Kishkumen wrote:I think he also had precise calculations of how many people the Grant Hardy & lovely spouse episode led out of the Church to a life of wife-swapping and pot experimentation.
Wait..what?
Kishkumen wrote:I think he also had precise calculations of how many people the Grant Hardy & lovely spouse episode led out of the Church to a life of wife-swapping and pot experimentation.
Fence Sitter wrote:I know there are numerous threads already on this subject but I did not want this post to get lost in all those comments.
For those without access to the other MDD, here is what David Bokovoy had to say over at MDD about the Greg Smith piece on Dehlin.In light of the very public nature of these issues, I’m going to break my self-imposed exile from public message boards to share just a couple of thoughts. Having read the review, I don’t share the opinion that it is a “hit” piece, nor do I believe that Greg Smith is an angry apologist. Greg is clearly a sincere individual who cares deeply about setting the record straight on Mormon Stories (at least as he understands the movement). That having been said, for what it’s worth, here are my two issues with the piece:
1. Any critique should seek for balance. I’m grateful that Greg pointed out all of what he perceives as problematic assessments in Dehlin’s podcasts concerning his approach to Mormon history, doctrine, and theology. Greg has every right to do so, and since Dehlin’s podcasts are in the public domain, they should be critiqued. However, I did not feel that the critique Greg offered was fair and well-balanced.
Personally, I don't think I've ever listened to any of the podcasts myself, but I know several people that truly have been blessed spiritually by Dehlin’s efforts and that through his interviews with people like Phillip Barlow, Terryl Givens, Richard Bushman, and Daniel Peterson have, after years of inactivity, gone back to Church. This needs to be acknowledged to a greater extent than it was in a fair, accurate review.
As President Hinckley taught several years ago, if a cartoon chooses to over-exaggerate one aspect of a person’s physical appearance, that characterization distorts, and therefore misses the beauty of the person so characterized. So while I appreciate Greg’s efforts to point out John's missteps, I believe that a fair review (like a fair biography of Joseph Smith, for example) that avoids false characterization would have attempted to present a fuller picture.
2. I really dislike placing people into categories or lists, especially when it comes to their spiritual journey. Those of us who question (and make no mistake about it, questioning is an important part of our spiritual growth) move back and forth between various positions and therefore “categories." This is the problem, in my opinion, with making things personal, and trying to nail down an individual, whether it's Daniel Peterson or John Dehlin into a certain position such as “apostate/leavetaker,” or even “apologist." Making it personal and placing individuals into socio-religious categories like those identified in the review drives a wedge between people and frustrates the divine goal of unity in the Gospel.
Anyway, for what it's worth, that’s my critique of the critique. Despite my issues with the piece, I’m grateful for both Greg’s and John’s efforts and would hope that we can all learn from this experience and that those involved can continue moving forward in their respective efforts to contribute to the Mormon story.
I have not followed, nor am I aware of all of the behind the scene’s story in terms of John Dehlin, especially when it comes to Facebook posts, etc. As we all know, online interactions with those with whom we disagree are often much more volatile than the should be. But having now read Greg’s review, I went and listened to John’s interview with Phillip Barlow. I'll just share that to me, John comes across as a sincere seeker of truth with a desire to perform a service to his LDS community.
He goes so far as to strongly encourage those who are considering leaving the Church to read Barlow’s book A Thoughtful Faith and states that Barlow was at the top of his list when it came to people he wanted to interview when he first created Mormon Stories. John goes so far as to state that "a thoughtful faith" was actually the original domain name that he wanted for his site and that by interviewing Barlow, John wanted to show his listeners that a person could be aware of challenging issues and possess a mature faith without leaving the Church.
Trying to make sense of one’s spiritual feelings during a crisis of faith can be a very difficult experience. At times, the person may feel bitter and say things that he or she later regrets. John has clearly made some mistakes in terms of his understanding of apologetic issues and the Book of Mormon and to the extent that his views have negatively influenced others it is truly unfortunate. For whatever reason, John is clearly a person who has made his own spiritual journey very public (he seems to me sincere in so doing), so it’s only natural that a critic will see different sides of John Dehlin depending upon where he's at religiously at any given moment.
I’m certainly not suggesting that John's mistakes in analysis and understanding of LDS Church history, doctrine, and scripture should not be publicly critiqued. On the contrary, they should, and I believe that in this sense, Greg has done an important service. But especially now that I have listened to John’s interview with Phillip Barlow, I’m not convinced Greg’s was an entirely accurate portrayal of John and his efforts. This issue of "apostasy" and a crisis of faith is really a very complex issue.
Calmoriah wrote: For me, it felt like a 'part one'...with perhaps another sociological dynamic being explored through Dehlin's public behaviour...perhaps something to do with conversion stories. :)
David Bokovoy wrote:It's a complicated issue, and I'm not trying to be critical of Greg. I've simply chosen to share these personal thoughts publicly in the hopes that they might provide some help. I understand and appreciate how Greg Smith and others see these types of issues. For what it's worth, my approach is a bit different. This was made clear to me when Greg chose to share his opinions on Michael Quinn and his book on J. Rebuen Clark on my Facebook account after I shared with my family and friends how much I love the book (and I do, it's wonderful!!). In his efforts to help protect the Church, Greg wanted to make sure that others knew what a "poor" historian Quinn is and how despite my praise, just how problematic the book was in terms of its analysis. Despite our differences in approach/opinion, I'm grateful for Greg's devotion. Really. I am.
Eventually Greg shared that he had never read the book because he knew that he could not trust Quinn. It's too bad, at least from my perspective, because it really is a wonderful book.
David Bokovoy wrote:For what it's worth, my approach is a bit different. This was made clear to me when Greg chose to share his opinions on Michael Quinn and his book on J. Rebuen Clark on my Facebook account after I shared with my family and friends how much I love the book (and I do, it's wonderful!!). In his efforts to help protect the Church, Greg wanted to make sure that others knew what a "poor" historian Quinn is and how despite my praise, just how problematic the book was in terms of its analysis. Despite our differences in approach/opinion, I'm grateful for Greg's devotion. Really. I am.
Eventually Greg shared that he had never read the book because he knew that he could not trust Quinn. It's too bad, at least from my perspective, because it really is a wonderful book.
David Bokovoy wrote:But especially now that I have listened to John’s interview with Phillip Barlow, I’m not convinced Greg’s was an entirely accurate portrayal of John and his efforts. This issue of "apostasy" and a crisis of faith is really a very complex issue.
Kishkumen wrote:David Bokovoy wrote:For what it's worth, my approach is a bit different. This was made clear to me when Greg chose to share his opinions on Michael Quinn and his book on J. Rebuen Clark on my Facebook account after I shared with my family and friends how much I love the book (and I do, it's wonderful!!). In his efforts to help protect the Church, Greg wanted to make sure that others knew what a "poor" historian Quinn is and how despite my praise, just how problematic the book was in terms of its analysis. Despite our differences in approach/opinion, I'm grateful for Greg's devotion. Really. I am.
Eventually Greg shared that he had never read the book because he knew that he could not trust Quinn. It's too bad, at least from my perspective, because it really is a wonderful book.
That speaks volumes.
Fence Sitter wrote:More from David.
In response to a comment from CalmoriahCalmoriah wrote: For me, it felt like a 'part one'...with perhaps another sociological dynamic being explored through Dehlin's public behaviour...perhaps something to do with conversion stories. :)David Bokovoy wrote:It's a complicated issue, and I'm not trying to be critical of Greg. I've simply chosen to share these personal thoughts publicly in the hopes that they might provide some help. I understand and appreciate how Greg Smith and others see these types of issues. For what it's worth, my approach is a bit different. This was made clear to me when Greg chose to share his opinions on Michael Quinn and his book on J. Rebuen Clark on my Facebook account after I shared with my family and friends how much I love the book (and I do, it's wonderful!!). In his efforts to help protect the Church, Greg wanted to make sure that others knew what a "poor" historian Quinn is and how despite my praise, just how problematic the book was in terms of its analysis. Despite our differences in approach/opinion, I'm grateful for Greg's devotion. Really. I am.
Eventually Greg shared that he had never read the book because he knew that he could not trust Quinn. It's too bad, at least from my perspective, because it really is a wonderful book.