Protecting Mormons online

[Calm]

7 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.

I rather doubt Greg thought in terms of stopping the movement.  He is very intelligent, very well learned, and is quite aware of the dynamics of faith crisis as well as the exmormon and similar communities and how the narrative of doubt can often become the narrative of rejection.  As far as I can tell and remember, his sole purpose was to make people aware of how Dehlin described himself and his activities, in part so those interested in his work would know what they were engaging with and could make a more informed decision/analysis rather than get sideswiped because they thought they were getting something they weren't and thus were less prepared for an accurate understanding of what he was doing.  I may need to go reread the paper's intro to see if it refreshes my memory.

I have my doubts about how much the movement has driven reform.  Reform was happening before he started up, has been happening in one form or another since the Church began.  The rate of change has increased in many ways in the Church just as it has in our greater culture and for many of the world's communities. It is of course impossible to tell, but I can think of much more powerful social and spiritual elements driving change than his efforts.  I would say it is more likely his movement is a result of the same dynamics increasing the rate of change in the Church.

I think there is a good chance his efforts have even interfered with progress just as OrdainWomen did when certain decisions were being considered were tabled because of likely backlashes to their pressure tactics.  For example, if he and others had not pushed the idea the Church could be pressured into accepting gay marriage, it is possible the policy wouldn't have been seen as needed to make the Church's position crystal clear to its members.  The conflict he helped blow up into massive flames among membership, playing off of vulnerable families' fear hardly helped increase mutual understanding and communication.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Calm

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

 

I think his article aimed to discredit Dehlin.  Would you disagree?

I didn't say that the paper intended to shut down Dehlin's venture, so I don't feel a need to go through and cite evidence for that.  It is my personal opinion that Smith wanted to stop the movement.

And I don't deny that Dehlin attempted to keep the paper from getting published.  That's pretty clear.  And I think it was a mistake on his part.

Finally, yes, my notion that Dehlin paved the way to the reforms we're seeing in the church today is inconclusive.  There is really no way to know but I feel pretty good about the hypothesis.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I rather doubt Greg thought in terms of stopping the movement.  He is very intelligent, very well learned, and is quite aware of the dynamics of faith crisis as well as the exmormon and similar communities and how the narrative of doubt can often become the narrative of rejection.  As far as I can tell and remember, his sole purpose was to make people aware of how Dehlin described himself and his activities, in part so those interested in his work would know what they were engaging with and could make a more informed decision/analysis rather than get sideswiped because they thought they were getting something they weren't and thus were less prepared for an accurate understanding of what he was doing.  I may need to go reread the paper's intro to see if it refreshes my memory.

I have my doubts about how much the movement has driven reform.  Reform was happening before he started up, has been happening in one form or another since the Church began.  The rate of change has increased in many ways in the Church just as it has in our greater culture and for many of the world's communities. It is of course impossible to tell, but I can think of much more powerful social and spiritual elements driving change than his efforts.  I would say it is more likely his movement is a result of the same dynamics increasing the rate of change in the Church.

I think there is a good chance his efforts have even interfered with progress just as OrdainWomen did when certain decisions were being considered were tabled because of likely backlashes to their pressure tactics.  For example, if he and others had not pushed the idea the Church could be pressured into accepting gay marriage, it is possible the policy wouldn't have been seen as needed to make the Church's position crystal clear to its members.  The conflict he helped blow up into massive flames among membership, playing off of vulnerable families' fear hardly helped increase mutual understanding and communication.

I'll take your word for it regarding Greg since I don't know him personally.

As for your last sentence about Dehlin helping blow up the conflict into massive flames -- I strongly disagree.  The Church is responsible for fanning the flames when it comes to LGBT issues, Dehlin and the rest of us are simply reacting. Saying that we should sit down and be quiet to "increase mutual understanding and communication" is inappropriate.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

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. 

You've taken that comment out of context.  Anyone is welcome to examine the biases of a podcast creator.

Similarly, I can examine your biases when you say that podcasts are "inherently intellectually shallow and emotive" and reject your ridiculous conclusion.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'll take your word for it regarding Greg since I don't know him personally.

As for your last sentence about Dehlin helping blow up the conflict into massive flames -- I strongly disagree.  The Church is responsible for fanning the flames when it comes to LGBT issues, Dehlin and the rest of us are simply reacting. Saying that we should sit down and be quiet to "increase mutual understanding and communication" is inappropriate.

