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

[_Uther]

I think john that you were the problem because you drifted like a jellyfish on the open sea.

Feel free to mock my journey if you wish.

Having a faith crisis is really, really hard. Doing it in public, while sincerely trying to help others along the way -- is even harder.

I don't apologize for my journey. And frankly, I think that one of the biggest failings of FAIR/FARMS/Maxwell is their inability to truly empathize with the disaffected. Frankly, you fit right in.

Hi John,

After observing Why me for a while, I realized that he is what normal people would call "special".
He has absolutely no comprehension skills, and reasons on the level of a 5 year old.
Whenever he is online he rambles on and on apparently competing with himself trying to sound ludicrous.

Some of the things he has written about sexuality triggers the "creepy crazy" vibes, and not just the "special" vibes.
In some ways I feel sorry for him and I hope he has has a nice RL, and understand that since he has no comprehension skills, he probably means well by the strange statements he makes.
When it comes to discussions on this board, I am happy for the feature on the control panel that allows me to put him on ignore.

Same goes for stemelbow. He is some sort of groupie to the madpologist club that wants to buy som cred points by appearing like a clown here.
His speciality seems to be spamming and deraliling. The difference between him and Why me, is that while Why me doesn't know better, Stemelbow is madpologist puppet bent on obfuscating and destroying the thread.

In my opinion it is more productive to have a conversation with a rock.

[_Darth J]

It also betrays an assumption that Mormon history research must be result driven, and that Don Bradley's scholarly work is guided by "switching teams" instead of established, professional standards.

Here is the deal: Don came back because of his research. He regained his testimony of Joseph Smith. And now he is doing great work for the church. John could follow his example.

You're doing it again. You are once again asserting that professional, scholarly research should be guided by a desire to invent faith-promoting propaganda instead of trying to discover objective fact and add to human knowledge.

You're so intellectually dishonest that you can't realize what a backhanded compliment this is to Don. You're claiming that his scholarship is driven by ideology. That's one of the worst things you could say about a historian. You're shamelessly praising the idea that faith promotion is more important than truth value.

[_Blixa]

why me, Don's work on Mormon history has been consistent before, during and after his disaffection and return. This narrative you have created of Don needing to "make up for something" is insulting and offensive and demonstrates how little you know about him and his on-going research and writing.

I admire Don. But the fact is when he left the church, the critics loved him for it. And he wrote things on his blog if I am not mistaken. It was a while ago. And some members most likely left the fold. But now Don is back and doing wonderful work.

I can only speak for myself. If I were a known apologist and left the church and began to write critical pieces and I was having an impact and then when I did more research into historical areas and came back to the church, I would feel a little concerned for those who left because of my possible influence. And I would try to make up for it. But that is me.

1) Don was never a "known apologist."

2) Don never had a blog.

3) For many years, both before and after he left the church, Don conversed with people on message boards about his research. But, he did not publish anything "critical" or "anti," because he's barely published much at all yet (despite having conducted, and in some cases completed, decades of research, because he is methodical to an extraordinary degree).

4) In his years on message boards Don was never someone who encouraged anyone else to leave the church. He never took the proselytizing stance of some exmormons.

5) The worst misperception/misrepresentation in your response is this:

then when I did more research into historical areas and came back to the church,

because you are implying that it was doing more research into Mormon history that led Don back into the church. Nothing could be further from the truth. Don's interest in Mormon history and the amount of work he has put into it has been life long. The degree of his interest and the quality of his work has never varied at any time, whether he was in or out of the church.

As DarthJ pointed out you seem to think "that Mormon history research must be result driven, and that Don Bradley's scholarly work is guided by "switching teams" instead of established, professional standards."

You "admire" him simply because you think he's on your team, but the truth is you have no idea about the "wonderful work" he's doing if you think it has come about recently.

[_Mayan Elephant]

it is hard to sum up a year's worth of talk, discussion and writing on this topic. looking at it thousands of posts and hundreds of pages later, there are some things that are plain and simple (even if they are not mutually agreed.)

a) bradford got it right. (others have already highlighted this.) the MI showed that they either got lucky or wise by stopping the dubious review from being in the formal publication. by being right, they either wisely or luckily made the university president and the COB look better.

b) Smith, Midgley, DCP, Will and others involved seem to have dug in their heels in defending the piece based on its content, intent and style. Meaning, we can expect more.

c) exmormons will forever and ever be considered and described as antimormon by apologists and active Mormons, even if an exmormon were to personally escort the Savior to jackson county this would still be the case. the persecution complex, especially in apologetics, seems too much to overcome.

d) the group that reaches the two-front concerns of the Mormons that are leaving, or considering leaving, will have more followers or subscribers among those Mormons facing these fronts for the first time. those two fronts are: 1) the facts the Mormon members are questioning, be it historical, ethical, financial or other concerns, and 2) their feelings, fears, losses, challenges, health, and all the elements that a person in a "crisis" may encounter.

This review by Rollo, along with a lot of comments made here and in other places, will be persuasive to the MI in their choice to entertain more hit pieces. They have already made their decision on whether to consider more contributions by Smith, which appears to be an emphatic no.

These debates have, and will, highlight the future risks to BYU and others of having anything like Smith's piece in a formal publication of any sort. DCP has even backed off of ever publishing the piece which is where the progress lies in this specific case, but it is not enough to stop him from leading a similar piece against a new target. The missionary or apologetic positions or arguments on display in any board (from either side) are not going to swing a lot of followers. How the dual-front issues are dealt with will make the difference.

No amount of debate is going to move Why Me from his guard outside DCP's door, nor will it convince Scratch to go public and have Elder Holland give him a priesthood blessing before April Conference. The events of the last year surrounding Dehlin and the Review are merely exposing the differences in how those issues are faced. I think that is a good thing. But for now, only the MI seems to have made any changes.

[_Blixa]

Here is the deal: Don came back because of his research.

You have no clue. From what you've written in your last couple of posts you don't seem to even have an accurate grasp of who Don is and what he's done.

[_Kishkumen]

Here is the deal: Don came back because of his research.

You have no clue. From what you've written in your last couple of posts you don't seem to even have an accurate grasp of who Don is and what he's done.

Maybe he will run to MDDB for evidence.

[_Blixa]

Maybe he will run to MDDB for evidence.

I apologize for even responding to that jibber jabber. When will I learn?

[_Kishkumen]

Greg's piece was an honest attempt to critique your work with your podcasts and conferences and chapters and blogs. Nothing more. I think that if you would have returned to the church two years ago, no critique would have been written. This was written when you were out of the church.

Wrong on almost all accounts. It has been shown that Greg Smith was not honest in his criticism of Dehlin, and the piece continued to be revised after Dehlin had returned to full activity in the LDS Church.

Your dishonesty or stupidity is doing nothing to help Smith.

[_cwald]

Dan "Who" Me?" Peterson sure spends a lot of time reading this board.

DCP wrote:

Anyhow, "Rollo Tomasi" has virtually disappeared for long stretches. The Stalker typically only posts a few times daily, and will sometimes vanish for several days at a time. Kishkumen, however, seems lately to be posting up a storm every day from the crack of dawn in the morning until late at night,

[_Kishkumen]

Kishkumen, however, seems lately to be posting up a storm every day from the crack of dawn in the morning until late at night,

Gee, I didn't know I had such dedicated fans.

I feel like Justin Bieber, the only other person Daniel follows so religiously.