Well, as long as the comments, criticisms, and mocking aren't ANTI. If you are in favor of the Church and promote it's 'goodness' then you're comments are more then welcome. If you're opposed to the Church and point out logical flaws, doctrine weaknesses, or inconsistencies, then you are clearly an anti-Mormon, and your screed is hostile persecution.Bazooka wrote:So the Church (its members, its leaders, its PR department) shouldn't complain if people comment, criticize and mock what it teaches publicly, right?
for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stories
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 859
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 1:38 am
Re: for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stori
A friendship that requires agreement in all things, is not worthy of the term friendship.
-
- _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
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.
I get your point, as long as they are Dehlin's exact words, even if taken out of content or abridged, it is OK with you!
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: 4502
- Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm
Re: for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stori
Tator wrote:I get your point, as long as they are Dehlin's exact words, even if taken out of content or abridged, it is OK with you!
It's been a while since I read the essay. Can you remind me which of Dehlin's words were taken out of [context] or abridged in a way that changed their intended meaning?
-
- _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
cinepro wrote:Tator wrote:I get your point, as long as they are Dehlin's exact words, even if taken out of content or abridged, it is OK with you!
It's been a while since I read the essay. Can you remind me which of Dehlin's words were taken out of [context] or abridged in a way that changed their intended meaning?
Hi, Cinepro
My post was for Bot showing that he does not object to the use of word engineering by reviewers, he only objects to the improper use of apostrophes and of course I was trying to get under his thin skin.
I would refer you to Section 4. Smith’s Manipulation of Dehlin Quotes, in Rollo's OP.
I read the 100+ page marathon near a year ago and I would hate to go through that pain again. I remember that early in the review about page 10-14 or so that Smith describes the problems with podcasts such as no footnotes, transcripts, etc. I have the same problem. I listened to many podcasts but I do not have transcripts or recordings or the time to go through it all again. Smith describes the methodology and description of podcasts and the techniques that Dehlin uses. I remember that his characterization of the podcasts and Dehlin's techniques very differently than Smith. Bottom line Smith wrote a personal attack that was difficult to wade through.
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
Tobin wrote: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.
No kidding.
1. Greg Smith's hit pieces did not belong in a journal published at BYU.
2. I am exactly as anonymous as Yahoo Bot himself is. (All of the parties directly interested in this know who I am.)
3. I am not arguing against Greg Smith's freedom to malign John Dehlin through dishonest means; I am criticizing his work.
4. The Interpreter afforded Smith the opportunity to publish his views. We are still free to criticize what he has done.
5. Bot is being deliberately obtuse about the whole thing; he has acknowledged that BYU was within its rights not to publish Greg Smith's polemics any longer. On that point, we are agreed.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
-
- _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
I provide Tomasi's examination of Smith's crappy handling of Dehlin's quotes, so that people don't have to go back to the OP and find this material within the larger review:
Rollo Tomasi wrote:4. Smith’s Manipulation of Dehlin Quotes:
Not surprisingly, the Dubious Review is overwhelmingly negative toward anything that involves Dehlin. For example, the many quotes Smith pulled from Dehlin’s Facebook page were either expressly negative or which Smith could easily turn negative with the help of ellipses or lack of context. As I reviewed Dehlin’s Facebook page I noticed many posts where Dehlin praised the LDS Church and/or its leaders for one thing or another, but Smith ignored all of these. “Fair and balanced,” Smith’s essay is not. I have no doubt that Smith began this project with the intent to destroy Dehlin and whatever influence he yielded among Mormons. It was a “hit piece,” after all.
Apart from Smith’s overt negativity and bias toward Dehlin, however, I was surprised by the length to which Smith manufactured quotes and arguments to achieve his goal. Let me mention some examples where I believe Smith crossed the line to attack Dehlin.
Let’s start with the quotes Smith used to attack Dehlin’s apparent praise for Mormon Think. (See Dubious Review at 18). This was part of the Facebook discussion I mentioned in the above section that involved Trevor. Here is how Smith presented the issue in the Dubious Review:
Greg Smith wrote:
When told that “Mormon Think does not give an honest representation of the church, its history, or beliefs,” Dehlin replies that it is better than anything else: “I can’t think of a more honest one ... warts and all. Can you? Certainly not FAIR or FARMS. Certainly not LDS.org .... Both (all) sites are biased – I think that the FAIR site is 50x more biased than Mormon Think. Just my opinion.” Just an opinion – but one that informs the material he produces.
Source: Dubious Review at 18
I went to Dehlin’s Facebook page and looked at the above quotes (which were mined from a Facebook discussion that elicited over 130 posts by numerous individuals). As I noted above, the actual dialogue referenced by Smith was between Dehlin and Trevor Holyoak. I noticed something very interesting from the dialogue as represented in Smith’s essay: Smith had grafted parts from two separate quotes written by Dehlin on separate days to come up with one quote, which, conveniently enough, allowed Smith to argue that Dehlin believes Mormon Think “is better than anything else” when it comes to an honest representation of LDS history. (See Dubious Review at 18). Reading the full quotes within the context of the Dehlin/Holyoak conversation, however, revealed something far less dramatic.
Here is the first relevant part of the conversation between Dehlin and Holyoak concerning Mormon Think (the words bolded below are the words quoted in Smith’s essay):
Quote:
Holyoak: If I have to come right out and say it, it's anti-Mormon because it attacks the church. And it's worse than some anti-Mormon sites, because it tries to be sneaky about it, claiming objectivity (if it's so objective, why can't I find the quote there that I've posted twice above?) and claiming to be run by an active member of the church (who admits to using a pseudonym to avoid church discipline). The use of the word "Think" in the title is actually kind of ironic. (January 3, 2012 at 5:14pm)
Dehlin: How do you see Mormon Think as attacking the church? (January 3, 2012 at 6:09pm)
Holyoak: Mormon Think does not give an honest representation of the church, its history, or beliefs. I have already given one example, and I'll leave it at that. (January 3, 2012 at 7:34pm)
Dehlin: Can you show me a more honest representation of the church and its history online -- anywhere? I can't think of a more honest one ... warts and all. Can you? Certainly not FAIR or FARMS. Certainly not LDS.org. (January 3, 2012 at 7:36pm)
Holyoak: Some of the so-called warts are really just Halloween makeup - they're not real. Others are quite complex. The church is actually doing well with sites such as the one it is making for the Joseph Smith Papers in exposing some of the real warts. And people that criticize the FAIR web sites usually haven't spent enough time on them to pass judgment. (January 3, 2012 at 11:21pm)
Source: Dehlin Facebook page, 1/3/12 (emphasis added)
As can be seen, Dehlin was referring to online sources for an honest representation of LDS Church history. In contrast, Smith’s butchered quote in the essay made it appear that Dehlin was declaring Mormon Think to be the best source anywhere.