Gave you a rep point but also want to echo this because it's really important. Well said!

Every time the church calls gay marriage "counterfeit" they fan the flames.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I rather doubt Greg thought in terms of stopping the movement.  He is very intelligent, very well learned, and is quite aware of the dynamics of faith crisis as well as the exmormon and similar communities and how the narrative of doubt can often become the narrative of rejection.  As far as I can tell and remember, his sole purpose was to make people aware of how Dehlin described himself and his activities, in part so those interested in his work would know what they were engaging with and could make a more informed decision/analysis rather than get sideswiped because they thought they were getting something they weren't and thus were less prepared for an accurate understanding of what he was doing.  I may need to go reread the paper's intro to see if it refreshes my memory.

I have my doubts about how much the movement has driven reform.  Reform was happening before he started up, has been happening in one form or another since the Church began.  The rate of change has increased in many ways in the Church just as it has in our greater culture and for many of the world's communities. It is of course impossible to tell, but I can think of much more powerful social and spiritual elements driving change than his efforts.  I would say it is more likely his movement is a result of the same dynamics increasing the rate of change in the Church.

I think there is a good chance his efforts have even interfered with progress just as OrdainWomen did when certain decisions were being considered were tabled because of likely backlashes to their pressure tactics.  For example, if he and others had not pushed the idea the Church could be pressured into accepting gay marriage, it is possible the policy wouldn't have been seen as needed to make the Church's position crystal clear to its members.  The conflict he helped blow up into massive flames among membership, playing off of vulnerable families' fear hardly helped increase mutual understanding and communication.

I'm astounded that somehow, now, Dehlin is to blame for the Church's Nov 2015 bombshell of a policy that has hurt so many people.  I'd agree the Church and everyone would be far better off if the Church did nothing on this and did not produce the policy change.  But it happened.  it was not Dehlin that "playing off of vulnerable families' fear hardly helped increase mutual understanding and communication". 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think his article aimed to discredit Dehlin.  Would you disagree?

I didn't say that the paper intended to shut down Dehlin's venture, so I don't feel a need to go through and cite evidence for that.  It is my personal opinion that Smith wanted to stop the movement.

And I don't deny that Dehlin attempted to keep the paper from getting published.  That's pretty clear.  And I think it was a mistake on his part.

Finally, yes, my notion that Dehlin paved the way to the reforms we're seeing in the church today is inconclusive.  There is really no way to know but I feel pretty good about the hypothesis.

You didn't say his aim was "to discredit Dehlin." You asserted that Greg Smith wanted to "stop" his movement.

You deny saying the paper's intent was to shut down Dehlin's venture, yet in the same breath you reiterate "that Smith wanted to stop the movement."

The word stop has a pretty clear-cut definition that almost everybody grasps, but if you need a reminder, here's an online definition:
 

Quote

 

cause (an action, process, or event) to come to an end: "this harassment has got to be stopped" synonyms: put an end/stop/halt to, bring to an end/stop/halt/close/standstill, end, halt, finish

 

It seems to me that shut down would be among the many synonyms of stop.

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You didn't say his aim was "to discredit Dehlin." You asserted that Greg Smith wanted to "stop" his movement.

You deny saying the paper's intent was to shut down Dehlin's venture, yet in the same breath you reiterate "that Smith wanted to stop the movement."

The word stop has a pretty clear-cut definition that almost everybody grasps, but if you need a reminder, here's an online definition:
 

It seems to me that shut down would be among the many synonyms of stop.

I don't know exactly what Rockpond meant but his point still resonates if somehow Smith's piece did put a stop to Dehlin's movement, as they say.  I'm guessing Smith would be grinning about that from ear to ear. 

I'm guessing it's likely that SMith didn't think that his piece would put a stop to it, but perhaps he had hoped to put it dent in it. 

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

You yourself said that "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."  I assumed that meant that you didn't read Gregory Smith's article, and that Dehlin had a rationale for censorship of an article which he had not read. 

You say "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."  In fact, his podcasts are not simply people telling stories.  They are interviews, with Dehlin so poorly prepared that his deep prejudices and biases clearly show through and prevent real understanding.  A scholar is always committed to accuracy and clarity, and Dehlin does no favor to his interviewees by not asking penetrating questions. 

That last is particularly pointed up by your statement that "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?"  I cited the articles, and they can be read for actual content by anyone here, and each may draw his own conclusion.  My personal reaction to his lengthy interview with Brant Gardner was that Dehlin had no clue what a real interview might entail.  The gaffes of Sean Spicer come to mind.

You said that "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?"  Of course not.  Gregory Smith's goal was to study and analyze Dehlin's work, which he found to be lacking in substance.  If an honest assessment discredits Dehlin, why would that not be fair?

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know exactly what Rockpond meant but his point still resonates if somehow Smith's piece did put a stop to Dehlin's movement, as they say.  I'm guessing Smith would be grinning about that from ear to ear. 

I'm guessing it's likely that SMith didn't think that his piece would put a stop to it, but perhaps he had hoped to put it dent in it. 

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.

 

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If an honest assessment discredits Dehlin, why would that not be fair?

It was fair.  Again, I never said it wasn't "fair".

(Regarding the rest of your post, you obviously made a number of incorrect assumptions rather than just taking what I said at face value.  I see no reason to continue to dwell on them.)

Edited April 12, 2017 by rockpond

[rockpond]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You didn't say his aim was "to discredit Dehlin." You asserted that Greg Smith wanted to "stop" his movement.

You deny saying the paper's intent was to shut down Dehlin's venture, yet in the same breath you reiterate "that Smith wanted to stop the movement."

The word stop has a pretty clear-cut definition that almost everybody grasps, but if you need a reminder, here's an online definition:
 

It seems to me that shut down would be among the many synonyms of stop.

I said it in the post you quoted/replied to and I'll paste it here again:  It is my personal opinion that Smith wanted to stop the movement.

His paper is a different matter.  I think the intent of the paper was to discredit Dehlin.  Do you disagree?

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, 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.

 

Well I don't know about any of that.  I guess it worked out for Dehlin in the long run, but that he tried to put a stop to it seems odd.  It only benefited him, it seems.  and his reaction probably helped him too. 

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know exactly what Rockpond meant but his point still resonates if somehow Smith's piece did put a stop to Dehlin's movement, as they say.  I'm guessing Smith would be grinning about that from ear to ear. 

I'm guessing it's likely that SMith didn't think that his piece would put a stop to it, but perhaps he had hoped to put it dent in it. 

*this*

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My personal reaction to his lengthy interview with Brant Gardner was that Dehlin had no clue what a real interview might entail.

Yes.  Did Dehlin claim somewhere to be an experienced, professional, or trained interviewer?  Or, was it just a discussion in which an IT guy explored his faith and religion and tried to balance out some of this previous interviews?

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well I don't know about any of that.  I guess it worked out for Dehlin in the long run, but that he tried to put a stop to it seems odd.  It only benefited him, it seems.  and his reaction probably helped him too. 

Dehlin has and I suppose always will have his acolytes among the segment of the populace with an appetite for what he does and in whose eyes he can do no wrong. But to any fair-minded observer, his attempt to suppress the Greg Smith piece and thereby try to control the narrative puts him in a bad light. Even rockpond has acknowledged his behavior in that regard was a mistake.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Dehlin has and I suppose always will have his acolytes among the segment of the populace with an appetite for what he does and in whose eyes he can do no wrong. But to any fair-minded observer, his attempt to suppress the Greg Smith piece and thereby try to control the narrative puts him in a bad light. Even rockpond has acknowledged his behavior in that regard was a mistake.

I missed the part about Dehlin suppressing the Smith piece. Where do we read about that.

BTW- it's good to have you back

 

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  Did Dehlin claim somewhere to be an experienced, professional, or trained interviewer?  Or, was it just a discussion in which an IT guy explored his faith and religion and tried to balance out some of this previous interviews?

Dehlin made his living doing interviews for many years, having left IT behind, which makes him professional.  He has done hundreds of interviews, which makes him experienced.  At one point, I offered to be interviewed, but he never made me a priority, I think because I am neither a celebrity nor did I seem to provide any chilling victim stories.   In 2012, I took myself off the list of potentials.

