Rosalynde Welch takes on Mormon Stories

[_DonBradley]

Kish,

Since I'm not following the Mormon Stories controversies, I haven't read through Rosalynde's blog post nor entirely through your response here. So, I can't comment on the quality of either her Mormon Stories critique nor of your response.

What I can comment on is the author. While I've never known her well, I met Rosalynde when we were at BYU together and renewed that acquaintance at a Mormon history conference in the last couple years. Based on that acquaintance, one thing I can say for certain is that Rosalynde can't be dismissed as an apologist because of her Welch family connection.

Even if that were something that somehow ought to be held against her (and it's not), it isn't her only family connection to Mormon scholars. When I knew her at BYU her uncle Scott Abbott had just left the university in protest over academic freedom issues.

She was at BYU and continues to be a strong feminist and an open and thoughtful Mormon.

I know your critique is directed primarily at the content of what she wrote. But I noticed that you brought up that she's Jack Welch's daughter-in-law and that she's framed here as an apologist; so I thought I should mention her more liberal family connections and that she seems much more scholarly and thoughtful to me than apologetic.

Cheers,

Don

[_Dr. Shades]

Is it just a function of LDS culture that any group springing up from it suffers from an anxiety over controlling the discourse tightly?

Hey! I'd say that we here at MormonDiscussions.com are pretty well immune!

It is as though each of these little groups has their charismatic leaders whose genius and authority are assumed to be sacrosanct.

I can only dream of having it so good. . .

[_Kishkumen]

Hey! I'd say that we here at MormonDiscussions.com are pretty well immune!

And how rare it is in that respect, Dr.!

I can only dream of having it so good. . .

But you don't. That's why this place isn't like that.

[_Kishkumen]

I know your critique is directed primarily at the content of what she wrote. But I noticed that you brought up that she's Jack Welch's daughter-in-law and that she's framed here as an apologist; so I thought I should mention her more liberal family connections and that she seems much more scholarly and thoughtful to me than apologetic.

Cheers,

Don

Don,

I appreciate you swinging by to defend Rosalynde and provide us further perspective. No doubt she does not usually play the role of apologist. In this instance, however, she seems to reflect many of the attitudes that are common in the apologetic community. Furthermore, her comments about gay-straight alliance groups, if she is really dismissing them as trivial and useless, were distasteful in the extreme. At best, I would say that her blog is a great cautionary example against blogging on a controversial issue hastily, and writing something that is ambiguous at best and insulting at worst. I stand by my critique of her entry, and she is welcome to clarify her comments. So far she has chosen not to, and she seems to think that they are self-explanatory, although few people outside of the critics of John Dehlin and Mormon Stories appear to agree with her.

I remain open to considering any clarification she might yet provide.

Finally, Rosalynde is the person who invited others to connect her comments to her relationship with Jack Welch in the way she introduced her subject. She makes it clear that it was the controversy over the Maxwell Institute that prompted her to take a closer look at Mormon Stories. Unfortunately, she didn't look very close at all. Instead she decided to take pot shots at John Dehlin, Mormon Stories, and gay-straight alliance groups. Somehow that all just seems so typical of what I encounter in my interactions with many of the online apologists.

All best,

K

[_Hellmut]

Rosalynde Welch has had to take an awful beating for her ill considered essay. That makes her the second attacker of John Dehlin who impales herself on her own sort.

Unlike Petersen, she will recover from this self-inflicted wound, which is only right since her aggression is a minor one compared to what the FARMS crowd tried to do to John Dehlin.

There is a clear lesson from the mishap of the two attacks on John Dehlin: don't mess with him. To be sure, Dehlin is not perfect. He has weaknesses and has made his share of mistakes but John is sincere and he sincerely tries to help people.

Although that implies a little arrogance, many people love him for his good intentions and his good services. Therefore John Dehlin will always have cogent and competent defenders. If you criticize him, you will have enough trouble if you are right. If you are sloppy or wrong, a defender of John Dehlin will pounce and embarrass you.

Your reputation will suffer for a long time.

That's how the world works: those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword. And those who serve their neighbors, shall enjoy the protection of the community.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Best. Quote. Ever.

Yeah, yeah, she talks like me ... and I'm not exactly sure what she's trying to say.

[_harmony]

You're statements about my work history and life as a pampered aristocrat living off daddy's money is libel, Scratch, and its actionable. It makes clear, empirical claims that are either true or not true.

Are we clear?

Whoa. Most people would love to be a pampered artistocrat. What's so bad about that?

[_Bob Loblaw]

You have no idea about me, what I'm like, my motives, my life, or anything else beyond what an evil little pustule like Scratch has fed you in his own mad clawing grasp at credibility.

The above paragraph is ample evidence that that paragraph's contents are nothing more than a wild, flailing exercise in projection, something that defines the exmo world of woe, as perhaps nothing else does.

You are convicted by your own words. I know very little about you except what you have posted here, and it reeks of insecurity (especially intellectual insecurity) and a fragile ego. Self-confident, intelligent people don't throw out all the stupid bluster you do, and people who know how to write don't pretend (and fail) to sound like Foucault.

You've set a mark on your own head as a vacuous gasbag.

[_Kishkumen]

Rosalynde Welch has had to take an awful beating for her ill considered essay. That makes her the second attacker of John Dehlin who impales herself on her own sort.

Well, personally I don't find any of this a coincidence. The apologists have taken to multiple venues to continue this war of their own making, from their own blogs to those of their supporters. Welch has admitted that her interest in Mormon Stories was not coincidental, and I think it is, truth be told, of much more personal and emotional significance than she is letting on. Her blog post has the foul air of sour grapes emanating from it.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Well, personally I don't find any of this a coincidence. The apologists have taken to multiple venues to continue this war of their own making, from their own blogs to those of their supporters. Welch has admitted that her interest in Mormon Stories was not coincidental, and I think it is, truth be told, of much more personal and emotional significance than she is letting on. Her blog post has the foul air of sour grapes emanating from it.

All I know about Rosalynde Welch is that she's supposed to be some kind of liberal Mormon. Wouldn't have guessed that from her blog post. Definitely sour grapes. These people are pissed that Dehlin has the respect they don't . It's just jealousy.