My Take on "Dubious 'Mormon' Stories"
M o r g a n *** D a v i s
Monday, March 26, 2012
Dear Dan and Louis:
I’m grateful to Dan for hearing me out on the phone today, despite a very hectic schedule and a heavy emotional burden. I voiced some misgivings I have been feeling in growing intensity for the past several days about the article he had told me was being prepared about John Dehlin. I can’t account for the rise in anxiety I feel, but it continues to intrude on my thoughts. I have a friend in my ward who is struggling with his faith and has resorted to the Mormon Stories community for support. In speaking with him yesterday, I mentioned my concerns about this putative article, and he, in turn, messaged John Dehlin. This was unbeknownst to me until I learned from Dan today that Dehlin was now waging an email campaign to forestall this article, based on my friend’s message. The note from my friend, copied in Dehlin’s email, says:
Hi, John. I don't want to get in the middle of any drama, and especially don't want to get any started up, but I did think you deserve a heads up, in case you are not already aware: I spoke with a friend (who also happens to be one of your Facebook Friends) who works at the Maxwell Institute today, and he mentioned that some of the other guys there are working on publishing something about you that I imagine will be something of a hit piece. You may already be aware of it, and maybe aren't too concerned what a paranoid ultra-conservative apologetic group was to say anyway. My friend did say that he will be attempting to dissuade them over the next few days from putting out the piece. Hopefully he will be successful and the drama will be avoided completely.
I don’t remember exactly what I said to my friend, but I did not characterize the Institute as a paranoid, ultra-conservative place, nor the forthcoming article as a hit piece. Those are his terms. I hadn’t seen the article and only knew that it was focused on a critique of Dehlin. I did say that if it was overly personal or negative that I would try to convince you not to publish it.
After having spent the better part of an hour on the phone with me this morning, Dan kindly arranged for me to have a look at the article and requested that I submit any comments I have. He said he does not want the piece to be harmful to others, and I have never doubted Dan’s sincerity. (By the way, as of today, this piece is still being copy edited by Don. It is not yet in typesetting, as Dan thought it might be). Anyway, now that I have had a chance to page through it, albeit cursorily, I have to say, I’m very concerned. So, now I really am going to try to persuade you not to publish it in its present form. Wish me luck!
This is an exposé about a person, John Dehlin, and those who are inclined to be sympathetic in any way to him will rightly see it as an attack piece. It is an attack. To what purpose?
The stated purpose is to warn the faithful away from Dehlin by subjecting his words to careful scrutiny in order to highlight the clumsy, the ill-stated, the two-minded, the disingenuous—all in order to discredit him and anyone else in a similar, floundering condition. I would argue, however, that the real audience for this essay will not really be the unsuspecting Saint who needs to be cautioned away from what they might find at MormonStories.org. A screed is not the proper instrument for achieving that. Few, if any, in that demographic need, or will be willing to skim through one-hundred pages of minutia about John Dehlin to get the point. The true audience here are those who are already offended by Dehlin and who are eager to have their sense of being opposed to him vindicated and to imagine him writhing in discomfort as his personal incongruities are laid bare. The writing has been worked over carefully, but there is still the clear note of a sneer in its tone.
This is a punitive expedition. Dehlin is being made an example of, and he is being held up for derision, together with many of his interlocutors on Facebook and elsewhere. What else is one to make of the, to me, unprecedented tactic of posting the contents of deleted Facebook posts (retrieved via internet archives) together with the names of those who posted them—not just of Dehlin, but of his Facebook friends who had no idea that their words would be retrieved and published this way? What if these posts were deleted because the posters themselves did not wish to stand by them? Too late now, their names are going into print with their wavering comments-of-the-moment for all posterity to review (see, for example, the paragraph that begins "Dehlin's Facebook wall was plastered with well-wishers"). So, already this is not just about Dehlin, it is also about the community of seeking, questioning Saints with whom he interacts. Many of them are mentioned by name. This is precisely the kind of damaging spill-over effect that I was
afraid of.
Before going any further, allow me to propose a vision for the kind of apologetics that we can and should be doing "unapologetically" at the Institute. I trust that these points will not be controversial, since I have heard you yourselves make them before. First, we should be commending the faith. We should be rejoicing, in print, in the glorious gospel and basking in its life-giving light. We should, as we have always done, revel in the riches of the scriptures—their narrative, structural, doctrinal, and linguistic complexities and wonders. We should continue to encourage and promote those who are doing this kind of faithful and faith-promoting scholarship, and we should learn from and emulate the best work being done on the scriptures and Church history (and there are some stunning recent examples of both).
We also, however, should, indeed, be defending the faith—but not by singling out individuals for attacks on their integrity, their faith, their methods, or their motives, even if we feel we might have cause or good evidence against them. Exposés of individual Saints, faithful or otherwise, should simply be off the menu, and here is why. The Maxwell Institute continues to suffer from the hurt we did to our own image years ago by indulging in this kind of "defense." To this day we are not seen by some scholars and questioners as serious and fair-minded, but rather as a group who are willing to stoop to attacks on a petty, personal level for the sake of our own entertainment and to settle scores with those whose tactics we deplore even more. John Dehlin, in his email campaign, cites several anonymous examples of Saints who say they were turned off by this. I’m afraid there are many more.
To be fair-minded does not mean that we must be passive or even unbiased. We are and should be avowedly partisans of the Church and the truth claims of the Church. But when it comes to defending the faith, we should remain steadfastly in the arena of proper scholarly discourse, and that means being focused on history and its interpretation; the scriptures and their interpretation; material and cultural forms of Mormonism; and, importantly, on the epistemological and hermeneutical approaches that have the power to open up room for faith in the midst of modern and post-modern milieux. We should be prepared to challenge those who make specious claims or weak arguments and point out, in the respectful tone of academic discourse, where we see them to be in error.
Ours can be a positive voice. We might not have all the answers, but we can set up a beacon to any Saint who sincerely wants to live a life of faith. We can be a shelter to those who question and have doubts. Our end-in-mind should be to one day be regarded as a safe-haven for those who love the scriptures and for anyone who is troubled by questions about them and wants to feel that there is a faithful way forward, even if all of the answers are not given. In order to create that environment of trust and confidence, we must actively and decisively work to shed and counteract our old reputation of being intellects on a hill who make specific apostates and anti-Mormons look ridiculous for a living. There is so much at stake, and there is so much serious work to do, we must be done with such tactics or anything even remotely resembling such tactics.
What about those who might unsuspectingly get tangled up in the testimony-challenging talk at sites like those hosted by John Dehlin? How are they to be protected? This is important, since it is the stated intent—but will not be the effect—of this article. We should, indeed, have a way to signal to our readership whether certain websites or blogs are, in our judgement, fair, honest, accurate, well-intentioned, & etc. We can do this in much the same way that we do with books and articles—by reviewing them. But to be successful in helping vulnerable souls, we also need to be credible as an Institution, with a reputation for a demeanor that is open, friendly, and fair, so that those who need to be warned away from the thickets will trust such reviews and take them seriously. I know this demeanor is possible, because you personally both have such demeanors. And yet, somehow this comes as news to many people who haven’t met you but have been reading your apologetics for years.
Smith's article is not a review of a website or blog or forum. It is a review of a human being and will have the diametrically opposite effect of promoting the Institute as a place that is open, honest, friendly, or fair. We should leave investigations into the faithfulness and integrity of individuals who claim affiliation with Mormonism to the priesthood authorities who hold the keys to make such judgements. Stunningly, Smith's review of Dehlin's status as a member includes an extensive review of the times when Dehlin met with his local priesthood authorities. Smith takes it upon himself to show where, in his remote, not-face-to-face, not-personally-connected judgment, either they were not thorough enough, or Dehlin was dissembling enough to convince his leaders that, at least at that point in 2011, he should remain in good
standing.
It is improper to second-guess local priesthood authorities in print, just as it is improper to second-guess in print what the Brethren might be saying behind closed doors—even if we are sure we are right. When official church action is taken, and where this is known publicly, it might sometimes be germane as context—but only context—for a person’s assertions, claims, and arguments. The personal lives and faith-states of individual living persons should not be a subject for review and judgement (final, intermediate, or otherwise) by the official organs of the institute that bears the name of Neal A. Maxwell. The Institute itself will be degraded if we engage in such, and I am certain that Elder Maxwell would be ashamed. But more than that, I believe that souls are at stake. More souls will be offended than led to safety by this kind of intrusive journalism. Would the editors of the MSR feel fairly treated if anti-Mormons used these kinds of tactics to embarrass the Saints?
