Gregory L. Smith's Review of Mormon Stories

[DrumNFeather]

I'm not certain, but I believe this is the report that John Dehlin successfully attempted to censor back in the fall.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/gregory-l-smiths-review-of-mormon-stories/

I haven't read the whole thing yet, I'm working my way through it. But I know this has been a topic of great discussion elsewhere.

[LA Ute]

I'm not certain, but I believe this is the report that John Dehlin successfully attempted to censor back in the fall.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/gregory-l-smiths-review-of-mormon-stories/

I haven't read the whole thing yet, I'm working my way through it. But I know this has been a topic of great discussion elsewhere.

I intend to read this (although I note the first installment is 98 pages long and the second, 70 pages). Just skimming it I see that Smith's conclusions seem to be pretty hard on Dehlin personally, which always causes my "bias and animus antennae" to perk up. I will reserve judgment until I read both pieces.

[UtahDan]

I intend to read this (although I note the first installment is 98 pages long and the second, 70 pages). Just skimming it I see that Smith's conclusions seem to be pretty hard on Dehlin personally, which always causes my "bias and animus antennae" to perk up. I will reserve judgment until I read both pieces.

Well the first installment was 116 pages but Lou Midgely's wife absconded with it. (yes, yes, I've made this joke elsewhere)

[LA Ute]

Well the first installment was 116 pages but Lou Midgely's wife absconded with it. (yes, yes, I've made this joke elsewhere)

I just hope and pray that your name doesn't pop up anywhere in this exposé. I'm not sure my testimony could stand that.

[UtahDan]

I just hope and pray that your name doesn't pop up anywhere in this exposé. I'm not sure my testimony could stand that.

Lol. You can't imagine how tickled John Larsen was that he got quoted.

[Applejack]

Anyone care to provide a brief (100 words or less) summary of what this is all about?

[LA Ute]

Anyone care to provide a brief (100 words or less) summary of what this is all about?

An internal food fight at the highest levels of the LDS intellectual community, with apologists on one side and disaffecteds on the other.:snack:

I kid, I kid.

[Pheidippides]

An internal food fight at the highest levels of the LDS intellectual community, with apologists on one side and disaffecteds on the other.:snack:

I kid, I kid.

Actually, I think you're right, except when you refer to these people as intellectuals. I don't think Dehlin would claim the title, and Smith and Peterson don't deserve it even though they'd claim it.

[UtahDan]

An internal food fight at the highest levels of the LDS intellectual community, with apologists on one side and disaffecteds on the other.:snack:

I kid, I kid.

That actually seems pretty accurate to me. I can't help but enjoy Dan Petersen's distress at finding out he doesn't speak for the church but I am very petty as you know.

[LA Ute]

Actually, I think you're right, except when you refer to these people as intellectuals. I don't think Dehlin would claim the title, and Smith and Peterson don't deserve it even though they'd claim it.

Do I need to get out my finger-wagging smiley and chastise you for getting all ad hominem? I'll wager the original Pheidippides would never have engaged in such behavior. I mean, he was only a herald, but still, he knew how to act.

[Pheidippides]

Do I need to get out my finger-wagging smiley and chastise you for getting all ad hominem? I'll wager the original Pheidippides would never have engaged in such behavior. I mean, he was only a herald, but still, he knew how to act.

Your finger wagging is overcome by the forces of karma. Also, if you care to note, I was almost equal opportunity in my ad hominism.

I'm currently analyzing everything you have ever posted online in order to write a snooty but well footnoted paper about how obnoxious you are when you finger way, by the way. It's already up to 80 pages.

You already know my take on this, but just for the record, I will see Smith/Peterson in hell when I get there, and Dehlin would have been wise just to turn the other cheek and let them make fools of themselves.

[LA Ute]

Your finger wagging is overcome by the forces of karma. Also, if you care to note, I was almost equal opportunity in my ad hominism.

I'm currently analyzing everything you have ever posted online in order to write a snooty but well footnoted paper about how obnoxious you are when you finger way, by the way. It's already up to 80 pages.

