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

[Guest]

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.

well that just "came to pass"

[Guest]

Phenomenal research. Really, people post long, thoughtful, well-deliberated posts all the time but this is extremely good work. Hopefully the other forums that are discussing this whole episode can get a glimpse at where that essay came from.

I never really liked John Dehlin (it's alright, no beef). But after all those attacks on John Dehlin by Smith, I've never felt this bad for the guy before. I mean he's attacked on all sides now, especially when he's feeling guilty about a number of things out of his control. I don't wonder why he went back to church; how long can you take that kind of pressure without wanting to just make your peace and keep quiet. To his credit he managed it all for several years. He's is however much more equipped for the active Mormon lifestyle than the ex-mormon.

But wow. The most disturbing part is how much of this guy's most compelling research was done via Facebook (I wonder if Trevor is going to leave his Facebook posts up lol). You're going to try to publish an ad hominem piece based on Facebook posts gathered by informants trying to bait him on his own wall? That is CIA creepy. Along with the stake president and ward member trying to find dirt on him. I really hope he doesn't believe they were only trying to help and meant well. You don't try to serve someone by sneaking around and spying on them. If it were me I'd never be able to attend church under that stake president or look him in the eyes, but he's obviously got a lot more spiritual vitality.

I don't agree with but can see where some of Smith's assessments are coming from. For example, I do agree he was trying to help the title "Mormon" be a more a culturally significant label instead of simply a religious one. I also don't think there's any problem with that at all. It's completely ludicrous and manipulative to its core to try to restrict being able to identify yourself as Mormon if you're active (attend once a month)? That's ridiculous. It certainly wasn't meant to be subversive. Another example is saying he attempts to "poison the well" for believers towards apologetics. Sorry but he didn't shy away from calling due attention to the fact that Mormon apologetics is awful. Heck, Michael Ash was the frontman for it for a long-time and the highest accomplishment on his CV was (is still?) his high school diploma. No one takes Mormon apologists seriously, nor should they. It's the reason so many of us persisted in doubting, and when you couple that with the church's ultimatum that you either believe it all or none of it, you end up having a lot of people in a whirlwind of confusion who feel displaced and dejected ("disaffected" might not be the best euphamism since it implies fault with the doubter). Anyways no one in their right mind would support and praise the caliber of work FARMS and FAIR currently puts out to remain the standard for attempting to reconcile religion to reality in Mormon academia. It's sub-par even by religious apologetics standards, let alone academia.

Not to kick him when he's down but part of me feels like a lot of the ammo used in this "hit piece" was JD's fault for making his Facebook profile public and using it as a tool to connect. In reality I know that was an important way for him to be personal and striving for complete transparency (which is admirable and hard to maintain as a public figure of sorts). The problem with that is the people doing the spying and dirt-digging can spin things around to take advantage of you as well.

All in all I'm not surprised or disappointed in JD's attempt to go back to church since I think that's really where he wants to be when it comes down to it. He's had to fight a long hard fight to find a way to make activity work, so if I were him I'd keep quiet and enjoy it. It's odd though the way it turned out. He wasn't attacked by us, it was the Mormon church in some ways that methodically and covertly resorted to borderline character assassination. I didn't really feel like he threw MOST of us under the bus, I can see a lot of exmormon stereotypes confirmed, even in myself at times, but I think a lot of that is because Mormons are hypersensitive. But he needs to do what he feels makes him happy, and I think he's doing that now. Knowing the way he interprets these things he may need to probably be careful in assuming all questioning or ex-mormons need to go back to be happy too, since that is certainly not the case for most Mormons that can just leave and leave it alone, but for him and maybe some exmormons that still obsess about the church, that's pretty obviously the case. I'm probably going to go back too because hard a struggle as it is both in or out, it just seems the better for me.

The whole MormonStories series was overall a positive thing, I think both sides can agree, because it's one of the first really wake-up calls to the church in a while: Awareness. Something the church was lacking immensely (and very ironically). Awareness of how poorly homosexual empathy is handled, the insufficiency of Mormon explanations to doctrinal concerns, the compounding mess that hiding problems does, the damage the "all or nothing/in or out" ultimatum the Book of Mormon veracity claim does to those who struggle with doubts, the way church history has been whitewashed selectively, the reasons people leave, and many more.

You have to at least respect the fact that the church is taking seriously his concerns when he voiced them. God knows we've been barking the same problems, week in week out like a freaking broken record for decades, and they're all by default immediately dismissed and ignored as being OUR problem. JD had a way of doing it so at least the church listens finally.

[_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 record, I wasn't trying to censor the publication of the article when I alerted the church to it. I knew it would ultimately be published one way or another. What I was trying to do was disrupt BYU/Maxwell Institute/Church-sponsored ad hominem attacks led by the likes of Greg Smith, Daniel Peterson, and Lou Midgley.

