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

[Guest]

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 fear you're not listening.

1) I completely support the "free movement of ideas." I'm getting a Ph.D. I'm publishing in peer reviewed journals (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22 ... sdt=0%2C45) . I believe in truth/honesty/openness/data. I also believe in peer review (when it comes to "journal articles")....something that Smith, Peterson, Midgley and others could have clearly benefited from.

2) I alerted the church to the Greg Smith article NOT to suppress it. I saw it as an opportunity to shine a light on Mormon ad hominem apologetics (MAHA). I have good data now (http://whymormonsquestion.org) to support the notion that MAHA is damaging to the church AND to its members. So I let the church know about it, and guess what? THEY stopped it...not me. If you have a beef, take it to the GA's involved, and to President Samuelson. Charge them with suppression or censorship if you'd like, but at the end of the day...it's pretty clear to me (at least for now) that the church has rejected church-sponsored MAHA via the suppression of this article, and through the dismissal of Daniel Peterson, Lou Midgley, Greg Smith, and all of their kind from the Maxwell Institute. The church may not officially condemn MAHA, but it's pretty clear that they don't want their name or BYU's name associated with it, which was my major concern/motivation in alerting the church to it.

3) I have no problem with Greg Smith's article being published in non-church-related fora like "the Inerpreter." Frankly, publishing it there provides us all the opportunity to peer review its "scholarship" -- which is apparently lacking, as Rollo's review makes so abundantly clear. There wasn't even a subtle attempt at fairness with Smith's article. To be honest, the article reminds me of painter John McNaughton's work:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... m--artwork

Again, I am totally open to critiques. I try to incorporate feedback every day. But Smith's article wasn't constructive (in my opinion). It was a hit piece. And thanks to Rollo, everyone can now (yet again) get a sense for how Greg Smith, Daniel Peterson, Bill Hamblin, and Lou Midgley operate.

Peer Review, critique, and "the free movement of ideas" for the win.

[_MsJack]

why me,

I fear you're not listening.

You're wasting your time, John.

If it makes the LDS church and/or Mormon apologists look bad, why me will attack it. He's not above attacking the family or loved ones of the people in question either, even if they have nothing to do with this message board.

When the LDS church does or teaches anything questionable or Mormon apologists engage in atrocious behavior, why me will defend it.

Those two things are constants. Count on it. All that matters to him is the ends, not the means.

There is no reasoning with him, there is no stopping him. He's like a bad Mormo-Catholic computer virus meant to derail and pollute threads with specious, vapid, vaguely pro-Mormon/pro-apologist crap. The only answer is vaccination (i.e. use your ignore feature).

Hope you are well!

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I read the piece but found it a rather rambling piece. Hard to focus on.

Truth be told, I agree. I was bored reviewing an essay that was a real yawner. Many times I wanted to quit, but my adrenaline would spike when I found yet another misrepresentation in Smith's essay and knew his libel had to be answered, even if I was bored to tears.

Maybe it was the repetitioin of 'dubious' that is throughout the article.

The reason for this was to differentiate between Smith's two essays published on the same day. I used the italicized Dubious to refer to the review and the italicized RUR to refer to the other. I don't think I used the word "dubious" in any context other than to refer to my designation for Smith's primary essay.

Also, it was very one sided. It needs some balance.

Believe it or not, I tried to be balanced, but I know some parts did not come across that way. I also tried not to include snarky remarks, but I know a few are in there (probably added to keep me and the reader awake). But I did try to keep the focus on the substance in Smith's essay and his cited sources. I also agree there is not a lot of "balance," but I attribute this to the fact that Smith's essay was truly awful (and intentionally misleading, in my opinion) and should not have been published in this condition.

[_robuchan]

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.

meh. What do you know about business? He didn't get fired from his job. His responsibilities got shuffled. It was during the summer when most professors are off doing different things. Further, how many immoral acts have you committed today? I've already done a couple myself. Get down off your high horse.

[_solomarineris]

Deacon
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?

Really,
Just tell me who is that gullible person staying in church after getting this information? When I came to UT in 1980 I bought one of the Tanner's "Mormonism Shadow Reality", what were the chances of keeping my faith afterwards?
After interviewing heavy guns like Toscanos, G.Palmer and many other rabid un-Mormons there's no chance for anybody sticking around unless they had TMS spouses.
Church made a huge mistake not exing this guy.

Dehlin has lots of issues, one of them is he craves for charisma, needs to build up his business, which I'm not faulting him for.
As far as damaging Church, John was great.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Dehlin has lots of issues, one of them is he craves for charisma, needs to build up his business, which I'm not faulting him for. As far as damaging Church, John was great.

I completely disagree. I don't see Dehlin as "craving" anything, other than to help people the best he can. And I don't think he has "damaged" the Church. If anything, I believe the Brethren are taking and using the data John has compiled to address the obvious problems with members leaving. That can only be a positive for the Church, in my opinion. Frankly, we need more people like John in the Church, and I'm convinced the Brethren know and accept this. Baby steps, baby steps ....

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Rollo

Frankly, we need more people like John in the Church

Forget "the church", we need more people like John in the world!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_stemelbow]

I don't' have many things to say about Rollo's review. I've grown very tired of this whole affair. But oh well. It's good to have some dialogue going on.

For posting on a message board that seems to be more about personal attacks than anything else, you guys sure seem sensitive and overly dramatic when pointing out "attacks" from others. I mean half the things Rollo calls attacks, it seems, aren't anything near attacks. But, I'll just say it's adorable to see the hostility about it.

Mr. Dehlin,

If you are so opposed to ad hominem attacks one must wonder why you would ever stoop to name-calling and vicious attacks yourself? From my shakey standpoint it appears to me that Smith's piece never gets near as nasty as you have been towards Peterson and others.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Forget "the church", we need more people like John in the world!

+1 million!!!!!

[_Kishkumen]

I completely disagree. I don't see Dehlin as "craving" anything, other than to help people the best he can. And I don't think he has "damaged" the Church. If anything, I believe the Brethren are taking and using the data John has compiled to address the obvious problems with members leaving. That can only be a positive for the Church, in my opinion. Frankly, we need more people like John in the Church, and I'm convinced the Brethren know and accept this. Baby steps, baby steps ....

The way people talk you would think John Dehlin had invented the internet (instead of Al Gore!). The internet is the reason why there has been a firestorm of lost testimonies and resignations. It was much harder to access anything like decent information about LDS history in the past. It was even more difficult to discuss misgivings with other Mormons. The internet made all of that possible. FARMS' and FAIR's response was to treat every doubter like an anti-Mormon and beat up on them with reckless abandon.

We see how all that worked out. Mormonism's over-eager defenders did make the LDS Church look like Scientology-Lite. The TIME Lightbox incident is an excellent example of this sort of thing. Apologetic and critical flashmobs suddenly converge in an orgy of flaming. It was truly ugly business, which I am happy to say I gave wide berth.

If anything, John Dehlin gave people a place to work things out that was much less hostile. If anyone supposes that getting bullied by apologists over on MDDB or a FAIR blog was going to save more testimonies, that person is delusional.

Rollo is totally right: in the long run John Dehlin's impact will be much better for the LDS Church. The Church has learned a great deal through this experience. It has learned that fanatical polemicists do not serve the interests of the organization very well. Doubters need different resources from those that classic-FARMS and FAIR have offered. It helps not one bit to treat the person who is still half way in the Church as though she or he were a bitter enemy. Yet that is what Mopologists have done many, many times.