The next day’s conversation between Dehlin and Holyoak included the second part of the grafted quote used by Smith (the part which starts with “Both (all) sites are biased ...”). Here is the relevant portion of that conversation (along with the quote Smith used in the next paragraph on p. 18, which, oddly, Smith separated out, even though it was part of the same conversation):
Quote:
Dehlin: My challenge remains: find me a web site that is more honest/objective/accurate/comprehensive on factual Mormon history than Mormon Think. I'm all eyes/ears. (January 4, 2012 at 11:47am)
Holyoak: [A]nd my challenge to you is to give me specifics on why you don't think the FAIR web sites fit that criteria. (January 4, 2012 at 11:52am)
Dehlin: Both (all) sites are biased -- I think that the FAIR site is 50x more biased than Mormon Think. Just my opinion. (January 4, 2012 at 11:54am)
Holyoak: So you admit that Mormon Think is anti-Mormon (biased towards negative), but you still won't provide specific examples regarding FAIR. What exactly is your opinion based on? (January 4, 2012 at 12:11pm)
Dehlin: My experience is that the FAIR/FARMS spin ultimately causes much more harm than good. It's just rarely credible to thoughtful, objective people who are trying to uncover the "truth." Consequently, it can be really discouraging when folks go to FAIR/FARMS and are sorely disappointed. They so often come away saying, "Really? That's the best the apologists can do?" You guys have a really hard job. I honestly admire it on some level. But you are at your weakest when you attack others ... as Christians. So weak. (January 4, 2012 at 2:41pm)
Source: Dehlin Facebook page, 1/4/12 (emphasis added)
We can see from this that Dehlin remained focused on the best (i.e., least biased) online source for LDS history, and Dehlin concluded (correctly, in my opinion) that Mormon Think is far less biased than FAIR or FARMS. I suspect Smith cherry-picked from Dehlin’s quotes and grafted them as one to suit the objectives of a “hit piece” (as well as to likely get back at Dehlin for disparaging Smith’s beloved FARMS and FAIR). This tactic appeared throughout the Dubious Review.
Another good example is on the same page (p. 18 of the Dubious Review), where Smith provided this nugget:
Greg Smith wrote:
[Dehlin] insists that “20th and 21st century LDS apologetics (FAIR, FARMS, Maxwell institute) will go down as destroying more testimonies than any other single Mormon influence. That’s what happens when you blame the victim, or give very poor and evasive answers to credible issues.”
Source: Dubious Review at 18
In a vacuum and without any context, one can’t help but wonder why Dehlin had lashed out at classic-FARMS apologists. What could have caused such an outburst? Smith didn’t tell us. But, if you go to the full post by Dehlin on his Facebook page, it becomes readily apparent. Here’s the full post by Dehlin on Facebook (the bolded words and link below were omitted by Smith):
John Dehlin wrote:
I just want to go on record as saying that 20th and 21st century LDS apologetics (FAIR, FARMS, Maxwell institute) will go down as destroying more testimonies than any other single Mormon influence. That's what happens when you blame the victim, or give very poor and evasive answers to credible issues.
In other words, I think that Daniel Peterson is talking actually writing about himself and his followers in this article.
http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comment ... hites.html
Source: Dehlin Facebook page, 6/8/12 (emphasis added)
Ah, now we can see why Dehlin was so pissed – this wasn’t just some ‘kneejerk’ reaction to classic-FARMS apologists, but to an article by DCP. Click on the link and read that article and you will see why it set off Dehlin. DCP’s article recited examples in the Book of Mormon about bad guys trying to destroy the Church, and then DCP compared the Book of Mormon bad guys and their tactics to unnamed “modern counterparts,” such as ... perhaps ... John Dehlin? Notably, DCP’s article received some nasty comments, including this comment by one reader in Salt Lake City:
DCP article reader wrote:
I found the tone in this article to be very condescending and like another poster said, "An incredible amount of hubris, and I'm not talking about the Nephites." I have read comments before about FAIR/FARMS being a reason a person would leave the church and this is a prime example of what turns people off from being Mormon. A little understanding and respect goes a long way when dealing with people having a crisis of faith instead of labels and guilt trips that DCP is laying on quite thick here.
Source: Comment section to Daniel Peterson, “Defending the Faith: We can learn from history and the sins of Nephites,” Deseret News 6/7/12 (emphasis added)
Dehlin clearly was not alone in how he felt after reading DCP’s “article.”
Another example of Smith’s penchant for providing quotes out of context is Smith’s treatment of Dehlin’s interactions with his church leaders. Specifically, Smith wrote:
Greg Smith wrote:
[Dehlin] was less complimentary about leaders’ motives and approach when later describing the matter to his atheist podcast hosts: “It was really kind of CIA, FBI kind of creepy.”
Source: Dubious Review at 51
Smith provided no context whatever for why Dehlin would say such a thing, other than to vaguely refer to “leaders’ motives and approach.” (Dubious Review at 51). The reader would have to listen to the podcast between Dehlin and the “atheist podcast hosts” (Smith’s words) in order to learn what Dehlin meant. I did listen to the podcast, and I learned that Dehlin’s phrase “really kind of CIA, FBI kind of creepy” was spot-on. Dehlin explained on the podcast that he had discovered that both his stake president and bishop had initiated separate investigations of Dehlin, and that each had assigned others to scour the Internet for his writings and listen to his podcasts. Furthermore, what actually elicited Dehlin’s “creepy” comment was his discovery that his bishop had assigned a ward member (also serving as a stake high councilman) to try to join (anonymously) private chat rooms to which Dehlin belonged, in order to get more dirt. Would anyone, after finding that he or she was being spied on in this way, NOT think it was “creepy”? Of course not. That’s why Smith included the quote in his essay without any relevant context.
