Protecting Mormons online

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's not precisely what I said. I said it's human nature to embrace what one already agrees with and to resist, dispute or contend with the teaching of hard or inconvenient truths -- which is what you appear to have done as pertaining to Elder Holland's teachings.

Ha!  I guess you don't like it when someone points out that you're doing the same thing that I'm doing.  Only difference is I'm admitting it, where you are in denial.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I bet if you ask the "average" Mormon what they have to repent of or at least improve on they could list a litany of things. Heck, ask them if they did their home teaching last month and whether they feel they are giving 100% to their calling. 

Yes, I agree, I'm not saying the average Mormon thinks they are perfect.  They would admit that they aren't, and that they have many things to improve on.  They would at the same time also believe that they understand the expectations as espoused by church leaders and as expressed in scripture, and they would have a faulty view that these expectations of church leaders and scripture are all harmonious, which is the point I'm trying to make.  

[hope_for_things]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am reading it as Clark agreeing more in line with you and me.  I will be interested to find out which of us is right.

The correct answer is D, none of the above.  

I'm right of course!

[clarkgoble]

37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I agree, I'm not saying the average Mormon thinks they are perfect.  They would admit that they aren't, and that they have many things to improve on.  They would at the same time also believe that they understand the expectations as espoused by church leaders and as expressed in scripture, and they would have a faulty view that these expectations of church leaders and scripture are all harmonious, which is the point I'm trying to make.  

That's an interesting question. While I think the correct answer is that while the scriptures are harmonious in many things, many other things are directives for a particular place and time. As Joseph Smith said, the command for Noah to build an ark doesn't mean we are to build an ark. Likewise it's a doctrine of the church that not everyone has the same things revealed to them. One of the articles of faith most of us had to memorize in Primary was that there are many things left to be revealed. So undoubtedly there are things we understand now that due to incomplete information we get wrong. Typically that gets taught even in Sunday School during the lessons on the D&C as things were being revealed and peoples (including Joseph's) understandings were corrected. How many people apply that to themselves I don't know.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's a minority of members. I say that mainly just out of a rather large cynicism since I don't think most members even read the lessons for Sunday School, let alone read their scriptures regularly. That is, I tend to have a fairly dismal view of the typical members' understanding of even the basics of their own religion. Sorry to get all cynical - normally I'm the optimist. I've just taught Sunday School enough to no longer be surprised at the level of ignorance of the lay members of even basic doctrines.

However I'm honest enough to say I don't know how many people have the erroneous views you suggest. I don't know of any studies in that regard. The closest are the Pew polls of Americans on some basic beliefs. But I suspect you're thinking of beliefs beyond what Pew polled about.

Edited April 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Dehlin is not an "academic" of Mormon history/theology so I don't hold him that kind of standard.  He worked in IT and then pursued a degree in psychology.  I don't think he has ever presented his podcasts as scholarly works.  They aren't.  They are Dehlin (and sometimes others) talking to people, discussing their "Mormon stories".

Yes, and he boasts at ignoring scholarly standards.  His excuse for not informing himself on the subjects of his interviews was that he wanted his interviews to be fresh and spontaneous -- exactly the opposite of the best practices of great interviewers, such as Charlie Rose, Terry Gross, Doug Fabrizio, and others.  They at least inform themselves and read the material before their interviews.  How else do they expect to interact meaningfully with the interviewees?  The result for Dehlin is extremely shallow and meaningless interviews.

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think censorship is a strong accusation.  My impression is that his censorship is on par with the LDS Church, meaning that both have worked hard to present the what they feel is relevant to their message.

Dehlin actively sought to stop publication of Gregory Smith's article about him, and did succeed in delaying it.  No scholar does that, and the LDS Church does not do that either.

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's an interesting question. While I think the correct answer is that while the scriptures are harmonious in many things, many other things are directives for a particular place and time. As Joseph Smith said, the command for Noah to build an ark doesn't mean we are to build an ark. Likewise it's a doctrine of the church that not everyone has the same things revealed to them. One of the articles of faith most of us had to memorize in Primary was that there are many things left to be revealed. So undoubtedly there are things we understand now that due to incomplete information we get wrong. Typically that gets taught even in Sunday School during the lessons on the D&C as things were being revealed and peoples (including Joseph's) understandings were corrected. How many people apply that to themselves I don't know.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's a minority of members. I say that mainly just out of a rather large cynicism since I don't think most members even read the lessons for Sunday School, let alone read their scriptures regularly. That is, I tend to have a fairly dismal view of the typical members' understanding of even the basics of their own religion. Sorry to get all cynical - normally I'm the optimist. I've just taught Sunday School enough to no longer be surprised at the level of ignorance of the lay members of even basic doctrines.

However I'm honest enough to say I don't know how many people have the erroneous views you suggest. I don't know of any studies in that regard. The closest are the Pew polls of Americans on some basic beliefs. But I suspect you're thinking of beliefs beyond what Pew polled about.

Good points Clark, appreciate your perspective.  I would go much further, and my primary example for believing that the gospel was harmonious was myself.  I was a student of the Sunday School curriculum and general conference addresses, however, I never went outside what I perceived as approved church material until a few years ago which triggered my faith explorations.  

Since then, learning about higher criticism of the Bible and researching the evolution of Mormon doctrine, I see a wide variation of perspectives as unique as the individuals who profess them spanning across time and culture.  Harmony is an illusion.  Humans have many differences of opinion as do the current church leaders and past leaders alike.  

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and he boasts at ignoring scholarly standards.  His excuse for not informing himself on the subjects of his interviews was that he wanted his interviews to be fresh and spontaneous -- exactly the opposite of the best practices of great interviewers, such as Charlie Rose, Terry Gross, Doug Fabrizio, and others.  They at least inform themselves and read the material before their interviews.  How else do they expect to interact meaningfully with the interviewees?  The result for Dehlin is extremely shallow and meaningless interviews.

Dehlin actively sought to stop publication of Gregory Smith's article about him, and did succeed in delaying it.  No scholar does that, and the LDS Church does not do that either.

So since it's clear that Dehlin doesn't claim to be a scholar you move on and complain about how he isn't at the top of the class when it comes to interviewing.  Well, Dehlin doesn't pretend to be a Charlie Rose.  And there is a certain appeal this his interviewing style - I'm obviously not the only one who feels that way.

That said, he has improved over the years.  He seems much more professional and prepared these days.  But that was never why I listened.

As for the Gregory Smith article, there's a lot to that story... it has occupied entire threads.  I don't defend all that Dehlin did but I think it's ridiculous to say "no scholar does that".  There was nothing scholarly about the entire situation, on either side.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Good points Clark, appreciate your perspective.  I would go much further, and my primary example for believing that the gospel was harmonious was myself.  I was a student of the Sunday School curriculum and general conference addresses, however, I never went outside what I perceived as approved church material until a few years ago which triggered my faith explorations. 

Well again I think we have to be careful here. I think the gospel proper is harmonious. But clearly not everyone in scripture had the same understanding. Church approved materials make this point rather regularly. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

So since it's clear that Dehlin doesn't claim to be a scholar you move on and complain about how he isn't at the top of the class when it comes to interviewing.  Well, Dehlin doesn't pretend to be a Charlie Rose.  And there is a certain appeal this his interviewing style - I'm obviously not the only one who feels that way.

As I said, Dehlin is proud to ignore high standards, and revels in the world of fake news and fake facts.  And, yes, a lot of people share that sick approach -- much to their detriment, and to the detriment of society at large.  As to your claim that Dehlin doesn't claim to be a scholar.  Hogwash.  Anyone seeking to obtain a university doctorate has to be committed to scholarly standards.  They are not optional.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

That said, he has improved over the years.  He seems much more professional and prepared these days.

Good to hear.  I wonder whether he has now apologized to those he has wronged.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

 But that was never why I listened.

