Rollo review – Introduction

As some may know, I recently published a review of a group called Mormon Stories: I looked at some of their podcasts, some podcasts with their founder, and a few other things. I later added a look at a survey they had done.

That review may be found here, along with a second paper which describes the efforts of the founder to censor it unread.

The paper has been out for a few weeks now, and I note that there is an anonymous review (by “Rollo Tomasi”) of my paper(s) on an anti-Mormon message board. Normally, I don’t spend much time worrying about those who won’t sign their true name to their work. I’m also not interested in an interminable tit-for-tat exchange. But, I do appreciate and try to use constructive feedback, which some of it is.

For those interested, however, I point out some facts and details regarding that review. I’m grateful for Rollo catching a few errata. A critical review can spot implications that were not intended, but I’m pleased and happy to correct or clarify.

I’m not going to quote the review chapter and verse generally; I’ll just go by headings, and readers can follow along as they like.

(I also can’t help but point out first, though, that Rollo doesn’t like me mentioning replies to Grant Palmer (another hostile former Mormon author) opining that these were all “hit pieces.”  His description in that case is no more appropriate than in the present instance. These are “hit pieces” by notorious polemicists masquerading as historians like Drs. James Allen, Davis Bitton, Steven Harper, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and the staff of the Smith Institute. Hit pieces all, apparently. I’m in good company, at least.)

A table of contents is here for quick jumping, if you like: