Open Stories Foundation---Dehlin, Money, and compensation

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

One woman's story is a credible witness, but it's not the only witness. Does two or three women's claims make a behavior rampant? Maybe. But your suggestion that one is sufficient seems very similar to something Kate Kelly was claiming on the Kristy Money FB thread. KK essentially said that one must start with the assumption that Kristy's accusations are all true because she's a woman. Yet KK then dismissed other women with a different POV.

One person's claims represent a credible witness, but that doesn't mean she is correct. I don't doubt Kristy Money believes the perceived injustices. She may be right but one person's story is not the only story. I've listened to KM on various occasions and find her to be honest and sincere. I cannot say the same for KK.

We have three women's accounts posted in this thread:  Alyson Draper, Kristy Money, and the woman whose post I posted above Draper's account.

Kate Kelly's info has been linked to.  She is not the most socially graceful, but she was also banned and blocked iirc when she publicly criticized Dehlin last Nov iirc.  While I can understand him being offended by what she said as she was actually vicious imo, I do think their history together merited more than just an immediate cutoff...but since this type of response by Dehlin (often referred to as "excommunicating" in the community) has been reported to occur numerous times over the years, it was not surprising.

There may be others that were posted, Lost track of what I posted of what I read.  There were definitely many more I neglected due to not having a name attached, some I thought lacked enough details to merit special attention as my intent was not to demonstrate that this was standard operating behaviour by Dehlin.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is that how this works? You declare something off topic so no one can bring up comparisons. Is this thread that incredibly well-structured (unlike any other thread where there are myriad tangents) that you declare what is an isn't appropriate conversation. I find this very strange and a bit heavy handed, Calm.

In revisiting the board guidelines, I find this on the list of "Banned Behaviors":

Quote

Derailing threads with irrelevant or unwanted commentary

I presume the thread originator has some say in what constitutes irrelevant or unwanted commentary. At least, that is what has been understood in the past.

 

[Jeanne]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

I didn't mean to come off as criticizing.  I often miss posts.  This was on the first page though and I referred to meaning to post it in the opening post, so I was thinking perhaps my style is too cluttered to absorb info effectively and thus I am looking for suggestions how to be better at it.

Oh...you're good.  I would go off and do something and there would be another 2 pages...you guys are fast!

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Oh...you're good.  I would go off and do something and there would be another 2 pages...you guys are fast!

I haven't had time to do anything else, feel an obligation to keep up, but got to go run an errand for Mom.

[Jeanne]

Just now, Calm said:

I haven't had time to do anything else, feel an obligation to keep up, but got to go run an errand for Mom.

I don't know how you do it...and the way you research is remarkable!!!

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I listen to podcasts to go to sleep...

If so, you should give Dehlin's podcasts another shot.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that my being "entertained" was in any way also condoning the accused behavior of Dehlin. For better or worse, to someone like me who has always found him to be a milquetoast dunderhead,  this whole scenario is entertaining.  To the degree that he is sexist towards women, it should not be supported and those women should take their talents elsewhere, and people should only support OSF if they also support such behavior.  I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between, as it most often does.

Edited May 22, 2017 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It could be even more pathetic and sad if Dehlin had no financial transparency, earned over a $120,000 per year from the donations made to his charity, had his followers clean toilets without compensation and required 10% of their income be donated to him in order to attend their children's weddings...so on the bright side it could be a whole lot worse.

Yeah, but most people with that package also offer a perfected resurrected body, apotheosis, eternal joy, and power over and ownership of the Universe. I bet that sadsack Dehlin does not even give his followers a free tote bag.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I don't know how you do it...and the way you research is remarkable!!!

Obsessive nature.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, but most people with that package also offer a perfected resurrected body, apotheosis, eternal joy, and power over and ownership of the Universe. I bet that sadsack Dehlin does not even give his followers a free tote bag.

