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

[Calm]

Good to know, .HJW.  My focus was more on lack of attention (how could he not know she was sick?) than harassment given I understand it was his wife.  In private, she might return the same kind of remarks.

It isn't particularly appropriate in a professional setting though.

-----

Tacenda posted a defense by a friend of Dehlin's in Social.  Hopefully she will start her own thread and I am fine if the conversation moves there.

Did want to get this counter claim up:

"John and the OSF have receipts. They have the email conversations. They have the answers to these questions. I just wish that Kristy could admit that she has never made a good-faith effort to resolve these matters, as she claims to have done. Instead she began (with Kate Kelly) a public tirade last fall on Facebook. 
It’s been a plotted attack and now they’re using their divisive language to seemingly take down a nonprofit that is not only honest and upfront, but small and humble and growing. Of all the people and organizations and causes, you’ve decided to go after this one? An organization committed to supporting people in religious transition, saving families, and preventing depression and suicide? Seriously? Way to go. What an amazing contribution."

-----

Can't really think of why they would want to orchestrate such an attack, get themselves attention perhaps?  Still, if it is false and documentation is all there, they are running a big risk of destroying their own credibility.  Money came out last fall in support of Dehlin though now Kelly is saying that was because she was fearful.  I can't remember if Money said so herself.  Personally, unless Money and anyone else Kelly says she is speaking up for don't make the same level of accusations that Kelly is making, I don't trust that Kelly isn't inflating or even making false accusations.  If Money comes out and says how she appreciates Kelly's supports, but doesn't specify her accuracy, I am not going to assume Kelly has the details right.

----

The hamfisted blocking of any disagreeing or shaming him or even associating with those shaming him has pretty well been established by his actual actions.  If Tyler Glenn himself got blocked as he says in the post, and tons of reports of named individuals plus all the aliases that seem to have little reason to take the time to make the claim...I assume this won't be challenged.

*****FYI, There seemed to be mutual agreement among those who had been blocked from Dehlin's group that Kate Kelly does the same thing.  Can't remember if this was included in her complaints in anyway...don't think so, except to be shocked when .Dehlin did it to her.

I think the claim he caters to having 'celebrity' guests only is really iffy.  His podcasts are in part popular because they get people currently making news in the community, so he gets the guests his audience wants.  He also appears to have a wide range of others, he may have in the past been more limited, but change and efforts in the right direction should be recognized.

Otoh, no one has yet taken the time to make multiple comparisons between his interviews of men and women...possible tests would be how much time he speaks vs how much time the guest speaks plus (since the first could be a result of reluctance to speak on the part of the guest) interruptions made.  More subjective...how much time he spends talking about the guest vs. how much time he spends talking about himself...and see if this varies between men and women.

Sexism also comes out in humor.  If you can't imagine him making the same joke or remark to a male guest as a female guest and it is a personal comment having to do with her appearance or behavior, then that is inappropriate in most cases imo unless they have that kind of give and take between them (which may be so with his wife).

Questions that could be answered by the above would be does he give the same level of attention and respect to female guests as male.  Also for those concerned about celebrity status...besides female/male, educated/less educated, white/person of color, and wealthy/less wealthy (though one might have to guess at the guest's status).

Unless Money, Kelly, and others making the claims of uneven treatment do more than just make those claims, but actually do this kind of comparison survey, pull up segments with his interactions with women they find distasteful...Iow, document the disparity, their claims won't move into the realm of really trying to make positive changes for me.  The level of accusations they are claiming merit this level of documentation and if they refuse to invest time and effort or get someone else to do so, it comes across as disrespectful to their supporters or insecure that they can actually prove their case.  Kelly being a women's rights lawyer must know what is considered credible in court.  My opinion of her would drop if she was willing to document at least somewhat in the same way for the public court as she must do for the legal one.

----

The moderator's, Draper, claims of lack of respect and recognition seem valid, but unless demonstrated that male moderators get the recognition at least sometimes where females don't, doesn't really show anything but that he can be a selfish, self centered jerk at times.

----

I am not sure of how one would document the multiple claims of promised payment not matching up to final payments unless there were contracts.  Glen says there are receipts, I assume he means for this stuff, but maybe he means for proof income is going to expenses for the show.

Maybe someone else can cover possible solutions to find out which claims are credible, documentable or not of any I missed.  I have got to get back to sleep for my second 3 hrs...sigh.

----

The board issue...looks like changes were made last year so that Dehlin is the only one receiving a salary on the board.  Depending on how much he is involved in salary discussions (iirc there was mention of a compensation committee, which .I understand is pretty common practice), it may remove the problem of insider influence.  Hopefully details on how compensation is determined will be given and we will hear he has recused himself from all such discussion even if part of the board for the past 6 years.

There is still the problem with his salary, bonus, and benefits coming to at least half of the income.  There are less stringent rules for small nonprofits, but this still seems to cross the line to me from everything I have read (the Common Consent blog and then the more recent Rational Faith one hope linked to cover that issue quite well imo).

----

The delay on the tax info seems reasonable since it appears there were some major changes last year, so their tax guy could have easily decided after he started the process that he needed to change from the EZ form they had been using to the long form, which probably meant gathering more details.  There is also apparently no penalty for taking an extension, so why not if he had other work more urgent.

 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I chuckle at the notion that the BoM prophesies about Mormonstoreis and Dehlin. 

Prophecies can have numerous applications.

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Prophecies can have numerous applications.

Sure.  Potentially anything I say can have numerous applications too, but I can't help to get a chuckle by some fo the things people think I'm saying. 

Edited May 24, 2017 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  Potentially anything I say can have numerous applications too, but I can't help to get a chuckle by some fo the things people think I'm saying. 

Yes, people have been laughing at prophecies of the scriptures for ages. Hence, the imagery in Lehi's dream.

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, people have been laughing at prophecies of the scriptures for ages. Hence, the imagery in Lehi's dream.

 

Well be sure to keep the adorable applications coming. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well be sure to keep the adorable applications coming. 

I'll call them as I see them.

 

[Atheist Mormon]

59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, people have been laughing at prophecies of the scriptures for ages. Hence, the imagery in Lehi's dream.

As I'v read that Scripture years ago, how a man dropped dead for disbelieving or  blasphemy reasons, I always wished to be that man. (I don't mean any disrespect to anyone's faith) I knew somehow that wasn't gonna happen anytime soon.

[Jeanne]

17 hours ago, wtrdog said:

I found my way here from "the other" board.  Mostly just curious to see if my account will allow me to post.  In answer to your question though, after reading this thread I went onto FB found myself blocked from Dehlin's FB page.  I can see posts, but no commenting.  This is noteworthy because I have never interacted with him or his page in any way.  Never liked anything.  Never commented.  Nada.  My suspicion is that at some point I liked or commented on something that someone else posted, and I guess he didn't like that, FB stalked me, and preemptively banned me from his own page thinking I'd find my way there eventually because we share so many common friends.  Anyway, FWIW, it would seem he is tightly controlling discussion, which is something y'all over here are no doubt familiar with  

Interesting..will check things out today..wondering about the podcast..obviously I just got home and thanks for info!!

[Jeanne]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

I will have to break my podcast rule then to be fair and give him equal time.

 No guarantees of quoting though, so everyone else interested feel free to do that.

Fair is always good. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

As I'v read that Scripture years ago, how a man dropped dead for disbelieving or  blasphemy reasons, I always wished to be that man. (I don't mean any disrespect to anyone's faith) I knew somehow that wasn't gonna happen anytime soon.

I don't think it has ever been stated that such a thing happens routinely.

MOD: This is turning into a derail. 

[Stargazer]

On 5/22/2017 at 0:30 AM, mfbukowski said:

I think when reading bullet points I feel as if the author thought too little of my ability to read actual sentences and pick out the important points on my own.  It's a bit like talking down to me

When I write with bullet points that is exactly what I am doing.  I am thinking "these guys won't get it unless I put it as directly as possible without nuance.  I have to give them a list."

You may feel that way, but I have known people (my late wife, for instance) who complained that dense text made things harder to follow, and actually liked to see bullet points.  Not everyone is as smart or as literate as you, Mark!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

You may feel that way, but I have known people (my late wife, for instance) who complained that dense text made things harder to follow, and actually liked to see bullet points.  Not everyone is as smart or as literate as you, Mark!

Well thanks for the compliment but I didn't know I was being a jerk- that aspect was not intended. Feeling kinda sheepish!

[juliann]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Guys, you are reading way too much into this. Juliann using this exchange as evidence that sexual harassment has likely occurred is ludicrous.

Every time he is on with his wife he tries to engage in a light banter that usually comes off as pretty goofy, but loving. I think he's trying to be endearing in his performance. If anything he is usually too effusive in his praise of his wife. I think this kind of banter is an innocent attempt to build a kind of personal connection with the audience. I'm not saying it's effective but using it as evidence of sexual harassment is just as silly as the banter.

His awkwardness, of which this kind of banter is an example, is what gets him in trouble a lot, IMO. He takes on some pretty sensitive subjects, from sexism, LGBT issues, transgender transitions, marriage issues, mental illness etc, and in virtually every case he asks questions that may not be politically correct, sensitive, or even informed, but are likely the things people want to know but are usually afraid to ask. JD has definitely opened himself up to criticism by stepping into fields filled with landmines. It is not unusual to see him step on one, but I have no reason to think he has ill intent. He's learning just like everyone else.

Anyone at all familiar with me knows that my top concern is always going to be the treatment of women. The rest of this sad story is interesting (mostly because I sat on the board of a 501c(3) for almost two decades) but it is secondary

First, sexual harassment is almost always "banter." It's not much different than "I'm just joking, honey! Lighten up!"  Second, since when do sexually demeaning comments get a pass as long as it is a wife? You are trying to walk a fine line between saying Dehlin needs to be held accountable if he has mistreated women while striking down what he is saying as harmless.  When Money asked him to stop talking about female body parts on air and he then compares a sinus infection to a woman wanting to be sultry Raquel Welch, it is confirmation of complaints that he does not speak to women appropriately. 

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You may feel that way, but I have known people (my late wife, for instance) who complained that dense text made things harder to follow, and actually liked to see bullet points.  Not everyone is as smart or as literate as you, Mark!

Frankly, I find people who use bullet points to have three common flaws:

- A lack of erudition

- An over-reliance on list-based exposition

- A common impulse to pad the list to get to three points, which seems to be a psychologically pleasing number for simple minded people.

 

Edited May 24, 2017 by cinepro

[Calm]

So it appears the podcast is not going to show up before I am unavailable to listen to it (unless it's not before next Monday) as I have family starting to come in for a wedding and then after wedding, get togethers.

Not sure what new info could come out before then, so I feel like at this point there will be probably nothing but rehashing going on untill the podcast.

While my preference would be for the thread to be locked as shorter threads make it easier to find stuff, I am not the only one who invested in the thread so will not be asking mods to close it unless someone makes a good argument for it or multiple people ask.  Someone else might ask however, though I hope you give others a chance to speak of their preferences before hitting "report".

As for keeping it on topic, I probably won't be around much and won't be reporting derails myself, but would ask you to respect others' requests.  There is another thread already open about transparency ("Light" thread if you haven't noticed yet); if there are other issues, it makes sense to me to focus a new thread on it as the topic will less likely get attention if embedded in an already thirteen page thread.

Please don't use this thread to discuss the new podcast as that should bring out sufficient new information to justify its own thread.  Referring to the info in the podcast here would of course be on topic, just don't want any effort put into a new discussion lost in this old one.

Thanks again to all those who were gracious in keeping on topic.  I hope it wasn't too much of a damper to your interests.  

Thanks to whatever mod came in so quickly as I don't think there has been a more ontopic thread this long ever (which could be good or could be bad, depending on your point of view)

(no, the moderator wasn't me nor Juliann though I can understand why it looks that way to some paying attention given the almost immediate response time to the reports and my request for info about crossposting.  Neither of us have cared to be moderators for years, at least over a decade for me---RIP ZLMB***.  The quick mod responses were just lucky timing in spite of the absolute certainty some have elsewhere that I have a split personality and am lying through my teeth. Looking forward to finding out if this too is all part of my endless attempt at gaslighting the board.  If anyone really wants to know what I was like as a mod back before this board, perhaps ZLMB is still functional enough to demonstrate...let me summarize that moderating experience for you as "Cal the optimist couldn't stop trying to get everyone to be civil to each other, which meant endless explanations, constant changes to moderation, looking for the perfect balance and ultimately total failure".  Seriously, who would ever ask me to be a mod again? I am dumbfounded that anyone thinks I could bring myself to ban people without providing an hour's worth of justification and explanation to them of how to avoid getting banned next time, the amount of red text would be straggering---even with this wonderful example before me of a board with 'less being so much more' no way could I control myself to one liners or worse, no explanation at all----this post itself should be more than enough evidence for that, but apparently some people are managing it; quite astonishing).

Have fun....

***Zion's Lighthouse Message Board

Edited May 25, 2017 by Calm

[cinepro]

32 minutes ago, juliann said:

Anyone at all familiar with me knows that my top concern is always going to be the treatment of women. The rest of this sad story is interesting (mostly because I sat on the board of a 501c(3) for almost two decades) but it is secondary

First, sexual harassment is almost always "banter." It's not much different than "I'm just joking, honey! Lighten up!"  Second, since when do sexually demeaning comments get a pass as long as it is a wife? You are trying to walk a fine line between saying Dehlin needs to be held accountable if he has mistreated women while striking down what he is saying as harmless.  When Money asked him to stop talking about female body parts on air and he then compares a sinus infection to a woman wanting to be sultry Raquel Welch, it is confirmation of complaints that he does not speak to women appropriately. 

It's my understanding that "sexual harassment" is, by definition, unwanted.  So I'm not sure it's fair to characterize anything he said to or about his wife as being "harassment" unless she gives some indication that it's unwanted or "demeaning".

And can you provide a source for the "Raquel Welch" comment?  I'd be curious to see it in context.

 

[juliann]

I gave the link awhile back. It is the recent podcast where they are talking about marriage on the main website. The EEOC definition, used for legal purposes is, 

Quote

 

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexualnature constitute sexual harassment when

submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual'semployment,

submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employmentdecisions affecting such individuals, or

such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's workperformance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11[1980])

 

Notice the "or" before the last definition. And frankly, aside from legal necessities, the act is not dependent on how it is received. If a guy says the same things to two women and one likes it and the other sues, we are still talking about the same behavior. 

I'd be interested in your assessment of the incident.

 

[Calm]

First one I am assuming, how far into it?

[juliann]

It is at the beginning. You have to sit through him fumbling trying to get stuff to work or something for a surprising period of time. I finally jumped a bit so I could have missed something, but it did seem to be the formal start. 

[MiserereNobis]

32 minutes ago, juliann said:

And frankly, aside from legal necessities, the act is not dependent on how it is received. If a guy says the same things to two women and one likes it and the other sues, we are still talking about the same behavior. 

 

But... there is a big difference between me making a sexual joke that my wife laughs at and says, "oh, you!" and me making a sexual joke to a female coworker.  The behavior is the same.  But the first is my wife at home to whom it is welcome.  So there is a difference, isn't there?  Or am I misunderstanding your response to cinepro?

[juliann]

34 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

But... there is a big difference between me making a sexual joke that my wife laughs at and says, "oh, you!" and me making a sexual joke to a female coworker.  The behavior is the same.  But the first is my wife at home to whom it is welcome.  So there is a difference, isn't there?  Or am I misunderstanding your response to cinepro?

Yes. Nobody is filming at home. Well, I hope. But closed doors and all.

This was a product of OSF. It makes money for OSF. It is for public consumption.  It is the workplace. 

Have you listened to it? What do you think? Would you put this out as an appropriate way to address a woman?

edited to add: I love the old musicals because of the music. The misogyny is getting harder to stomach, however. It was really brought home when I caught a bit of Carousel on TV the other day. It presents an abusive man as good at heart and slapping as love. One of the songs is about how wonderful marriage is with the boys will boys attitude...including instruction that men like to own things and a woman is one of those things. I hadn't seen that for as long as I can remember and I was horrified. But this is what my generation was raised on. And it didn't come from the church. That is why it is so important that women come together regardless of ideology and put a stop to it. 

Edited again to add: He has edited the podcast. The fumbling around is gone and it now starts with them both ready and on the mark. That is a good sign.

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by juliann

[Calm]

Putting off putting laundry away (what a waste of time when all you do is pull it out again to wear, right?) and checked out Money's FB page:

"OK everyone I am closing all comments on all my posts/threads for now, this comment shall be the last one, trying to work this out with John personally, am exhausted and want to spend more time with family. I believe there is hope for cooler heads to prevail here, and time for everyone to cool down might be part of the solution."

Hopefully between the personal stuff and the podcasts, much of this can get resolved for them.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

Frankly, I find people who use bullet points to have three common flaws:

- A lack of erudition

- An over-reliance on list-based exposition

- A common impulse to pad the list to get to three points, which seems to be a psychologically pleasing number for simple minded people.

 

I can explain to you how to get proper bullets, if you're interested. It has to do with tapping one of the icons in the menu bar at the top when you create your post.

Incidentally, it just occurred to me Dehlin's output would be far more accessible if he were to boil down his interminable podcasts into bullet-point lists of, say, half a dozen items each. I strongly doubt anything of value would be lost in the abridgment. 

Edited May 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Ouagadougou]

On 21.05.2017 at 9:13 PM, The Nehor said:

It is a chunk of change but you can make that doing honest work.

I don't make quite that much but it seems a low salary to sell your integrity for. My morals cost about a quarter of a million a year if anyone is interested.  

I disagree but then I really dislike the guy and I could be biased. I listened to one of his podcasts and found his presentation very oily and smarmy.

Plus he has an incredibly punchable face:

I mean, he almost looks as smug as Ted Cruz, Michael Moore, and Steven Miller but not quite. Gives me an urge to pop him one.

That's the spirit of love and acceptance Christ teaches, right?  Punching people in the face because of how they look (or how you think they look).  

[Damien the Leper]

Patriarchy, lack of financial transparency, etc are all signs of a corrupt and manipulative system needing of shut down. Dehlin has been an ever growing disappointment.