides.

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 1:24 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

The bottom line is that Dehlin tried (and failed) to get Greg Smith's piece suppressed. What Smith did, on the other hand, was to shine the light of scrutiny and analysis on Dehlin's enterprise for the world to see. For you to suggest or for rockpond to imply any manner of functional equivalency is absurd.

 

It would be interesting to see how wide the audience Smith's paper on Dehlin and Mormons Stories reached Vs the audience Dehlin had and now has as compared.  My guess, and it is only a guess, is that Dehlin's reach far outstrips the Smith article in readership and listenership.  Dehlin's podcasts regularly reach over 50,000 and more depending on topic. He does live podcasts as well and regularly gets a few hundred or more who watch the podcasts live.  So it seems to me that Dehlin has a much farther reach than Smith or the Interpreter.  Now what the make up of the respective audiences is who knows. But if Smith's papers were meant to silent or even limit Dehlin's influence from a far view they have seemed to fail miserably.  And the excommunication of Dehlin had freed him up to be oven more aggressive in what he does and expand his audience and influence.

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 4:03 PM, juliann said:

I don't have a dog in this fight, I sat by Dehlin for awhile at the last FM conference and found him to be very personable. But...Interpreter and FM do get feedback. And yes, many, many people read it and were grateful to have a more complete picture of how such a public figure was presenting himself.

BTW, this isn't a defender of the church vs attacker of the church thing like it is being portrayed here. Dehlin has burned countless bridges. Usually the Bloggernacle is a good indicator of what is going on in progressive and anti-apologetic circles of the church. Try to find anything positive there, if he is even mentioned. What is happening is that the yelling has been going on for so long that even ardent critics are tired of the disinformation. I am told by my exmo sister that sites like RFM now do not put up with fake news coming from their side much more than they ever did when it came from our side. I think we are thankfully entering an era where people want solid information. 

And I'm going to say it one more time. That paper was done in a dry academic manner. How anyone can look at that many footnotes and think is was anything but a scholarly attempt is mind boggling, especially when it is accompanied by an admission that the complainer hasn't read it for a long time....or read it at all.  It isn't like the author didn't teach at a medical school or anything to know how to produce an academic article. It leaves me wanting to say....seriously, folks?

Not one person that I recall has talked about the actual content. Is it time for CFRs? 

I can tell you this much.  Mormon Stories and its parent The Open Stories Foundation seems to be thriving and alive and well.  Dehiln has many spin off groups that seem popular. His MS podcasts are more prolific than ever.  He has numerous retreats for those in transition as it relates to Mormonism in one form or another.  Whatever his intentions when he started all of this he now has a thriving business model that a lot of people seem to plug into and he is not going away.  And it also seems that it will appeal to an increasing number of Mormons who become disillusioned with the Church.

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 6:37 PM, juliann said:

Eh, the upset just might be because almost everyone has family members who are gay. Just because they aren't joining the agitators doesn't mean they aren't....upset. Or would have tried to do something through church channels had they been given the opportunity before the church was forced into justifying something they were obviously thinking would be as uneventful as the polygamy policy it mirrored. I think this will have to be modified again, I don't think the Lord sent them a fax as to how to write it up. But it will now be later than sooner. Thanks, agitators. 

I don't think God had anything to do with the awful policy.  And for a Church that claims to have Prophets and Apostles that God communicates his will too this seems to speak loudly that such a claim is rather hollow.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

So do you approach Dehlin and his work based on your parameters above?

Of course I do.  Moreover, as with all discussion of things Mormon, I fully support the broadest possible expression of opinion, scholarly and otherwise.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

It would be interesting to see how wide the audience Smith's paper on Dehlin and Mormons Stories reached Vs the audience Dehlin had and now has as compared.  My guess, and it is only a guess, is that Dehlin's reach far outstrips the Smith article in readership and listenership.  Dehlin's podcasts regularly reach over 50,000 and more depending on topic. He does live podcasts as well and regularly gets a few hundred or more who watch the podcasts live.  So it seems to me that Dehlin has a much farther reach than Smith or the Interpreter.  Now what the make up of the respective audiences is who knows. But if Smith's papers were meant to silent or even limit Dehlin's influence from a far view they have seemed to fail miserably.  And the excommunication of Dehlin had freed him up to be oven more aggressive in what he does and expand his audience and influence.

 

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I can tell you this much.  Mormon Stories and its parent The Open Stories Foundation seems to be thriving and alive and well.  Dehiln has many spin off groups that seem popular. His MS podcasts are more prolific than ever.  He has numerous retreats for those in transition as it relates to Mormonism in one form or another.  Whatever his intentions when he started all of this he now has a thriving business model that a lot of people seem to plug into and he is not going away.  And it also seems that it will appeal to an increasing number of Mormons who become disillusioned with the Church.

I think these are accurate assessments.

We see an increasing number of people turning to MS.  My guess is that they are turning to MS because it provides a resource that doesn't exist in the church (that's true for me).  Dehlin's influence is growing.  Is Smith's?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/12/2017 at 11:38 PM, rockpond said:

Interesting that in your first paragraph you say that it isn't wise to think in cynical and partisan ways.  Then, in your second paragraph, you cynically misrepresent the position of the Right regarding PBS and NPR.  Way to not be partisan!

But you make my point for me, rockpond.  It has long been a major objective of the totalitarian Right to get rid of public broadcasting -- the same program applied by totalitarian Putin.  Why is public broadcasting the enemy of the totalitarians?  Because they broadcast factual news in a professional way, unlike the partisan networks -- especially Fox News and RT.  Totalitarians want to keep people uninformed and ignorant so that they can be manipulated.  Partisan political operatives can't stand to have information freely available to all.  They prefer to operate in secret and to have any information made available only in one version, and with partisan spin.

Dictator Vlad Putin has not only had many journalists killed in his own country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia ), but he also deftly managed a coup d'etat in America through careful application of disinformation and agitprop -- which he knew so well from his KGB days.  A cynical observation?  Yes, but appropriately so.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But you make my point for me, rockpond.  It has long been a major objective of the totalitarian Right to get rid of public broadcasting -- the same program applied by totalitarian Putin.  Why is public broadcasting the enemy of the totalitarians?  Because they broadcast factual news in a professional way, unlike the partisan networks -- especially Fox News and RT.  Totalitarians want to keep people uninformed and ignorant so that they can be manipulated.  Partisan political operatives can't stand to have information freely available to all.  They prefer to operate in secret and to have any information made available only in one version, and with partisan spin.

Dictator Vlad Putin has not only had many journalists killed in his own country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia ), but he also deftly managed a coup d'etat in American through careful application of disinformation and agitprop -- which he knew so well from his KGB days.  A cynical observation?  Yes, but appropriately so.

1.  Who is the "totalitarian right"?  I've never heard of a group who identifies that way.

2.  The arguments I have heard in opposition to PBS/NPR are only wanting to end public (taxpayer) funding for those enterprises, not shut them down because they don't want "factual news".  Can you present something to support your conclusion here?

 

[juliann]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

I think these are accurate assessments.

We see an increasing number of people turning to MS.  My guess is that they are turning to MS because it provides a resource that doesn't exist in the church (that's true for me).  Dehlin's influence is growing.  Is Smith's?

Huh? What influence is Smith supposed to have? He isn't being paid for exiting people out of the church, he wrote a paper a few years ago. I've asked you before and even CFRd you on the increasing number thing and here it is again. Undocumented.

I'd actually like to know. So CFR again on documentation of increased influence, which you are measuring by increasing numbers of people turning to MS (not hits, people.)

CFR   We see an increasing number of people turning to MS         CFR  

[mfbukowski]

On 4/4/2017 at 9:34 AM, K-2 said:

I read a comment where one of this board's founders said that it was created for the benefit and protection of Mormon posters. How do you protect Mormons by discussing controversial questions regarding their beliefs or history? Isn't that what John Dehlin thought was a good idea? We all know how that turned out.

Do you believe in vaccinations?

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

He now has a thriving business model.

Yep.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But you make my point for me, rockpond.  It has long been a major objective of the totalitarian Right to get rid of public broadcasting -- the same program applied by totalitarian Putin.  Why is public broadcasting the enemy of the totalitarians?  Because they broadcast factual news in a professional way, unlike the partisan networks -- especially Fox News and RT.  Totalitarians want to keep people uninformed and ignorant so that they can be manipulated.  Partisan political operatives can't stand to have information freely available to all.  They prefer to operate in secret and to have any information made available only in one version, and with partisan spin.

Dictator Vlad Putin has not only had many journalists killed in his own country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia ), but he also deftly managed a coup d'etat in American through careful application of disinformation and agitprop -- which he knew so well from his KGB days.  A cynical observation?  Yes, but appropriately so.

 

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

1.  Who is the "totalitarian right"?  I've never heard of a group who identifies that way.

2.  The arguments I have heard in opposition to PBS/NPR are only wanting to end public (taxpayer) funding for those enterprises, not shut them down because they don't want "factual news".  Can you present something to support your conclusion here?

 

Bob, I gotta say I was with you until you swung the discussion into liberal/progressive partisan politics. I don't see the relevance, and the histrionics regarding opposition to taxpayer funding of PBS is turning off people like me.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

It would be interesting to see how wide the audience Smith's paper on Dehlin and Mormons Stories reached Vs the audience Dehlin had and now has as compared.  My guess, and it is only a guess, is that Dehlin's reach far outstrips the Smith article in readership and listenership.  Dehlin's podcasts regularly reach over 50,000 and more depending on topic. He does live podcasts as well and regularly gets a few hundred or more who watch the podcasts live.  So it seems to me that Dehlin has a much farther reach than Smith or the Interpreter.  Now what the make up of the respective audiences is who knows. But if Smith's papers were meant to silent or even limit Dehlin's influence from a far view they have seemed to fail miserably.  And the excommunication of Dehlin had freed him up to be oven more aggressive in what he does and expand his audience and influence.

I've already addressed this. Dehlin will always have his acolytes in whose eyes he can do no wrong.

The primary value of the Smith piece, as I see it, is that it serves as a buyer-beware warning for those who might be looking into Dehlinism without having their eyes wide open regarding its true nature and character. In that sense, it is like a consumer-advocacy review of a somewhat popular but potentially harmful product or service. There may be many who don't heed the warning, but those who do can benefit thereby.

The risk was even greater before Dehlin was excommunicated, back when the Smith piece was written and when Dehlin was trying to get people to believe some General Authorities were on board with what he was doing, but there is still need for the warning.

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, Teancum said:

It would be interesting to see how wide the audience Smith's paper on Dehlin and Mormons Stories reached Vs the audience Dehlin had and now has as compared.  My guess, and it is only a guess, is that Dehlin's reach far outstrips the Smith article in readership and listenership.  Dehlin's podcasts regularly reach over 50,000 and more depending on topic. He does live podcasts as well and regularly gets a few hundred or more who watch the podcasts live.  So it seems to me that Dehlin has a much farther reach than Smith or the Interpreter.  Now what the make up of the respective audiences is who knows. But if Smith's papers were meant to silent or even limit Dehlin's influence from a far view they have seemed to fail miserably.  And the excommunication of Dehlin had freed him up to be oven more aggressive in what he does and expand his audience and influence.

Its kind of funny that we're even discussing it in some sense now.  Virtually no one has read the piece (I'm guessing a couple hundred have actually made it through it) and of those who have no one has been convinced of anything it seems.  Those who did not worry about, did not dislike Dehlin, or were followers in some sense before seem to have the same opinion.  And those who did not like him, still don't.  I guess for those who did not like him before it, and have read it, it might have helped them feel justified in their feelings, but I'd say who cares?  since that time, though, I've known a number of LDS people who have been introduced to Mormonstories and Dehlin and have found many levels of agreement.  So I'd wager that the piece did absolutely nothing to further causes that are anti-Dehlin and has really only helped bring his cause into light for those who potentially are interested in it. 

So...good job Greg Smith???? I guess....

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, juliann said:

Huh? What influence is Smith supposed to have? He isn't being paid for exiting people out of the church, he wrote a paper a few years ago. I've asked you before and even CFRd you on the increasing number thing and here it is again. Undocumented.

I'd actually like to know. So CFR again on documentation of increased influence, which you are measuring by increasing numbers of people turning to MS (not hits, people.)

CFR   We see an increasing number of people turning to MS         CFR  

I'd guess that Mormonstories has reached more people.

Here is 2016s figures for Openstories:

http://www.openstoriesfoundation.org/

I'm only guessing increase since 2012 or 13 or 14 or whenever Greg's piece came out. 

You can see the Mormonstories is the foundations greatest revenue generator in 2015:

http://www.openstoriesfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2015-Open-Stories-Foundation-PL.pdf

Revenue increased for Mormonstories nearly $60,000 from 2013 to 15. 

When Smith's piece came out he reported Dehlin got 40,000 dollars from his podcast.  But here it says in 2016 Dehlin got 75,000:

http://www.openstoriesfoundation.org/finances/

It looks like from these measures it's grown in influence. 

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, juliann said:

Huh? What influence is Smith supposed to have? He isn't being paid for exiting people out of the church, he wrote a paper a few years ago. I've asked you before and even CFRd you on the increasing number thing and here it is again. Undocumented.

I'd actually like to know. So CFR again on documentation of increased influence, which you are measuring by increasing numbers of people turning to MS (not hits, people.)

CFR   We see an increasing number of people turning to MS         CFR  

I'm not sure what influence Smith is supposed to have.  I agree... he isn't being paid for exiting people out of the church.  I don't know anyone who is so I don't see your point.

I'm judging MS based on their podcast downloads.  Last month they hit another all time record.  Along with increasing downloads, there is a growing facebook community and increasing donations.  I don't have a link to provide for you, you'd have to listen to the podcasts.  Sorry.

 

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you believe in vaccinations?

Elder Ballard used that analogy in his address to CES, telling them that we need to inoculate the younger generation.

I think the struggle that the church is facing now is how to give enough to inoculate without sending a member "down the rabbit hole" from which it is difficult to ever get them back into an orthodox Mormon belief.

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Elder Ballard used that analogy in his address to CES, telling them that we need to inoculate the younger generation.

I think the struggle that the church is facing now is how to give enough to inoculate without sending a member "down the rabbit hole" from which it is difficult to ever get them back into an orthodox Mormon belief.

There is no such thing

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There is no such thing

I, for one, admire your fortitude in maintaining there is no such things as an orthodox Mormon belief, and I think I get a little bit where you're coming from on that.  But it kind of makes it pointless to say there's no orthodox Mormon belief, if everyone else thinks there is even if unofficially so, no?

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There is no such thing

No such thing as what?