Protecting Mormons online

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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?

The simple fact is that if you can truthfully pass a temple recommend interview in all honesty, you cannot be a more "faithful" Mormon.  You could just about take any position on anything discussed on this board other than the very fundamentals and be temple worthy.

The alleged definition of doctrine on the newsroom website is so ambiguous as to be useless.  And if you know me, I pretty much do not care what everyone else thinks.

If I thought about what others think I would not even be here.  My philosophy buddies think I am nuts, and Mormons think I am nuts.  But here I am as true blue Mormon as one can be.

http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The simple fact is that if you can truthfully pass a temple recommend interview in all honesty, you cannot be a more "faithful" Mormon.  You could just about take any position on anything discussed on this board other than the very fundamentals and be temple worthy.

The alleged definition of doctrine on the newsroom website is so ambiguous as to be useless.  And if you know me, I pretty much do not care what everyone else thinks.

If I thought about what others think I would not even be here.  My philosophy buddies think I am nuts, and Mormons think I am nuts.  But here I am as true blue Mormon as one can be.

http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

 

Mormons think you are nuts? I'm a Mormon, and I've never thought that.

Afterthought: Maybe I'm nuts too!

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

CFR.

Or do you think the parenthetical "I'm guessing" gives you a pass on an outlandish assertion like "virtually no one has read the piece"?

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR.

Or do you think the parenthetical "I'm guessing" gives you a pass on an outlandish assertion like "virtually no one has read the piece"?

 

I take it back then.  I don't mind--I should have said it feels like very few people have read it.  But it has me eager to know, who has read it.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Histrionics?  I don't accept the phony "liberal/progressive" label for straight, factual news, Scott.  I see factual presentation of news as American as apple pie.  I am not at all comfortable with the control freaks of the totalitarian Right or Left.  I would welcome defunding of PBS and many another govt subsidy -- which already represents such a small portion of their support.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

The totalitarians never self-identify as such, and you shouldn't expect them to, rockpond.  That would be poor salesmanship. Instead they wave their preferred flag (whether swastika, hammer & sickle, or stars & stripes) and claim to be patriots in favor of the little guy.

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

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?

I am all for defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which accounts for only .00014 of the Federal budget).

Powerful opposition to the broadcast of straight news has been with us for generations, going back to Vice President Spiro Agnew, for instance, who railed against opponents as the "nattering nabobs of negativism."  Hypocrite Agnew very appropriately ended up in Federal Prison.

Quote

 

"Nattering nabobs of negativism."

It's such a memorable and jarring expression that we can almost forget why it was so important -- as the opening salvo of a political war that continues to this day. In an era -- this would be the late 1960s and early 1970s -- when the reality-based world was looking rather bleak, with new revelations about government spying and the White House waging secret military campaigns in Southeast Asia, it would be the Nixon White House that invented the strategy of not changing the message but instead declaring war on the messenger, the American news media:  http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Nabobs_natter_about_the_passing_of_William_Safire_1929-2009.html

 

You might want to read Jean-Francois Revel, The Totalitarian Temptation (1976/Penguin, 1978).

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The totalitarians never self-identify as such, and you shouldn't expect them to, rockpond.  That would be poor salesmanship. Instead they wave their preferred flag (whether swastika, hammer & sickle, or stars & stripes) and claim to be patriots in favor of the little guy.

I am all for defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which accounts for only .00014 of the Federal budget).

Powerful opposition to the broadcast of straight news has been with us for generations, going back to Vice President Spiro Agnew, for instance, who railed against opponents as the "nattering nabobs of negativism."  Hypocrite Agnew very appropriately ended up in Federal Prison.

You might want to read Jean-Francois Revel, The Totalitarian Temptation (1976/Penguin, 1978).

You can't seem to back up any of your positions in a logical way.  I'm out.  Enjoy your Easter weekend!

[juliann]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR.

Or do you think the parenthetical "I'm guessing" gives you a pass on an outlandish assertion like "virtually no one has read the piece"?

 

Why yes, he does!

My source said the article got more traffic than anything but Givens' article, which had been online longer. 

Update:   real close to 15,000 unique visits.

Edited April 15, 2017 by juliann

[Gray]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

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.

It's nothing really to do with being progressive.

http://time.com/4739556/james-comey-fbi-fake-news-warning/

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/13/2017 at 6:02 PM, Teancum said:

..................................

...................... 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. ...................

...................................

Scholars are not really interested in the zero sum game of limiting anyone's influence, and they are typically read by other scholars, not by the hoi polloi anyhow.  Partisans are always thinking in terms of the winning score, scholars in clarity and accuracy.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

Why yes, he does!

My source said the article got more traffic than anything but Givens' article, which had been online longer. 

Update:   real close to 15,000 unique visits.

Good for Greg Smith!

Since MS began back in 2005, the OSF has averaged over 15,000 downloads every two weeks.  Source:  OpenStoriesFoundation.org.

[Robert F. Smith]

45 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Good for Greg Smith!

Since MS began back in 2005, the OSF has averaged over 15,000 downloads every two weeks.  Source:  OpenStoriesFoundation.org.

