What Might The Hit Piece Look Like?

[Guest]

For that, I think we can get a basic idea from the 2011 issue of the FARMS Review, where culture warrior Greg Smith does his best to defend Elder Packer's teachings on homosexuality and expose Laura Compton for the enemy to the true faith that she obviously must be (at least in his construction of her).

As we have seen, apologists have been combing the internet looking for juicy tidbits from Dehlin & Co. in order to use them against him. The same is true of the Laura Compton "hit piece," where a number of quotes are cherry picked to make Compton look personally disingenuous in the Mormons for Marriage board policy against criticism of the leadership and the church.

After all, we all know from experience how easy it is to babysit online discussions when determined characters are up at all hours sharing their viewpoints. In any case, I think it is fair to say that Smith has found evidence of that board policy being violated and the violations being inadequately addressed and not in a timely manner.

The question I have is this: is it accurate, much less realistic, to place all of the responsibility for what happens on the board on the shoulders of Compton? And, what is the reason for singling out Compton in this way? I will only judge this by what Smith presents.

Smith seems to be upset that Compton does not elucidate Packer's long history of teachings on homosexuality:

M4M ignores President Packer's extensive past teaching on the subject when glossing 2010A, though it is all readily accessible. "Many listeners got the distinct impression," Compton tells us, "that Elder Packer was suggesting homosexuality is a choice. While that may be what he believes or understands, it is not in line with current church teachings which indicate General Authorities do not know what causes homosexuality."29

Of course, in saying this, Smith completely glosses over the central issue of the disagreement: the definition of homosexuality. Elder Packer considers homosexuality to be acting out on same sex desires, while Compton sees homosexuality as a matter of one's personal identity. Compton is in fact absolutely accurate in stating, therefore, that Packer believes homosexuality is a choice, and, in fact, Elder Packer would agree with her.

What is confusing for all, and not entirely Compton's fault, is that the Church's teachings on the issue of homosexuality so directly conflict with popular and scientific understanding of the issue that few people outside of those who are personally burdened by the Church's teachings or geeks like Smith will be able to keep them "straight" (OK, bad pun.). She fumbles a bit, arguably, in saying that the Church accepts that homosexuality is an innate characteristic. This is, I think, not a result of maliciousness, but because she has in mind statements in which leaders of the LDS Church express their agreement that some people may be born more liable to same sex attraction. Compton is, in my view, not to be blamed for the confusion regarding the distinction between same-sex attraction and homosexuality on an unofficial online discussion board.

He quotes another one of her posts disapprovingly as he continues:

Many may well have had such an impression—helped, it must be said, by relentless insistence on that reading by Compton and others:

You know, we can sit here and debate until the cows come home about whether or not Elder Packer meant to single out gays/lesbians in his talk, but that's not really what matters.

Whether or not he intended to single out people, many got the message that he did so intend.

As a teacher, he should know that if students are not understanding the lessons, it is the teacher's fault and responsibility to fix the problem.30

All teachers certainly have the responsibility to be clear. Compton ignores, however, that a hostile reading can often manufacture grounds for offense.

As someone who has come to grudgingly accept that the Church will make use of corporate methods as a matter of necessity in a global organization, let me say this: when the customer complains about your sales pitch, maybe you should listen.

What is Compton saying here that is so bad? Indeed, Compton might be viewed as doing the Church a favor. It is quite clear that, while Elder Packer's teachings on homosexuality, which run contrary to just about everything in popular culture and science on the subject, may be clear to Greg Smith, Laura Compton seems to think that the message may be confusing to others, and Elder Packer might want to rethink his approach for getting the message across.

I don't see that as maliciousness on her part. It does not, in my view, communicate hostile intent or destructive criticism of the LDS Church. All those who think otherwise might ask themselves whether any kind of criticism of the Church is OK. Better some criticism, I say, than empty pews, eh?

