why me wrote: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 not personal toward John at that point, it was just business.
This has been already mentioned, indirectly, but the 'business' of scholarship is the revelation of truth, no matter who or what it costs. John Dehlin's shift of position could have been noted as an addendum, at the least.
That Smith did not note new developments in his subject reminds me of the kid who had a good story to tell (sell) but was disappointed by developments that rendered the tale obsolete.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
why me wrote: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 not personal toward John at that point, it was just business.
This has been already mentioned, indirectly, but the 'business' of scholarship is the revelation of truth, no matter who or what it costs. John Dehlin's shift of position could have been noted as an addendum, at the least.
That Smith did not note new developments in his subject reminds me of the kid who had a good story to tell (sell) but was disappointed by development that rendered the tale obsolete.
The problem started with this board. To my understanding, an informer notified a member of this board about the 'hit piece' on john dehlin even though the informer did not read the piece. Then, all heck broke loose on this board. And then john was notified. If true, this board is responsible for the current situation. And this is why it is so important for some members to keep calling greg's piece a 'hit piece' and demonize greg or dan etc.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Philadel wrote:This has been already mentioned, indirectly, but the 'business' of scholarship is the revelation of truth, no matter who or what it costs. John Dehlin's shift of position could have been noted as an addendum, at the least.
That Smith did not note new developments in his subject reminds me of the kid who had a good story to tell (sell) but was disappointed by development that rendered the tale obsolete.
whyme wrote:The problem started with this board. To my understanding, an informer notified a member of this board about the 'hit piece' on john dehlin even though the informer did not read the piece. Then, all heck broke loose on this board. And then john was notified. If true, this board is responsible for the current situation. And this is why it is so important for some members to keep calling greg's piece a 'hit piece' and demonize greg or dan etc.
blah blah blah blah
You've been amusing, to a point, but I don't find discussions with rocks productive.
Sorry, folks, that I added to the pointless noise.
Why me, is it the boards fault and not Greg Smith's fault for producing the dirty thing in the first place? And if I remember correctly, John said he learned of the existence of the piece from a MI member, not from this board.
Try again.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
SteelHead wrote:Why me, it is the boards fault and not Greg Smith's fault for producing the dirty thing in the first place? And if I remember correctly, John said he learned of the existence of the piece from a MI member, not from this board.
Try again.
Some Mopologists are desperate to shift the blame for their own wrongdoing on any convenient target they can find--Bradford, other MI employees, apostasy in high places, MDB... You name the scapegoat.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Did I not explain how the original could be published and still be annotated with information that indicated the parts of the essay that were no longer true?
I'll bet that Greg Smith could have worked out how to do this without any help from me, especially since the publication was delayed - that gave him lots of time to make the annotations. But if he wanted to do it, but was unaware of how, I'm sure that the good editorial staff at the Interpreter could have helped him out.
Better still, he could have asked Rollo.
NOMinal member
Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."
Water Dog wrote:I'm new to this whole controversy. This is all very much in the TLDR category for me, starting with Smith's verbosity and continuing even today it seems with all the back-forth rebuttals, FARMS vs MI, etc. But, from my glanced read of the review and "review review," and then "review review review" and "review review review review," Gregory Smith strikes me as a typical MD suffering from a god complex. He and Brian Hales are great company I'm sure, seemingly creating the very world they choose to live in. No doubt this comes across like a personal attack but it's actually not how I mean it. What I've observed is that many, and on all sides of the debate, seem to just really like hearing themselves talk. Where it starts to irritate me personally though is when one becomes so full of themselves that they become empathetically blind, which is how Smith appears to me.
For sure I wouldn't agree with a lot of Dehlin's statements or conclusions. I've expressed some harsh opinions about him in the past, which I regret and think were hasty judgments on my part. And I think he can be a bit of a punk himself, which he might even admit to. Emotions appear to run high. However, I think he is genuine and certainly undeserving of these types of personal attacks. And without a doubt that's what this was. By comparison I have yet to listen to any podcasts on MS that could be described as personal attacks. And whether MS is fully "balanced" or not, I'm really not sure this matters. Define "balanced."