We need to be honest here John. You went to a GA for help. Help in what? Getting the piece stopped? And why alert the church to anything? What happened to the free movement of ideas? And did you read the article before you went to the 'church'? Or did you listen to people who actually dislike the church?

You are not god, john. You can be critiqued for the work that you have done, especially for the work that you did when you were basically mentally out of the church.

I thought that your podcasts were good in the beginning. But...they went astray during your 'out' years. And many people seemed to follow you around like the pied piper...you had influence. MormonStories and your role in it should be open for discussion and critique.

[_why me]

I never really liked John Dehlin (it's all right, no beef). But after all those attacks on John Dehlin by Smith, I've never felt this bad for the guy before. I mean he's attacked on all sides now, especially when he's feeling guilty about a number of things out of his control.

Where is John being attacked? By one article? Geez....

If the MormonStories podcasts were leading people out the church, it should be open to critique. If John through his conferences were leading people out of the church, he should be critiqued for the work that he was doing.

Here is the bottomline: the article was written when John was at his most critical of the LDS church and his podcasts too. What should the apologists have done? Give him a free pass? And the article needed to be published now because of all the hay about it from john and the critics. The critics showed their true colors on this one: censors. They sent emails to the church, to the MI and named names and moaned and groaned about a piece that they never read. Why? Because they need to moan on and on about some volunteer apologists and they thought that john was doing a great job in leading people out of the church or in bringing the 'truth' to the Mormons.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Whyme, do you still think Gerald Bradford is in a state of apostasy?

Do you still think that Gerald Bradford is worse than an adulterer, which means in Mormon Theological terms you would consider Gerald Bradford on par with a murderer?

Do you still think "apostasy in high places" is the reason for Daniel Peterson being removed from his position at MI and his second office?

And last of all, do you anything other than unconfirmable hearsay to support your accusations in your post above.

[_Harold Lee]

I never really liked John Dehlin (it's all right, no beef). But after all those attacks on John Dehlin by Smith, I've never felt this bad for the guy before. I mean he's attacked on all sides now, especially when he's feeling guilty about a number of things out of his control.

Where is John being attacked? By one article? Geez....

If the MormonStories podcasts were leading people out the church, it should be open to critique. If John through his conferences were leading people out of the church, he should be critiqued for the work that he was doing.

The whole point of MormonStories is not to lead people out of the church. Everything on the podcasts is common knowledge. You'd rather Mormons be ignorant about problems? Just hide it away and apologists work is damage control? People are forced out because the church's official response to historical concerns (say the fact Emma was sealed to Joseph years after other women who were already married)- the church's official response to that is the Book of Mormon is either true or it's not, either believe it and everything that goes with it (whatever we say) or you MUST deny it all together if you don't believe it. Well this forces people with doubts out of the church. There is literally no provision for doubters, we're all in or all out. That's the attitude taken when concerns come up for Mormons, and it's reflected in leadership and how wards members treat doubters.

Every day there's Mormons who feel kicked out by the fact that it's all true or all false, and if you don't believe it there's something spiritually wrong with you. MormonStories is (was?) a collection of those people who are suddenly displaced because they can't believe everything together as they're mandated to do. Okay some people can believe everything without questioning, some can't. That's the beauty of life, everyone is different. But people who have struggle just taking everything on faith without seriously considering both sides of a complicated issue need to be marginilized or convinced and made to feel unwelcome?

You can't seriously believe it's just been one article. The way this article was made as a personal assault, and the way it was researched was filthy. That's the main outrage about it here. This is not scholarship.

We're just moaning and groaning lol about a volunteer apologist. Right. Great work, the fact we're not embracing it completely is our problem.

[_why me]

Whyme, do you still think Gerald Bradford is in a state of apostasy?

Do you still think that Gerald Bradford is worse than an adulterer, which means in Mormon Theological terms you would consider Gerald Bradford on par with a murderer?
.

I will try this again: a person who fires someone who is away on vacation has committed a very immoral act. And if they are a church member, it is certainly not a way to do it. That is the gospel according to why me.

And I am writing in general terms and not about anyone in particular. It is just the way that I see it regardless of who she or he is. But this is not a thread about this, is it?

[_Uther]

Hats off to you Rollo for a great post. Thank you for the time you put into it.

[_MsJack]

Phenomenal essay, Rollo. Well done.

Thanks, Rollo. This is on the order and magnitude of MsJack's expose about Schryver's misogyny.

And I hope all of the Willpologists who insisted that my thread misrepresented, misquoted, or took Schryver out of context were taking notes.

This is what such faux pas look like, and this is how you document them. You look up the original context, post it, and show how the author in question misrepresented what the original subject said.

You don't just pound the table about how misrepresented you were. That's both lazy and wholly unconvincing.

[_Kishkumen]

I will try this again: a person who fires someone who is away on vacation has committed a very immoral act.

For the umpteenth time, Gerald Bradford did not fire Daniel Peterson. Daniel Peterson is still gainfully employed at BYU.