Here’s another example of Smith’s improperly leaving out context to paint an unfair picture of Dehlin. In the section entitled “Uncorrelated Mormons” (Dubious Review at 63-70), Smith described the podcast of a conference put on by Dehlin in 2011, apparently using Dehlin quotes from the conference. I checked out the podcast and discovered that what Smith used were not statements from Dehlin’s actual speech, but words that appeared on PowerPoint slides used as part of the presentation. I suspect Smith did this because he did not want to listen to the long podcast, so he instead grabbed the slides, offered them up as quotes, and ignored the context. As anyone knows, however, PowerPoint slides in a vacuum generally are not helpful without the actual speech.
And this was precisely the case here. Notice how Smith characterized what Dehlin said at the conference (using only words from the slides, not Dehlin’s mouth):
Greg Smith wrote:
[Dehlin] tells his audience that “if you haven’t already become uncorrelated, you likely will, and the majority of your children or loved ones [sic] children most likely will.” Although Dehlin did not tell his audience to leave the Church, he assured them they probably will stop believing and disengage because the Church is not credible. One doesn’t have to leave, but those who are not credulous or lacking integrity probably will.
Source: Dubious Review at 64-65
If Smith had bothered to listen to the podcast, he would have learned the context for the statement on the slide that Smith lifted for his essay. During his presentation, while referring to the slide, Dehlin said the information was based on certain data he learned from someone at “the highest levels of the Church” (but who he refused to name). And that data was this: 18% activity rate in the Church (just 10% in third world countries). Based on this data, the statement on the slide was accurate – 82% of (inactive) LDS members are already “uncorrelated” in some way, and with activity rates trending down, it is likely LDS children will also become “uncorrelated.” This is simple math, but Smith turned it into something sinister: “Dehlin is blunt about the fact that if his counsel is successful and his advice is taken, it would substantially weaken the Church.” (Dubious Review at 65). This is patently FALSE!
At the same conference, the PowerPoint presentation included slides listing possible ways to help “uncorrelated Mormons” make the transition. Smith, again, relied entirely on the PowerPoint slides to argue that Dehlin has “ambitious plans” to create a new community, including Especially For Youth and other support services. If Smith had listened to the podcast, however, he would have learned that Dehlin was simply brainstorming and throwing out ideas; Dehlin never expressed any real plan or vision to create some sort of “Utopia,” as Smith seemed to suggest.
The Dehlin quotes relied on by Smith in this regard are very misleading and deserve special attention. For example, Smith claimed that Dehlin “hopes for an alternative religion of some type, one based on the Church (though he may regard it as unlikely to happen).” (Id. at 66). Smith continued:
Greg Smith wrote:
And Dehlin sees himself and his allies as key instruments in altering matters: “I submitted the first complete draft of a paper on ‘sexual orientation change efforts in a large Mormon sample.’ A few huge milestones for me/us. We’re gonna change the world, y’all! For the better.”
Source: Dubious Review at 66
I suspect Smith used this partial quote because he felt any mention of a paper on “sexual orientation” might inflame homophobia and portray Dehlin in a bad light. However, the part of the quote omitted by Smith reveals something very different. Here is what Dehlin actually wrote on Facebook (bolded part was omitted by Smith):
John Dehlin wrote:
[S]uccessfully submitted my Master’s thesis today ... and also submitted the first complete draft of a paper on ‘sexual orientation change efforts in a large Mormon sample.’ A few huge milestones for me/us. We’re gonna change the world, y’all! For the better.
Source: Dehlin Facebook page, 12/9/11 (ellipses in original) (emphasis added)
The full quote makes a significant difference. First of all, we see that Smith improperly added the word “I” where none existed. Second, and more importantly, we realize that Dehlin’s excitement was due not only to his “sexual orientation” paper, but also the submission of his Master’s thesis (a very big deal for academics, reflecting a lot of work). Hence, the reason for Dehlin’s using the plural “milestones,” whereas Smith chose to omit language in order to highlight the singular milestone that Smith believed would further his agenda. With the full quote, however, we can see that, despite Smith’s claim to the contrary, Dehlin’s mention of his sexual orientation paper was not necessarily an attempt to “alter matters” (apparently Smith’s reference to traditional marriage); Dehlin just as easily could have been referring to his Master’s thesis. And Smith’s use of the phrase “me/us” to mean Dehlin “and his allies,” could just as likely have meant Dehlin and his family. I was very frustrated to read over and over Smith’s cherry-picking certain words to strengthen his attack on Dehlin.
And as further evidence of just how badly Smith misconstrued this Dehlin post, among the hundreds who went to the trouble to “like” (in Facebook parlance) the post, were: (i) Hans H. Mattsson (former member of the Third Quorum of the Seventy); (ii) Morgan Davis (at BYU’s Maxwell Institute); and (iii) Zina Nibley Petersen (BYU faculty member, daughter of Hugh Nibley, and wife of Boyd Jay Petersen, an apologist himself). It appears that this post put Dehlin in some pretty good LDS company, despite Smith’s attack.
In the next paragraph (see Dubious Review at 66), Smith again grafted parts of separate quotes into one to support an argument that falls flat when you read the quotes in their entirety and in context.
Greg Smith wrote:
Dehlin wants to support “alternative approaches to a moral framework,” and he requests help finding videos “that teach good morals and values for kids from 6 to 16 years old ... to help replace what church often tries to provide.”
Source: Dubious Review at 66 (ellipses in original)
This was just another quote made up from cherry-picked words in multiple Dehlin Facebook posts. For example, Dehlin started off with this post on his Facebook page: “Is anybody aware of good Internet resources to teach children morals and values?” The conversation then continued:
Quote:
a. One of the early responses was from a John Crawford, who didn’t write anything other than provide the link to LDS.org.
Dehlin’s responded to Crawford: “John -- Any pointers?”
b. Further down in the Facebook thread, a Kris Nye asked Dehlin: “Maybe you should clarify what you're looking for. Are you looking for resources to teach children morals or dogma?”
Dehlin responded to Nye: “I'm looking for little 10-20 minute videos that teach good morals and values for kids from 6 to 16 years old.”
c. A poster named Afif then asked Dehlin: “I guess there is some confusion here about moral and ethics. I cannot say anything about ethics since parenting and resources from your class (religion, ethnicity, community ...) can do that. For morality you have 2 options: Indoctrination or teaching/showing them how to think for themselves (and living as an example is a good resource). Depending on the method you choose resources may differ. Knowing you I thought you wanted the latter - so resources about critical thinking would be a starting point.”
Dehlin responded to Afif: “I'm just wondering how best to help instill good morals/values/ethics, and even spirituality in your children without religion. I'm looking for resources to help replace what church often tries to provide.”
Afif further responded to Dehlin: “John -- your age group is a bit wide. Besides the direct methodology videos (I gave an example before) stories are important.”
Source: Dehlin Facebook page, 12/9/11 (emphasis added)
Reading the full conversation shows that Dehlin’s initial question had nothing to do with “support[ing] ‘alternative approaches to a moral framework,’” as Smith put it. Dehlin started out simply asking for Internet sources to teach morals and values to kids. He seemed open to receiving LDS-based “pointers” from John Crawford. Even when asked by Kris Nye if he’s looking for videos that teach “morals or dogma,” Dehlin repeated that he was looking for any videos, only adding qualifications for length and age range. It is Afif who brought up different sources of teaching, including religion, among others. And only then did Dehlin say that he wanted something for the situation of families outside of religion (and not necessarily the LDS religion, but any religion). The part Smith focused on (i.e., “replace what church often tries to provide”) was just a small part of a very long conversation, yet Smith blew it up as if Dehlin were seeking to do away with all religion.
I found it interesting that between the two posts on Dehlin’s Facebook page from which Smith cherry-picked the above partial quotes, there appeared this separate post by Dehlin:
John Dehlin wrote:
An active, currently-serving member of an LDS stake presidency just wrote to me to thank us for our work with Mormon Stories ... says his “testimony has been challenged and strengthened” through the podcast. Fun times.
Source: Dehlin Facebook page, 12/9/11 (ellipses in original)
I’m certain Smith read this post, because it appeared literally between the two Dehlin posts that Smith used for his essay. Yet, Smith mentioned it not at all. Here was a perfect example of how Dehlin has helped people to stay in the Church, but Smith ignored it entirely in order to focus on the negative. “Fair and balanced,” as Smith claimed? Not a chance.
5. Other Misquotes:
Here are some other misquotes and mistakes I found in the Dubious Review:
a. Smith attacked Dehlin for supposedly accusing LDS leaders of creating misleading ads in connection with the “I’m a Mormon” PR campaign. (See Dubious Review at 72). As support, Smith cited to an essay at Mormon Matters, purportedly written by Dehlin. I found the article, but it doesn’t mention Dehlin anywhere and states it was authored by “admin.” Smith needs to explain how an article attributed to “admin” led him to claim it was Dehlin. Moreover, the one or two quotes used by Smith are made up of cherry-picked words from several quotes.
b. Smith butchered a quote by Dehlin about the Church “thinking more like a company and less like the Soviet Union.” (Id. at 74). Smith provided no context for the quote, which only becomes apparent if read with the first sentence of Dehlin’s full quote (conveniently omitted by Smith). Here it is: “It shows me [i.e., Dehlin] that they care about their consumers, and that they are willing to change.” (See Tony Semerad (Smith misspelled the name as “Semard”), “Church Asks Mormons: Which websites, writers do you read?,” Salt Lake Tribune, 10/7/11 (emphasis added)). Another point Smith omitted from this Trib article is that the LDS Church sent out a survey to “members about their readership of key websites and Mormon writers ...,” specifically listing, among other choices, Dehlin and Mormon Stories. Notably absent from the Church survey list were FARMS and FAIR. (Id.).
c. In connection with Smith’s attacking Dehlin for praising the “The Worst Talks Ever” list (see Dubious Review at 75-76), Smith took real umbrage at any criticism of Boyd Packer’s infamous 1976 talk, “To Young Men Only.” Smith disagreed with any claim that the present-day LDS Church has distanced itself from Packer’s chestnut, saying that the talk is still published in pamphlet form. (Id. at 75 n.255). Not surprisingly, Smith failed to mention that a search of Gen’l Conference talks at LDS.org will NOT pull up this talk. It simply is not there. Moreover, Smith argued that “habitual masturbation” is still a no-no in the Church (does this mean “occasional” is ok?). But, again, Smith failed to mention recent developments in the Church about this: the current Handbook expressly states that “self-abuse” (i.e., masturbation) is a type of instance, among others, for which a disciplinary council should not be held. (See Handbook 1, § 6.7.1 (2010)). In contrast, the previous version of the Handbook did not contain this prohibition. (See Church Handbook of Instructions Book 1 at 111 (2006)). I believe it is very clear that the LDS Church has indeed distanced itself from and now downplays the whole masturbation issue.
d. Smith attacked Dehlin for his statements covering pretty much anything sexual. In fact, Smith seemed particularly focused on “chastity” issues throughout his essay. For example, Smith pointed to a podcast where Dehlin and Natasha Parker (a board member of Mormon Stories) interviewed Dr. Stephanie Buehler, a non-Mormon and well-known psychologist/sex therapist (Smith didn’t mention Buehler’s name in the essay; you have to listen to the podcast to get it). Smith objected to the assertion made in the podcast that masturbation and erotica could be helpful in an LDS marriage. (See Dubious Review at 76-77). Smith cited a story told during the podcast about an LDS wife who became upset at her husband’s perusing a Victoria’s Secret catalogue. Apparently this wife believed her husband had a “porn” problem, which “Dehlin’s expert” (Smith’s words) dismissed as a non-issue. (Id. at 77). From this, Smith argued that “Mormon Stories effectively minimizes the woman’s concerns by defining the problem outside of the pornographic realm.” (Id.). I’m not sure if Smith actually listened to this podcast, because if he had, he would have heard that this same LDS wife also believed her husband was involved in porn because he watched the Dancing With the Stars television program (hereinafter, “DWTS”). I don’t think anyone would argue that DWTS is a form of porn; Smith likely left this nugget out of his essay because even he realized DWTS is not porn and that the LDS woman in the story was probably a bit off her rocker. Moreover, Smith seems to have conflated the two women in the podcast, Natasha Parker (the interviewer affiliated with Mormon Stories) and the guest, Dr. Buehler (the actual expert being interviewed), because Smith wrote that “Dehlin’s expert” didn’t see looking at Victoria’s Secret as porn at all. (Dubious Review at 77). In fact, Natasha Parker (the interviewer) said this, NOT the expert (Dr. Buehler) as claimed by Smith.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 12480
- Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm
Re: for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stori
Kishkumen wrote:I provide Tomasi's examination of Smith's crappy handling of Dehlin's quotes, so that people don't have to go back to the OP and find this material within the larger review:Rollo Tomasi wrote:4. Smith’s Manipulation of Dehlin Quotes:
Not surprisingly, the Dubious Review is overwhelmingly negative toward anything that involves Dehlin. For example, the many quotes Smith pulled from Dehlin’s Facebook page were either expressly negative or which Smith could easily turn negative with the help of ellipses or lack of context. As I reviewed Dehlin’s Facebook page I noticed many posts where Dehlin praised the LDS Church and/or its leaders for one thing or another, but Smith ignored all of these. “Fair and balanced,” Smith’s essay is not. I have no doubt that Smith began this project with the intent to destroy Dehlin and whatever influence he yielded among Mormons. It was a “hit piece,” after all.
Apart from Smith’s overt negativity and bias toward Dehlin, however, I was surprised by the length to which Smith manufactured quotes and arguments to achieve his goal. Let me mention some examples where I believe Smith crossed the line to attack Dehlin.
Let’s start with the quotes Smith used to attack Dehlin’s apparent praise for Mormon Think. (See Dubious Review at 18). This was part of the Facebook discussion I mentioned in the above section that involved Trevor. Here is how Smith presented the issue in the Dubious Review:
Greg Smith wrote:
When told that “Mormon Think does not give an honest representation of the church, its history, or beliefs,” Dehlin replies that it is better than anything else: “I can’t think of a more honest one ... warts and all. Can you? Certainly not FAIR or FARMS. Certainly not LDS.org .... Both (all) sites are biased – I think that the FAIR site is 50x more biased than Mormon Think. Just my opinion.” Just an opinion – but one that informs the material he produces.
Source: Dubious Review at 18
I went to Dehlin’s Facebook page and looked at the above quotes (which were mined from a Facebook discussion that elicited over 130 posts by numerous individuals). As I noted above, the actual dialogue referenced by Smith was between Dehlin and Trevor Holyoak. I noticed something very interesting from the dialogue as represented in Smith’s essay: Smith had grafted parts from two separate quotes written by Dehlin on separate days to come up with one quote, which, conveniently enough, allowed Smith to argue that Dehlin believes Mormon Think “is better than anything else” when it comes to an honest representation of LDS history. (See Dubious Review at 18). Reading the full quotes within the context of the Dehlin/Holyoak conversation, however, revealed something far less dramatic.
Here is the first relevant part of the conversation between Dehlin and Holyoak concerning Mormon Think (the words bolded below are the words quoted in Smith’s essay):
Quote:
Holyoak: If I have to come right out and say it, it's anti-Mormon because it attacks the church. And it's worse than some anti-Mormon sites, because it tries to be sneaky about it, claiming objectivity (if it's so objective, why can't I find the quote there that I've posted twice above?) and claiming to be run by an active member of the church (who admits to using a pseudonym to avoid church discipline). The use of the word "Think" in the title is actually kind of ironic. (January 3, 2012 at 5:14pm)
Dehlin: How do you see Mormon Think as attacking the church? (January 3, 2012 at 6:09pm)
Holyoak: Mormon Think does not give an honest representation of the church, its history, or beliefs. I have already given one example, and I'll leave it at that. (January 3, 2012 at 7:34pm)
Dehlin: Can you show me a more honest representation of the church and its history online -- anywhere? I can't think of a more honest one ... warts and all. Can you? Certainly not FAIR or FARMS. Certainly not LDS.org. (January 3, 2012 at 7:36pm)
Holyoak: Some of the so-called warts are really just Halloween makeup - they're not real. Others are quite complex. The church is actually doing well with sites such as the one it is making for the Joseph Smith Papers in exposing some of the real warts. And people that criticize the FAIR web sites usually haven't spent enough time on them to pass judgment. (January 3, 2012 at 11:21pm)
Source: Dehlin Facebook page, 1/3/12 (emphasis added)
As can be seen, Dehlin was referring to online sources for an honest representation of LDS Church history. In contrast, Smith’s butchered quote in the essay made it appear that Dehlin was declaring Mormon Think to be the best source anywhere.
The next day’s conversation between Dehlin and Holyoak included the second part of the grafted quote used by Smith (the part which starts with “Both (all) sites are biased ...”). Here is the relevant portion of that conversation (along with the quote Smith used in the next paragraph on p. 18, which, oddly, Smith separated out, even though it was part of the same conversation):
Quote:
Dehlin: My challenge remains: find me a web site that is more honest/objective/accurate/comprehensive on factual Mormon history than Mormon Think. I'm all eyes/ears. (January 4, 2012 at 11:47am)
Holyoak: [A]nd my challenge to you is to give me specifics on why you don't think the FAIR web sites fit that criteria. (January 4, 2012 at 11:52am)
Dehlin: Both (all) sites are biased -- I think that the FAIR site is 50x more biased than Mormon Think. Just my opinion. (January 4, 2012 at 11:54am)
Holyoak: So you admit that Mormon Think is anti-Mormon (biased towards negative), but you still won't provide specific examples regarding FAIR. What exactly is your opinion based on? (January 4, 2012 at 12:11pm)
Dehlin: My experience is that the FAIR/FARMS spin ultimately causes much more harm than good. It's just rarely credible to thoughtful, objective people who are trying to uncover the "truth." Consequently, it can be really discouraging when folks go to FAIR/FARMS and are sorely disappointed. They so often come away saying, "Really? That's the best the apologists can do?" You guys have a really hard job. I honestly admire it on some level. But you are at your weakest when you attack others ... as Christians. So weak. (January 4, 2012 at 2:41pm)
Source: Dehlin Facebook page, 1/4/12 (emphasis added)
We can see from this that Dehlin remained focused on the best (i.e., least biased) online source for LDS history, and Dehlin concluded (correctly, in my opinion) that Mormon Think is far less biased than FAIR or FARMS. I suspect Smith cherry-picked from Dehlin’s quotes and grafted them as one to suit the objectives of a “hit piece” (as well as to likely get back at Dehlin for disparaging Smith’s beloved FARMS and FAIR). This tactic appeared throughout the Dubious Review.
Another good example is on the same page (p. 18 of the Dubious Review), where Smith provided this nugget:
Greg Smith wrote:
[Dehlin] insists that “20th and 21st century LDS apologetics (FAIR, FARMS, Maxwell institute) will go down as destroying more testimonies than any other single Mormon influence. That’s what happens when you blame the victim, or give very poor and evasive answers to credible issues.”
Source: Dubious Review at 18
In a vacuum and without any context, one can’t help but wonder why Dehlin had lashed out at classic-FARMS apologists. What could have caused such an outburst? Smith didn’t tell us. But, if you go to the full post by Dehlin on his Facebook page, it becomes readily apparent. Here’s the full post by Dehlin on Facebook (the bolded words and link below were omitted by Smith):
John Dehlin wrote:
I just want to go on record as saying that 20th and 21st century LDS apologetics (FAIR, FARMS, Maxwell institute) will go down as destroying more testimonies than any other single Mormon influence. That's what happens when you blame the victim, or give very poor and evasive answers to credible issues.
In other words, I think that Daniel Peterson is talking actually writing about himself and his followers in this article.
http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comment ... hites.html
Source: Dehlin Facebook page, 6/8/12 (emphasis added)
Ah, now we can see why Dehlin was so pissed – this wasn’t just some ‘kneejerk’ reaction to classic-FARMS apologists, but to an article by DCP. Click on the link and read that article and you will see why it set off Dehlin. DCP’s article recited examples in the Book of Mormon about bad guys trying to destroy the Church, and then DCP compared the Book of Mormon bad guys and their tactics to unnamed “modern counterparts,” such as ... perhaps ... John Dehlin? Notably, DCP’s article received some nasty comments, including this comment by one reader in Salt Lake City:
DCP article reader wrote:
I found the tone in this article to be very condescending and like another poster said, "An incredible amount of hubris, and I'm not talking about the Nephites." I have read comments before about FAIR/FARMS being a reason a person would leave the church and this is a prime example of what turns people off from being Mormon. A little understanding and respect goes a long way when dealing with people having a crisis of faith instead of labels and guilt trips that DCP is laying on quite thick here.
Source: Comment section to Daniel Peterson, “Defending the Faith: We can learn from history and the sins of Nephites,” Deseret News 6/7/12 (emphasis added)
Dehlin clearly was not alone in how he felt after reading DCP’s “article.”
Another example of Smith’s penchant for providing quotes out of context is Smith’s treatment of Dehlin’s interactions with his church leaders. Specifically, Smith wrote:
Greg Smith wrote:
[Dehlin] was less complimentary about leaders’ motives and approach when later describing the matter to his atheist podcast hosts: “It was really kind of CIA, FBI kind of creepy.”
Source: Dubious Review at 51
Smith provided no context whatever for why Dehlin would say such a thing, other than to vaguely refer to “leaders’ motives and approach.” (Dubious Review at 51). The reader would have to listen to the podcast between Dehlin and the “atheist podcast hosts” (Smith’s words) in order to learn what Dehlin meant. I did listen to the podcast, and I learned that Dehlin’s phrase “really kind of CIA, FBI kind of creepy” was spot-on. Dehlin explained on the podcast that he had discovered that both his stake president and bishop had initiated separate investigations of Dehlin, and that each had assigned others to scour the Internet for his writings and listen to his podcasts. Furthermore, what actually elicited Dehlin’s “creepy” comment was his discovery that his bishop had assigned a ward member (also serving as a stake high councilman) to try to join (anonymously) private chat rooms to which Dehlin belonged, in order to get more dirt. Would anyone, after finding that he or she was being spied on in this way, NOT think it was “creepy”? Of course not. That’s why Smith included the quote in his essay without any relevant context.
Here’s another example of Smith’s improperly leaving out context to paint an unfair picture of Dehlin. In the section entitled “Uncorrelated Mormons” (Dubious Review at 63-70), Smith described the podcast of a conference put on by Dehlin in 2011, apparently using Dehlin quotes from the conference. I checked out the podcast and discovered that what Smith used were not statements from Dehlin’s actual speech, but words that appeared on PowerPoint slides used as part of the presentation. I suspect Smith did this because he did not want to listen to the long podcast, so he instead grabbed the slides, offered them up as quotes, and ignored the context. As anyone knows, however, PowerPoint slides in a vacuum generally are not helpful without the actual speech.
And this was precisely the case here. Notice how Smith characterized what Dehlin said at the conference (using only words from the slides, not Dehlin’s mouth):
Greg Smith wrote:
[Dehlin] tells his audience that “if you haven’t already become uncorrelated, you likely will, and the majority of your children or loved ones [sic] children most likely will.” Although Dehlin did not tell his audience to leave the Church, he assured them they probably will stop believing and disengage because the Church is not credible. One doesn’t have to leave, but those who are not credulous or lacking integrity probably will.
Source: Dubious Review at 64-65
If Smith had bothered to listen to the podcast, he would have learned the context for the statement on the slide that Smith lifted for his essay. During his presentation, while referring to the slide, Dehlin said the information was based on certain data he learned from someone at “the highest levels of the Church” (but who he refused to name). And that data was this: 18% activity rate in the Church (just 10% in third world countries). Based on this data, the statement on the slide was accurate – 82% of (inactive) LDS members are already “uncorrelated” in some way, and with activity rates trending down, it is likely LDS children will also become “uncorrelated.” This is simple math, but Smith turned it into something sinister: “Dehlin is blunt about the fact that if his counsel is successful and his advice is taken, it would substantially weaken the Church.” (Dubious Review at 65). This is patently FALSE!
At the same conference, the PowerPoint presentation included slides listing possible ways to help “uncorrelated Mormons” make the transition. Smith, again, relied entirely on the PowerPoint slides to argue that Dehlin has “ambitious plans” to create a new community, including Especially For Youth and other support services. If Smith had listened to the podcast, however, he would have learned that Dehlin was simply brainstorming and throwing out ideas; Dehlin never expressed any real plan or vision to create some sort of “Utopia,” as Smith seemed to suggest.
The Dehlin quotes relied on by Smith in this regard are very misleading and deserve special attention. For example, Smith claimed that Dehlin “hopes for an alternative religion of some type, one based on the Church (though he may regard it as unlikely to happen).” (Id. at 66). Smith continued:
Greg Smith wrote:
And Dehlin sees himself and his allies as key instruments in altering matters: “I submitted the first complete draft of a paper on ‘sexual orientation change efforts in a large Mormon sample.’ A few huge milestones for me/us. We’re gonna change the world, y’all! For the better.”
Source: Dubious Review at 66
I suspect Smith used this partial quote because he felt any mention of a paper on “sexual orientation” might inflame homophobia and portray Dehlin in a bad light. However, the part of the quote omitted by Smith reveals something very different. Here is what Dehlin actually wrote on Facebook (bolded part was omitted by Smith):
John Dehlin wrote:
[S]uccessfully submitted my Master’s thesis today ... and also submitted the first complete draft of a paper on ‘sexual orientation change efforts in a large Mormon sample.’ A few huge milestones for me/us. We’re gonna change the world, y’all! For the better.
Source: Dehlin Facebook page, 12/9/11 (ellipses in original) (emphasis added)
The full quote makes a significant difference. First of all, we see that Smith improperly added the word “I” where none existed. Second, and more importantly, we realize that Dehlin’s excitement was due not only to his “sexual orientation” paper, but also the submission of his Master’s thesis (a very big deal for academics, reflecting a lot of work). Hence, the reason for Dehlin’s using the plural “milestones,” whereas Smith chose to omit language in order to highlight the singular milestone that Smith believed would further his agenda. With the full quote, however, we can see that, despite Smith’s claim to the contrary, Dehlin’s mention of his sexual orientation paper was not necessarily an attempt to “alter matters” (apparently Smith’s reference to traditional marriage); Dehlin just as easily could have been referring to his Master’s thesis. And Smith’s use of the phrase “me/us” to mean Dehlin “and his allies,” could just as likely have meant Dehlin and his family. I was very frustrated to read over and over Smith’s cherry-picking certain words to strengthen his attack on Dehlin.
And as further evidence of just how badly Smith misconstrued this Dehlin post, among the hundreds who went to the trouble to “like” (in Facebook parlance) the post, were: (i) Hans H. Mattsson (former member of the Third Quorum of the Seventy); (ii) Morgan Davis (at BYU’s Maxwell Institute); and (iii) Zina Nibley Petersen (BYU faculty member, daughter of Hugh Nibley, and wife of Boyd Jay Petersen, an apologist himself). It appears that this post put Dehlin in some pretty good LDS company, despite Smith’s attack.
In the next paragraph (see Dubious Review at 66), Smith again grafted parts of separate quotes into one to support an argument that falls flat when you read the quotes in their entirety and in context.
Greg Smith wrote:
Dehlin wants to support “alternative approaches to a moral framework,” and he requests help finding videos “that teach good morals and values for kids from 6 to 16 years old ... to help replace what church often tries to provide.”
Source: Dubious Review at 66 (ellipses in original)
This was just another quote made up from cherry-picked words in multiple Dehlin Facebook posts. For example, Dehlin started off with this post on his Facebook page: “Is anybody aware of good Internet resources to teach children morals and values?” The conversation then continued:
Quote:
a. One of the early responses was from a John Crawford, who didn’t write anything other than provide the link to LDS.org.
Dehlin’s responded to Crawford: “John -- Any pointers?”
b. Further down in the Facebook thread, a Kris Nye asked Dehlin: “Maybe you should clarify what you're looking for. Are you looking for resources to teach children morals or dogma?”
Dehlin responded to Nye: “I'm looking for little 10-20 minute videos that teach good morals and values for kids from 6 to 16 years old.”
c. A poster named Afif then asked Dehlin: “I guess there is some confusion here about moral and ethics. I cannot say anything about ethics since parenting and resources from your class (religion, ethnicity, community ...) can do that. For morality you have 2 options: Indoctrination or teaching/showing them how to think for themselves (and living as an example is a good resource). Depending on the method you choose resources may differ. Knowing you I thought you wanted the latter - so resources about critical thinking would be a starting point.”
Dehlin responded to Afif: “I'm just wondering how best to help instill good morals/values/ethics, and even spirituality in your children without religion. I'm looking for resources to help replace what church often tries to provide.”
Afif further responded to Dehlin: “John -- your age group is a bit wide. Besides the direct methodology videos (I gave an example before) stories are important.”
Source: Dehlin Facebook page, 12/9/11 (emphasis added)
Reading the full conversation shows that Dehlin’s initial question had nothing to do with “support[ing] ‘alternative approaches to a moral framework,’” as Smith put it. Dehlin started out simply asking for Internet sources to teach morals and values to kids. He seemed open to receiving LDS-based “pointers” from John Crawford. Even when asked by Kris Nye if he’s looking for videos that teach “morals or dogma,” Dehlin repeated that he was looking for any videos, only adding qualifications for length and age range. It is Afif who brought up different sources of teaching, including religion, among others. And only then did Dehlin say that he wanted something for the situation of families outside of religion (and not necessarily the LDS religion, but any religion). The part Smith focused on (i.e., “replace what church often tries to provide”) was just a small part of a very long conversation, yet Smith blew it up as if Dehlin were seeking to do away with all religion.