As for the Gregory Smith article, there's a lot to that story... it has occupied entire threads.  I don't defend all that Dehlin did but I think it's ridiculous to say "no scholar does that".  There was nothing scholarly about the entire situation, on either side.

Another fake fact.  Gregory Smith's articles contained no fake facts, and it wasn't the "hit piece" that the antis declared it to be.  Turned out to be straight scholarship, with sources fully cited.  That is why Dehlin wanted it buried.  Only someone without integrity would do that.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

I am reading it as Clark agreeing more in line with you and me.  I will be interested to find out which of us is right.

Alas, it now appears you were too generous in your assessment of his intended message.

[juliann]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

As for the Gregory Smith article, there's a lot to that story... it has occupied entire threads.  I don't defend all that Dehlin did but I think it's ridiculous to say "no scholar does that".  There was nothing scholarly about the entire situation, on either side.

The article was very scholarly from start to finish and that was made even more apparent when it was published after the "hit piece" well poisoning.  I remember how absolutely bizarre it became when the go-to attack was fury over his online comments being quoted, as if what you say on FB is sacrosanct.  I don't think anyone ever dealt with the actual content....because it was an academic and scholarly treatment of an uncomfortable topic. 

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, juliann said:

The article was very scholarly from start to finish and that was made even more apparent when it was published after the "hit piece" well poisoning.  I remember how absolutely bizarre it became when the go-to attack was fury over his online comments being quoted, as if what you say on FB is sacrosanct.  I don't think anyone ever dealt with the actual content....because it was an academic and scholarly treatment of an uncomfortable topic. 

I haven't read the piece, and I don't care enough about the topic to take the time to do so (especially given the length). But what area of "scholarship" could this possibly be? Going through someone's Facebook and other comments to prove that they're more antagonistic to the church than they're letting on? I'd buy journalism of a sort, but I don't know of any field of scholarship that focuses on the personal and public lives of podcasters. 

Edited April 11, 2017 by Gray

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I said, Dehlin is proud to ignore high standards, and revels in the world of fake news and fake facts.  And, yes, a lot of people share that sick approach -- much to their detriment, and to the detriment of society at large.  As to your claim that Dehlin doesn't claim to be a scholar.  Hogwash.  Anyone seeking to obtain a university doctorate has to be committed to scholarly standards.  They are not optional.

Good to hear.  I wonder whether he has now apologized to those he has wronged.

Another fake fact.  Gregory Smith's articles contained no fake facts, and it wasn't the "hit piece" that the antis declared it to be.  Turned out to be straight scholarship, with sources fully cited.  That is why Dehlin wanted it buried.  Only someone without integrity would do that.

As I said previously, he doesn't claim to be a scholar of Mormon studies.  He is clear about where his expertise lies -- anyone who listens to him and can figure that out.

If you are going to accuse him of reveling in "fake news and fake facts", kindly back it up with examples.  If you aren't going to live up to these high scholarly standards, why do you insist that he does?

Gregory Smith's article sure seemed like a hit piece to me.  I don't see what is scholarly about going after a podcaster.  How many scholarly journals allow articles that attack interviewers?

I'm not sure who he has wronged that you expect him to apologize to.  Perhaps you could clarify.  Or maybe he is taking the LDS Church approach of not apologizing for mistakes.  I'm not sure.

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, juliann said:

The article was very scholarly from start to finish and that was made even more apparent when it was published after the "hit piece" well poisoning.  I remember how absolutely bizarre it became when the go-to attack was fury over his online comments being quoted, as if what you say on FB is sacrosanct.  I don't think anyone ever dealt with the actual content....because it was an academic and scholarly treatment of an uncomfortable topic. 

So it was an "academic and scholarly" treatment of a man's conversations?  Seems odd.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Alas, it now appears you were too generous in your assessment of his intended message.

I don't really see it as much of an issue that we have different POVs.

[Robert F. Smith]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As I said previously, he doesn't claim to be a scholar of Mormon studies.  He is clear about where his expertise lies -- anyone who listens to him and can figure that out.

A scholar may not pick and choose when to ignore scholarly standards.  That is not an option, even though you apparently think it is.