Now to the attack on Compton for violations of the policy of not allowing criticism of the LDS Church or its leaders. First of all, I have to say, in a discussion like that on homosexuality and Mormonism, this rule was ill-advised and wildly unrealistic. In a sense, I think this was a gift handed to people like Greg Smith to use to their best advantage. If you run a discussion about gays and Mormonism, there simply will be criticism of the LDS Church and its leaders. Without it, you're not really having an honest conversation.

And (ab)use it he does:

It is understandable—and even praiseworthy—that a group that purports to speak for believing members of the church, and wishes to persuade other members, would establish such a rule. But as I read what Compton and her fellow contributors wrote, I found it increasingly hard to regard this "rule" as anything more than a fig leaf to draw in the unwary, or as a sop to any conscience that might be unnerved by an attack on the church or its leaders.

Notice here that his very first gesture is to create suspicion that Laura Compton intentionally created a trap so that unsuspecting members might be lured in, reassured that everything was OK, no one was an enemy of the LDS Church, etc., and then BAM! Now they are criticizing the Brethren along with all of their new pal apostates and fellow gays. The narrative is familiar to anyone of us who recalls the image of Satan and his flaxen cord in the Book of Mormon. Compton is not a busy parent who has undertaken an unrealistic ideal in her board guidelines; in the hands of Greg Smith she is a tool of Satan who has deliberately dug a pit for her unsuspecting Mormon neighbor.

A series of colorful quotes that one might expect, given the many challenges that the LDS Church and its members are experiencing online, follows. What continues to baffle this writer is that, instead of sitting back and wondering what might productively be done about the situation, the reaction of Greg Smith and the FARMS Review is to dip the material in red ink, build a bonfire, and then proceed to dance in a circle around it while thrusting spears menacingly.

We should also remember that to cover something with a "fig leaf" is to evoke the shame that Adam and Eve experienced after they partook of the forbidden fruit. The person who feels ashamed of what they have done or are doing covers up with a fig leaf.

The depth of Laura Compton's personal hypocrisy has not fully been plumbed, however:

Readers are assured by Compton, furthermore, that at M4M "we avoid personal attacks." 43 Avoiding personal attacks and not tolerating attacks on church leaders apparently do not encompass such remarks as the following (all made on threads in which Compton—who apparently has full moderating powers—participated):

Like most of you, but evidently not Greg Smith, I am assuming that the policy of "no personal attacks" was put in place to protect participants on the board. Greg seems to be applying it to the whole human race. I hope I get to see him run a discussion board someday.

Again:

Compton cautions new members that "we do not call into question the righteousness or membership standing of other posters."54 But even this protection is denied to apostles, as the above citations (and many others) demonstrate—including a long satire in which President Packer's "To Young Men Only" talk about masturbation was lampooned.55

Yes, everyone but the Lord's anointed is treated like a human being at Laura Compton's place. LOL. Greg, there is a difference between setting parameters for a discussion to make it functional and demanding that people be saints. You are free to demand the latter on your discussion board; most of us will simply strive for the former.

But this part gets truly strange in my view:

At one point in the discussion, Compton did intervene to chastise a poster. The poster had made remarks in favor of the church but had typed part of her message in all capital letters, to which Compton replied: "Stop shouting. Not only is it rude and irritating, it makes it harder for people to read." 57 At M4M, violations of netiquette are rude and merit reproof, but attacks on the apostles do not get quite the same attention, notwithstanding M4M's stated policies.

If I were not confident that on some level Greg Smith is genuinely outraged at a lack of respect shown to the LDS apostles, I would think he was having us on here. It is the primary function of any moderator on a board to facilitate discussion and keep it at least minimally functional. By mixing up the pragmatics of netiquette with religious scruples about the apostles, Greg Smith seems to me to be deliberately striving to make it look like Laura Compton is "one of those progressives" whose ethic is wildly out of kilter, straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel. In MDB speak, this is the work of Droopy, if Droopy really knew what the word subtle meant.

I am not going to drag this on much further. I think you get the idea. Is it a hit piece? I say, most definitely. Why? Because Greg reads into Laura Compton the worst possible motives and implies for his readers that those are the motives she in fact has. She is, quite simply, implicitly called a tool of Satan and a wolf in sheep's clothing without the author having been direct about saying so. This gives Greg plausible deniability. You don't have to take my word for it. Indeed, I think the best witness to the reality of what is going on here is not I, but rather Will Schryver, who is licking his sadistic chops in anticipation of the next take-downs, in which Greg Smith will "expose" (rather, depict) John Dehlin and Joanna Brooks in the very same way. And we know from plentiful, unpleasant experience, that this is exactly what Will Schryver aims at: painting his opponents as wolves in sheep's clothing and tools of the devil. What more needs to be said?

I will part with this:

One should also not mistake M4M as an exercise in merely preaching to the choir. Several posters wrote that they were new converts who were delighted to find others who share their doubts about the church's stance on homosexual acts: "I'm so glad to have found this site!" wrote one. "As a pretty new convert to the church, this issue has been one of the hardest things for me to reconcile. As someone who is a big advocate for gay marriage and for my many gay and lesbian friends, I've had a difficult time trying to balance what I believe to be true spiritually and what I believe to be right morally." 58 Another wrote:

I too am a convert. Ever since joining the church in 2005, the one thing that has plagued my conscience and caused me to question my testimony is the church's stance on homosexuality and gay marriage. . . .

This is true diabolical artistry. Notice how the metaphor of preaching to the choir is used here to give the impression that Laura Compton's secret intentions are to convert people to a false gospel. She is not just "preaching to the choir;" she is winning over new converts (from the Church, presumably). He deftly slips into quoting new converts to the Church who come to the group looking to reconcile their new-found faith with their sense that the LDS Church may not be correct on the issue of homosexuality. Greg's reading of Laura appears to be that this is exactly what the spider (Laura) wanted the fly (new convert) to do. She set her trap so that they would come right in, get stuck, and become her food.

What is clear, however, is that these new converts already had an issue with the Church's stance on homosexuality before they arrived. They went looking for such a site for this very reason. What Greg Smith's readers ought to fear is not Laura Compton's alleged ability to lure in unsuspecting recent converts to Mormonism to her site, but their own inability to satisfy the concerns of these converts regarding this problem. If those concerns predated their baptism into the Church, and persisted through it, perhaps they should be asking themselves what is amiss in the missionary program that allows people to misunderstand the Church's policy on homosexuality as they make this most momentous decision in their lives.

Verdict: Hit Piece.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Yeah, I wondered the same thing, Reverend. After all, John Dehlin hasn't written a book. I guess the Mopologists have decided to devote 100+ pg. "hit pieces" merely to people now. Still, what would they comment upon? Dehlin's interviews on "Mormon Stories"? I thought that one of Will Schryver's comments was interesting: he noted at one point that Dehlin's recent messageboard comments have provided additional "footnote material." This leads me to think that a lot of the article would consist of various cyber-stalking ventures, such as Trevor Holyoak's "harvesting" of Dehlin's comments from the Facebook wall, among other things.** Maybe they would have taken the time (and how much time would that have been, I wonder?) to actually transcribe all of his comments from the interviews, but still--how would this add up to 100+ pages? And yes: they could have added in that thing that Midgley mentioned--trying to tie him to the death of a missionary, or whatever, but what else? I bet they were really busy, following him up and down the internet, and relying on a lot of gossip.

**Hi, there, Bro. Holyoak. I saw your remark on MDD about how you didn't think it was "cyber-stalking" to lift Dehlin's remarks from the Facebook discussion in order to use it to attack him on the FAIR Wiki.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_M ... k/Overview

Gee, and to think: I thought you guys had taken this down! Bummer! Maybe Wiki Wonka will reconsider. In any case, is it really true that you have no problem with people freely posting material so long as it's freely available somewhere on line? E.g., if I do a Google image search for "Trevor Holyoak," would you be OK with me posting whatever comes up? How about if I use the image of yours that is right there in that Facebook thread that the FAIR article links to?