While this was amusing sideline to the thread, still off topic.  I would rather have the thread die than get cluttered.  Easier to find references in the future if needed.

Most the time I am not so fussy, so I would appreciate understanding in this case.

Mom, Daughter, and I just mutually decided tomorrow is better so maybe I will continue obsessive researching as I haven't read Kelly's FB page yet or caught up on what is new on .Reddit and Money's Facebook pages.  Or I may force myself to go eat breakfast (eating in the middle of the night kills my appetite).

Edited May 22, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

If anyone is still wondering why I am asking who are the  board members, here is the text of a posted screenshot of Dehlin (I assume it is from his Facebook page, this is from Money's):

Delhi:

Quote

I answer to a board  The board has a compensation committee.  I don't speak for them, and I am subject to their schedules and preferences.  So my hands are literally tied other than to say, "The board is working very hard on this" - which is true.  What else do you think I can do?

 

[Calm]

There is a poster Tom K who got unfriended by Dehlin and blocked from the Mormon Stories FB for apparently making one comment on Money's FB page.  That he has enough time to be doing this speaks volumes to his choices, imo.

add-on:  my mistake, apparently "likes" are being checked:

Quote

I did, however, like one of ---------'s comments. Is it possible to get blocked for liking a comment? Hmmm. Reading some of the comments on this thread about being blocked, it seems that MSPC has a Strengthening the Members Committee now. Gotta keep precise track of what your "followers" are up to, apparently. Yikes.

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

From Money's Facebook:

Joanna J Smith

Quote

Yes- I'm aware of what it says publicly, I'm also aware that John is compensated in other ways as well (i.e.; he personally told me that OSF pays for the space OSF uses as office space in his home) -- I'm also aware that the 2016 statement was made in October and the from January to October podcasters were not getting paid and were not told how/why/when that would change- it just suddenly stopped. Then in November is when all podcasters were required to sign a non discolor agreement or leave the organization immediately (and by leave all content was deleted and the name Mormon Transitions was retained by OSF for some unknown reason)

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

From .Kate Kelly:

Quote

 

I also know for a fact that those who currently podcast were forced in November 2016 (after my original post), to sign new contracts in order to continue. I have seen the contract. These contracts are full of NDAs (non disclosure agreements), stipulate that all IP is property of OSF/ not the content creator, and that they can be terminated at any time for no reason. This puts these women in an almost impossible situation & contractually unable to discuss the true issues

 

https://www.facebook.com/katekellyesq/posts/10158869661055226

Can't remember if Juliann paraphrased or quote so here is quote:

Quote

I believe that Mormon Stories (Open Stories Foundation) compensates women unfairly and takes advantage of the free work that women are willing to do. I was in constant communication with Kristy Money when I posted that OP & thought she had been mistreated. She supported me posting it, but didn’t speak out directly herself because she feared severe retribution… which, sadly, happened anyway. As a result of talking about her compensation to others (even privately), Kristy’s relationship as a podcaster with Mormon Stories ended.

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

Amanda:

Quote

Not to mention his insistence on being the voice for the LGBT community has continued to be more and more problematic. He definitely amplifies the voices of allies over actual queer voices. It's ridiculous to me how long it took to have a podcast about transgender people with their voices. I still haven't seen a podcast or discussion specifically about bisexual, pansexual, etc individuals and we are continually erased from the postmo queer discourse. (Not that it's his job to address every community but when you act like the supreme ally but your allyship is bad, there is a problem)....

 I also hate the trend in exmormon communities to act like men are so much more rational and studied for leaving because of things like tapirs while women leave for "emotional" reasons like noticing inequality. Like which of those reasons is more impactful on real lives? (Also I think people leave for a combination of reasons and each person is different regardless of gender. But men don't have to deal with or see the inequalities so they have the privilege to leave over purely historical inconsistency reasons.)

