for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stories

[_TrashcanMan79]

If you haven't already, please consider it. The view is lovely.

[_malkie]

This was written when you were out of the church.

The big difference being that Smith's essay was published for the first time well after Dehlin had returned to full Church activity; consequently, the essay released in unrevised form gives the reader the false impression that Dehlin was still out of the Church. Smith's essay should never have been released until it had been revised to reflect this development; otherwise it was just a pack of lies.

The essay had to be released because people were still ranting about it. And also people wanted to read it so that they could judge for themselves about the content of it. But by calling it over and over again a 'hit piece' there was no choice but to publish it.

It was personal toward John at that point, it was just business.

What an interesting admission.

[_malkie]

You know, I hate to say it, because it is so rarely the case, but why me has a point. Had the hit piece been cleaned up, people would have protested. Really, the thing ought not to have been written in the first place, and its original intent to misrepresent and thus defame John Dehlin is clear enough. Once John Dehlin requested it be published, it was going to come out in some form. One can't have it both ways.

It is a hit piece, and now Greg Smith has allowed us to confirm that. Rollo Tomasi uncovered all of the dishonest shenanigans that were employed to make John look bad.

I think that about covers it.

Perhaps not quite - if I may make a suggestion.

Did anything prevent Greg Smith from noting that, in the time between John's return to activity and the time of publication of the essay, much had changed in John's life, and indicating the parts of the essay that were no longer true? (though preferably not by adding footnotes )

I suspect that this would not have served the purposes of the author.

In addition, a good editor [nod in the direction of RolloT] could have helped Greg avoid the embarrassment of what appears to have been a lie intended to catch another in a lie. Don't the scriptures that Greg believes in condemn this activity? I have to wonder why none of those who read the essay before publication was able to find the abuses of quotes that Rollo uncovered.

[_Kishkumen]

Good point, malkie. I stand corrected.

[_Spanner]

Rollo,

May I have your permission to repost this on my blog or one of my websites? I'm trying to put together a single location that contains information on the Dehlin affair -- including the actual essays and intelligent responses such as your OP.

Seth

I look foward to seeing this

[_Mayan Elephant]

maybe seth's blog will end up on this list.

for now, it is headlined by the worst website for Mormons, mormonstories, Mormons for marriage, and staylds.

[_why me]

It was personal toward John at that point, it was just business.
What an interesting admission.

I corrected it. I forgot the 'not'. So, it should read: it was not personal...

[Guest]

1 - how do you all NOT have "why me" on ignore? He and derrik are the only 2 I have on my ignore list as they seem to be complete loons who are completely incapable of intelligent thought....AND YOU GUYS KEEP QUOTING HIM! :)

2 - rollo, I just got back into town and just wanted to start the slow clap. You are the man:

[_why me]

You know, I hate to say it, because it is so rarely the case, but why me has a point. Had the hit piece been cleaned up, people would have protested. Really, the thing ought not to have been written in the first place, and its original intent to misrepresent and thus defame John Dehlin is clear enough. Once John Dehlin requested it be published, it was going to come out in some form. One can't have it both ways.

It is a hit piece, and now Greg Smith has allowed us to confirm that. Rollo Tomasi uncovered all of the dishonest shenanigans that were employed to make John look bad.

I think that about covers it.

Perhaps not quite - if I may make a suggestion.

Did anything prevent Greg Smith from noting that, in the time between John's return to activity and the time of publication of the essay, much had changed in John's life, and indicating the parts of the essay that were no longer true? (though preferably not by adding footnotes )

I suspect that this would not have served the purposes of the author.

In addition, a good editor [nod in the direction of RolloT] could have helped Greg avoid the embarrassment of what appears to have been a lie intended to catch another in a lie. Don't the scriptures that Greg believes in condemn this activity? I have to wonder why none of those who read the essay before publication was able to find the abuses of quotes that Rollo uncovered.

This was a no win situation for greg because the publication was delayed. But the piece had to appear unaltered or we would have a 116 pages type scenario. But it was a no win for greg. You guys would have found something to complain about anyway.

[_Kishkumen]

You guys would have found something to complain about anyway.

One doesn't have to look very hard.