[_Kishkumen]

Yeah, I wondered the same thing, Reverend. After all, John Dehlin hasn't written a book. I guess the Mopologists have decided to devote 100+ pg. "hit pieces" merely to people now. Still, what would they comment upon? Dehlin's interviews on "Mormon Stories"? I thought that one of Will Schryver's comments was interesting: he noted at one point that Dehlin's recent messageboard comments have provided additional "footnote material." This leads me to think that a lot of the article would consist of various cyber-stalking ventures, such as Trevor Holyoak's "harvesting" of Dehlin's comments from the Facebook wall, among other things.** Maybe they would have taken the time (and how much time would that have been, I wonder?) to actually transcribe all of his comments from the interviews, but still--how would this add up to 100+ pages? And yes: they could have added in that thing that Midgley mentioned--trying to tie him to the death of a missionary, or whatever, but what else? I bet they were really busy, following him up and down the internet, and relying on a lot of gossip.

It's definitely apologetic warfare for the Cyber Age. Your "enemy" has the benefit of the internet as a means of communicating easily and quickly, but by doing so he gives you new access to the material you can use against him. Having decided that John Dehlin is an enemy, they harvest all of the information, of whatever value, they can from various agents and then use it for their different outlets. I am not surprised. They are evolving with the times.

The only thing that shocks me is Lou's comments, which were incredibly low. You read some of his essays and you think the guy is not so bad, but then these incidents occur and you gotta think he's not fully "with it" and in control of himself.

[_Joe Geisner]

Kish,

Thank you very much for reminding of this hit piece by Gregory. I had forgotten this smear campaign when I wrote my comments earlier. This is a perfect example of the FARMS character attacks in a supposed review journal.

As I was reading your comments I remembered that it was John Dehlin who first brought Gregory's hit piece to my attention, and I believe to many peoples attention on his Facebook page (in the thousands). I wonder if poor Gregory became upset with John's questioning his hit piece and Gregory decided to set his sights on John? Makes me wonder!

[_Kevin Graham]

Most excellent, Kish. I appreciate you taking the time to do this.

You know, it is wonderful to know we have someone very much like Dan Peterson to write up these kinds of posts. You match his scholarly prose at every step, but I think it is clear you're much more of a true scholar than he ever was.

Now go ahead and slam me for saying this, because I know you will. It is one of the reasons we love you. You're empathy for those who call you an enemy, your overall humility and your painstaking efforts to appear objective in almost everything you write.

I think Dan is going to rue the day he ever decided to cross swords with you.

[Guest]

Kish,

Thank you very much for reminding of this hit piece by Gregory. I had forgotten this smear campaign when I wrote my comments earlier. This is a perfect example of the FARMS character attacks in a supposed review journal.

Hey, Joe-

You are welcome. I am responding to the apologists' request that we provide some evidence of the negative tactics we are ascribing to them. I would not call this single review a campaign, but I think we can fairly say that the sustained and coordinated effort to go after Compton, Dehlin, Brooks et al. is a campaign.

I think it is also very interesting that there are legitimate parallels to be drawn between the culture and ideological wars going on outside of the LDS Church and these conflicts going on within. This is partly because of the Church's political activities, but I think it is also because differing interpretations of the LDS Gospel are influenced by political ideological preferences, or at least track with them, to a degree.

I think I can understand why guys like Greg Smith, Louis Midgley, and Daniel Peterson are uncomfortable and unhappy with people like Joanna Brooks, Laura Compton, and John Dehlin. It is entirely in keeping with their views of the Church and also, to a degree, their respective ideological stances. The question, in my view, is whether it is appropriate for them to mix up their apologetics with these pieces of cultural criticism and attacks on fellow members.

If it really is OK to be a Democrat, for instance, and to vote one's conscience, then why is it that Greg Smith or Trevor Holyoak is sent to prowl the web looking for evidence of doctrinal and ideological impurity in the flock in order to construct novella-length slams that Lee Atwater would have been proud of at one point in his sordid career? I think this is a legitimate question that demands an answer.

If the Church is going to send its hitmen from NMI out to defame people like Brooks, Compton, and Dehlin, maybe they could save themselves the trouble and positively forbid people from expressing their personal opinions online on threat of excommunication. As things stand, the policies regarding online communication are vague and the internet has become an outlet for people to discuss frankly with others their feelings about such issues. These chattering members should know what they have coming to them in advance, and not be surprised by the poison pen letter from NMI that may very well be published.

Now, I know that Daniel and his cohorts of culture warriors will say that they have a right to argue back if the "apostates" can exercise their own free speech. The problem with this view, of course, is that these "apostates" do not have the benefit of writing under the auspices of a Church university, and they also face potential consequences of Church discipline, which the apologists do not have to face, although one might argue that they are no more charitable about their "opponents" than their opponents are toward certain Church leaders.

It is very hurtful for people to imagine that Elder Packer has loosed Daniel Peterson or Greg Smith on them for mouthing off. No matter how many times these fellows make protestations to the contrary, the fact that they work at BYU and occasionally interact with General Authorities up to the level of apostle will result in people forming such an impression as a natural matter of course.

Do the General Authorities really want to be saddled with this impression that they like Peterson, Hamblin, Hancock, Smith, and others to treat other LDS people this way?

I think that this too is a legitimate question. The reality of the matter does not prevent the harm that the impression, however erroneous, causes.

[_Kishkumen]

Most excellent, Kish. I appreciate you taking the time to do this.

You know, it is wonderful to know we have someone very much like Dan Peterson to write up these kinds of posts. You match his scholarly prose at every step, but I think it is clear you're much more of a true scholar than he ever was.

Now go ahead and slam me for saying this, because I know you will. It is one of the reasons we love you. You're empathy for those who call you an enemy, your overall humility and your painstaking efforts to appear objective in almost everything you write.

I think Dan is going to rue the day he ever decided to cross swords with you.

I appreciate your kind words, Kevin. If you have seen anything in my "mere squib" that comes anywhere close to the prose stylings of Daniel Peterson, then I am certainly flattered. At the same time, I shrink from comparing myself to Dr. Peterson beyond my occasional flashes of eloquence or wit. My sense of Dr. Peterson is that he outclasses me in almost every respect when it comes to erudition and rhetorical ability.

I hope Daniel does not rue the day we started to interact or ever come to. I bear him no ill will, and I don't anticipate anything I say or do impacting him negatively. What I hope is that there is an improvement of the interaction between apologists and fellow members such that everyone is better served.

Thanks again for your kind words, Kevin.

[_Gadianton]

The sad part is, that even the moderators can often be found playing in the mud. If you want this place to be different than the Great and Spacious Trailer Park, then don't act like them.

I think it's a fair representation of the Mopologetic outlook to see things in terms of the good and pure (themselves) as wealthy or of a high socioeconomic class and those who disagree with them as poor and unaccomplished "trailer trash." This is one epithet of many they might have picked that relies on some kind of bigotry to paint themselves as superior. They don't like us, big deal, I'm not offended by everyone who doesn't like me. But their terminology does raise an eyebrow for other reasons. Their utter contempt for the poor, less educated, or for those who haven't had the opportunities they've had is revealing, and quite in contrast to the sympathies of Jesus.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I noticed that Trevor Holyoak is now backpedaling. Apparently, he now thinks that it *is* cyber-stalking to lift people's publicly available stuff and to re-post it.

I know you're reading, Trev-meister. It sounds like you have some pull with the FAIR Wiki people. Why don't you use that pull to get the material taken down? I get that you're scared, and I hope that insulting my reading ability made you feel better. Meanwhile, how's about you try to do the right thing here? I'm sure none of us cares whether or not it was actually you, personally, who posted the quotes in the first place. The fact remains that you defended the quotes being there. So it would be nice if you would either (a) try to get them taken down, and/or (b) revise your statement about the quotes not constituting "cyber-stalking."