for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stories

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Does Dr. Tomasi have a spot on the Cassius faculty?

- Doctor C

[_Cylon]

Well done, Rollo Tomasi. You obviously spent a lot of time and effort on this review. Thanks for sharing your work!

[_robuchan]

If the critics and john would have just let this article be published without the whining, all would have been well. But...since the critics and john were whining on and on about this article, well...we are at the place we are now at. Amazing that the critics and john would support censorship.

Please define what you mean by the bolded phrase? Are you referring to the status of FARMS after church HQ applied the Dresden treatment to DCP and his gang? What exactly do you mean?

[_cinepro]

Wow. Great review.

Here are my thoughts.

1. The Dubious Review is a “Hit Piece” on Dehlin, NOT a review of Mormon Stories:

While Mormon Stories certainly has the involvement of more than just Dehlin (especially now), I'm not surprised that Smith's review focuses on Dehlin's interviews and public statements. Even Dehlin acknowledged the central role he was playing in the scheme of things (and his discomfort with it). I think it is valid for Smith to include such things in his "review".

2. The Dubious Review is Outdated:

I agree with that. Since it was written at least a year ago (and only references podcasts and statements from that time or earlier), it doesn't take into account any changes since then. Obviously Dehlin has made some changes to his life recently, so Smith's essay is more of a snapshot in time. It might have been a good idea to include a note about this.

3. Did Smith Bait Dehlin for Juicier Quotes and Material to Use in the Essay?:

That's pretty interesting. Whether intentional or just coincidental, it should have been disclosed. But Dehlin is still responsible for saying what he said. I don't think he was "baited" into saying anything he didn't believe.

4. Smith’s Manipulation of Dehlin Quotes:

I've listened to the Larsen interview, the Coe interview, the Sex and Marriage Interview, and Dehlin's January 2013 interview, and I don't think Smith misrepresents Dehlin's feelings towards the Church or apologetic issues, or the Church's stance towards homosexuality and chastity in general, in any material degree. It certainly condenses them.

5. Other Misquotes:

A lot of these "misquotes" seem based on Smith's more "tradional" view of LDS teachings on chastity. I might not agree with Smith's understanding of the Church's policies/teachings on these subjects, but I think he accurately reflects the understanding many LDS reading the essay would have. Certainly, the reader is capable of deciding for themselves whether they like what Smith has to say, or Dehlin. You can't deny that Dehlin supports changing the LDS view of chastity in ways that are materially more "liberal" than what is currently taught. And the quote provided by Elder Ballard does warn LDS about such things, so it could be a valid concern for LDS.

6. Smith attacks Dehlin’s work with LDS homosexuals:

As far as I can tell, the Church is still 100% opposed to Same Sex Marriage, without any wiggle room or equivocation. If Dehlin is using Mormon Stories to support Same Sex Marriage, that's probably a valid issue to be discussed.

7. Smith calls himself to serve as Dehlin’s bishop:

I think Smith definitely fumbles the ball in this section of the essay. First let me say that if someone is going to publicly disclose they have a Temple Recommend as if it means something, then I think it's valid to discuss what, exactly, it does mean. Since the TR questions are publicly available, and Dehlin has made public statements that deal with doctrinal and theological matters that are discussed in those questions, then I think that could be a valid discussion. It isn't based on gossip or assumptions, it's what he has said publicly and without correction.

But I think Smith takes the discussion into an area of judgement that is best left alone.

8. Smith uses Dehlin’s interview of Dr. Michael Coe as a “Case Study”:

Even listening to it the first time, I thought this interview was pretty bad for Dehlin (although I did defend Coe's participation at MAD, Dehlin's questions and steering of the interview were a huge disappointment). But I agree that the whole section could have been removed from the essay (along with the part about the survey).

9. Smith attacks Dehlin’s survey of Ex-Mormons that the LDS Church has reviewed:

This part was unnecessary. I think the survey could be very useful for many different people (including Church leaders and apologists), in spite of its flaws. If the Church were to commission it's own surveys using its better information and resources, that would be great. Hopefully Dehlin's survey won't be the last word on the subject.

10. Conclusion:

I agree that Smith's essay is out of date, too long, and at least part "hack job", but as I've said before, I think he does make important points about Dehlin's motives and beliefs (points which Dehlin himself confirms in his January 2013 podcast). You can argue that the points are valid, should be ignored, or are irrelevant, or aren't "nice", but irregardless, I think they are ultimately supported by the evidence and could be a concern to LDS that would otherwise be unaware of them.

But great review. It would be great if the Interpreter would post this as a response, but alas, my faith doesn't create such miracles.

[_Darth J]

6. Smith attacks Dehlin’s work with LDS homosexuals:

As far as I can tell, the Church is still 100% opposed to Same Sex Marriage, without any wiggle room or equivocation. If Dehlin is using Mormon Stories to support Same Sex Marriage, that's probably a valid issue to be discussed.

It is? Supporting same-sex marriage is apostasy?

Thomas S. Monson named as new LDS Church president

Regarding another question about whether church members could disagree with the faith's opposition to legalizing same-sex unions and still remain in good standing, he said the answer "depends on what the disagreement is."

"If it's an apostasy situation, that would not be appropriate. If it's something political, there is room for opinion here and there on either side."

If there is room to disagree with the Church on political issues (the constitutionality of Prop 8 is a legal issue, not a political one, but never mind), then why is Dehlin's support for same-sex marriage a valid issue to be discussed? Can't members of the Church take the President of the Church at his word? Was President Monson lying when he said that?

[_Darth J]

Cinepro, you've been commenting on this a lot, so just to clarify:

Is it your belief that a 100-page unilateral temple recommend interview can legitimately be characterized as a scholarly research paper?

ETA: I'll phrase that a different way, if it helps.

"The difference between Greg Smith's article, and a laughably sophomoric witch hunt that makes Mormonism look even more like Diet Scientology, is (fill in the blank) __________________________________."

[Guest]

Fantastic work, Rollo Tomasi. You have shown, once and for all, that Greg Smith's Dubious Review is indeed a hit piece deliberately and maliciously designed to destroy John Dehlin's reputation. It is crystal clear that Smith twisted the truth in order to make John look bad. He engaged spies that were sent out to provoke John into opining on this and that so that they could mine his words, selectively, in order to put together spurious quotes and thus attempt to discredit John.

I agree with cinepro that you should submit this to the Interpreter. I'm not joking. You should email it individually to each member of the editorial board and recommend that they push for its publication as a response to the hit piece. If they refuse to do so, or the chief editor refuses to act on their recommendation, then it will condemn them and ruin whatever credibility they think they have.

I hope cinepro is fully satisfied by the evidence that you have presented that shows Greg Smith misrepresented Dehlin. He has spent far too long defending Smith's distorted view of John. I would go further and say that cinepro owes John Dehlin an apology for being willing to defend the hit piece without doing his homework or accepting anything short of this kind of Herculean effort before he would lay off. He has backed the wrong horse and it is time for an apology.

So, how about it, cinepro?

[_Stormy Waters]

You can argue that the points are valid, should be ignored, or are irrelevant, or aren't "nice", but irregardless, I think they are ultimately supported by the evidence and could be a concern to LDS that would otherwise be unaware of them.

The Mormon Expression podcast was posted to the Mormon Stories website. He's been open about his positions. Not sure what else he should have done as far as disclosure goes.

[_Kishkumen]

I agree that Smith's essay is out of date, too long, and at least part "hack job", but as I've said before, I think he does make important points about Dehlin's motives and beliefs (points which Dehlin himself confirms in his January 2013 podcast). You can argue that the points are valid, should be ignored, or are irrelevant, or aren't "nice", but irregardless, I think they are ultimately supported by the evidence and could be a concern to LDS that would otherwise be unaware of them.

What you really ought to say is that you support Greg Smith's attempt to scare people away from listening to John Dehlin by bogusly painting him as the devious radical that he is not and constructing a straw man that is designed to set off those members who hold particular prejudices, some of them especially vile.

[_Kishkumen]

You can argue that the points are valid, should be ignored, or are irrelevant, or aren't "nice", but irregardless, I think they are ultimately supported by the evidence and could be a concern to LDS that would otherwise be unaware of them.

The Mormon Expression podcast was posted to the Mormon Stories website. He's been open about his positions. Not sure what else he should have done to make people aware.

Stormy, it's like this. He doesn't want LDS people to encounter John Dehlin at all. That is what he is saying. Anyone who did would realize that John is honest to a fault about where he is coming from, and they could quickly decide for themselves whether they should stick around or run away. The Mopologists, however, take people who do not conform to their particular conservative strain of Mormonism and turn them into papier-mâché devils so that no one will ever listen to anything they have to say. These Mopologists aren't protecting the LDS Church so much as their special brand of Mormonism. If it takes lying and smearing to keep the people in line, they are obviously not above doing so. Caught red-handed, they will shrug and move on to the next project.