As painful as it may be to admit, I think that John Dehlin’s success is in some ways a measure of our failure to model the kind of open, welcoming, and sympathetic approach to those who question that he states as his goal. People vote with their feet and with their subscriptions. And, judging purely by those metrics, we have not done a good enough job of creatively opening up safe places for those seeking answers to tough questions and those seeking communities of support for the process of working through challenging issues. Do we have such a forum, where faithful guidance is available and where others on similar journeys can support each other? Do we admit any kind of dialogue into our efforts? There is not even a place for reader responses in MSR. It is not enough to provide good information and interesting podcasts, it seems. It is outreach and non-judgmental dialogue that people are attracted to, and, apparently, they are finding it more readily under Dehlin’s canopy than ours. Shall we try to attract them to us by lobbing stones at them?
If I have been persuasive at all, I will have created a problem about what to do with this very lengthy piece that is the core of the next issue of MSR, which is already over-due. I apologize I didn't find my voice sooner. But if the arguments in this memo carry any merit, then it is more important that the piece on Dehlin not be published in its current form than almost anything else—including missed deadlines and other inconveniences. The second part of Smith’s article seems to deal with more substantive matters that are at least potentially proper topics for a critical review (though, near the end, the tone really starts to slide toward snide, and Smith’s use of Iago and Othello is annoying and confusing.) Perhaps with the right mix of will and effort, some of the second part could be reshaped into a proper and much more cogent review of the Mormon Stories project in general, or of the way certain topics have been treated there. But here I would urge a turn away from merely poking holes in arguments or critiquing the discussions that people are having on-line. That just leaves people with poked arguments, it doesn’t satisfy their desire to find truth. What we should be offering in the same places and at the same times we critique certain things are compelling reasons not to give up on the scriptures and the faith; compelling reasons why these enrich lives and bless a robust and unfrightened disposition to believe and to contribute to a covenant community. This article is counterproductive of that aim.
Years ago, there was a famous critique of Cleon Skousen’s The Naked Capitalist published in Dialogue. The author worked through the arguments of that book and then had this to say about them:
The Naked Capitalist sets brother against brother. It divides the Saints into angry, hostile camps…. Such a radical and false ideology, no matter how cleverly packaged and rationalized, does not teach us to love our neighbors or forgive others; it does not open us to the sanctifying effects of the Spirit. There is nothing edifying in its bleak message…. We are not commissioned to win this world for the Lord by joining some seedy and unseemly political mass movement like that offered by the New Left or the Radical Right. No conspiracy, not even a Skousen-type Super-Conspiracy, can possibly frustrate the Kingdom of God; the Saints need not fear the corruption of this world if they keep their eyes and hearts on the Master (Louis Midgley, “Round Table Review: The Naked Capitalist” in Dialogue 6 no. 3–4
[Fall/Winter 1971]: 99–116 ).
Perhaps this is an unfair comparison, but I cannot help but feel that some of the same language that Louis used to express his sense of why Skousen was out of line then applies in this case as well. If our claim in this article is that Dehlin is drawing people away and dividing us, we will be, in the very act of publishing this piece, enacting and confirming and deepening that divide. This is not what we should be about.
I know that you love a good fight. I know that you are capable of producing counter arguments to everything I have said here. I am not interested in a point by point debate over each detail. Rather, I want to zoom out and simply ask, how deeply will you be offended if this piece is not published? Will your faith be shaken? Will you feel that you have no place among a community that you are searching for a way to stay with? How much violence will not publishing this piece do to your dream of Zion?
Speaking very personally now, I can not imagine the Savior writing something like this article on John Dehlin and his Facebook friends, or commissioning anything like it in feel or tone. I honestly cannot imagine that most of the Brethren would feel that this treatment is necessary or appropriate. Mormon Stories has been around for years, and the Church has never seen fit to publicly critique it, though we know they have become quite adept at doing so when they want to. Smith’s article might be factually tight in every part (though I am dubious even of that), but it is still totally wrong. The spirit of it is wrong. No good will come of it. It will create more problems than it solves, inflict deeper wounds than it heals. It will be offensive not only to people on the borders of the faith, but to many, many of us deep within as well who want desperately to find ways to comfort those who stand in need of comfort, not rub salt in their wounds. I know I am not alone in this sentiment here at the Institute; at BYU; or in broader, faithful LDS circles. Acrimony, confusion, and darkness will be the fruits if this is published. The pain I and many others feel will be deep. There must be a more excellent way.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I apologize for any unintended hurt. My sincere desire is only to be helpful.
Yours with respect, fear, and trembling,
Morgan