In interviewing Michael Coe, Dehlin actively pumped Coe for tales of LDS scholars who had their faith crushed by their studies.  During the Coe interview, Dehlin asked if there were any evidence of iron arrowheads or brass helmets.  When Coe said no, Dehlin, rambled on about these being  hard and bitter truths that Mormons would have to face and swallow.  When I, for one, pointed out that the Book of Mormon never mentions either iron arrowheads or brass helmets, Dehlin deleted my comments from Mormon Stories.  He seemed to sincerely think that my pointing this sort of thing out (and including supporting references for everything I posted on that board) constituted "personal digs."  Incidentally, one of my posts he deleted referred to a pair of prominent Mesoamericanists who did join the church.  Mark Wright knew them.  If Dehlin were interested in balance, rather than his personal agenda and saving face at all costs rather than the honesty and the open dialogue he claims, I would have thought such posts would have stayed. 

During the Gardner interview, supposedly for balance, notice that Dehlin frequently interrupts with "but but but..." and shows a constant resistance to Gardner's ideas that is distinctively different than his uncritical kissing up to Coe. 

Dehlin likes to talk about balance, but if you pay attention, you can always find his thumb on the scales in his choice of interviews, in the questions he asks, in the questions he does not ask, and in the emotional response and context he provides.  I listened to six interviews all the way through, Bushman, Palmer, Givens, William Russell, Coe, Dehlin's own story, and part of Gardner.  I found I tended to get wound up and annoyed by doing so, and so I did not finish listening to the Gardner interview.  Indeed, one of my essays for the Review ("Hindsight on a Book of Mormon Historicity Critique" in 22/2) came about as a direct side effect of my listening to the Russell interview and doing some follow up reading. 

I have been noticing something distinctly Trump-like in Dehlin and in his odd success.  His general ignorance, selectivity, clear bias, shirt-sleeve emotions, craving for attention and demand for personal loyalty over truth, his rejection of criticism and uncritical, invective-larded dismissal of contrary scholarship, as well as his supposing that an accusation he passes on is evidence (for instance, in his infamous letter to the GA, protesting the unread "hit piece" he quoted five different complaints about FARMS but I noticed that none of the complaints included any specific support), and economic success and social following, all have a disturbing resonance.

Greg's essay was not a hit piece, but good scholarship on a legitimate subject.  The label that Dehlin uses demonstrates how propaganda and ideology operate differently than dialectic discussion and debate.  And the companion essay Greg provided, on the suppression of his piece in light of "Moral panics" is, I think even better and more important.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Dehlin has and I suppose always will have his acolytes among the segment of the populace with an appetite for what he does and in whose eyes he can do no wrong. But to any fair-minded observer, his attempt to suppress the Greg Smith piece and thereby try to control the narrative puts him in a bad light. Even rockpond has acknowledged his behavior in that regard was a mistake.

I guess what I'd expect, maybe Dehlin didn't really expect to put a stop to it at all.  He simply knew by making a fuss about it and trying to keep it from being published he'd get more pub.  He'd see more influence be gained. 

Maybe Dehlin played Smith for the fool.  Afterall, who has read Smith's piece and has been convinced that Dehlin is trouble who already did not see Dehlin as trouble?  I dare say...no one (particularly counting the 18 people who made it through the piece). 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'll take your word for it regarding Greg since I don't know him personally.

As for your last sentence about Dehlin helping blow up the conflict into massive flames -- I strongly disagree.  The Church is responsible for fanning the flames when it comes to LGBT issues, Dehlin and the rest of us are simply reacting. Saying that we should sit down and be quiet to "increase mutual understanding and communication" is inappropriate.

Posting the leak and repeating over and over how horribly damaging the policy is and how it will tear apart families before giving the Church a chance to clarify intent and application is not simply reacting in my book.

I don't disagree that the Church has contributed to fanning the flames.  That does not excuse Dehlin's behaviour in promoting fear and hatred (And given his background in psychology and awareness of the social conversation and thus his ability to predict the most likely result of his actions, imo it is intentional).  Nor does it prevent his efforts from retarding growth rather than promoting it.  Growth does not occur as well in an environment of fear, which he well knows since he points this out when he thinks it is the Church causing fear.

I have never even been close to suggesting anyone should sit down and be quiet.  If you think I am suggesting that, you haven't been paying much attention.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

You've taken that comment out of context.  Anyone is welcome to examine the biases of a podcast creator.

Can it be done in a scholarly fashion in your opinion?

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Dehlin made his living doing interviews for many years, having left IT behind, which makes him professional.  He has done hundreds of interviews, which makes him experienced.  At one point, I offered to be interviewed, but he never made me a priority, I think because I am neither a celebrity nor did I seem to provide any chilling victim stories.   In 2012, I took myself off the list of potentials.

In interviewing Michael Coe, Dehlin actively pumped Coe for tales of LDS scholars who had their faith crushed by their studies.  During the Coe interview, Dehlin asked if there were any evidence of iron arrowheads or brass helmets.  When Coe said no, Dehlin, rambled on about these being  hard and bitter truths that Mormons would have to face and swallow.  When I, for one, pointed out that the Book of Mormon never mentions either iron arrowheads or brass helmets, Dehlin deleted my comments from Mormon Stories.  He seemed to sincerely think that my pointing this sort of thing out (and including supporting references for everything I posted on that board) constituted "personal digs."  Incidentally, one of my posts he deleted referred to a pair of prominent Mesoamericanists who did join the church.  Mark Wright knew them.  If Dehlin were interested in balance, rather than his personal agenda and saving face at all costs rather than the honesty and the open dialogue he claims, I would have thought such posts would have stayed. 

During the Gardner interview, supposedly for balance, notice that Dehlin frequently interrupts with "but but but..." and shows a constant resistance to Gardner's ideas that is distinctively different than his uncritical kissing up to Coe. 

Dehlin likes to talk about balance, but if you pay attention, you can always find his thumb on the scales in his choice of interviews, in the questions he asks, in the questions he does not ask, and in the emotional response and context he provides.  I listened to six interviews all the way through, Bushman, Palmer, Givens, William Russell, Coe, Dehlin's own story, and part of Gardner.  I found I tended to get wound up and annoyed by doing so, and so I did not finish listening to the Gardner interview.  Indeed, one of my essays for the Review ("Hindsight on a Book of Mormon Historicity Critique" in 22/2) came about as a direct side effect of my listening to the Russell interview and doing some follow up reading. 

I have been noticing something distinctly Trump-like in Dehlin and in his odd success.  His general ignorance, selectivity, clear bias, shirt-sleeve emotions, craving for attention and demand for personal loyalty over truth, his rejection of criticism and uncritical, invective-larded dismissal of contrary scholarship, as well as his supposing that an accusation he passes on is evidence (for instance, in his infamous letter to the GA, protesting the unread "hit piece" he quoted five different complaints about FARMS but I noticed that none of the complaints included any specific support), and economic success and social following, all have a disturbing resonance.

Greg's essay was not a hit piece, but good scholarship on a legitimate subject.  The label that Dehlin uses demonstrates how propaganda and ideology operate differently than dialectic discussion and debate.  And the companion essay Greg provided, on the suppression of his piece in light of "Moral panics" is, I think even better and more important.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I remember you mentioning this before and I agree Dehlin should be more responsible for some of the things he says in his interviews.  Some years ago I was pretty regularly listening to his podcast and at times pointed out what I saw as problems with what was said.  But my comments, when I did so, never made it to being published int eh comments.  Dehlin himself reached out to me once and said, if you can substantiate the things you say, I'll publish your comment, but I won't publish it without support( I kind of found it odd since the things he said which I was addressing weren't supported assertions.  they were just empty assertions).  So I worked at finding references for the things I had said and resent it to him.  But he never posted it.  And I never heard back. 

With that said, I'm not the concerned.  I think he has his audience he wants to appease.  I don't think he's necessarily interested in getting facts nailed down, or anything.  he just wants off-the-cuff sounding conversations.  And that has appealed to many.  I lost interest for the most part, but will from time to time check in and see if there is an interesting subject being interviewed. 

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I remember you mentioning this before and I agree Dehlin should be more responsible for some of the things he says in his interviews.  Some years ago I was pretty regularly listening to his podcast and at times pointed out what I saw as problems with what was said.  But my comments, when I did so, never made it to being published int eh comments.  Dehlin himself reached out to me once and said, if you can substantiate the things you say, I'll publish your comment, but I won't publish it without support( I kind of found it odd since the things he said which I was addressing weren't supported assertions.  they were just empty assertions).  So I worked at finding references for the things I had said and resent it to him.  But he never posted it.  And I never heard back. 

With that said, I'm not the concerned.  I think he has his audience he wants to appease.  I don't think he's necessarily interested in getting facts nailed down, or anything.  he just wants off-the-cuff sounding conversations.  And that has appealed to many.  I lost interest for the most part, but will from time to time check in and see if there is an interesting subject being interviewed. 

Yeah, sometimes the guest is so interesting that it's worth a listen (usually skipping the first hour or two). But I have no interest in the more echo chambery type stuff (exmos interviewing exmos about exmoism). 

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Dehlin made his living doing interviews for many years, having left IT behind, which makes him professional.  He has done hundreds of interviews, which makes him experienced.  At one point, I offered to be interviewed, but he never made me a priority, I think because I am neither a celebrity nor did I seem to provide any chilling victim stories.   In 2012, I took myself off the list of potentials.

In interviewing Michael Coe, Dehlin actively pumped Coe for tales of LDS scholars who had their faith crushed by their studies.  During the Coe interview, Dehlin asked if there were any evidence of iron arrowheads or brass helmets.  When Coe said no, Dehlin, rambled on about these being  hard and bitter truths that Mormons would have to face and swallow.  When I, for one, pointed out that the Book of Mormon never mentions either iron arrowheads or brass helmets, Dehlin deleted my comments from Mormon Stories.  He seemed to sincerely think that my pointing this sort of thing out (and including supporting references for everything I posted on that board) constituted "personal digs."  Incidentally, one of my posts he deleted referred to a pair of prominent Mesoamericanists who did join the church.  Mark Wright knew them.  If Dehlin were interested in balance, rather than his personal agenda and saving face at all costs rather than the honesty and the open dialogue he claims, I would have thought such posts would have stayed. 

During the Gardner interview, supposedly for balance, notice that Dehlin frequently interrupts with "but but but..." and shows a constant resistance to Gardner's ideas that is distinctively different than his uncritical kissing up to Coe. 

Dehlin likes to talk about balance, but if you pay attention, you can always find his thumb on the scales in his choice of interviews, in the questions he asks, in the questions he does not ask, and in the emotional response and context he provides.  I listened to six interviews all the way through, Bushman, Palmer, Givens, William Russell, Coe, Dehlin's own story, and part of Gardner.  I found I tended to get wound up and annoyed by doing so, and so I did not finish listening to the Gardner interview.  Indeed, one of my essays for the Review ("Hindsight on a Book of Mormon Historicity Critique" in 22/2) came about as a direct side effect of my listening to the Russell interview and doing some follow up reading. 

I have been noticing something distinctly Trump-like in Dehlin and in his odd success.  His general ignorance, selectivity, clear bias, shirt-sleeve emotions, craving for attention and demand for personal loyalty over truth, his rejection of criticism and uncritical, invective-larded dismissal of contrary scholarship, as well as his supposing that an accusation he passes on is evidence (for instance, in his infamous letter to the GA, protesting the unread "hit piece" he quoted five different complaints about FARMS but I noticed that none of the complaints included any specific support), and economic success and social following, all have a disturbing resonance.

Greg's essay was not a hit piece, but good scholarship on a legitimate subject.  The label that Dehlin uses demonstrates how propaganda and ideology operate differently than dialectic discussion and debate.  And the companion essay Greg provided, on the suppression of his piece in light of "Moral panics" is, I think even better and more important.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Wait, are you saying that Dehlin used his podcast and facebook page to further his own agenda?

You see, this holds absolutely zero surprise for me because I never expected otherwise.  I'm not sure why anyone would.

 

 

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I missed the part about Dehlin suppressing the Smith piece. Where do we read about that.

 

The link I provided above is to a thread Dehlin started that documents his effort to suppress the article as well as his attempts to present those he was acting against in the worst light, including possibly outright lying (he left out his own emails and the context, he gave out false information...claimed he sent stuff to DCP when he sent it to a GA and only cced Dan as well as claiming Scott Gordon had not responded to him when he asked for info when Scott did exactly what Dehlin claimed he hadn't...and he ignored the correction).

If you don't want to wade through the whole thing, search for the posts by mormonstories, Bill Hamlin, Scott Gordon, and Daniel Peterson (I think that is his username).  They contain the only documentation, iirc.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Calm