I found it interesting that between the two posts on Dehlin’s Facebook page from which Smith cherry-picked the above partial quotes, there appeared this separate post by Dehlin:
John Dehlin wrote:
An active, currently-serving member of an LDS stake presidency just wrote to me to thank us for our work with Mormon Stories ... says his “testimony has been challenged and strengthened” through the podcast. Fun times.
Source: Dehlin Facebook page, 12/9/11 (ellipses in original)
I’m certain Smith read this post, because it appeared literally between the two Dehlin posts that Smith used for his essay. Yet, Smith mentioned it not at all. Here was a perfect example of how Dehlin has helped people to stay in the Church, but Smith ignored it entirely in order to focus on the negative. “Fair and balanced,” as Smith claimed? Not a chance.
5. Other Misquotes:
Here are some other misquotes and mistakes I found in the Dubious Review:
a. Smith attacked Dehlin for supposedly accusing LDS leaders of creating misleading ads in connection with the “I’m a Mormon” PR campaign. (See Dubious Review at 72). As support, Smith cited to an essay at Mormon Matters, purportedly written by Dehlin. I found the article, but it doesn’t mention Dehlin anywhere and states it was authored by “admin.” Smith needs to explain how an article attributed to “admin” led him to claim it was Dehlin. Moreover, the one or two quotes used by Smith are made up of cherry-picked words from several quotes.
b. Smith butchered a quote by Dehlin about the Church “thinking more like a company and less like the Soviet Union.” (Id. at 74). Smith provided no context for the quote, which only becomes apparent if read with the first sentence of Dehlin’s full quote (conveniently omitted by Smith). Here it is: “It shows me [i.e., Dehlin] that they care about their consumers, and that they are willing to change.” (See Tony Semerad (Smith misspelled the name as “Semard”), “Church Asks Mormons: Which websites, writers do you read?,” Salt Lake Tribune, 10/7/11 (emphasis added)). Another point Smith omitted from this Trib article is that the LDS Church sent out a survey to “members about their readership of key websites and Mormon writers ...,” specifically listing, among other choices, Dehlin and Mormon Stories. Notably absent from the Church survey list were FARMS and FAIR. (Id.).
c. In connection with Smith’s attacking Dehlin for praising the “The Worst Talks Ever” list (see Dubious Review at 75-76), Smith took real umbrage at any criticism of Boyd Packer’s infamous 1976 talk, “To Young Men Only.” Smith disagreed with any claim that the present-day LDS Church has distanced itself from Packer’s chestnut, saying that the talk is still published in pamphlet form. (Id. at 75 n.255). Not surprisingly, Smith failed to mention that a search of Gen’l Conference talks at LDS.org will NOT pull up this talk. It simply is not there. Moreover, Smith argued that “habitual masturbation” is still a no-no in the Church (does this mean “occasional” is ok?). But, again, Smith failed to mention recent developments in the Church about this: the current Handbook expressly states that “self-abuse” (i.e., masturbation) is a type of instance, among others, for which a disciplinary council should not be held. (See Handbook 1, § 6.7.1 (2010)). In contrast, the previous version of the Handbook did not contain this prohibition. (See Church Handbook of Instructions Book 1 at 111 (2006)). I believe it is very clear that the LDS Church has indeed distanced itself from and now downplays the whole masturbation issue.
d. Smith attacked Dehlin for his statements covering pretty much anything sexual. In fact, Smith seemed particularly focused on “chastity” issues throughout his essay. For example, Smith pointed to a podcast where Dehlin and Natasha Parker (a board member of Mormon Stories) interviewed Dr. Stephanie Buehler, a non-Mormon and well-known psychologist/sex therapist (Smith didn’t mention Buehler’s name in the essay; you have to listen to the podcast to get it). Smith objected to the assertion made in the podcast that masturbation and erotica could be helpful in an LDS marriage. (See Dubious Review at 76-77). Smith cited a story told during the podcast about an LDS wife who became upset at her husband’s perusing a Victoria’s Secret catalogue. Apparently this wife believed her husband had a “porn” problem, which “Dehlin’s expert” (Smith’s words) dismissed as a non-issue. (Id. at 77). From this, Smith argued that “Mormon Stories effectively minimizes the woman’s concerns by defining the problem outside of the pornographic realm.” (Id.). I’m not sure if Smith actually listened to this podcast, because if he had, he would have heard that this same LDS wife also believed her husband was involved in porn because he watched the Dancing With the Stars television program (hereinafter, “DWTS”). I don’t think anyone would argue that DWTS is a form of porn; Smith likely left this nugget out of his essay because even he realized DWTS is not porn and that the LDS woman in the story was probably a bit off her rocker. Moreover, Smith seems to have conflated the two women in the podcast, Natasha Parker (the interviewer affiliated with Mormon Stories) and the guest, Dr. Buehler (the actual expert being interviewed), because Smith wrote that “Dehlin’s expert” didn’t see looking at Victoria’s Secret as porn at all. (Dubious Review at 77). In fact, Natasha Parker (the interviewer) said this, NOT the expert (Dr. Buehler) as claimed by Smith.
I am still in awe of this piece.
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2408
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:56 pm
Re: for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stori
mormonstories wrote:Thank you, Water Dog. Please reach out to me in real life if you are willing/able. I'd be more than happy to turn over the mic to someone as thoughtful as you. No joke. johndehlin@gmail.com
Bump.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2408
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:56 pm
Re: for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stori
Water Dog wrote:Mayan Elephant wrote:Bump.
Clearly aimed at me, so why the bump?
didn't you ask if anyone thought you were one of Dehlin's fans or buddies or something?
Dehlin does.
you must have had or said something he needed. I am sure that was more relevant than your views on gays.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
-
- _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
Can we split off the last exchange between Mayan Elephant and Water Dog. No need to poop on every thread for the sake of the Dehlin lynching party.
Oh, and take off this one too.
Oh, and take off this one too.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist