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

[_stemelbow]

If I may briefly interrupt your nonstop frenzy to derail anything that second guesses your Mopologist heroes:

The ad hominem fallacy does not simply mean "you said something mean about me." It means raising irrelevant accusations about a person's character to distract from the matter at issue.

Don't fret, DJ. I'm not using it as you think.

When Moplogists try to characterize everyone who disputes the faith-promoting narrative as a puppet of Satan, it does not address the issues of severe problems with LDS truth claims.

CFR? Any examples of this characterization? Just curious.

Not only are Moplogists making people hostile to Mormonism who otherwise might not be, they are not doing what they purport to do (answer criticisms of their cherished beliefs).

Since your example is, as you well know, asinine, then perhaps you might realize hostility is most often served over on this board by folks like you.

Indeed, in your efforts to complain about me, when the topic seems to be too much for you to handle, you have attempted to attack a whole host of other folks in some weird effort to try and make me feel small. No doubt, you get plenty of back pats from your pals when you get so nasty, I just wanted to point out, your seething rage is too apparent for me to take any complaints about LDS folks behaving badly seriously.

[_cwald]

That's good. we all try. I'm sure Dr Peterson,for instance, tries too. Sadly, I simly haven't seen him, nor Greg Smith, call you a pathetic person or a pathological deceiver, no?

Are you kidding? Did you not read the OP? Christ man...your motivation to ignore the facts and defend the church ie Smith at all costs just became abundantly clear.

Consequently, it is not surprising that most attacks in the Dubious Review are aimed at Dehlin the man. Some examples:

a. Dehlin included among “a few particularly vocal and visible leavetakers from traditional or literal-faith Mormonism.” (Dubious Review at 4);

b. Describing Dehlin as an “overt doubter” and “unbeliever.” (Id. at 5);

c. “Dehlin’s on-line endeavors endorse skepticism about LDS truth claims, oppose the teachings of [the LDS Church] on some matters of sexual morality, and seek to form a network of ‘uncorrelated Mormons.’” (Id.);

d. Dehlin “invokes many of the standard anti-Mormon themes and criticisms.” (Id. at 8);

e. Dehlin characterized as “exit counselor” similar to anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner. (Id. at 9);

f. “It is shocking that Dehlin” complains about the atonement as espoused by “the normative Latter-day Saint views of sin and atonement.” (Id. at 13);

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

h. Dehlin “spends considerable effort poisoning the well against those who support the Church.” (Id. at 19);

i. Dehlin compared (negatively) to the editor of Mormon Think. (Id. at 20);

j. In “less formal moments [i.e., on Facebook], [Dehlin’s] attitude toward those believers who are dishonest, unintelligent, or humorless enough to dispute his conclusions is revealed as less tolerant or benign.” (Id. at 33; see also Smith’s footnote at the end of this sentence, which reveals that Smith was referring to Dehlin’s rough treatment of classic-FARMS apologists);

k. Smith, apparently role-playing as Dehlin’s bishop, attacks Dehlin’s worthiness to hold a temple recommend. (See id. at 38-42);

l. “Dehlin’s attitude toward homosexual acts is opposed to the Church’s stance, but some LDS participants in his study [i.e., a study completed in 2011 about the experiences of gay LDS members] might well be unaware of this if he only describes himself as a life-long Mormon. They may expect, but not get, someone who is fundamentally friendly to their values and covenants.” (Id. at 68);

m. Dehlin attacked for enjoying The Book of Mormon musical. (Id. at 69-70; see also id. at 74);

n. “Dehlin shows little empathy for the Mormon believer. His attitude might be seen by some as contemptuous towards those with whom he still claims some nominal connection.” (Id. at 70);

o. Concluding Dehlin’s activities satisfy criteria for “false prophets and teachers” as described by Elder Ballard at the Oct. 1999 Gen’l Conference. (Id. at 71-76);

p. Describing Dehlin as having “traits which mirror those of a sociological apostate.” (Id. at 81-82);

q. Suggesting Dehlin is in it for the money. (See id. at 82);

r. Part of Smith’s conclusion: “The material reviewed herein has a persistent bias and it is oriented against the Church’s truth claims, its moral teachings, its leaders, and the doctrine of Christ.” (Id. at 96);

s. Part of Smith’s conclusion: “But, as far as the Church of Jesus Christ is concerned, [Dehlin] generally helps members by moving them intellectually away from belief. He also moves them emotionally and spiritually away from the Church’s traditional support systems.” (Id. at 96-97); and

t. Also as part of his conclusion, Smith charges Dehlin with trying to usurp power from Church leaders: “[Dehlin] cannot control or displace Church leaders on their own turf, so he will create parallel communities of Mormons (whether active, disaffected, or former)[,]” and “[Dehlin] seeks to replace this social system with his own group, with its own ethos and counter-narrative, with him in a position of leadership.” (Id. at 97).

[_Molok]

Cwald, your problem is, nowhere in that quote are the words "pathetic person" or "pathological deceiver." When dealing with Stemelbow, you must always be hyper literal. It's the trademark of someone who knows they have a crappy argument but just wants to make people stop talking about things they don't like.

[_stemelbow]

Are you kidding? Did you not read the OP? Christ man...your motivation to ignore the facts and defend the church ie Smith at all costs just became abundantly clear.

Sure I read it. I personally don't think saying Dehlin is vocal and left the church, at least for a spell is on equal footing at all. Indeed, I'm not sure how you see them as comparable at all. But, if that's how you see it, then so be it. I'll leave you to your view.

by the way, Molok is just some angry dude who likes to put out posts to complain about me, just so you know.

[_cwald]

Cwald, your problem is, nowhere in that quote are the words "pathetic person" or "pathological deceiver." When dealing with Stemelbow, you must always be hyper literal. It's the trademark of someone who knows they have a s****y argument but just wants to make people stop talking about things they don't like.

Yeah. I'm not good at playing these LDS games.

[_why me]

My two biggest concerns about Greg's articles are the following:

1) Does he give fair consideration to the many faith-promoting interviews I've attempted to conduct, and to the many apologetic and/or believers that I've tried to interview on Mormon Stories -- INCLUDING members of FAIR. Of course I have had my biases and internal conflicts over time, but I've tried harder than any other podcast I know of to be as fair/balanced as possible. Just check out this list of "faithful" interviews:

http://mormonstories.org/category/faith/

Did Smith give any fair consideration to these?

2) Hundreds and hundreds of people over the years have "testified" that Mormon Stories has helped them STAY in the church.

http://mormonstories.org/you-the-church ... n-stories/ (see the comments)

Did he give any mention to these stories/testimonials to provide at least some balance to the accusations that Mormon Stories leads people away from the church?

Those are my two biggest concerns about his interview. They really condense into one primary concern -- he didn't even make an attempt at fairness or objectivity. It was a hit piece from start to finish.

I think john that you were the problem because you drifted like a jellyfish on the open sea. Sure you helped people. Not doubt about it. But then you did an about face and went the other way...and led people out. And now you are back and maybe you will get some people back in the church. And thus, the problem. You became the pied piper. You will need to take responsibility for this. I am glad that you are back but a piece about you and your work still needed to be written. Do you see anything in Greg's piece that you agree with? I am sure that you do.

Lets look at Don Bradley. He left...wrote critical material about the church and now he is making up for it and he is doing a great job. Can you do the same?

[_Stormy Waters]

Lets look at Don Bradley. He left...wrote critical material about the church and now he is making up for it and he is doing a great job. Can you do the same?

Making up for it?
I wonder how Bradley would feel about your classification of his current work.

[_why me]

Lets look at Don Bradley. He left...wrote critical material about the church and now he is making up for it and he is doing a great job. Can you do the same?

Making up for it?
I wonder how Bradley would feel about your classification of his current work.

I think that he will feel rather good about it. I don't think that it is easy to leave, write critical pieces about the church and then return to church knowing what was previously written. I admire Don very much for the work that he is now doing.

[_Darth J]

If I may briefly interrupt your nonstop frenzy to derail anything that second guesses your Mopologist heroes:

The ad hominem fallacy does not simply mean "you said something mean about me." It means raising irrelevant accusations about a person's character to distract from the matter at issue.

Don't fret, DJ. I'm not using it as you think.

You mean you are not using a commonly-accepted term that is hundreds of years old in the way everyone else in the world uses it? Yes, I am aware of that.

When Moplogists try to characterize everyone who disputes the faith-promoting narrative as a puppet of Satan, it does not address the issues of severe problems with LDS truth claims.

CFR? Any examples of this characterization? Just curious.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/595 ... 1209207123

If one cares to see that which does not manifest love but something rather debasing and crude, please have a look at the responses of Remo, CrazyHamster, True Believer, Inquiring Mind, Jenny, wayfarer, EternityIsNow, cwald and alas to my essay, all of which can be found at http://forum.neworde...hp?f=1&t=29154. Then one might be able to see exactly why I find these marginal movements on the fringes of the community of Saints less than helpful, if not actually demonic.

(Ten bucks says Stemelbow will say the words in front of his face are not there.)

Not only are Moplogists making people hostile to Mormonism who otherwise might not be, they are not doing what they purport to do (answer criticisms of their cherished beliefs).

Since your example is, as you well know, asinine, then perhaps you might realize hostility is most often served over on this board by folks like you.

Indeed, in your efforts to complain about me, when the topic seems to be too much for you to handle, you have attempted to attack a whole host of other folks in some weird effort to try and make me feel small. No doubt, you get plenty of back pats from your pals when you get so nasty, I just wanted to point out, your seething rage is too apparent for me to take any complaints about LDS folks behaving badly seriously.

As it turns out, your living in a complete fantasy world does not obligate anyone else to accept your fantasy world as real. There's not a rational adult outside of your world of make-believe who would take any of your assertions any more seriously than those of a ranting street preacher. However, I'm sure telling yourself that "faith is evidence of faith based on faith" is such a profound insight that it stuns the infidels into impotent rage fits right into your milieu of imaginary ancient civilizations, magic cooking oil, and secret handshakes to get back into heaven with your extraterrestrial primate god.

[_Tobin]

Lets look at Don Bradley. He left...wrote critical material about the church and now he is making up for it and he is doing a great job. Can you do the same?

Making up for it?
I wonder how Bradley would feel about your classification of his current work.

Yeah, that comment made me wonder too. The gospel of repentance is about change, not making up for things. We ask the Lord to help us to improve and for forgiveness. The consequence of our mistakes or sins is punishment enough. There is no requirement that we be punished or make up for it after we return to the Lord.