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If you are going to accuse him of reveling in "fake news and fake facts", kindly back it up with examples.  If you aren't going to live up to these high scholarly standards, why do you insist that he does?

I already cited my sources for everyone here to read for themselves.  That's what scholars do.  Why do you ignore that?

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Gregory Smith's article sure seemed like a hit piece to me.  I don't see what is scholarly about going after a podcaster.  How many scholarly journals allow articles that attack interviewers?

Scholarly journals regularly engage in fair assessments of people who place themselves in the public eye.  You use the  emotional words "attack" and "hit piece," without any justification.  Where was Gregory Smith's work unfair?

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure who he has wronged that you expect him to apologize to.  Perhaps you could clarify.  Or maybe he is taking the LDS Church approach of not apologizing for mistakes.  I'm not sure.

Dehlin owes an abject apology to everyone for his efforts at censorship, as well as to Gregory Smith (who accurately portrayed  him).  His lack of personal integrity has been clear throughout the controversy.  He needs to own up to his shortcomings, rather than trying to shift the blame on to the LDS Church.

[juliann]

49 minutes ago, Gray said:

I haven't read the piece, and I don't care enough about the topic to take the time to do so (especially given the length). But what area of "scholarship" could this possibly be? Going through someone's Facebook and other comments to prove that they're more antagonistic to the church than they're letting on? I'd buy journalism of a sort, but I don't know of any field of scholarship that focuses on the personal and public lives of podcasters. 

This isn't something I care to argue about, I don't care to revisit old disputes, I don't like seeing it mischaracterized, however.  You are tinkering with words a bit.  And you are diminishing his importance by designating him only as a "podcaster."   I'm not sure how to even respond to the idea that there aren't scholarly and academic approaches to personal and public lives. That is usually called biographical, is it not?

Also, the word I used was scholarly. That is an adjective not the noun you substituted for it.  

schol·ar·ly

ˈskälərlē/

adjective

 

1. involving or relating to serious academic study.

   "scholarly journals"

   synonyms:

   academic, scholastic, pedagogic "a scholarly career"

   • having or showing knowledge, learning, or devotion to academic pursuits.

     "a scholarly account of the period"

     synonyms:

     learned, erudite, academic, well read, widely read, intellectual, literary, lettered, educated, knowledgeable, highbrow;

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Well again I think we have to be careful here. I think the gospel proper is harmonious. But clearly not everyone in scripture had the same understanding. Church approved materials make this point rather regularly. 

If you think the gospel proper is harmonious, then can you distill the essence of the gospel down into a harmonious message? I too believe there is a central core to the gospel message (this is my own invention), but you can find a thousand other Christian groups that might disagree with my beliefs.  And internally in the less than 200 years since the founding of the Mormon movement, we have so many different interpretations, contradictions, and evolution.  

I know in Sunday School they teach that the Gospel is simple and unchanging.  The evidence doesn't support that idea in the slightest.  The more I study the more divergence I see.  I don't see any harmony with respect to interpretations, Mormon or in wider Christianity.  

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Scholarly journals regularly engage in fair assessments of people who place themselves in the public eye.  

What are we calling scholarly journals in this case?  I realize in the realm of politics this is a standard practice, but it's usually done as opinion pieces found in non scholarly journals.  Which scholarly journal, for instance, quotes Sam Harris' facebook posts in order to assess the man?  Anything like that will do. 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

This isn't something I care to argue about, I don't care to revisit old disputes, I don't like seeing it mischaracterized, however.  You are tinkering with words a bit.  And you are diminishing his importance by designating him only as a "podcaster."   I'm not sure how to even respond to the idea that there aren't scholarly and academic approaches to personal and public lives. That is usually called biographical, is it not?

Also, the word I used was scholarly. That is an adjective not the noun you substituted for it.  

schol·ar·ly

ˈskälərlē/

adjective

 

1. involving or relating to serious academic study.

   "scholarly journals"

   synonyms:

   academic, scholastic, pedagogic "a scholarly career"

   • having or showing knowledge, learning, or devotion to academic pursuits.

