Talk:Mormon Stories Podcast

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWLFind sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWLFind sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Controversy blog links

They are reliable either because they are authored by academics who are principals to the controversy or in the case of the BYU/Maxwell link it contains a list of links many of which reference the controversy. The phrase "Dehlin affair" need not be referenced in the link (however, various M.Studies Review editors term the affair as such - Eg viz. Midgley at the BYU heavy discussion board) as well as uses in other ostensibly more "pristine" of sources...).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, you do need to have a reference for that. A noticeboard is, despite your assertion, not an acceptable source. Even if it were, one mention on a noticeboard does not support "often referenced". None of the other sources that you list mention a "Dehlin affair". --Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Randykitty said, "You do need to have a reference for that."

I sincerely apologize for being so "blog" heavy. So, sincere thanks for making me do a quick research this appellation as I'd been more than a bit lazy um bored by the task and simply wanted to incorrectly assume that its very ubiquity amongst M.Studies folk alone might suffice. From my general choice of reading material among such academic critics of BYU apologetics here[1] and these places.[2], [3], [4], [5] &c &c I'm used to seeing the phrase. Along with its use by such observers as that here[6]. Much more germane tho is "Dehlin affair's" use by the now famous LDS apologist G.Smith and the editors of the Interpreter in their introduction to Smith's pair of articles critical of MStoriesPodcast (finally published in 2013) themselves, per the following weblink.[7] Meanwhile, as for the phrase's use by various principals, the Mormon Studies Review editors who do so include
- the blue-linked ed. and Peterson mentoree Bill Hamblin terms it such here,[8] and
- the MStud.Rev ed. and infamous (blue-linked) curmudgeon Lou Midgley terms it as such here.[9]
I should google up Dehlin's use of the term himself but the above should suffice.

Note that I believe "Dehlin debacle" is less NPOV. However, this alternate if slightly dissimilar term was used by Patheos and likewise by the BYU princi- pals and others etc & [10], pro BYU observer, neutral observer &c &c

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Links rgding controversy involving Dehlin and Mormon Stories vs Mormon Studies Review's Peterson, et al

• March 1, 2013 (2013-03-01). "Wheat and Tares Apologetics". Patheos.com. Retrieved 2013-09-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
• "The Dehlin Affair–The Current Uncivil War - General Discussions - Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board". Mormondialogue.org. Retrieved 2013-09-04.
• "In Defense of Mormon Apologetics | Worlds Without End". Withoutend.org. 2013-03-02. Retrieved 2013-09-05.
• "FARMS Fires Peterson et al . . . | Messenger and Advocate". Messengerandadvocate.wordpress.com. 2012-06-22. Retrieved 2013-09-06.
• October 16, 2013. "Who should get the credit for giving me the boot?". Patheos.com. Retrieved 2013-10-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

  (Aside: Hmm. Post the Dehlin's 2014 threatened excommunication by his Stake president, maybe phrase "Dehlin affair" should not be thought to non-equivically reference the Dehlin-Peterson tete a tete...?)

  --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

More info

More info needs to be put into the history section. ie. why did he consider leaving. Otherwise it just looks like a copy/paste from the Dehlin article. 131.217.33.146 (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)