Brittany:

Quote

This is very true [limited privileged viewpoint presented]. I actually sent John a message once with a snap shot of my story of a Bishop covering up my sexual assault, offering to share my story on his platform because I want to bring attention to the problem of Bishop interviews in the church. And perhaps it was just as simple as him never reading my message or not finding the time, but he never responded. I watched him on a panel with Lindsey from feminist mormon housewives talk about Sexual Assault, and I just found him to be lacking and disingenuine on the topic overall, which if you really want to confront the Mormon church, you need to confront its very real rape culture. Anyway, his podcast is not up to that task.

Lindsay:

Quote

 I discussed the need for conversations about abuse and manipulation of women in exmo and postmo communities on podcasts. I got shot down by both male hosts that I discussed it with. I think there is not very much concern about women's issues in the exmo/postmo worlds. Porn gets talked about ad naseum, but women's issues are barely an afterthought....

I have met so many exmo women that have been coerced into sexual situations that they were not okay with, then shamed when they object (because they must only be objecting because they used to be Mormon), and no one is talking about it. I've only been exmo for 2 years, and I've seen this play out numerous times. Has there ever been even one podcast about it? Nope! Radio silence.

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

This is rather enlightening:

Quote

 

Amanda "What many exmormon men should say: "I was totally cool staying in the church despite knowing lots of ways it's untrue or harmful because of all the privilege it gave me until I was excommunicated, got in trouble for porn, or it in some way finally impacted me. Then I act like I'm an intellectual, truth seeker gift to the world for leaving"

Amy "Always framed as Joseph marrying "other men's wives," but polygyny is never framed as "women marrying another woman's husband." Even in prog-Mo and ex-Mo land, the male lens is always privileged. Polyandry is always seen as bad because it's an offense against men's property rights, not bad because the women were coerced."

Emily "Yes, it's the intrusion on another man's territory! Always that phrase, "other men's wives.""

 

I think I am going off topic myself...but this POV of the exmo community is somewhat new to me, I didn't realize it was seen as pervasive by so many.

This ties into the perceived sexism in the OSF podcasts.

[Calm]

Someone made a comment about the irony of posting it on KK's page. Kristy Money responded:

Kristy Money 

Quote

I personally watched the organization of OW work it's way through Founder's syndrome mentioned elsewhere. It wasn't easy, there were some pretty high tension times, but she and the board worked through it, and she recognized it was a problem to be resolved. From what I see now (I am not on the board anymore, but from an outsider's view) the org is healthy, and it took everyone leaning into the pain instead of avoiding it to accomplish such a transition.

 

I can't find anything they are doing nowadays.  If they are healthy, they are also quiet.  If someone knows what their current projects are, another thread would be great.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

Kelly shares this info about the OSF Board, explains why it was so small, though not the current status:

Quote

Also important to note, in 2012 the OSF Board was much larger & more autonomous. That year these people were all board members:

Natasha Helfer Parker
Sara Begely
Joanna Brooks
Michael Ferguson
Brian Johnston
Anne Peffer
Ryan Millencamp
Elizabeth Calvert Smith
Tyson Jacobson
Jacqueline McArthur

Because of a big dustup with John (including the sexual harassment lawsuit I mentioned in the OP), every single person resigned by the end of 2012 (except Natasha).

This is nothing new w OSF, sadly.

 

[Bob Crockett]

I've listened to him.  At one point I think I recall him saying that he didn't like to read.   It spoke volumes about some of his interviews, especially the one with Brant Gardner.   Larry King has the same shtick.  He didn't read the books of his author guests.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Enlightenment is a good thing.  Sometimes the truth hurts, but every exMo podcast I've heard is from someone grateful and happier for that truth.

I am glad that you find testimonies to be truth whether they are negative or positive

It means that truth = opinion in these matters

[Calm]

I hope no one is depending on me for the whole story.  For example, I don't have a clue why an entire board would resign except for one member.  Please don't draw conclusions on just what I have posted if you feel the need to make a judgment.  There is more stuff attached to aliases as well as people who have identified themselves that I don't feel the need to discuss.  If you want to know more the best way is to look at the links that have been provided and then do google searches of your own on the areas and people who interest you.

I may post more if more info comes up about the Board and financial issues, not sure about the other accusations.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

I had no idea. To lose that many board members all at once, wow. 

There is now a screen shot in the Money FB thread from a guy claiming to have talked to Dehlin, who first claims he won't take more than a 15% bonus, but then eventually admits he took a 20% bonus on top of his $75K salary that was forced upon him by the board. Or something. The ever changing story is far more interesting than the money tally itself. 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In revisiting the board guidelines, I find this on the list of "Banned Behaviors":

I presume the thread originator has some say in what constitutes irrelevant or unwanted commentary. At least, that is what has been understood in the past.

 

I have never understood this to be the case and I have never seen such blatant use of an assumed power to control a thread. I don't recall ever seeing anyone "declare" certain avenues of discussion off topic AND then enforce it. After all commentary that is "unwanted" is in the eye of the beholder.

This is the 2nd time in just a couple of weeks where I have seen certain posters act with greater power and authority over others in the way the interact on threads and/or ignore CFR's. Perhaps they simply understand the rules better. That's possible.

I'd love to hear from a moderator who can verify whether or not a thread originator can narrowly define and then enforce a thread topic based upon what kind of commentary they want to hear.

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

We have three women's accounts posted in this thread:  Alyson Draper,

Can we consider them one at a time?  I'm trying to figure out this whole accusation of sexism. 

Says Ms or Mrs Draper:

Quote

I appreciate Kristy's putting in a word for OSF moderators. I was very offended to not even be invited to the OSF Banquet. I was more offended when John later thought about it and opined we might be able to come next year if we would pay for our own dinners. 
 

Not seeing a woman's issue here.  maybe he lacked or lacks appreciation for the volunteer moderators.  Maybe he forgot (which I suppose is a result of lacking appreciation).  Anywho, not a complaint regarding women's issues.

Quote

In fact, John has made me want to quit more than once. His business management skills are, in my professional opinion, terrible. For example, more than once, after MSPC moderators spent a whole day resolving questions related to specific members and their group-related issues. John has, in the past, the next day or the next week, demanded a full accounting of what was done because the individual member involved will tattle directly to John. He will often promise the member who was sanctioned by the moderator group a different result without even knowing the situation. He makes us recount the entire situation in bullet points, rather than read the lengthy threads where the moderators spent all day discussing the issues. 
 

Not a women's issues complaint, mind you.  A complaint about him being a bad manager.

Quote

I have to say I did try to take it up with a John from a point of view of an MBA and managerial insight. John had been better since then to defer to the moderator team. 
However, John decided that nobody on the moderator team has enough skill to be an Administrator of the group. We apparently can't be trusted with the keys to the page. What organization does this sound like? John delegated the Administrator role to a new hire who knows nothing about how to run the group. That was nothing short of insulting to those of us who do actually run the group and have done so for years. 
 

Apparently this was a woman hire. 

Quote

About the same time as the blow out regarding Kristy's compensation and Kaye Kelly's advocacy, I was offended that John was looking to hire a full time person who could work from home to manage OSF. That person would almost certainly be a woman. The pay was a paltry $30k a year to do the job of at least someone with Bachelors in some business field. Although non-profits don't pay the greatest, it was no excuse for paying yet another woman a really sad salary compared to what John draws from the OSF. 

There's a women's issue complaint.  But sadly...I know about this field of moderation.  My wife some years ago managed a team of moderators while working from home and made just under this.  I think for such a thing, it's not an unheard of salary, sadly.  This is the world of business though, and not really John's fault.  A competitive wage for a woman who works from home, because she has kids and wants to be home, is 10-15 an hour.  At least in Utah.  My wife's team was spread across the country.  A lady in NY, a man in Florida, a lady in California, a lady in Chicago....They all made about that. 

Quote

I do believe in the Open Stories product and the service it provides. However, John, you need to do better at delegating and nurturing the other professionals who make it so you can do your part. You may have the name recognition, but there are many professionals in the background supporting you that you very much abuse by using people who work for you for unfair compensation, or none at all in the case of one person who has worked for you for years without payment (referring to someone else, not myself here). 
 

Alleging abuse?  that seems extreme.  On account of someone not getting fairly compensated?  Um...I also at one time worked for the Church.  The Church as many people working for her who don't get any compensation.  Not trying to jump topics here.  But if John is getting dinged for sexism because he has capitalized on the good of volunteers, then to be fair, so are others.  Years ago I had offeredto help on a volunteer basis my dad who ran a business.  As I did so, I grew from happily helping to complaining about it.  I finally realized "oh what?  What am I doing?  I agreed to help him for free." and I finished that which I was working on and felt good about it.  "oops.  I shouldn't have complained to anyone.  He did his best and it was agreed that I'd do it all voluntarily."

Which makes me wonder.  Is abuse a reasonable accusation in any sense here? 

Quote

I'm sorry to say this in public, but I've repeatedly written you without acknowledgement to discuss my well-founded observations with you. I offered you the free analysis of a qualified MBA, in an effort to grow and strengthen OSF, but you would never answer.

In my opinion, you also need to take some public speaking classes. You do not have the speaking skills that would make you seem more polished and prepared. You sell yourself and OSF short because your colloquialisms get in the way of the message. 

It would also be a huge improvement if you would learn to get the first part of every podcast on air and everyone at the table before you go live. As it is, most podcasts seem very amateurish at the beginning as we all sit around waiting for you to get the media worked out. 

My expectation is that this constructive criticism will be ignored and I will be viewed as out of line for bringing any of this up. As I said, I've tried to give you the free MBA analysis, but you've been unwilling to converse. I contribute to OSF, and I have a stake in your improving the product. 

I support Kristy Money, and find it a shame that a psychologist could not work through the issues necessary to retain her fairly at OSF. I stand behind her in her fair request for specific transparency, and think that John's claims in his defense today are disingenuous and reflective of the kind of response we have grown to expect from John Dehlin and OSF.

I don't see a complaint regarding women's issue here. 

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Kristy Money,

Quote

Here are the concerns I have based on my experience:

-In late 2016, OSF completely revamped their pay structure for podcasters so that, while Dr. Dehlin continues to draw a regular base salary as CEO--with further unknown financial benefit from co-hosting podcasts with members of his household, collecting speaking fees for retreats, and performance bonuses--podcasters are not salaried employees (rather, they are outside contractors provided no benefits and paid relative pennies per download, on the justification that OSF is based in Utah, a right-to-work state). This change also coincides with the first year that OSF has not been transparent about its finances and the substantially large retreats began. 

-Moderators who donate hours upon hours per week of their own time to moderate official OSF groups and funnel/support members into his organization have been invited to OSF banquets, but only if they pay for their food. 

-I have come to know many individuals who were never paid by Dr. Dehlin for professional services they did for him personally and OSF as an organization that they were promised. For my own time and travel to speak at a NYC OSF retreat, I was only comped for my flight—and only after sending 5+ reminder emails over 3 months. 

-I was present when individuals who work for Dr. Dehlin have been brought to tears from how he treated them for privately (in a very small group) expressing concerns about his behavior. Our witnessing their treatment seemed to me a warning that we would be treated similarly if he perceived our loyalty to be lacking. 

I don't see anything regarding women's issues in her list of concerns.  It could be that those who were brought to tears were women and he treated them poorly in a domineering sexist way, but that's not specified in the complaints here.  So I'm not sure what to make of this. 

14 hours ago, Calm said:

and the woman whose post I posted above Draper's account.

Quote

This situation has been exactly one year in the making. It is LONG overdue. I personally know of at least a dozen women that went to John privately to bring up problematic things that were said or done by him while he was acting as OSF ED towards women in the community.

 

Ok.  Here's where we get into women's issues.  It's be helpful if we knew about these 12 women and what they brought up, but of course we can't know everything. 

 

Quote

 

Some were simple (don't comment on someone else's body/breasts/dress PERIOD)

 

Sure.  He talked about women's breasts to them?  Sounds like it could very well be sexual harassment. 

Quote

some were painful (please don't interrupt or dismiss or play 'devils advocate' to women's sexual/physical abuse experiences)

 

Sounds like a lack of professionalism, and/or ignorance on his part. 

Quote

and some were full fledged profiting and taking advantage of women (please pay your women podcasters EQUALLY, as you have your male podcaster for years)

 

I'm not sure what she means here.  It seems like from the financials the women podcasters were getting paid more than they brought in for their podcast.  John was taking less than what was brought in for his podcast.  So I'm not sure the complaint carries any weight. 

Quote

--- ALL OF THESE WOMEN went to John and close friends first. ALL OF THESE WOMEN hoped that John would learn and apologize and grow because everyone understands that coming from a patriarchal culture takes time to untangle... I personally sat with him and told him that it could be an easy fix if he's willing to apologize and actually start treating women better by certain actions. He responded by asking for loyalty-- it was completely inappropriate and I STILL gave him the benefit of the doubt and hoped he would LEARN.

Hopefully.  I'd say the biggest issue here is that he would apparently and allegedly comment on women's bodies and looks.  That could very well be sexual harassment, and that should, of course stop.  Other than that, I don't see much specific here. 

 

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Kate Kelly's info has been linked to.  She is not the most socially graceful, but she was also banned and blocked iirc when she publicly criticized Dehlin last Nov iirc.  While I can understand him being offended by what she said as she was actually vicious imo, I do think their history together merited more than just an immediate cutoff...but since this type of response by Dehlin (often referred to as "excommunicating" in the community) has been reported to occur numerous times over the years, it was not surprising.

I can't really relate to many of Kate Kelly's gripes.  So I went, yesterday, and read from her facebook as linked to by Julianne, and I have to say, most of what was said by her and others seemed excitably vague.  I couldn't tell what specific allegations were being made and if those allegations carried any weight at all.  To say John did not respond to her doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Kate being a woman, but to kate being a difficult person.  Sure, it's possible he wants to shut the women up, or whatever.  But it's also possible he made the decision to cut ties with her because he felt she was too difficult.  I will say I might go back and read again from that thread because I do believe there were some credible things said.  I do think there were some specifics. 

14 hours ago, Calm said:

There may be others that were posted, Lost track of what I posted of what I read.  There were definitely many more I neglected due to not having a name attached, some I thought lacked enough details to merit special attention as my intent was not to demonstrate that this was standard operating behaviour by Dehlin.

Hey if Dehlin has been sexist in his behavior, then I'm all for the condemnation.  I hate to risk my mainsplaining here, but I like to be part of the conversation because I detest sexism and I think it remains quite pervasive in the culture we all reside and in a lot of ways the Church is no help and may be worse.  Anyway, there's some of my take.  I get that there is a whole host of women posting on Kate's page that are focusing on this issue and so it is likely they have something to gripe about.  So, this post may mean nothing in the long run.  The complaints above, I will note, could very well be based off of his sexism.  But I can't conclude that with this information at this time. 

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Kelly shares this info about the OSF Board, explains why it was so small, though not the current status:

Quote

Also important to note, in 2012 the OSF Board was much larger & more autonomous. That year these people were all board members:

Natasha Helfer Parker
Sara Begely
Joanna Brooks
Michael Ferguson
Brian Johnston
Anne Peffer
Ryan Millencamp
Elizabeth Calvert Smith
Tyson Jacobson
Jacqueline McArthur

Because of a big dustup with John (including the sexual harassment lawsuit I mentioned in the OP), every single person resigned by the end of 2012 (except Natasha).

This is nothing new w OSF, sadly.

 

If there was a lawsuit pulled out on John, then my goodness, this has far more bite than I've thought.  Are those listed all, or any of them for that matter, chiming in on Kate's thread? That might really be interesting.  If there is something to this, I'm actually really surprised John and his org is still running as it does.  Supporting this would be ridiculous. 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

My purpose, MFBukowski, is that the negative testimonies of ex-Mos, which I am sure they don't intend as "negative",  may simply denote that they have elected progression "by more difficult means". 

Great points! And indeed it is right I think that only the far left and far right see history as "objective" - with the inevitability of Marxist economics and the Ayn Rand objectivists on the other side (Rand is not considered a philosopher anywhere but within "Randism")

But yes for me, clearly the gospel is the easier way.  You act in a manner consistent with what mankind has learned gives happiness- you follow the rules as is necessary, are kind and open to new ideas and techniques, but you evaluate them carefully and trust your instincts.

As a student at UCLA, I often contemplated the words over the proscenium arch in Royce Hall which is the central theater on campus and an event center for all kind of cultural events. Those words perfectly describe a Pragmatic way of seeing the world which is very much in harmony with Alma 32

Quote

“Education is learning to use the tools which the race has found indispensable.”

Mankind has found some maxims which it has found indispensable - the Golden Rule, what we broadly call "family values", the ten commandments, etc which just plain make life easier.  And of course science and art are among these "tools" as well as ethics, morality, and spiritual contemplation.  In my opinion, all of these are necessary to create a well-rounded human being who is "educated" and can create a happy and fulfilled life for himself.

In my nearly 40 years in the church I have never seen the things that guys like Dehlin talk about- back biting, dishonesty, authoritarianism, unreasoned obedience etc.  Yes even the leadership is imperfect, but the question becomes one of "do as I say, not as I do"- do the beliefs themselves lead to goodness- not whether or not every Mormon prophet , or every Mormon in history has been perfect in applying the principles.

I honestly think it is a Utah thing where the church and the "world" are often indistinguishable.  Where everyone and everything is Mormon, all that is good AND bad includes Mormonism.

If you have every been to Italy where everyone is Catholic, one cannot judge Catholicism by the actions of all Italians, or even Italian Catholics, which means all Italians.(virtually- yes I know we have a temple in Rome)

I don't get it honestly.  I have seen extreme aberrations by some in the church here because of the "natural man"- a suicide of an unstable young man, warring families, one of which threatened another with a gun- but these were all taken care of in a way that would be expected in Christ's church- in a manner as lovingly as possible, and with every action done for the good of the family.  The gun incident was handled properly I think with involving the police and allowing the person making the threat to be punished as the law dictates all the while counseling him in the gospel, and with lengthy meetings between the feuding families which resulted in a peaceful resolution.

The suicide was perhaps unavoidable, the young man had a long history of mental illness and had been hospitalized on numerous occasions.   The family remains active.

So in short I have not seen what Dehlin sees and to me it is clearly evident that he is not following the easy path of the gospel, but instead treating people poorly, having an overarching ego and seeking after hero worship and power and riches.

So yes, to me he is taking the hard path, not the easy one.

Those are not tools which the race has found to be indispensable, but those are characteristics which actually drag down mankind and make life miserable- which is certainly proving to be the case with those with whom he comes in contact.

Alma essentially says to follow what becomes "sweet" to you.  I guess if Dehlin finds his present course "sweet" then clearly has decided to go his own way and not the Lord's.

Your post was not removed because it ended with a brief mention of the topic.

To all: going forward posters who disrespect the OP's request will be removed instead of their posts. We have ALWAYS had a policy that the OP can control their own thread especially if it is a hot topic. If you haven't been around long enough to know that listen to those who have.