I spent some time today reading two articles by Gregory L. Smith in Interpreter that I'd become aware of earlier this year. First I read "Dubious 'Mormon' Studies: A Twenty-First Century Construction of Exit Narratives," followed by "Return of the Unread Review: A Mormon Story." The first is an article that was prepared for Mormon Studies Review and led to the replacement of that publication's editorial staff. The second explains how that happened.
I'm aware that there are two sides to every story, but Smith's reasoned academic tone is infinitely more trustworthy to me than John Dehlin's scattered duplicity. Dehlin's version of events--that Smith was preparing an ad hominem attack on him--is refuted with a reading of the first article; while it seemed weird to spend 100 pages refuting the work of one particular guy, I felt Dehlin's work required a refutation, and I felt Smith wasn't belaboring any points. It took 100 pages to do the job. As I read, I thought, "I hope there's never a time when someone can write 100 pages about inconsistencies in my public statements regarding my religion."
So what is Smith's side of the story? Someone at Maxwell Institute leaked his article (at least a synopsis of what he thought the content was, as the leaker said he hadn't read it and Dehlin later said he hadn't read it, either) to Dehlin, who e-mailed a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy to complain, CCing the head editor of Mormon Studies Review and others. In his e-mail, Dehlin mentions bringing the matter to the attention of a member of the Quorum of the Twelve if he doesn't get a satisfactory response. Mormon Studies Review head editor Dan Peterson is later given by Maxwell Institute director Gerald Bradford an e-mail written by BYU President Cecil O. Samuelson, Jr. asking the article be held. Bradford later told Peterson he had not read the article, either. Subsequently Peterson, Smith, and the rest of the editorial board of Mormon Studies Review were fired.
We're a long way from The September Six.
Somewhere along the chain of command above Bradford, someone decided to suppress Smith's article to satisfy Dehlin. There's a good chance the decision was made by someone who hadn't read the article. And it bears mentioning that Smith's article defended church positions against the often-borderline-hostile work of Dehlin. How in the world do you publicly disagree with fundamental church doctrines and not only escape judgement, but get your critics fired by the church they're defending?
I read the blogs of both Interpreter and Maxwell Institute. The MI blog is filled with ecumenical mumbo-jumbo and Interpreter is filled with articles that begin with the premise that the Book of Mormon is true. On my list of things to do when I'm rich is subscribe to the print version of Interpreter. It makes me sad that BYU felt like Smith's article needed suppression without even affording it a trial reading. Smith's first article made me think of Dehlin as a well-meaning man with little idea what he's doing. Dehlin's subsequent actions have shown me that he knows exactly what he's doing, and I find it unsupportable. I wish Bradford's anonymous boss felt the same way.
via oneofthebest
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire