A Tepid Defense of Gregory Smith

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

The published material is fair game within its four corners, but the fact that Elton John is gay should having [sic] nothing to do with his song-writing.

Wait...Hold the phones! Elton John is gay?

He's not here to defend himself against an expert lawyer trying to hurt him, so I might as well do it.

You forgot, anonymous member of the bar, expert lawyer.

[_Kishkumen]

I should also say that I don't like it when pieces in FARMS in the past went into personal lives, which was the case for Grant Palmer and Nibley's daughter. To me, the four-corners rule applies. The published material is fair game within its four corners, but the fact that Elton John is gay should having nothing to do with his song-writing.

It's a shame that you were unable to dissuade them from pursuing such tactics. It appears that you were not alone in your disapproval. Others apparently had more power to get them to stop, or at least take the dog and pony show elsewhere.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I should also say that I don't like it when pieces in FARMS in the past went into personal lives, which was the case for Grant Palmer and Nibley's daughter. To me, the four-corners rule applies. The published material is fair game within its four corners, but the fact that Elton John is gay should having nothing to do with his song-writing.

It's a shame that you were unable to dissuade them from pursuing such tactics. It appears that you were not alone in your disapproval. Others apparently had more power to get them to stop, or at least take the dog and pony show elsewhere.

I am not an insider. To me, it is just a question of law. One exposes oneself to liability for making a review an inquiry into the author's private life. The law has developed a four corners rule to deal with this. I don't have a problem savaging Palmer's work as incompetent, but one shouldn't say that he is incompetent because of an employment situation he doesn't discuss in his book.

As to Dehlin, the question is more difficult. There's way too much material that Dehlin has out in the public domain. He is all over the map in terms of his position vis a vis the Church and its history and doctrine. It is hard to see that Greg Smith has really gone over the "four corners" line with all that material. Plus, Dehlin is a public figure whereas Palmer was not so much so.

To further argue that one's temple recommend should be revoked is seriously over the line and wrong, although the courts would most likely ignore that argument on First Amendment grounds. I see that argument made by Everybody Wang Chung here against Dr. Peterson, which I consider a serious public assault on somebody's private religious life. It would be no different than somebody publicly arguing that my recommend should be revoked because I represent hoteliers who peddle soft porn and alcohol. But I see the same argument made over there by Will S. or others; why me, I think made that argument.

Having said that, I see less wrong in arguing that an anonymous poster's recommend should be yanked, because the only facts one has about that poster is what he or she says he or she is doing or saying in posted material. An anonymous person is really a fictional person with a fictional temple recommend. One can deal with hypotheticals without attacking a real live person.

[_Kishkumen]

I am not an insider.

Well, you did donate a bit of money to them over the years.

To me, it is just a question of law. One exposes oneself to liability for making a review an inquiry into the author's private life. The law has developed a four corners rule to deal with this. I don't have a problem savaging Palmer's work as incompetent, but one shouldn't say that he is incompetent because of an employment situation he doesn't discuss in his book.

And yet a certain apologist was routinely intimating special knowledge of Palmer's employment, going so far as to allege wrongdoing on his part, more than once.

To further argue that one's temple recommend should be revoked is seriously over the line and wrong, although the courts would most likely ignore that argument on First Amendment grounds. I see that argument made by Everybody Wang Chung here against Dr. Peterson, which I consider a serious public assault on somebody's private religious life. It would be no different than somebody publicly arguing that my recommend should be revoked because I represent hoteliers who peddle soft porn and alcohol. But I see the same argument made over there by Will S. or others; why me, I think made that argument.

Yes, well, there are plenty of people on both sides making statements about Church discipline.

Having said that, I see less wrong in arguing that an anonymous poster's recommend should be yanked, because the only facts one has about that poster is what he or she says he or she is doing or saying in posted material. An anonymous person is really a fictional person with a fictional temple recommend. One can deal with hypotheticals without attacking a real live person.

Unless, of course, the person in question were quite clearly connected with their in real life name, as is not infrequently the case.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Well, you did donate a bit of money to them over the years.

That does not make me an insider. They barely know who I am.

[_Gadianton]

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.

Yet, any review and criticism of Joe Smith and his cult-like status is "anti-Mormon" according to the apologists, specifically, it is on par with anti-Semitism, with all the allusions to genocide etc. So no, the fact that Dehlin has cult-like status and a growing following is hardly a good reason for review and criticism, from a consistency standpoint within Mopologetics.

The FARMS review began as a review of books on the Book of Mormon. But here, it really screwed up and paved the way for its future failings, because it just couldn't leave the people who wrote the books out of it. It might have been a ten-page review of an inconsequential book by a church member not up to the MI's scholarly standards, hacking away long past dead, but there was always a little more, usually some accusation that the person behind the book was overstepping his bounds, or in it for the money. Once you start seeing the people behind the books as the problem, then the boundaries of analysis naturally broaden and the people, and the institutions of the people writing the books become a more fascinating issue than the books they write. Well, peer-reviewed journals try to keep institutional biases and personal failings behind the subject matter out of scope, this might be an impossible ideal, but it's possible to do to an extent.

So now you have a scholarly "peer reviewed" journal writing 100+ page "reviews" of not books, but certain individuals and the institutions they represent. Like the "review" of Rod Meldrum and FIRM. They should have stuck with their core competency. Take Meldrum's book, give it three 15-page reviews, give it a 1 star average, fine. But just do an honest, serious review of it. The MI was becoming a place that transformed back-office drama into scholarship. It began to remind me of the Howard Stern show, which has become almost as much about the manufactured drama at the studio as it is the interviews -- but they're in it for the entertainment, unlike the scholarly MI, right?

If the Church feels John Dehlin or Rod Meldrum are out of line, they have the SCMC, they'll know about it, they'll do what they need to do, even if that means asking someone from the MI to investigate. the FARMS review was just becoming a journal for scholarly-sounding priesthood lectures from antsy apologists without the priesthood authority to judge.

[_Kishkumen]

That does not make me an insider. They barely know who I am.

Sure, Bot.

[_Kishkumen]

The FARMS review began as a review of books on the Book of Mormon. But here, it really screwed up and paved the way for its future failings, because it just couldn't leave the people who wrote the books out of it. It might have been a ten-page review of an inconsequential book by a church member not up to the MI's scholarly standards, hacking away long past dead, but there was always a little more, usually some accusation that the person behind the book was overstepping his bounds, or in it for the money. Once you start seeing the people behind the books as the problem, then the boundaries of analysis naturally broaden and the people, and the institutions of the people writing the books become a more fascinating issue than the books they write. Well, peer-reviewed journals try to keep institutional biases and personal failings behind the subject matter out of scope, this might be an impossible ideal, but it's possible to do to an extent.

So now you have a scholarly "peer reviewed" journal writing 100+ page "reviews" of not books, but certain individuals and the institutions they represent. Like the "review" of Rod Meldrum and FIRM. They should have stuck with their core competency. Take Meldrum's book, give it three 15-page reviews, give it a 1 star average, fine. But just do an honest, serious review of it. The MI was becoming a place that transformed back-office drama into scholarship. It began to remind me of the Howard Stern show, which has become almost as much about the manufactured drama at the studio as it is the interviews -- but they're in it for the entertainment, unlike the scholarly MI, right?

If the Church feels John Dehlin or Rod Meldrum are out of line, they have the SCMC, they'll know about it, they'll do what they need to do, even if that means asking someone from the MI to investigate. the FARMS review was just becoming a journal for scholarly-sounding priesthood lectures from antsy apologists without the priesthood authority to judge.

This is the single most insightful post that anyone has ever written on this issue. It is exactly on the money. It shows exactly why the Review became a blight and had to be revamped. It explains precisely why it is that the editor of the Review was removed and replaced. What is amazing is that so few people get this. A book review journal published on a university campus is not the editor's private fiefdom to do with as he pleases. He may have some leeway, but this much? It was inevitable that someone would eventually intervene to rein this in. Inevitable.