Smith seems to think that Dehlin is obligated to defer to "the apologists," people like himself, on all the answers. What he fails to realize is that we all have far different perspectives and bases from which conclusions are drawn, and reasonably so. If I were in the apologists shoes, I might very well agree in every respect, but I'm not and I don't. A lot of the material produced by apologists is plainly stupid and deserves nothing more than a superficial treatment to reasonably ignore. And I feel the same way about some of Dehlin's opinions. I often wish I could reach through my MP3 player and take the microphone from him and ask another question.
But, what's clear to me though, is that even if I disagree with a particular conclusion, overall Dehlin's perspective is one that is worth considering and respecting. It is a physical impossibility for any of us to literally turn over every stone, there just aren't enough hours in the day. I think that Dehlin however is someone who is doing his darnedest to turn over as many stones as he can. I respect his quest. And isn't that what MS is all about too? I think this irony is lost on Smith, that Dehlin is an exemplary member, an example of someone breaking from the lethargic mold actually trying to magnify his calling. Most members, just like most people, don't know and don't care. Even if in the grand scheme of things Dehlin turns out to be wrong with his conclusions, he's being proactive and actually living the gospel - ferociously perusing truth - and that's what it should be all about.
That is an amazing post, Water Dog. Very, very insightful. Thank you for sharing this perspective on things. I agree with much of what you say here.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Nice post WD. I wish, and hope some day to be able to give Dehlin the benefit of the doubt that you have granted.
"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby
Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson
Water Dog wrote:I'm new to this whole controversy. This is all very much in the TLDR category for me, starting with Smith's verbosity and continuing even today it seems with all the back-forth rebuttals, FARMS vs MI, etc. But, from my glanced read of the review and "review review," and then "review review review" and "review review review review," Gregory Smith strikes me as a typical MD suffering from a god complex. He and Brian Hales are great company I'm sure, seemingly creating the very world they choose to live in. No doubt this comes across like a personal attack but it's actually not how I mean it. What I've observed is that many, and on all sides of the debate, seem to just really like hearing themselves talk. Where it starts to irritate me personally though is when one becomes so full of themselves that they become empathetically blind, which is how Smith appears to me.
For sure I wouldn't agree with a lot of Dehlin's statements or conclusions. I've expressed some harsh opinions about him in the past, which I regret and think were hasty judgments on my part. And I think he can be a bit of a punk himself, which he might even admit to. Emotions appear to run high. However, I think he is genuine and certainly undeserving of these types of personal attacks. And without a doubt that's what this was. By comparison I have yet to listen to any podcasts on MS that could be described as personal attacks. And whether MS is fully "balanced" or not, I'm really not sure this matters. Define "balanced."
Smith seems to think that Dehlin is obligated to defer to "the apologists," people like himself, on all the answers. What he fails to realize is that we all have far different perspectives and bases from which conclusions are drawn, and reasonably so. If I were in the apologists shoes, I might very well agree in every respect, but I'm not and I don't. A lot of the material produced by apologists is plainly stupid and deserves nothing more than a superficial treatment to reasonably ignore. And I feel the same way about some of Dehlin's opinions. I often wish I could reach through my MP3 player and take the microphone from him and ask another question.
But, what's clear to me though, is that even if I disagree with a particular conclusion, overall Dehlin's perspective is one that is worth considering and respecting. It is a physical impossibility for any of us to literally turn over every stone, there just aren't enough hours in the day. I think that Dehlin however is someone who is doing his darnedest to turn over as many stones as he can. I respect his quest. And isn't that what MS is all about too? I think this irony is lost on Smith, that Dehlin is an exemplary member, an example of someone breaking from the lethargic mold actually trying to magnify his calling. Most members, just like most people, don't know and don't care. Even if in the grand scheme of things Dehlin turns out to be wrong with his conclusions, he's being proactive and actually living the gospel - ferociously perusing truth - and that's what it should be all about.
Well said.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)