DiscussMormonism.com

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.

David Bokovoy wrote: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.

Enuma Elish wrote:Thanks, friends, for the kind thoughts and critique. I really don't have anything else to share on this issue. Like I said, I don't know that I have personally ever listened to any of John's podcasts. I just know that what he does has worked for some and for that I appreciate his efforts.

I'm assuming it's a reference to this board, but someone suggested that a comment was made that I officially work with the Maxwell Institute. Just to clarify, I have no connections whatsoever with BYU or the Maxwell Institute and no opinions on what they should or should not publish.

I'm actually under contract to continue teaching Bible and Mormon Studies next year at the University of Utah (a place I have grown to love and where I feel quite comfortable; especially in terms of Languages and Literature and Religious Studies).

In a not so shameless plug, on Tuesdays and Thursday nights this Fall beginning at 7:00 PM, I will be teaching their first-ever "Book of Mormon as Literature" course using Grant Hardy's Reader's Edition of the Book of Mormon as the primary text.

In addition to taking the various individual voices in the text seriously (a.k.a. Terryl Givens and Grant Hardy), and looking at the ways in which the Book of Mormon imitates biblical literary patterns and makes use of texts such as Isaiah, this class will of course also explore the ways in which the Book of Mormon has been analyzed as 19th century religious literature by commentators such as David Wright, Dan Vogel, Margaret Toscano, Brent Metcalfe, and Mark Thomas, all of whom I hold in very high regard.

I'm very humbled and excited by the fact that as far as I'm aware, this is the first time ever that an entire academic course will be devoted to this issue outside of a devotional context and of course independent of the book's truth claims.

I would like to officially invite any of you on this board who are interested to join us through Continuing Education.


Best,

--DB