Yahoo Bot wrote:Untrue. You and your apostrophe-challenged and anonymous pals simply marginalize your opponents in this forum by characterizing their discussion as "dishonest" or "trollish" or other such labeling to avoid discussion.
What is, really, a personal attack [back to Pinkman's comments]? Is that off-limits for a public figure? No, it isn't.
Is a sardonic, smarmy discussion of one's public posting and writings in a way calculated to marginalize and humiliate somehow dishonest or unethical? No, although it may turn off a_l_o_t [sic] here and there.
Rather, the question I continue to post [and I am interested, because I don't like Greg Smith's writing or topics] is whether Dr. Smith dredged up personal non-public information about Dehlin? For instance, statements from his stake president whispered to others; statements from friends; wife; whatever? Now that would be interesting and that would be wrong.
I guess the answer to my question is -- "no."
for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stories
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 10719
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:36 am
Re: for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stori
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:15 am
Re: for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stori
The meat of all 12 pages are contained in Rollo's opening post and Water Dog's last post.
Alpha/Omega
Alpha/Omega
a.k.a. Pokatator joined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21373
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stori
Water Dog wrote:1) It has been very clearly established that Dehlin was taken far out of context and that the review had a basis of deception from which its conclusions were drawn.
2) Dehlin's personal opinions / faith journey is actually quite irrelevant as far as the material on MS is concerned. His opinions certainly are reflected on MS, in misc comments he'll make, the sorts of questions he'll ask, etc., but the podcast is more about the person or persons being interviewed and it's their opinions that are being showcased.
For Smith to demonstrate that MS is a biased source with the anti-Mormon agenda of de-conversion he needs to:
A) Show that such a bias also exists with the people he's giving airtime to. Are they secretly in on this grand conspiracy?
B) Show a bias in the demographics of the interviews. Is Dehlin only interviewing critics? He seems to happily interview faithful people too. Adam Miller, Brian Hales, Givens, DCP, McConkie. I have listened to plenty of such podcasts. Can Smith show us a list of people who WANT to appear on MS but were denied interviews?
C) Show a bias in the interviews themselves. Can Smith show us a list of interviewees that felt they were mistreated by Dehlin after the fact? The only example with which I am aware is Brian Hales whining about Dehlin's interview of Alex Beam. But in this case, the interview wasn't about Hales or his dubious opinions, so I'm not particularly impressed with this criticism, Hales had his air time and very few are convinced by his sexless marriage arguments.
Smith did not actually provide a basis for his thesis that MS is an anti-Mormon source with an agenda. I didn't read his ridiculously long review in full, but from what I can tell literally all he did was go after Dehlin PERSONALLY.
3) How is any of this legitimate? Even if Smith's thesis is correct, and Dehlin and MS are anti-Mormon with an agenda, what in the world does this have to do with "Mormon studies" or LDS historical, textual, literary, or theological scholarship? I fail to see the point. What is the object of study? Is Smith addressing a particular subject, or argument, or just an entity? An entity! Even if both Dehlin and MS are biased and have an agenda, the existence of said agenda isn't proof that they are wrong. It's ad hominem by definition. This is like arguing the US military has no business in Afghanistan because they are biased against the Taliban and have an agenda. Yah! Your point? Damn right they have an agenda. Smith argues that there are "better answers" to certain questions that Dehlin takes a "critical" position on, the implication being that Dehlin has chosen poorly and that he knows this and is intentionally deceptive about "the truth" and is hiding all the good answers or something. But Smith does a very poor job of actually demonstrating this. Multiplicity of answers isn't proof that Dehlin has chosen poorly. From what I could tell Smith didn't demonstrate the existence of any better answers at all. In all those 100+ pages did Smith show even one good example of Dehlin intentionally choosing a weak position in favor of a strong one?
QFT.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:37 pm
Re: for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stori
Kishkumen wrote:Well, it is no surprise to me, based on your record here, that we disagree. I think it is immoral to misrepresent others. Since we are familiar with your own habit of doing this, it is not surprising to us that you have no problem with it.
Immoral?
You're just evading the question.
Of course, I find twisting and misrepresenting one's position to be a flaw in argument. Who doesn't? Sometimes it has value -- reductio ad absurdem and such can sway a lot of folks -- and sometimes it fails.
But the assertion made on this thread is that there was some sort of personal invasion. Was there? Did Smith dig into something that was not a matter of public knowledge? If so, I would be the first to decry it. Did Smith do nothing more than smack John Dehlin around with Dehlin's own writings? I may disagree with Smith but I don't see anything wrong with that.
Did Smith intentionally misquote Dehlin, or claim that Dehlin said something Dehlin didn't? I'd have a problem with that, but errors in characterizing one's argument are rife in any debate and that kind of sin is hardly immoral.
I don't like Smith's writing style. It is overlong and unpersuasive. But "immoral?" Only in the eyes of an anonymite coward, I suppose, with schizophrenia in his past posts.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21373
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stori
Yahoo Bot wrote:But the assertion made on this thread is that there was some sort of personal invasion.
*****
I don't like Smith's writing style. It is overlong and unpersuasive. But "immoral?" Only in the eyes of an anonymite coward, I suppose, with schizophrenia in his past posts.
Bot, that is *not* what the argument of the OP was. The OP is a review of Smith's hit piece on Dehlin. The reviewer concludes that it was a hit piece, and one of his key pieces of evidence is Smith's misrepresentation of Dehlin through atrocious (mis)quoting practices.
You have nothing to offer here by way of rebuttal to this, so that forces you to misrepresent Tomasi's OP and then insult me. Once again, you lose.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 17063
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm
Re: for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stori
Yahoo Bot wrote:Kishkumen wrote:Well, it is no surprise to me, based on your record here, that we disagree. I think it is immoral to misrepresent others. Since we are familiar with your own habit of doing this, it is not surprising to us that you have no problem with it.
Immoral?
You're just evading the question.
Of course, I find twisting and misrepresenting one's position to be a flaw in argument. Who doesn't? Sometimes it has value -- reductio ad absurdem and such can sway a lot of folks -- and sometimes it fails.
But the assertion made on this thread is that there was some sort of personal invasion. Was there? Did Smith dig into something that was not a matter of public knowledge? If so, I would be the first to decry it. Did Smith do nothing more than smack John Dehlin around with Dehlin's own writings? I may disagree with Smith but I don't see anything wrong with that.
Did Smith intentionally misquote Dehlin, or claim that Dehlin said something Dehlin didn't? I'd have a problem with that, but errors in characterizing one's argument are rife in any debate and that kind of sin is hardly immoral.
I don't like Smith's writing style. It is overlong and unpersuasive. But "immoral?" Only in the eyes of an anonymite coward, I suppose, with schizophrenia in his past posts.
What do you deduce from reading Smith's diatribe about Dehlin to have been the motivator of scores of hours devoted by Smith to assembling the information and writing and then submitting it for publication?
Was it for Smith to exemplify the second great commandment? A hint, Matthew 22:39.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3088
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:15 am
Re: for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stori
Bot, maybe if you would reread the OP without looking for all the typo's, you would comprehend more.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
a.k.a. Pokatator joined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:37 pm
Re: for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stori
Again, my challenge to identify any material Smith used that wasn't from Dehlin's own public mouth or pen has been unmet. Instead, we have troubled, schizophrenic anonymites attacking Dr. Smith as a person. Go figure.
Dehlin is a public figure. His work is subject to public comment, criticism, mockery and he shouldn't complain about it. Let his public work speak for itself.
Meanwhile, when I see a Greg Smith article I won't read it. As I recall, didn't he do an anti-Meldrum piece? I couldn't get too far into it.
Dehlin is a public figure. His work is subject to public comment, criticism, mockery and he shouldn't complain about it. Let his public work speak for itself.
Meanwhile, when I see a Greg Smith article I won't read it. As I recall, didn't he do an anti-Meldrum piece? I couldn't get too far into it.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8417
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm
Re: for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stori
Yahoo Bot wrote:Again, my challenge to identify any material Smith used that wasn't from Dehlin's own public mouth or pen has been unmet. Instead, we have troubled, schizophrenic anonymites attacking Dr. Smith as a person. Go figure.
Dehlin is a public figure. His work is subject to public comment, criticism, mockery and he shouldn't complain about it. Let his public work speak for itself.
Meanwhile, when I see a Greg Smith article I won't read it. As I recall, didn't he do an anti-Meldrum piece? I couldn't get too far into it.
Um why shouldn't he publicly complain about it and dispute what is said exactly? Since as you point out he is a public person, he certainly has a right to respond publicly.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 10719
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:36 am
Re: for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stori
Yahoo Bot wrote:Dehlin is a public figure. His work is subject to public comment, criticism, mockery and he shouldn't complain about it. Let his public work speak for itself.
So the Church (its members, its leaders, its PR department) shouldn't complain if people comment, criticise and mock what it teaches publicly, right?
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)