Hurray for Mormon Stories !!  They sure showed them pointy-headed intellectuals a thing or three, didn't they, rockpond?

[juliann]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Good for Greg Smith!

Since MS began back in 2005, the OSF has averaged over 15,000 downloads every two weeks.  Source:  OpenStoriesFoundation.org.

I know! Let's compare one academic paper to an multi-pronged organization that continually puts out new content. Can this get any dumber?  Why yes, it could!  Someone who insists, apparently based on astrological charts,  that "almost nobody" saw a paper that was seen by close to 15,000 people...after he insists that an academic 100 page paper with 240 footnotes isn't scholarly. 

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hurray for Mormon Stories !!  They sure showed them pointy-headed intellectuals a thing or three, didn't they, rockpond?

No, not at all.  Not the point I was making...

5 hours ago, juliann said:

I know! Let's compare one academic paper to an multi-pronged organization that continually puts out new content. Can this get any dumber?  Why yes, it could!  Someone who insists, apparently based on astrological charts,  that "almost nobody" saw a paper that was seen by close to 15,000 people...after he insists that an academic 100 page paper with 240 footnotes isn't scholarly. 

First, I didn't claim that "almost nobody" saw the paper.  Second, having footnotes doesn't make something scholarly.

But, to the main point:  I wasn't comparing the two.  It's been suggested that Smith wrote the paper as a caveat emptor for anyone who might choose to listen to Dehlin.  So, I was pointing out that Smith's paper likely isn't getting significant reach to serve well in that function.  It's too bad - Smith clearly devoted a lot of time and energy to it.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

No, not at all.  Not the point I was making...

First, I didn't claim that "almost nobody" saw the paper.  

No, it was stemelbow who claimed that "virtually no one" had read it. He was probably trying to project his own attitude on everyone else, and he was obliged to summarily retract his wacky assertion when challenged to substantiate it.

Quote

Second, having footnotes doesn't make something scholarly.

A private definition of scholarly doesn't make it non-scholarly.

Quote

But, to the main point:  I wasn't comparing the two.  It's been suggested that Smith wrote the paper as a caveat emptor for anyone who might choose to listen to Dehlin.  So, I was pointing out that Smith's paper likely isn't getting significant reach to serve well in that function.  It's too bad - Smith clearly devoted a lot of time and energy to it.

As with any timely and well-placed warning, it is what it is, and it is/has been there for those who choose to heed it. My caveat emptor comment had to do with Dehlin endeavoring to make people believe he had the Church's best interest at heart, that he was doing the Church a favor by trying to change it and it was really those nasty apologists who are the enemy of the people. A lot of water has passed the bridge since then. Like other apostates, Dehlin has been excommunicated, and that narrative is even less persuasive than it was before, except to his own doctrinaire followers.

And what stemelbow said about the Smith piece making people feel good about what they already believed could be applied with equal validity to the Dehlin disciples -- or to virtually any anti-Mormon movement.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, it was stemelbow who claimed that "virtually no one" had read it. He was probably trying to project his own attitude on everyone else, and he was obliged to summarily retract his wacky assertion when challenged to substantiate it.

A private definition of scholarly doesn't make it non-scholarly.

As with any timely and well-placed warning, it is what it is, and it is/has been there for those who choose to heed it. My caveat emptor comment had to do with Dehlin endeavoring to make people believe he had the Church's best interest at heart, that he was doing the Church a favor by trying to change it and it was really those nasty apologists who are the enemy of the people. A lot of water has passed the bridge since then. Like other apostates, Dehlin has been excommunicated, and that narrative is even less persuasive than it was before, except to his own doctrinaire followers.

And what stemelbow said about the Smith piece making people feel good about what they already believed could be applied with equal validity to the Dehlin disciples -- or to virtually any anti-Mormon movement.

I'm not sure Dehlin's narrative is that much less persuasive.  Obviously he is no longer the questioning Mormon he was when he began -- back when I first learned of Mormon Stories.  But, now he is somewhat of a martyr for the cause.  I don't imagine that those who he aims to help are bothered by the church having deemed him an apostate (and Smith's 100 page caveat emptor from 2013 seems unlikely to have an impact either). 

As for Dehlin's attempts to change the church, while it hasn't gotten to where he'd like it to be, I'm confident that he has had a positive impact on the church.  And a positive impact in the lives of those who had to leave the church.

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 8:24 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

You know I now have no issue with the Greg Smith paper.  I was angry about it initially but now view that position as reactionary and in error. He and those who supported him had every right to publish their position about Dehlin's works and what he was doing. So sure they may be some who benefit from the papers.

As for Dehlin's acolytes well here is where I think you miss the mark.  Sure he has some who will think he does no wrong.  As well as those who think he is a devious devil both in and out of the church.  Then there are those that just see what he does as a resource, an outlet, a place to find support in a faith transition and so on.  For me, I was never enamored.  I liked him.  I know him.  I have met him.  But he is just a guy like anyone else.  I listened to many of his podcasts over the years before he got the boot.  I did not find the controversial topics brought up to be displayed in an inaccurate way for the most part though I do think John was not always as well studied on some topics as one hosting such a forum should be.  Other cases he seemed pretty up to speed.  I still listen to some of his podcasts as well as others related to the Open Stories Foundation.  Some are good. Others not so much.

But my main point was his influence far outstrips that of Greg Smith and the Interpreter Foundation. I could be wrong. I have no empirical data to back that up. I think MS may even outstrip FAIR.  Again I could be wrong. But I am pretty accurate in saying MS podcasts get 50k plus downloads on a regular basis and more depending on the topic.  Live podcasts get in the hundreds almost every time.  I think you are making a grave error in simply thinking this is because "Dehlin will always have his acolytes in whose eyes he can do no wrong."

I am not his acolyte and in fact he annoys me at times. But I find value in what he does and know many others who do as well. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure Dehlin's narrative is that much less persuasive.  Obviously he is no longer the questioning Mormon he was when he began -- back when I first learned of Mormon Stories.  But, now he is somewhat of a martyr for the cause.  I don't imagine that those who he aims to help are bothered by the church having deemed him an apostate (and Smith's 100 page caveat emptor from 2013 seems unlikely to have an impact either). 

 

Being a martyr is a largely misunderstood concept in the sense that, despite the conception of some,  there is nothing inherently honorable about being a martyr. It depends on the cause. Under a strict definition, a suicide bomber with ISIS could be regarded as a martyr. On the other hand, Joseph and Hyrum Smith are very definitely honorable as martyrs.

I've no doubt you are correct in that many of Dehlin's acolytes regard him as a martyr. That doesn't make him or his cause honorable.

Quote

As for Dehlin's attempts to change the church, while it hasn't gotten to where he'd like it to be, I'm confident that he has had a positive impact on the church.  And a positive impact in the lives of those who had to leave the church.

I earnestly disagree with this.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

You know I now have no issue with the Greg Smith paper.  I was angry about it initially but now view that position as reactionary and in error. He and those who supported him had every right to publish their position about Dehlin's works and what he was doing. So sure they may be some who benefit from the papers.

 

You said earlier that "virtually nobody" had read it. That makes me wonder if you have even read it.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Scholars are not really interested in the zero sum game of limiting anyone's influence, and they are typically read by other scholars, not by the hoi polloi anyhow.  Partisans are always thinking in terms of the winning score, scholars in clarity and accuracy.

Uhhh let me see. Scott and a number of others here specifically say the Smith Paper was there to warn people.  If you think it was meant to be some scholarly paper that would just be read by other high brow scholars well okie dokie.  What can I say?  Why waste so much time and energy on something that would have such a limited impact.

But I think you are smply wrong. The Smith Piece was intended to reach a very large audience and diminish Dehlin's influence. From what I see it simply failed and may have helped propel Dehlin's success.  I think your comments above are well, made to make you feel better about the Smith paper's failure.

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You said earlier that "virtually nobody" had read it. That makes me wonder if you have even read it.

I read both papers. 

 

And as I said it bugged me at first but no longer does and the fact that they papers did bug me was a mistake on my part.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Teancum

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

I read both papers. 

So I guess that makes you "virtually nobody" then.

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, juliann said:

I know! Let's compare one academic paper to an multi-pronged organization that continually puts out new content. Can this get any dumber?  Why yes, it could!  Someone who insists, apparently based on astrological charts,  that "almost nobody" saw a paper that was seen by close to 15,000 people...after he insists that an academic 100 page paper with 240 footnotes isn't scholarly. 

Really who cares?  The real question is where is the greatest influence. You tell me who you think has the greatest reach?  For me at this point I don't care. I have no skin in the game.  I am who I am and am where I am and am quite comfortable with that.  But those vested in defending the Church really ought to look at this and wonder and seek answers.  Again I have done nothing to study this or seek evidence. But were I a betting man I would put my money on MS. the OSF etc having far greater reach and impact than Interpreter, anything they or Smith write and I would guess I would lump FAIR into that as well.

I could be wrong. But if I am I don't care. Those vested in this ought to.

[Teancum]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I guess that makes you "virtually nobody" then.

Hahahah!  Yes I am!  Just a fellow trying to make it through this thing  called life best I can.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Really who cares?  The real question is where is the greatest influence. You tell me who you think has the greatest reach? 

Nephi beheld in vision that the church of the Lamb of God would be over all the face of the earth but that its numbers would be few by reason of the influence of Satan. To wit:

 

Quote

 

12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were ^afew, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon ^ball the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.

13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to ^afight against the Lamb of God.

14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were ^aarmed with ^brighteousness and with the ^cpower of God in great glory.

15 And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was ^apoured out upon that great and abominable church, insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the ^bnations and kindreds of the earth.

16 And as there began to be ^awars and rumors of wars among all the nations which belonged to the mother of abominations, the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold, the wrath of God is upon the mother of harlots; and behold, thou seest all these things—

17 And when the ^aday cometh that the ^bwrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the ^cwork of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his ^dcovenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel.

 

Just pointing out here that "influence" and "reach" do not necessarily make a thing right. Nor do the say who or what will triumph in the end.

 

Edited April 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd