Protecting Mormons online

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Examining the bias of authors is a significant part of the scholarly process, imo.

For good or ill (mostly ill, in my opinion), Dehlin engineered a very prominent and vocal movement within the community of Mormonism. Such a movement is a legitimate subject for scholarly inquiry of the sort that Greg Smith engaged in.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

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. 

I guess but we're not the only ones questioning whether it's accurate to call Smith's piece scholarly.  I'm sure it took some effort on Smith's part, research was involved, but i'm not sure it fits the definitions you quoted.  Ah well, if we disagree we disagree, I figure.  Not a bid deal on which word we choose to describe it, I guess. 

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

True but Dehlin is not an author.  I would understand if Smith had examined Dehlin's bias as part of a review of one of the surveys Dehlin was involved with but that's not what he did.

[Gray]

58 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;

Well, I don't think it's worth arguing about, but based on the definitions above the piece on Dehlin doesn't sound "scholarly" or like scholarship. It might be well-researched, hard hitting, etc, like a good piece of journalism. But not scholarly. At least based on descriptions I keep hearing of it.

The Trib's piece on BYU's treatment of rape victims was good journalism, but it wasn't scholarly, it wasn't scholarship, and it wasn't academic, scholastic, pedagogic, etc. No one would expect it to be. BUT, it won a Pulitzer. 

My two cents, which, if you have another $1.98, will get you a soft serve cone. 

Edited April 11, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well, I don't think it's worth arguing about, but based on the definitions above the piece on Dehlin doesn't sound "scholarly" or like scholarship. It might be well-researched, hard hitting, etc, like a good piece of journalism. But not scholarly. At least based on descriptions I keep hearing of it.

The Trib's piece on BYU's treatment of rape victims was good journalism, but it wasn't scholarly, it wasn't scholarship, and it wasn't academic, scholastic, pedagogic, etc. No one would expect it to be. 

My two cents, which, if you have another $1.98, will get you a soft serve cone. 

Good journalism and good scholarship are similar in some respects. To say that a piece is not one because it seems too much like the other can be misguided thinking. 

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Good journalism and good scholarship are similar in some respects. To say that a piece is not one because it seems too much like the other can be misguided thinking. 

I think that both can and should have high standards of evidence, but I don't think they're similar enough to use interchangeably. 

Edited April 11, 2017 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

If you think the gospel proper is harmonious, then can you distill the essence of the gospel down into a harmonious message?

Yes, I think I gave it in one of the threads. Christ suffered and died for our since, died and was resurrected 3 days later, appeared to many people. Theologically the gospel is that through the atonement of Christ we can be born again spiritually, be saved and be resurrected and restored to our body to be judged. The Book of Mormon adds the idea that the atonement makes us free to be able to choose between good and evil in an equitable way and Christ appeared to more people than just a few in Palestine including people in the Americas and the lost tribes (where ever they were at the time)

Quote

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.

As I said earlier I think we have to distinguish between the good tidings or gospel and then broader question of religion and truth. 

Edited April 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Good journalism and good scholarship are similar in some respects. To say that a piece is not one because it seems too much like the other can be misguided thinking. 

Scholarship regularly limits itself to very narrow questions. It does not pretend to give a balanced view of the subject in any one particular paper. Now a work of scholarship may attempt that and then be judged at how well it does it. However overall there are huge differences between scholarship and journalism precisely because scholarship so often has a very narrow hypothesis it is addressing.

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think that both can and should have high standards of evidence, but I don't think they're similar enough to use interchangeably. 

I didn't say they are interchangeable. I said they are similar in some respects, similar enough that denying a thing is scholarship because it looks like journalism can be misguided.

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Scholarship regularly limits itself to very narrow questions. It does not pretend to give a balanced view of the subject in any one particular paper. Now a work of scholarship may attempt that and then be judged at how well it does it. However overall there are huge differences between scholarship and journalism precisely because scholarship so often has a very narrow hypothesis it is addressing.

Journalism can be narrow in scope as well.

And I still don't see how Greg Smith's piece must be regarded as unscholarly, any more so than some other scholarly treatment of a societal movement, be it past or contemporary.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn't say they are interchangeable. I said they are similar in some aspects, similar enough that denying a thing is scholarship because it looks like journalism can be misguided.

