(I worry somewhat about Everybody Wang Chung. Why isn’t this libelous? “Numerous instances of DCP lying online (Second Watson Letter, etc.) . . . . DCP's deragatory [sic] and offensive comments regarding Gerald Bradford, BYU and the Maxwell Institute, . . . . DCP making light of sacred Jewish marriage practices when he was a tour guide.” Perhaps truth is a defense, but this is my area of practice and I do know that at least the third entry in my list isn’t fair comment; the others may not be either.)
Previously, I’ve expressed rather severe criticism of Greg Smith. Much of these criticisms remain for his two recently published papers. I wrote in July 2012:
As to poorly done, or at least poorly executed, I disagreed with the style and execution of Gregory L. Smith, “Shattered Glass: The Traditions of Mormon Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Encounter Boyd K. Packer” in FARMS Review 23:1. I really saw no need for FARMS Review to be cluttered with such nonsense, although I agreed with the article’s conclusions. I disagreed with the execution of Gregory L. Smith, “Often in Error, Seldom in Doubt: Rod Meldrum and Book of Mormon DNA,” in FARMS Review 22:1. I disliked it for its imponderable length, verbosity and its lack of editorial control. It was well-organized in the way a textbook might be organized. It was precisely written. But –. . . .
My specific prior criticisms of Greg’s work remain. Why isn’t there any fierce editorial control at MI? I recall somewhere that FARM Review was written in a way to help seminary instructors. Well, Smith’s pieces are not that. Running down every single rabbit hole with formulaic writing is not helpful analysis. Formulaic writing is the tedious resort to numbered paragraphs, bullet points, and paragraphs that begin with "First," "Second," and so forth. There's a place for that style; it isn't to be used at every turn and most readers will tire of it quickly.
But, he does provide needful analysis of a new medium, the podcast. John Dehlin’s work is a sort of “Festivus for the rest of us” academia; that sort of publication designed for those who don’t like to read. It is a legitimate topic of review and criticism. Given Dehlin’s cult-like status and following, driven by his podcast approach, it is high time that somebody has stepped forward to analyze what he says. And it is a difficult analysis. One cannot do a word search through the written word, or read it on a bus or train with a marking pencil. One must listen to the entire production.
Smith’s analysis is needful, thorough, insightful and thorough (I repeat this word for effect). I have frequently noted John Dehlin’s manifest misunderstanding of Mormonism, as he frequently admits he doesn’t like to read. I have noted Dehlin’s’ inconsistencies; in one podcast a speaker who has resigned from the Church complains that the Church won’t leave him alone, with frequent invitations to social functions and approaches by home teachers. The next speaker in the podcast, Dehlin himself, complains about being ignored in Church and treated as an outcast.
Where Smith crosses the line is his attempt to assess motivation. I haven’t been a fan of the review tactic of saying that somebody has a “hidden agenda.” I'm just using this phrase as an example, not to say that Smith actually uses it. (Note, that one of my published pieces has a similar phrase; it was an editorial addition. I don’t disavow it but in retrospect I shouldn’t have allowed it.) Trying to assess a hidden agenda is what Smith does; he seeks for the nefarious motivation. Dehlin may have a hidden agenda and a nefarious motive, but Smith's discussion of it is not really “fair comment” and should be avoided in any review. Indeed, First Amendment and libel law, which I could cite, generally looks to whether a reviewer deviates from the four corners of published material. The Interpreter should not allow such statements in its publication. A review should be of the four corners of the published material, and there is much about which to criticize Dehlin. Much.
I don’t see the big deal about criticizing Smith for citing deleted material. It is in the public domain. It is fair game.
Smith’s second piece, the “Unread” piece, is interesting and informative to me, but it is unnecessary sniping against the Maxwell Institute. I have long been on record as questioning Dr. Hamblin’s (and to a much lesser extent, Dr. Peterson’s) published statements about the reorganization of the Maxwell Institute. I think it is fairly apparent to the masses who read (as opposed to those who listen to podcasts) that the reorganization of MI has the ratification of BYU’s administration, if not the prior imprimatur. So, it isn’t nice to continually attack and criticize my alma mater on such trivial things.
In summary, Smith’s pieces are filled with helpful information but they are rather poorly executed. The second piece is filled with helpful information for those interested in a rather silly and needless piece of history. I would liken the second piece to an 80-page history of my homeowner’s association.