You already know my take on this, but just for the record, I will see Smith/Peterson in hell when I get there, and Dehlin would have been wise just to turn the other cheek and let them make fools of themselves.

I don't have a dog in the fight (yet) but like you am mostly fascinated by Smith's devoting 150+ heavily-footnoted pages to slamming Dehlin.

[GUBA]

Greg is actually one of my cousins. He is probably one of the smartest people I have ever known. He is a small town Dr. near where I grew up.

[Pheidippides]

I don't have a dog in the fight (yet) but like you am mostly fascinated by Smith's devoting 150+ heavily-footnoted pages to slamming Dehlin.

That's my only real interest too, despite my general hatred of all apologists (cue Nirvana). Well, most apologists.

Anyway, back to the point, let's assume that everything written is true and doesn't reflect a skewed perception of an admittedly random approach to one guy's faith crisis as played out in a public sphere over a period of years. I have two questions: why? and, seriously, why? I can make a good guess at how long that took to put together and it like an insane waste of time. Both sides smack horribly of deep insecurities with their religion - they are just different sides of the same problem.

[SeattleUte]

That's my only real interest too, despite my general hatred of all apologists (cue Nirvana). Well, most apologists.

Anyway, back to the point, let's assume that everything written is true and doesn't reflect a skewed perception of an admittedly random approach to one guy's faith crisis as played out in a public sphere over a period of years. I have two questions: why? and, seriously, why? I can make a good guess at how long that took to put together and it like an insane waste of time. Both sides smack horribly of deep insecurities with their religion - they are just different sides of the same problem.

This is Peterson's career. He'st trying to put groceries in the fridge.

[Pheidippides]

This is Peterson's career. He'st trying to put groceries in the fridge.

Yes, I know. But even he has to sleep at night somehow.

[LA Ute]

That's my only real interest too, despite my general hatred of all apologists (cue Nirvana). Well, most apologists.

http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/CBSS/smileyvault-cute-big-smiley-static-024.gif

[Pheidippides]

http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/CBSS/smileyvault-cute-big-smiley-static-024.gif
Is that supposed to be a smiley shocked that it's only most? Or mad that it's only most?

I don't think so poorly of you so as to classify you as an apologist, by the way, despite your best efforts.

[LA Ute]

Is that supposed to be a smiley shocked that it's only most? Or mad that it's only most?

I don't think so poorly of you so as to classify you as an apologist, by the way, despite your best efforts.

I was afraid you had me lumped in with the ones you can't stand. (Seriously, I knew better than that.) But as you now, I do have apologetic sympathies.

http://clarkcountychatter.com/public/style_emoticons/default/shrug.gif

[Pheidippides]

I was afraid you had me lumped in with the ones you can't stand. (Seriously, I knew better than that.) But as you now, I do have apologetic sympathies.

I have Sympathy for the Devil, but that doesn't make me Lucifer.

You are an apologist in the sense that you have a fundamental bias from which you start (I don't mean that negatively). Which is fine, by the way, since you're dealing with your own individual spirituality and you have only a small agenda in influencing mine. You're not constructing elaborate arguments in a pseudo-academic setting to counter anybody's doubt or skepticism - you're just explaining how you see things, with only the occasional hint of irrational defensiveness. ;)

In other words, you're a human with whom I can have a conversation, and as you've had a front row seat to my own journey, you aren't immediately dismissive of what I have to say (which doesn't mean you won't push back). This makes you a friend with a viewpoint, not an evil apologist. So you're exempt from my ire.

[SeattleUte]

Yes, I know. But even he has to sleep at night somehow.

I don't think his vocation keeps him from sleeping. He's a hardened snake oil salesman.

[wuapinmon]

I'm not certain, but I believe this is the report that John Dehlin successfully attempted to censor back in the fall.


Dehlin is now correlating his facebook page. He links to things on his wall that he posts on his public figure page. If you comment on the post on his wall, he deletes it and asks you to post it to his public figure page. No, gracias.