Dehlin and the Ballard Criteria

[_Doctor Scratch]

I have a question for Nevo / cinepro. I've endured my fair share of being accused of "twisting" quotes, or chopping things up for not-so-nice purposes in the course of my criticism of the Mopologists. Let me share one example with you. On more than one occasion I've criticized Bill Hamblin for writing this passage:

“I get mad every time I think about those Kikes. The Kikes are so clannish; and they wear funny cloths. Those stupid Kikes always do what their Rabbis tell them. They think they should be obedient to God. What mindless Kikebots. They actually have 613 commandments; count ‘em—six hundred and thirteen. This proves they’re a mind-control cult. You know, Kikes have committed murder and embezzled money. In fact, when a Kike commits murder, it’s because he’s a Kike. There is something about those Kikes that makes them violent. The Kikes are all rich, too. They control the money and politics of New York. Not just New York, they control Hollywood too, and want to control the politics of the entire country. Indeed, they are a threat to freedom and democracy. And their kosher rules are so-ooo stupid. They make me want to gag. Why shouldn’t I eat a cheeseburger if I want to? You can’t get a good ham sandwich in a Kike deli. I want a ham sandwich, and I’m not going to let those Kikes stop me from eating it. I sure hate those Kikes! They drive me nuts.”

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/hamblin- ... cyberspace

In the past, people have suggested that I wasn't being fair to Hamblin because I didn't include his lead-in to the passage:

All one needs to do to see the bigotry on this board is replace the ubiquitous terms Morg and Morgbot with Kike. Try the following on for size:

“I get mad every time I think about those Kikes. The Kikes are so clannish; and they wear funny cloths. Those stupid Kikes always do what their Rabbis tell them. They think they should be obedient to God. What mindless Kikebots. They actually have 613 commandments; count ‘em—six hundred and thirteen. This proves they’re a mind-control cult. You know, Kikes have committed murder and embezzled money. In fact, when a Kike commits murder, it’s because he’s a Kike. There is something about those Kikes that makes them violent. The Kikes are all rich, too. They control the money and politics of New York. Not just New York, they control Hollywood too, and want to control the politics of the entire country. Indeed, they are a threat to freedom and democracy. And their kosher rules are so-ooo stupid. They make me want to gag. Why shouldn’t I eat a cheeseburger if I want to? You can’t get a good ham sandwich in a Kike deli. I want a ham sandwich, and I’m not going to let those Kikes stop me from eating it. I sure hate those Kikes! They drive me nuts.”

It simply won’t do to insist that you’re not really a bigot because what you believe about Mormonism is really true. Anti-Semites honestly think they’re not bigots either–what they believe about Jews is really true: “I’m not bigoted! There really is an international Jewish banking conspiracy.”

The basis for my criticism is the raw fact that's he coarse, vulgar, and insensitive enough to use this offensive epithet as a weapon and as a means of "scoring points" against Church critics. (He originally posted this rant on RfM.)

Now, would I be out of line for failing to put the "bookend" text in my quote of Hamblin (despite the fact that I supplied a link)? Or, instead, is he still "condemned" simply on the basis of this text alone? I.e., is he shown to be someone who's out of control, hotheaded, and grossly insensitive regardless of how much "context" I supply? Or, if I don't add the context, am I guilty of "spinning" things?

[_Hades]

All one needs to do to see the bigotry on this board is replace the ubiquitous terms Morg and Morgbot with Kike. Try the following on for size:

“I get mad every time I think about those Kikes. The Kikes are so clannish; and they wear funny cloths. Those stupid Kikes always do what their Rabbis tell them. They think they should be obedient to God. What mindless Kikebots. They actually have 613 commandments; count ‘em—six hundred and thirteen. This proves they’re a mind-control cult. You know, Kikes have committed murder and embezzled money. In fact, when a Kike commits murder, it’s because he’s a Kike. There is something about those Kikes that makes them violent. The Kikes are all rich, too. They control the money and politics of New York. Not just New York, they control Hollywood too, and want to control the politics of the entire country. Indeed, they are a threat to freedom and democracy. And their kosher rules are so-ooo stupid. They make me want to gag. Why shouldn’t I eat a cheeseburger if I want to? You can’t get a good ham sandwich in a Kike deli. I want a ham sandwich, and I’m not going to let those Kikes stop me from eating it. I sure hate those Kikes! They drive me nuts.”

It simply won’t do to insist that you’re not really a bigot because what you believe about Mormonism is really true. Anti-Semites honestly think they’re not bigots either–what they believe about Jews is really true: “I’m not bigoted! There really is an international Jewish banking conspiracy.”

The basis for my criticism is the raw fact that's he coarse, vulgar, and insensitive enough to use this offensive epithet as a weapon and as a means of "scoring points" against Church critics. (He originally posted this rant on RfM.)

Now, would I be out of line for failing to put the "bookend" text in my quote of Hamblin (despite the fact that I supplied a link)? Or, instead, is he still "condemned" simply on the basis of this text alone? I.e., is he shown to be someone who's out of control, hotheaded, and grossly insensitive regardless of how much "context" I supply? Or, if I don't add the context, am I guilty of "spinning" things?

Wow, some serious antisemitism. It's hard to make that look good, even in full context. I'm sure a seasoned mopologist can do something with it, but it will be hard to make it look Christ-like.

[_cinepro]

The basis for my criticism is the raw fact that's he coarse, vulgar, and insensitive enough to use this offensive epithet as a weapon and as a means of "scoring points" against Church critics. (He originally posted this rant on RfM.)

Now, would I be out of line for failing to put the "bookend" text in my quote of Hamblin (despite the fact that I supplied a link)? Or, instead, is he still "condemned" simply on the basis of this text alone? I.e., is he shown to be someone who's out of control, hotheaded, and grossly insensitive regardless of how much "context" I supply? Or, if I don't add the context, am I guilty of "spinning" things?

If that's the basis for your criticism, then why would you omit the "bookend"? You can make the point just as well even with the context that the "rant" is a rhetorical exercise to make a point about anti-mormonism (in comparison to anti-semitism). "Hey, look what Hamblin came up with in a theoretical argument! What kind of a sick, twisted person can even type something like this!"

If the point can't be made just as well with the context included, then that's pretty much the definition of "spinning" things.

Reminds me of this:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/23 ... a-20111123

[_Equality]

This is exactly right. The idea that Smith's essay has egregiously misrepresented Dehlin is belied by Dehlin's own words, although many here are evidently loath to admit it.

Look, Nevo, I have been listening to Dehlin's "words" for about the last 8 years now. The idea that anyone can say what Dehlin actually believes about any given Mormon truth claim based on the words he has spewed over the better part of the last decade is absurd. Dehlin himself doesn't seem to know what he believes, so how could any of us, including Smith?

[_Kishkumen]

If that's the basis for your criticism, then why would you omit the "bookend"? You can make the point just as well even with the context that the "rant" is a rhetorical exercise to make a point about anti-mormonism (in comparison to anti-semitism). "Hey, look what Hamblin came up with in a theoretical argument! What kind of a sick, twisted person can even type something like this!"

If the point can't be made just as well with the context included, then that's pretty much the definition of "spinning things."

And yet Greg Smith did much worse when he spliced quotes together and quoted things out of context, as well as misrepresenting the context.

[_cinepro]

If that's the basis for your criticism, then why would you omit the "bookend"? You can make the point just as well even with the context that the "rant" is a rhetorical exercise to make a point about anti-mormonism (in comparison to anti-semitism). "Hey, look what Hamblin came up with in a theoretical argument! What kind of a sick, twisted person can even type something like this!"

If the point can't be made just as well with the context included, then that's pretty much the definition of "spinning things."

And yet Greg Smith did much worse when he spliced quotes together and quoted things out of context, as well as misrepresenting the context.

I reviewed Rollo's examples of quotes being taken out of context and edited, and nothing jumped out on me as being quite as absurd as presenting a hypothetical/analogy as being representative of someone's beliefs (or using an instance of someone quoting someone else as if they were the ones actually saying it.)

But yeah, shame on Greg Smith for doing that. It's one of the many flaws of the essay.

Honestly, if someone wanted to write a follow up "essay", I suspect all they would have to do is transcribe the ten minutes in the Larsen interview where Dehlin discusses his feelings about God, Jesus, Joseph Smith and the Gospel, and then quote the Ballard criteria. It wouldn't be as long, but it would be very clear and in context.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hmmm well that is almost the entire world other than about 30% of the LDS population.

Cinpro:If we're talking about religious matters, I doubt Ballard (or the other 30% of the LDS population) would disagree with you.

Oh sure. So here we have a few million people that out of all 7 billion have it right. And the rest of the damn world is all false prophets and as far as Christendom goes, following a false Christ. I guess I just cannot get my head around this anymore cinepro and I based on prior postings from you neither did you.

Ah well.

[_Kishkumen]

I reviewed Rollo's examples of quotes being taken out of context and edited, and nothing jumped out on me as being quite as absurd as presenting a hypothetical/analogy as being representative of someone's beliefs (or using an instance of someone quoting someone else as if they were the ones actually saying it.)

But yeah, shame on Greg Smith for doing that. It's one of the many flaws of the essay.

Honestly, if someone wanted to write a follow up "essay", I suspect all they would have to do is transcribe the ten minutes in the Larsen interview where Dehlin discusses his feelings about God, Jesus, Joseph Smith and the Gospel, and then quote the Ballard criteria. It wouldn't be as long, but it would be very clear and in context.

Yes, you obviously don't understand Ballard's criteria.

[_palerobber]

Let's toss out that noise and look at the point of the article at a very high level. I would say the point of the whole article is "John Dehlin is not a friend to the church and the organization Mormon Stories is dangerous to the church." And I would say that's basically accurate.

for me this raises the question, why then did Greg Smith feel like he had to exaggerate, distort, cherry pick, doctor quotes, etc. in order to damn Dehlin in the eyes of members?

on another thread cinepro suggested that, for an LDS member, someone with doubts as far reaching as Dehlin's would be viewed not too differently from a hardened non-believer. assuming that's true, why then does Greg Smith need to falsely identify Dehlin with the latter group, when he could have just reported truthfully and the let devout readers' fears and biases take their course?