Journalism can be narrow in scope as well.

And I still don't see how Greg Smith's piece must be regarded as unscholarly.

I think we're arguing about something that doesn't really matter.  Some here, obviously think it was a scholarly piece.  Others do not.

The definition I think we're going off of is what was quoted by Juliann

Quote

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;

Granted it's been years since I perused the piece in question, but as my memory has it, it's tough to call it something related to serious academic study, or I can't say I recall it having or showing knowledge, learning, or devotion to academic pursuits.

I get others do see it as either one of the two, but I don't.  I think, that constitutes the basis for why some don't consider it scholarly.

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, I think I gave it in one of the threads. Christ suffered and died for our since, died and was resurrected 3 days later, appeared to many people. Theologically the gospel is that through the atonement of Christ we can be born again spiritually, be saved and be resurrected and restored to our body to be judged. The Book of Mormon adds the idea that the atonement makes us free to be able to choose between good and evil in an equitable way and Christ appeared to more people than just a few in Palestine including people in the Americas and the lost tribes (where ever they were at the time)

As I said earlier I think we have to distinguish between the good tidings or gospel and then broader question of religion and truth. 

Teachings about Jesus, the resurrection, the atonement, have had many different interpretations over the course of Christianity.  In Mormon history the same is true.  Have you ever read Charlie Harrell's This is my Doctrine?  I just started reading John Turner's The Mormon Jesus.  I've yet to read Terryl Given's Wrestling the Angel or the second volume, but I'm told they also go through doctrinal development.  There are a multitude of resources that show many different views on these teachings, let alone all the different views just in the lifetime of Joseph Smith as he had significant evolution on these ideas during his lifetime.

I'm guessing you're not unaware of many of these changes and differences of opinion because you sound very well informed. Why do you think your representation is the correct one, and how can you explain away these differences and say that the gospel is harmonious?  

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think we're arguing about something that doesn't really matter.  Some here, obviously think it was a scholarly piece.  Others do not.

The definition I think we're going off of is what was quoted by Juliann

Granted it's been years since I perused the piece in question, but as my memory has it, it's tough to call it something related to serious academic study, or I can't say I recall it having or showing knowledge, learning, or devotion to academic pursuits.

I get others do see it as either one of the two, but I don't.  I think, that constitutes the basis for why some don't consider it scholarly.

i agree it doesn't matter a whole lot. It just seems that calling it unscholarly just because one doesn't like it is petty. The thing has merit or it doesn't, regardless of whether one thinks it is "scholarly" or "academic."

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

True but Dehlin is not an author.  I would understand if Smith had examined Dehlin's bias as part of a review of one of the surveys Dehlin was involved with but that's not what he did.

The "author" role is blurred these days with so much information being shared through podcasts and other video forms as opposed to assuming it will be written.

Dehlin has, imo, consciously placed himself at the head of a movement somewhat successfully.  It makes sense therefore to examine his views, development and consistency, as a form of intellectual history.  Whether Greg did this well or not does not invalidate this.

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 0:34 PM, 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.

Why do Mormons need protection online?  

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 0:48 PM, JLHPROF said:

Approach matters.
On one side you would have Dehlin.  He was about breeding doubt.
On the other you would have a group like Fairmormon.  This board is about answering questions.

Nothing is to be gained by denying people with questions a place to discuss them.

Or maybe Dehlin was about exposing truth and Fair about obfuscating it.

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 0:55 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

So you see no difference in this discussion board and John Dehlin's Mormon Stories podcasts?  Have you listened to several hours of his podcasts?  What is the format of his podcasts?  Does he prepare for his interviews by reading books and doing research?  Have you heard him discuss the rationale and assumptions for his program?  Is there anything different about how this discussion board was founded and functions?

Based on your answer to my last question I conclude you don't know much about Dehlin, his podcasts, his methods etc.  My guess is you did not approach Dehlin with any objectivity but rather an agenda that you quickly confirmed.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Based on your answer to my last question I conclude you don't know much about Dehlin, his podcasts, his methods etc.  My guess is you did not approach Dehlin with any objectivity but rather an agenda that you quickly confirmed.

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.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

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

Yes, we could invoke the Streisand Effect, in that Dehlin threw a censorship tantrum, which tells us more about him than about the article he tried to suppress.  Indeed, in your admission that you did not adequately inform yourself about the controversy (including not reading the Gregory Smith article), you adopt the anti-scholarly Dehlin methodology.  Do I misunderstand you?

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I don't follow Sam Harris, but any facebook posts (or other offhand remarks) are fair game as part of an overall assessment of any public figure.  Always have been.  Thus, if a scholarly pundit like George Will wants to use tweets, facebook posts, or other social media comments as grist for his scholarly mill, I have no problem with that. You admit that this is standard practice in political analysis, but it also holds in psychology as well (as Dehlin must certainly know).

A good example is the World War II analysis of the mind of Adolf Hitler by a psychoanalyst working for the OSS.  His penetrating analysis of Hitler was able to accurately predict his future behavior and military strategy.  The top secret report was only available to key people such as General Eisenhower and Prime Minister Churchill, but was declassified and published decades later:  Walter C. Langer, The Mind of Adolf Hitler (Basic Books, 1972), online at  http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/text/profile-index.html .

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Or maybe Dehlin was about exposing truth and Fair about obfuscating it.

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

Edited April 12, 2017 by Calm

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, we could invoke the Streisand Effect, in that Dehlin threw a censorship tantrum, which tells us more about him than about the article he tried to suppress.  Indeed, in your admission that you did not adequately inform yourself about the controversy (including not reading the Gregory Smith article), you adopt the anti-scholarly Dehlin methodology.  Do I misunderstand you?

Yes, you did misunderstand me.  What I didn't follow closely is the back and forth of Dehlin's requests to keep the article from getting published and Smith's responses.  I read the Greg Smith article and I don't consider it a scholarly work.  I also don't see that it supports much of what you've claimed but you don't seem to want to answer my questions (you'll note that I answer each of yours).  When someone repeatedly refuses to answer questions the dialogue has ceased and I now know what I need to about the position you were trying to stake out.

 

[Calm]

I don't believe Greg was involved in the discussion to censor it, just Bradford and DCP.  But maybe my Brain is toast tonight.

 

The emails got published here and I remember Dehlin showing up, maybe Greg did as well.  Maybe I will look for the thread.

Here is the thread, haven't reviewed it yet:

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Calm

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't believe Greg was involved in the discussion to censor it, just Bradford and DCP.  But maybe my Brain is toast tonight.

 

The emails got published here and I remember Dehlin showing up, maybe Greg did as well.  Maybe I will look for the thread.

Here is the thread, haven't reviewed it yet:

 

Thanks.  I knew there was some back and forth between Dehlin and someone regarding the article but, as I mentioned, I didn't really follow that too closely.  Just didn't care enough.  I believe that I understand why Greg Smith wrote the article and I understand why Dehlin wanted to prevent it from being published.  I read the article and left it at that.

I agree with your earlier comment that Dehlin was at the head of somewhat of a movement.  I think Greg Smith wanted to stop that movement.  The irony, IMO, is how this "movement" propelled by Dehlin has actually driven such great reform within the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

Thanks.  I knew there was some back and forth between Dehlin and someone regarding the article but, as I mentioned, I didn't really follow that too closely.  Just didn't care enough.  I believe that I understand why Greg Smith wrote the article and I understand why Dehlin wanted to prevent it from being published.  I read the article and left it at that.

I agree with your earlier comment that Dehlin was at the head of somewhat of a movement.  I think Greg Smith wanted to stop that movement.  The irony, IMO, is how this "movement" propelled by Dehlin has actually driven such great reform within the church.

Did Greg aim to "stop" the movement or merely subject it to scrutiny and reasoned analysis? His piece is still online; the Interpreter eventually did publish it in full, Dehlin's strident efforts at suppression notwithstanding. Can you point to anything in it that shows Greg Smith intended to shut down Dehlin's venture? It seems to me you are endeavoring falsely to attribute to Greg Smith the sort of thing Dehlin really did attempt, namely suppression, censorship and control.

And your notion that Dehlin's venture paved the way for "reforms" in the Church is inconclusive at best. 

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

 

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

True but Dehlin is not an author.

I now have another reason for hating podcasts. Not only are they inherently intellectually shallow and emotive, but their creators should be completely immune from having their biases or (lack of) research examined because, well, they're not authors. 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan