Revisiting a Classic: FAIR, Greg Smith, & Bob McCue

[_Nightingale]

I remember this incident well. My impression at the time was that Bob got it cleared up so quickly and completely because he is a lawyer and reacted immediately with a decisive lawyerly word in their ear. They seemed easily convinced to retract the grossly inaccurate charges they had posted. It was obviously libelous in the extreme. Being a lawyer helped. Having the truth on his side more so.

This was a good lesson in mopologetics for me at the time.

[_palerobber]

Then we have someone who at one point wanted to counsel and assist LDS (meaning, people who had been baptised into the Church), who had said this:

The atonement: I just don’t understand the atonement. This idea that we have to punish someone else for a bunch of other people’s mistakes, that just bothers me, the fact that it is even necessary bothers me, and trying to do the math to make it all add up. . .I don't even like the idea that we should feel bad for our mistakes...I try to live as "righteously" as I can, but the idea that God makes us imperfect and then we're supposed to beat ourselves up over our imperfections just seems screwed up to me, I think this life is about making mistakes and learning from them and we should all do the best we can but beating ourselves up over it just doesn't make sense and punishing that guy over there for what I did doesn’t make sense at all, and so none of that makes sense.

I don't have any belief in "Satan" or "evil". I think people do "evil" things, evil is in peoples' behavior, but I don't think there are angels or some demonic force trying to tempt us.

- John Dehlin (Larson interview, 17:00)

Did I just "shame" Dehlin? Did I just "hit" him? Is it your understanding that the Jesus in your interview would be upset for someone letting LDS people know that Dehlin (who wants to counsel and help struggling LDS and be an influence for change in the LDS Church) has these decidedly "unconventional" views on Jesus, sin, Satan, and the atonement?

Greg Smith has publicly accused Dehlin of,
"Denying the existence of God [...] Denying Christ and the atonement".

Lou Midgley has publicly accused Dehlin of saying,
"he does not believe in God, does not think that there was a Jesus, and that the atonement is rubbish".

cinepro, based on the transcript you've provided from the Larsen (not Larson) interview, are Smith and Midgley lying?

[_cinepro]

As someone who listened to Mormon Stories I have to say it's not like John was hiding his unorthodox views. What exactly did Greg Smith expect him to do? Publish all of his unorthodox views up front?

I suspect that's exactly what Smith wanted, and since Dehlin didn't do it, Smith went out and did it for him.

If John Dehlin is required to do that, maybe the church can tell everybody up front about the story of Lucy Walker and Joseph Smith. Let everybody hear about how Joseph Smith married a 16 year old girl that he had pratically adopted.
Is the church required to be that up front and honest?
If not, then why should Dehlin be required to?

I would definitely like the Church to be more honest and forthcoming about its history. I'm not sure it's directly analogous to the Dehlin/Smith situation, but yes, the Church is "required to be that upfront and honest" in my book.

[_cinepro]

A hit piece is when someone goes through a person's history to isolate those statements, quotes, or acts that reflect most poorly on the person and then publishes them as if that is an accurate representation of the person as a whole. This is what Smith did.

The reason I don't think the Smith essay is a "hit piece" is because I don't think he cherry picked quotes or otherwise misrepresented Dehlin's views.

If Smith misrepresented Dehlin's stated views, motives and beliefs in any way, hopefully someone can counter his essay with even a few quotes that show his error. For the amount of posting and podcasting Dehlin does, I would think if his true beliefs were different than those stated in the essay, it wouldn't be hard to show it.

I honestly wish someone would do it, but I suspect it won't be done because it can't. The Smith essay might be many things (too long, too unfocused, too much space wasted on the survey etc.), but as far as I can tell one thing it isn't is incorrect in its portrayal of Dehlin's statements of his beliefs.

[_cinepro]

Person #1 professed his love of Christ and attacked all those who did not believe the same doctrines he did.

Person #2 wasn't sure what to think about historical claims regarding Christ, but did His works with compassion.

Which person do you think better represents the teachings of the Savior?

The one who pays Him lip service and trashes fellow saints?

Or the one who is heterodox but shows compassion to the outcasts?

If the Old Testament/New Testament/traditional LDS view of God, Jesus, the Church and the Gospel is true, then I'd say #1 is probably doing a good job representing the teachings of the savior. Jesus really seemed to take the doctrines seriously, especially the part at the end where they put him on a cross.

If the traditional LDS view is wrong and Jesus was just an ancient hippie version of Rodney King, then I'd say #2 is probably closer (and the whole thing with the cross at the end was a tragic misunderstanding).

To be fair, I don't think I've ever made the claim that Smith was being "Christlike" when he wrote the essay. If the charge against him is that it was a mean thing to do, and it probably made Dehlin kwye, and if Smith were trying to make as many friends as possible in the last three years and to make Dehlin and the supporters of Mormon Stories (including former and anti-mormons, apparently) like him and want to send him Christmas cards, then I would agree that the essay is a colossal failure.

The essay also doesn't affect my feelings towards Jesus or the LDS Church because Greg Smith isn't Jesus, and the the LDS Church didn't endorse or publish the essay. I don't even know Greg Smith, so I have no opinion on his personality or whether or not he is a terrible person. Frankly, I couldn't care less. I'm just saying I read his essay last week, and to the degree that it accurately reflects Dehlin's beliefs (which as far as I can tell it does), it is a useful essay for those who might need to know such things (i.e. anyone who would refer a struggling LDS to Dehlin for help).

Everyone also seems to conveniently ignore the fact that Dehlin himself validates almost everything in the essay in his January podcast, and reveals much worse stuff about his private life and the Mormon Stories community as well. So the essay is more a historical artifact, useful only for its role in the whole MI intrigue last year. People have argued that "Dehlin isn't Mormon Stories", but I don't agree, and depending on how this next phase of Dehlin's faith journey plays out, we may find out whether or not I'm right and if Mormon Stories can survive without him.

[_Equality]

For the amount of posting and podcasting Dehlin does, I would think if his true beliefs were different than those stated in the essay, it wouldn't be hard to show it.

I honestly wish someone would do it, but I suspect it won't be done because it can't. The Smith essay might be many things (too long, too unfocused, too much space wasted on the survey etc.), but as far as I can tell one thing it isn't is incorrect in its portrayal of Dehlin's statements of his beliefs.

Saying that the Smith piece is an accurate portrayal of Dehlin's beliefs is a bit like taking a quote from Mitt Romney on abortion from his debate with Ted Kennedy and arguing that it is an accurate representation of Romney's view on abortion. Dehlin has been all over the place during his "spiritual journey" away from, then toward, then away from, then circling around, then away from, then back toward Mormonism. He has said a lot of contradictory things over the years on his podcasts, various blogs, Facebook, etc. It would not be hard at all for someone to go back and cherry pick all sorts of positive things Dehlin has said about the church and the Brethren over the years to "prove" that he is a faithful member (e.g., my favorite: "The Hymns Rock!"). Doing so would be as fun as taking Romney quotes from different eras and playing them against each other. And about as illuminating.

[_Darth J]

Person #1 professed his love of Christ and attacked all those who did not believe the same doctrines he did.

Person #2 wasn't sure what to think about historical claims regarding Christ, but did His works with compassion.

Which person do you think better represents the teachings of the Savior?

The one who pays Him lip service and trashes fellow saints?

Or the one who is heterodox but shows compassion to the outcasts?

If the Old Testament/New Testament/traditional LDS view of God, Jesus, the Church and the Gospel is true, then I'd say #1 is probably doing a good job representing the teachings of the savior. Jesus really seemed to take the doctrines seriously, especially the part at the end where they put him on a cross.

If the traditional LDS view is wrong and Jesus was just an ancient hippie version of Rodney King, then I'd say #2 is probably closer (and the whole thing with the cross at the end was a tragic misunderstanding).

Who wants to explain to the board why this is a false dichotomy in an LDS framework? (Hint: Alma 32)

[_Kishkumen]

If the Old Testament/New Testament/traditional LDS view of God, Jesus, the Church and the Gospel is true, then I'd say #1 is probably doing a good job representing the teachings of the savior. Jesus really seemed to take the doctrines seriously, especially the part at the end where they put him on a cross.

I disagree. Paying lip service to the teachings of Christ while violating their spirit is to represent those teachings poorly.

If the traditional LDS view is wrong and Jesus was just an ancient hippie version of Rodney King, then I'd say #2 is probably closer (and the whole thing with the cross at the end was a tragic misunderstanding).

That's an absurd misrepresentation that only serves to show how poorly you understand Christ's teachings.

[_Darth J]

If the traditional LDS view is wrong and Jesus was just an ancient hippie version of Rodney King, then I'd say #2 is probably closer (and the whole thing with the cross at the end was a tragic misunderstanding).

That's an absurd misrepresentation that only serves to show how poorly you understand Christ's teachings.

You know, only in the bizarre, fundamentalism-that-isn't world of Mopologetics could "I'm not sure about some of these things, and some of it doesn't make sense to me, but I choose to have faith anyway" be characterized as a demonic influence trying to lead people toward a life of hedonistic atheism.

[_palerobber]

Greg Smith has publicly accused Dehlin of,
"Denying the existence of God [...] Denying Christ and the atonement".

Lou Midgley has publicly accused Dehlin of saying,
"he does not believe in God, does not think that there was a Jesus, and that the atonement is rubbish".

cinepro, based on the transcript you've provided from the Larsen (not Larson) interview, are Smith and Midgley lying?

cinepro, are you planning to answer this question?