So, I have corrected a few errata. Rollo has pointed out a few areas in which he read things I did not intend, and so I have clarified these. And, he has misunderstood several things, and pointed out one matter that strengthens my case.
In all this, however, he has made little to no impact upon my three main findings:
- The reviewed material promotes teachings at variance with those accepted by the Church;
- The claims or statements made to one group by Mormon Stories or its personnel often do not match those offered another;
- These tactics and approach have much in common with leavetaking narrative formation and exit-counselor work. These matters can be profitably understood with ideas about the sociology of religion and religious leavetaking.
One could delete every citation Rollo questions, and the bulk of the paper would remain, with its conclusions still supported.
Rollo’s recurrent theme is that I am motivated by dark motives and that I am mean. It might be more help if we simply stipulated that I’m a dreadful person with no socially-redeeming traits whatever. Then, the data could be analyzed and considered. Even a blind pig finds an acorn occasionally.
In short, if this was the worst Rollo could find (and he seems to have looked hard), then my review’s conclusions are, I believe, robust. The corrections and clarifications are welcome, and will deprive those wishing for an easy dismissal of my findings of the opportunity to avoid the forest for the trees.
I thank him for his help.