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

[_Kishkumen]

No kidding. The worst part of these shenanigans is how infantilizing they are. "Scholarship" is reduced to Facebook stalking and gossip---the métier of bullying teenagers---and the intended audience is patronized as children who need bogeymen stories to "protect" them.

It seems to me that we have ample evidence in support of the view that what is best served by these antics is the fragile egos of the bullies that engage in such tactics.

[_cinepro]

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?

I don't recall calling Smith's paper a "scholarly research paper".

As for it being a "unilateral temple recommend interview", since the TR questions are public knowledge, and John Dehlin has addressed many of the issues contained in the TR interview publicly and clearly, it wouldn't be too hard to figure out how the public Dehlin would (have) answered the questions. Dehlin has explained his beliefs and doubts about the nature and reality of God, Jesus, Joseph Smith's calling, the atonement, church attendance, tithing, and the Law of Chastity. I'm mystified why it is out of bounds to quote Dehlin's own stated beliefs on these subjects? If I were publicly expressing myself in a way that contradicted LDS beliefs on these subjects while at the same time advertising I had a TR, I wouldn't take offense to someone noting the contradiction.

For example, if I publicly said "I don't believe in tithing, and I don't pay it. But I have a temple recommend", I might not like it if someone pointed out the contradiction, but it would be a valid question.

[_cinepro]

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.

If someone were to ask which was the greater misrepresentation: Greg Smith's essay about John Dehlin, or the comments being made about Greg Smith's essay, I'd probably have to flip a coin.

I mean, seriously..."scare people", "bogusly painting"..."devious radical"..."set off those members"..."particularly [vile] prejudices"...

[_Mayan Elephant]

For example, if I publicly said "I don't believe in tithing, and I don't pay it. But I have a temple recommend", I might not like it if someone pointed out the contradiction, but it would be a valid question.

i am not sure that is what dehlin said. and, i do not believe he was attending the temple while not paying tithing. smith is out of line as a bishop, and as a reviewer of dehlin, to make any such comment or inference. the facts do not support his position. strict adherence to smith's instructions from the church do not support it. general decency and ethics would usually kick in and keep someone from drawing poor conclusions to make public judgments.

you and smith share the baseline assumption that if some Mormon somewhere could come to a conclusion by using the same reasoning that you are using here, to negatively judge dehlin, then the the ends justify the means. your'e wrong.

[_Mayan Elephant]

If someone were to ask which was the greater misrepresentation: Greg Smith's essay about John Dehlin, or the comments being made about Greg Smith's essay, I'd probably have to flip a coin.

I mean, seriously..."scare people", "bogusly painting"..."devious radical"..."set off those members"..."particularly [vile] prejudices"...

well. at least you are more efficient than smith. you only cherry-picked one incomplete sentence (or list) worth of quotes, all without context. smith needed 170 pages with footnotes.

[Guest]

Let’s start with the quotes Smith used to attack Dehlin’s apparent praise for Mormon Think. (See Dubious Review at 18). This was part of the Facebook discussion I mentioned in the above section that involved Trevor. Here is how Smith presented the issue in the Dubious Review:

When told that “Mormon Think does not give an honest representation of the church, its history, or beliefs,” Dehlin replies that it is better than anything else: “I can’t think of a more honest one … warts and all. Can you? Certainly not FAIR or FARMS. Certainly not LDS.org …. Both (all) sites are biased – I think that the FAIR site is 50x more biased than Mormon Think. Just my opinion.” Just an opinion – but one that informs the material he produces.

Source: Dubious Review at 18

I went to Dehlin’s Facebook page and looked at the above quotes (which were mined from a Facebook discussion that elicited over 130 posts by numerous individuals). As I noted above, the actual dialogue referenced by Smith was between Dehlin and Trevor Holyoak. I noticed something very interesting from the dialogue as represented in Smith’s essay: Smith had grafted parts of two separate quotes written by Dehlin on separate days to come up with one quote [...]

notice also the way the doctored quote misleads the reader into thinking that when Dehlin writes "Both (all) sites are biased" he's talking only about FAIR/FARMS and LDS.org (i.e. saying that only the Mormon friendly sites are biased).

but in the original context provided by Rollo, "Both (all)" was referring to those sites and MormonThink.

[_palerobber]

With respect to Dehlin’s questioning a historical Jesus [Greg Smith writes], “Dehlin promotes an absurdity that hasn’t been taken seriously by informed readers for decades.” (Id. at 14);

in that section Greg Smith further claims that, "The existence of Jesus is, however, virtually uncontested by biblical scholars regardless of their religious affiliation" and that there is "almost universal consensus on this point".

to support this bold claim he offers:

1. the opinion of Liberty University educated, evangelical apologist Michael R. Licona that "no widely respected scholar" supports Jesus Mythicism.

2. the recent "popular level" book by agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? (which seems an odd offering for a best-selling author if there's "almost universal concensus" on the point).

[_Mormon Think]

Rollo:

An absolutely outstanding review. Brilliant work here.

+1,000,000.

[_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?

I don't recall calling Smith's paper a "scholarly research paper".

I do recall it being touted as such by its author, up to and including the present moment.

And you gave lip service to the big picture, then abandoned it. It doesn't matter whether Greg Smith is "right" from a militant TBM perspective. It doesn't matter if you can make the case that John Dehlin says things contrary to LDS dogma. It's the fact that an attempt to make the case is being undertaken at all. This is not what grown adults with brains and lives of their own do. Period. The only step left is threatening to sue anyone who says your religion is a lie, and then you are full Scientologist.

If I really was an anti-Mormon, I would take this essay to everyone I could find who has started the missionary discussions and say, "Here you go. This is how ostensibly adult Mormons act. Join right in!"

As for it being a "unilateral temple recommend interview", since the TR questions are public knowledge, and John Dehlin has addressed many of the issues contained in the TR interview publicly and clearly, it wouldn't be too hard to figure out how the public Dehlin would (have) answered the questions.

Yeah, Mormonism isn't paternalistic enough as is. So let's have some idiot nerd who used to rock out to New Order at Young Single Adult dances appoint himself as bishop for the world at large.

Dehlin has explained his beliefs and doubts about the nature and reality of God, Jesus, Joseph Smith's calling, the atonement, church attendance, tithing, and the Law of Chastity. I'm mystified why it is out of bounds to quote Dehlin's own stated beliefs on these subjects? If I were publicly expressing myself in a way that contradicted LDS beliefs on these subjects while at the same time advertising I had a TR, I wouldn't take offense to someone noting the contradiction.

Perhaps that's because somewhere during the last 183 years, Mormons lost any concept of "mind your own goddamn business."

For example, if I publicly said "I don't believe in tithing, and I don't pay it. But I have a temple recommend", I might not like it if someone pointed out the contradiction, but it would be a valid question.

Valid how? Valid as in something any rational adult who lives in the real world would do?

[_why me]

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.

why me,

For the love of Pete. Would it be too much to ask you to actually read Rollo's OP before making any comments?

I read the piece but found it a rather rambling piece. Hard to focus on. Maybe it was the repetitioin of 'dubious' that is throughout the article. Also, it was very one sided. It needs some balance.