Protecting Mormons online

[rockpond]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I quite disagree. His intent clearly strikes me as what I have already expressed: to shine the light of scrutiny and reasoned analysis on Dehlin's enterprise.

The impression I got back when I first read it -- and that remains with me -- is that the piece was fair, accurate, well-documented and well-presented. And it does focus on Dehlin's output, not him personally. If the net result is that Dehlinism ends up being discredited, that is attributable more to the nature and character of the Dehlin venture than to any behavior on Smith's part.

Fortunately, Greg Smith's piece is still online in its entirety for individuals to judge for themselves (see the link I provided).

I think Dehlin has also attempted to "shine the light of scrutiny and reasoned analysis on the Church". 

Unfortunately it doesn't appear the Smith's article got a lot of attraction.  I'm guessing it got more reads from Dehlin's protest than it would have on its own. 

Dehlin, on the other hand, has had a tremendously positive and growing impact. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

Thank you for your honesty!

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Exmos interviewing exmos about exmoism.

And thank you for this perfect summary!

[juliann]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The link to it has been posted. 

So CFR! A link to a hundred page document is not a CFR. Stop dodging. You have made repeated claims about this document, the latest being. "In reading Greg's article it didn't come across as an attempt to understand what biases Dehlin might have in a scholarly way.  It seemed to me to be an attempt to discredit him personally, not his work."

Provide evidence of that or stop making the claim. Per Board rules. 

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

Unfortunately it doesn't appear the Smith's article got a lot of attraction.  

 

Dehlin, on the other hand, has had a tremendously positive and growing impact. 

CFR 

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, juliann said:

So CFR! A link to a hundred page document is not a CFR. Stop dodging. You have made repeated claims about this document, the latest being. "In reading Greg's article it didn't come across as an attempt to understand what biases Dehlin might have in a scholarly way.  It seemed to me to be an attempt to discredit him personally, not his work."

Provide evidence of that or stop making the claim. Per Board rules. 

When I asked for a reference earlier in this thread, that's all I was given. 

I'm not really sure what you are asking me to reference.  How would I provide documentation on my impression of the article.  (Not dodging anything and I've made every attempt to answer all questions directed at me.)

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, juliann said:

CFR 

 

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

When I asked for a reference earlier in this thread, that's all I was given. 

I'm not really sure what you are asking me to reference.  How would I provide documentation on my impression of the article.  (Not dodging anything and I've made every attempt to answer all questions directed at me.)

At least one of your assertions for which juliann gave you a CFR is quantifiable, namely that "it doesn't appear the Smith's article got a lot of attraction."

This is something you ought to be able to document or substantiate. Unless you are merely indulging in ill-considered guesswork. In that case, you should say so.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, juliann said:

CFR 

Countless personal accounts of people who feel that Mormon Stories had a great impact in their lives.  See MSPC on Facebook.

 

 

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

At least one of your assertions for which juliann gave you a CFR is quantifiable, namely that "it doesn't appear the Smith's article got a lot of attraction."

This is something you ought to be able to document or substantiate. Unless you are merely indulging in ill-considered guesswork. In that case, you should say so.

That should have said "traction" not "attraction". 

It was speculation based only on my observation that I've only ever heard of Smith's article here on these threads and when Dehlin explained why he hoped it wouldn't get published.  And even on these boards, there appear to be few who have read (or care to read) it.  

It seems that rather than read a 100-page article, people judge Dehlin on either their own listening of his podcasts or based on their impression of his work. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thank you for your honesty!

And thank you for this perfect summary!

I think that next question that should be considered is why would he still be interviewing ex-mo's about ex-moism?  (Which, of course, isn't even close to all that he does.)  If you understand the answer to that question, it will help you understand Dehlin. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.)

 

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

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?

If his admittedly fair analysis of Dehlin somehow discredits him, why would that reflect badly on Gregory Smith?  And why would we conclude that it was his intent to discredit Dehlin?  A good scholarly analysis doesn't have to be partisan, and we should take the results at face value -- rather than trying to read the mind of the author, who may have been quite dispassionate.  How else is he going to be fair and disciplined?  A professional umpire should not favor one side or the other, but restrain himself to the facts alone.  The same applies to scholars.  As in an intervention gone wrong, it should sadden us all to see Dehlin fail.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours 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?

Humphrey Bogart (as Rick Blaine) said:  "I don't mind a parasite.  I object to a cut-rate one."  

 

[juliann]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Countless personal accounts of people who feel that Mormon Stories had a great impact in their lives.  See MSPC on Facebook.

 

 

That is not documentation of a claim that his influence is growing. I know he has had great influence but I think it is a leap to say it has remained the same once he became unable to represent himself as a Mormon spokesperson. One easy way you could measure this is to count up threads here about him pre and post exing.

 But you don't get to continue to make wild claims....especially about any impact the Interpreter article made unless you have a way to find out the response they received. But you won't even acknowledge my account, as a former board member of FM with the first hand knowledge you don't have, that we got a substantial amount of comments and grateful email even though we weren't the publisher.  Influence can also be judged by who is talking about it as well,  you know. 

You are filling up this thread with little but recycled unsubstantiated wishful opinions and are trying to school those who were actually there. We all get it. You only have to give opinions once. Document your stuff and bring it up a notch or move on. That is not asking too much. Give some examples from the document you are talking about to prove your point about how awful it is. Or stop repeating yourself. 

[juliann]

I'll get you started, RP.  Here is an excerpt from page 3 of his unscholarly article

Quote

From a sociological perspective, NOM or secular ex-Mormons may play any and all of the roles occupied by members at the religious borders and beyond. They may be “leavetakers,” 3 but need not be. Such individuals have been classified by sociologists of religion into five categories. There is some variation in the terminology between authors, but they provide a useful framework for discussing the degree of alienation experienced by those who were formerly believing and fully-active members. The categories also highlight the difference responses to that alienation: 1) peripheral members—those who retain some nominal membership. Such members still consider themselves part of the faith and are so regarded by their co-religionists, but they are not full participants in the life of their faith community (e.g., “less-active” members);4

Here are the footnotes for page 3. All told, there are 342 footnotes in this sorry excuse for an academic article.

Quote

2 Seth R. Payne, “Purposeful Strangers: A Study of the ex-Mormon Narrative,” working paper draft, Yale Divinity School, 15 October 2007, 2, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1959555.An abbreviated report was also presented at Sunstone Symposium, Salt Lake City, 9 August 2008, http://mormonstudies.net/html/payne/strangers.htm. In this review, I cite the longer working draft paper 3 When I use the term “apostasy” or “apostate” in this paper, I intend the neutral, sociological sense. I will, however, prefer the more neutral-sounding term “leavetaker” where possible. I use it in a generic sense to refer to any member who is withdrawing, to whatever degree, from full religious participation. Stylistic or citation reasons may, however, occasionally necessitate the use of the other terms. 4 Eileen Barker, “Standing at the Cross-Roads: The Politics of Marginality in ‘Subversive Organizations’,” in The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements, edited by David G. Bromley (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998), 76–83; David G. Bromley, “Sociological Perspectives on Apostasy: An Overview,” in the same volume, 7); Payne, “Purposeful Strangers,” 3–7).

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think that next question that should be considered is why would he still be interviewing ex-mo's about ex-moism? ... If you understand the answer to that question, it will help you understand Dehlin. 

Agreed!

Though I strongly suspect we would have very different answers to your proposed question...

[juliann]

And here is the non-academic and non-scholarly vicious attack conclusion. No need to separate out the footnotes since not one of you sees them anyway.

My next question to the academic and scholarly detractors here is....how many of his sources have you read? You are familiar with sociology of religion and can speak the lingo with ease, right? 

 

Quote

Dehlin says much about his desire to help and heal people, and since his disaffection has even embarked on professional training in psychology. Even his research focus has a religious angle, as he focuses on obsessive compulsive symptoms with a religious dimension.338 It is laudable to want to help others. But, as far as the Church of Jesus Christ is concerned, he generally helps members by moving them intellectually away from belief. He also moves them emotionally and spiritually away from the Church’s traditional support systems. Even before leaving the Church, Dehlin detailed his views on power and influence within the community of Saints: “power does not abdicate itself voluntarily...it must be forced. Gentle patience ends up just enabling, and drawing out the pain for those who are inflicted [sic] ….”339 Such an approach evinces a profound misunderstanding of how God produces change in others (see D&C 121:36–46). It would seem that Dehlin is instead ready to try to force the issue—he cannot control or displace Church 335 Wright, “Exploring Factors That Shape the Apostate Role,” 108. 336 Larsen and Larsen, 34:00–34:27. 337 Wright, “Exploring Factors That Shape the Apostate Role,” 107. 338 See note 227 herein. 339 John Dehlin, post on mormonmatters.org, 25 September 2010 (11:44 AM), http://mormonmatters.org/2010/09/27/elder-marlin-jensen-apologizes-for-proposition-8. Ellipses in the original; no text has been omitted. The original post has been deleted; copy in my possession. 100 Gregory L. Smith—Dubious “Mormon” Stories leaders on their own turf, so he will create parallel communities of Mormons (whether active, disaffected, or former). He even advises members against sharing their concerns—which he conspicuously disclaims having planted or fostered—with other Church members, especially leaders.340 He seeks to replace this social system with his own group, with its own ethos and counter-narrative, with him in a position of leadership. And, he apparently believes that he is succeeding, since he declares that far more people leave than stay because of his efforts.341 Dehlin and the leavetakers among his audience will continue to offer narratives about the Church: their Mormon stories. It should be remembered, though, that “[d]econversion narratives are ideological weapons in conflicts involving substantial financial interests of both deprogrammers [exit counselors] and religious groups.” “We need to consider not only…[their] form and religious significance but also the politics of deconversion, the role of stories of lost faith in various struggles for power.”342 Most of the Saints are, unlike Mormon Stories, not anxious to grab for “the church’s own levers of power.”343 Those wishing to be harmless as doves but wise as serpents will still recognize, however, that not everyone who approaches the flock with claims to be fair, friendly, and forthright should be followed (John 10:1–9).

 

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That should have said "traction" not "attraction". 

It was speculation based only on my observation that I've only ever heard of Smith's article here on these threads and when Dehlin explained why he hoped it wouldn't get published.  And even on these boards, there appear to be few who have read (or care to read) it.  

It seems that rather than read a 100-page article, people judge Dehlin on either their own listening of his podcasts or based on their impression of his work. 

I considered that you might have meant "traction," and I even went back in and changed my post accordingly. But then I double-checked and saw that your post did say "attraction," so in order to be accurate in my quotation of you, I changed the quote back to "attraction" in my post, even as I wondered whether you were the victim of an over-active auto-correct function.

For me, the primary value of Greg's piece is something that calm suggested earlier on this thread, that it provides something of a caveat emptor (buyer beware) warning for the uninitiated or uninformed who might be tempted to get caught up in Dehlinism. Of course, there's less of a risk for that happening today, after Dehlin's very public and self-publicized excommunication, than there was back when the Smith paper was written. But I do believe the risk is still present.

It's my perception that in the early days, Dehlin endeavored to cast himself as something of a benevolent reformer, the loyal opposition, as it were. As things developed he became more of a facilitator for the disenchanted, hastening the departure of those already on the way out.

There's this interesting passage from Smith's piece:
 

Quote

 

Mormon Stories is at pains to avoid casting itself as an enemy to Mormonism -- indeed it wants to be seen as a friendly force in its attempt to redefine Mormonism. Further, Dehlin has indicated that his priesthood leaders have told him that if his materials encourage people to leave the Church -- if he becomes, as it were, an overt enemy of Mormonism -- then his own membership would be in jeopardy. He says he does not want this outcome. Some ex-Mormons have worried that such an outcome could threaten Mormon Stories' credibility among members of the Church.

Mormon Stories' need for a foil against which to define itself, however, can be amply filled by a subgroup within Mormonism -- the apologists for whom Dehlin makes his disdain so clear.

 

So I repeat: The value of Smith's piece is to make clear what Dehlin is unwilling to disclose about his enterprise -- or at least was unwilling to disclose back then: namely that  Mormon Stories is not as friendly to the cause of Mormonism as might at first meet the eye of the uninitiated or unsuspecting. Again, it's a matter caveat emptor.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

If his admittedly fair analysis of Dehlin somehow discredits him, why would that reflect badly on Gregory Smith?  And why would we conclude that it was his intent to discredit Dehlin?  A good scholarly analysis doesn't have to be partisan, and we should take the results at face value -- rather than trying to read the mind of the author, who may have been quite dispassionate.  How else is he going to be fair and disciplined?  A professional umpire should not favor one side or the other, but restrain himself to the facts alone.  The same applies to scholars.  As in an intervention gone wrong, it should sadden us all to see Dehlin fail.

So you don't think Smith was trying to discredit Dehlin?  (I can't quite tell since you answered my question with a question.)

I don't think the paper reflects badly on Smith.   Why would you suggest that?

 

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Humphrey Bogart (as Rick Blaine) said:  "I don't mind a parasite.  I object to a cut-rate one."  

 

Still dodging questions, eh?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

That is not documentation of a claim that his influence is growing. I know he has had great influence but I think it is a leap to say it has remained the same once he became unable to represent himself as a Mormon spokesperson. One easy way you could measure this is to count up threads here about him pre and post exing.

 But you don't get to continue to make wild claims....especially about any impact the Interpreter article made unless you have a way to find out the response they received. But you won't even acknowledge my account, as a former board member of FM with the first hand knowledge you don't have, that we got a substantial amount of comments and grateful email even though we weren't the publisher.  Influence can also be judged by who is talking about it as well,  you know. 

You are filling up this thread with little but recycled unsubstantiated wishful opinions and are trying to school those who were actually there. We all get it. You only have to give opinions once. Document your stuff and bring it up a notch or move on. That is not asking too much. Give some examples from the document you are talking about to prove your point about how awful it is. Or stop repeating yourself. 

I don't see anybody here providing any specific documentation (aside from linking to Smith's article).  We're all sharing our experiences and opinions.  I accept yours.   And I believe you that received plenty of grateful emails regarding the Smith article. 

I've worked hard to respond and answer everyone's questions on this thread to clarify my statements.  The same courtesy hasn't been given to me as many of my questions in responding to people have gone unanswered. 

I still don't understand what you want me to document that I haven't responded to already. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I considered that you might have meant "traction," and I even went back in and changed my post accordingly. But then I double-checked and saw that your post did say "attraction," so in order to be accurate in my quotation of you, I changed the quote back to "attraction" in my post, even as I wondered whether you were the victim of an over-active auto-correct function.

For me, the primary value of Greg's piece is something that calm suggested earlier on this thread, that it provides something of a caveat emptor (buyer beware) warning for the uninitiated or uninformed who might be tempted to get caught up in Dehlinism. Of course, there's less of a risk for that happening today, after Dehlin's very public and self-publicized excommunication, than there was back when the Smith paper was written. But I do believe the risk is still present.

It's my perception that in the early days, Dehlin endeavored to cast himself as something of a benevolent reformer, the loyal opposition, as it were. As things developed he became more of a facilitator for the disenchanted, hastening the departure of those already on the way out.

There's this interesting passage from Smith's piece:
 

So I repeat: The value of Smith's piece is to make clear what Dehlin is unwilling to disclose about his enterprise -- or at least was unwilling to disclose back then: namely that  Mormon Stories is not as friendly to the cause of Mormonism as might at first meet the eye of the uninitiated or unsuspecting. Again, it's a matter caveat emptor.

I would agree with that assessment.  It's unfortunate that the way he wrote it, it seems unlikely to be read by many who might have an interest in MS.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I would agree with that assessment.  It's unfortunate that the way he wrote it, it seems unlikely to be read by many who might have an interest in MS.

If not by them, perhaps by their loved ones, priesthood leaders, caring friends, etc., who might be in a position to help them.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If not by them, perhaps by their loved ones, priesthood leaders, caring friends, etc., who might be in a position to help them.

To make that happen, I think the loved ones, priesthood leaders, and caring friends will need to do more than just read Smith's piece.  One of the problems that becomes clear when you listen to some of these mormon stories (lowercase) of struggling Mormons is that when they approach their loved ones, priesthood leaders, and friends with the causes of their faith crises the responses are too judgmental to be helpful.  I think the Brethren are trying to improve that but we're not quite there yet.  But if a loved one, etc is unwilling to listen and openly discuss the faith crisis then I would imagine the struggling member is also unlikely to accept their thoughts on the biases of MS/Dehlin.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Still dodging questions, eh?

Actually not at all.  I think I dealt with all your questions.  I'm sorry that you are so disappointed with my responses.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually not at all.  I think I dealt with all your questions.  I'm sorry that you are so disappointed with my responses.

You skirted around a few of my questions and just ignored others.  No real responses for me to even be disappointed with.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

So you don't think Smith was trying to discredit Dehlin?  (I can't quite tell since you answered my question with a question.)

I don't think the paper reflects badly on Smith.   Why would you suggest that?

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

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