     "a scholarly account of the period"

     synonyms:

     learned, erudite, academic, well read, widely read, intellectual, literary, lettered, educated, knowledgeable, highbrow;

So was Greg Smith's piece a biography of Dehlin?  It's been a while since I gave it a skim, but I didn't read it as a sketch of Dehlin's life, so much as an effort to identify things Dehlin said that Smith did not like, while likely ignoring things Dehlin said that Smith might have liked or might have agreed with.  I'd agree with Gray in that it feels like a stretch to call it scholarly.   

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't really see it as much of an issue that we have different POVs.

No worries. I didn't mean to magnify this unduly.

 

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A scholar may not pick and choose when to ignore scholarly standards.  That is not an option, even though you apparently think it is.

I already cited my sources for everyone here to read for themselves.  That's what scholars do.  Why do you ignore that?

Scholarly journals regularly engage in fair assessments of people who place themselves in the public eye.  You use the  emotional words "attack" and "hit piece," without any justification.  Where was Gregory Smith's work unfair?

Dehlin owes an abject apology to everyone for his efforts at censorship, as well as to Gregory Smith (who accurately portrayed  him).  His lack of personal integrity has been clear throughout the controversy.  He needs to own up to his shortcomings, rather than trying to shift the blame on to the LDS Church.

I assume that Dehlin abides be scholarly standards in his professional career as a counselor but I wouldn't know.  I don't hold his podcasts to that standard because that isn't what they are... they are discussions.  People telling their stories.  That's all they claim to be.

I don't know where in Gregory Smith's 100 page article he identifies Dehlin's "fake news and fake facts".  Care to clarify or are you just throwing out accusations hoping something will stick with the readers here?

Do scholarly journals engage in assessments of people who place themselves in the public eye?  I thought the purpose of scholarly journals was to examine the issues, studies, and research?

I don't think that Gregory Smith's work was unfair and didn't make such a claim.  It does come across to me as an attack or a hit piece because I believe it's goal is to discredit Dehlin.  Do you not think that was the goal?

I didn't follow the Dehlin/Smith controversy very closely... not really worth my time.  But I understand that Dehlin has explained his rationale for trying to prevent the article from being published.  As I said, I don't agree with everything Dehlin did regarding the matter but it is not for me to say whether or not he owes an apology to anyone.  It seems he had both positive and negative motivations behind is reaction to the Smith article.  And in the end, Dehlin seemed to invoke the Streisand effect -- the article was still published and likely received more reads than it would have if Dehlin had kept his mouth shut.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ha!  I guess you don't like it when someone points out that you're doing the same thing that I'm doing.  Only difference is I'm admitting it, where you are in denial.  

I really don't see any functional equivalence here.

By way of illustration, there were a couple of things said at the recent general conference that tended to dislodge me from my comfort zone. I suppose that in theory I could complain publicly about those things, whether it be the content or manner of delivery or both. Instead, I choose to take them to heart, re-read the texts, use them as an occasion for introspection pursuant to behavioral improvement.

Again, there's a very fundamental difference between opposing a teaching and embracing it even as one recognizes the need to apply it more perfectly. I don't see why this distinction should be so difficult to grasp.

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Do scholarly journals engage in assessments of people who place themselves in the public eye?  I thought the purpose of scholarly journals was to examine the issues, studies, and research?

 

 

Examining the bias of authors is a significant part of the scholarly process.  It is essential in examining research.  It is also a part of intellectual history, imo.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So was Greg Smith's piece a biography of Dehlin?  It's been a while since I gave it a skim, but I didn't read it as a sketch of Dehlin's life, so much as an effort to identify things Dehlin said that Smith did not like, while likely ignoring things Dehlin said that Smith might have liked or might have agreed with.  I'd agree with Gray in that it feels like a stretch to call it scholarly.   

Oh for heaven's sake. This is not a problem with an article, it is a problem in understanding what scholarly means or requires. If only my Alma Mater knew the new definition. I give up.