It Is Not Personal

[Darren10]

I hope that we can all get through this "kerfuffle" and come out in a place where FAIR/MI, Mormon Stories, Dehlin, Peterson, Smith, Midgely, et. al. can all thrive and continue their goals of helping the saints.

I honestly do not get it how "FAIR" is responsible for distractions when it has been the Maxwell Institute, Mormon Stories, and Dehlin which have been the distractions and have acted less than honorably. Folks like Peterson and Midgley are only responding to those not so charitable distractions.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Darren10

[Louis Midgley]

I respectfully disagree, I think John is sincere. He isn't using the church (my words) for anything other than to find happiness as he has stated he wasn't as happy without it, I don't believe this is some kind of ploy (my word).

You are a bit naive. He makes a good living doing what he does through a tax exempt foundation, which pays him a salary and covers all his expenses.

[Louis Midgley]

I don't trust people who write about themselves in third person.

Just kidding... Thank you -- I am glad to hear it.

Are you and others really sure that I am not Professor Peterson's ghost writer? To get what I am hinting at, just think back to Mister Doctor Scratch (aka the Malevolent One) and his "intel.." I was once told that MO was toying with the idea that I was the one who was actually pulling the levers of power at the Maxwell Institute.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Louis Midgley

[rockpond]

You are a bit naive. He makes a good living doing what he does through a tax exempt foundation, which pays him a salary and covers all his expenses.

Dr. Midgley -- Did you listen to Dehlin's "Faith Reconstruction" podcast? I agree with Tacenda that John is sincere.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

To those who choose to give John Dehlin the benefit of the doubt, would it be wrong to suggest that maybe you give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt on some of the issues that he has been lambasted for? Especially since he is unable to respond for himself?

You are a bit naive. He makes a good living doing what he does through a tax exempt foundation, which pays him a salary and covers all his expenses.

I'm not sure that 40k a year qualifies as a "good living" or has any bearing on John's sincerity. I think Glenn's statement can be turned around to say to all those that want us to be charitable towards Joseph Smith, might not we be charitable to John as well?

[David T]

You are a bit naive. He makes a good living doing what he does through a tax exempt foundation, which pays him a salary and covers all his expenses.

I believe that when John posted the breakdown of the funds received on his website, and discussed the salary, it was noted that a significant portion of the salary itself goes towards payment of health insurance for his family (I believe he has 4 kids?) - and that insurance is not an additional covered 'expense' from MS. So keep in mind that this is not 40k plus insurance (as one who has insurance included in their employment might assume when they see the salary number) - this is 40k minus health/dental, etc insurance, which can rip a not insubstantial chunk out of that.

While it may not make a difference to most when they think about this, it is something to consider when that number is bandied around.

From his website:

In 2011 John Dehlin received $37,473.32 in gross salary as Executive Director of the foundation. $20,000 of that was owed to John for the previous year’s salary (2010) which was deferred by John until a board of directors was established. John also receives no benefits from the foundation, so his total net salary after insurance for 2011 was $12,541.

For 2012 John Dehlin’s salary has been set by the board of directors at $40,000.

Edited February 27, 2013 by David T

[volgadon]

I believe that when John posted the breakdown of the funds received on his website, and discussed the salary, it was noted that a significant portion of the salary itself goes towards payment of health insurance for his family - and that insurance is not an additional covered 'expense' from MS. So keep in mind that this is not 40k plus insurance (as one who has insurance included in their employment might assume when they see the salary number) - this is 40k minus health/dental, etc insurance, which can rip a not insubstantial chunk out of that.

While it may not make a difference to most when they think about this, it is something to consider when that number is bandied around.

We live in the same town, medical expenses are horrific.

[Louis Midgley]

I was just about to "translate" this for you, Lou. But I ultimately decided I will save it for our next chat.

Suffice it to say that I don't believe John Dehlin will prove capable of resisting the urge to rebel against the leaders of the Church. So long as he can persuade himself that he is "getting his way," and shaping the Church according to his preferred image of what it should be, he will be content to "fly under the radar," and maintain a low profile.

But that will not last very long.

I will therefore save the link to this post for future reference ...

It seems that Will is a bit skeptical about this little notice. And that he thinks I am naive. So let me respond to Will's remarks above.

I am, I believe, very much aware that we have "harmless as doves" down rather well. And that we have little of the "wisdom of serpents." This explains our vulnerability to insider scams both financial and ideological. We end up with the "you can trust him, he is in good standing, he holds a Temple Recommend, he is on the High Council, or was a Bishop, or taught at BYU, is a sincere, charming fellow," and so forth. But I am also very much willing to hope for the very best.in the case of John Dehlin. I am willing to read this statement by Dehlin in the best possible light. Of course, it is possible that I am wrong again. But I am willing to take that chance. Why?

It is time for a little story: When those in charge of what is now called Seminaries and Institutes (and once was known as the Church Educational System) found themselves called on the carpet by the one then Commissioner of Education in 2002 to explain why Grant Palmer had been allowed to continue getting paid for three decades when he was not a believer at all, I was told that they were told that they had done the wrong thing for the right reasons--that is, out of compassion, mercy, forgiveness, concern for immediate and extended family, and genuine hope for the best possible outcome and so forth (all very desirable and even necessary attributes for a Saint).

To gloss a famous passage in the Book of Mormon, it is better that one man not be paid a good salary, and provided with a pension, than many or even some young people be led out the he Kingdom of God. The Palmer incident, I have been told, led to a change of policy. If one harbors unresolved doubts about or disbelieves the grounding narrative of the faith of the Saints, one's employment is terminated. There is no longer probation for disbelievers. This has nothing to do with whether one believes in a worldwide flood, or in evolution and that kind of thing. Instead, it involves whether one believes in God and his mercy, and whether God has restored his gospel through Joseph Smith, and so forth. (Those who send their kids to LDS seminaries and institutes certainly do not want their teachers to destroy the tender shoots of their faith, and neither do he Brethren, nor do I. And teachers are not paid with tithing money to destroy faith by advancing their favorite heresies.I think that this applies or should apply to LDS universities and to our missionary endeavors. All should be defenders of the faith--that is, apologists, and in this sense we have or should have a vast army of paid apologists. And it is also clear that the Saints are faced with an army of apologists for competing ideologies-think New Order Mormons, Recovering Mormons, former, anti, dna, Mormons and so forth. So I don't believe I am naive. I just choose to hope for he very best outcome for John Dehlin and I genuinely hope he is able to resolve his own doubts and disbeliefs and genuinely return to he community of Saints. But my empathy for him and his immediate and extended family had not, I hope, made me naive about the ways of the world.

[WmLaw]

You are a bit naive. He makes a good living doing what he does through a tax exempt foundation, which pays him a salary and covers all his expenses.

Please explain. Being supported by a tax exempt organization calls into question one's sincerity and motives?

[Louis Midgley]

We live in the same town, medical expenses are horrific.

I have wondered how he pays for his schooling at USU, and what expenses are covered by his 501c3 tax exempt foundation. Those kinds of things are in the public domain and can easily be determined. Sandra Tanner, without even my asking, provided me with her tax returns. This is required by the tax code. They had just over $200,000 in income and something like $160,000 in expenses. They were obviously just able to put bread on the table. Some sectarian anti-Mormon countercult agencies are very well funded but most Mom and Pop operations are loud and noisy and unseemly but not good business investments. The secular agencies are very well funded. The most successful of which is the one that publishes Free Inquiry and Prometheus Books and has popularized secular humanism. The Utah version of this operation--Signature Books--has a huge endowment, but it is tiny when compared with the Mother Ship of militant atheism. It is, however, possible to make a good living attacking the Church, if one is subtle and crafty.

[Darren10]

I respectfully disagree, I think John is sincere. He isn't using the church (my words) for anything other than to find happiness as he has stated he wasn't as happy without it, I don't believe this is some kind of ploy (my word).

Yet he rejects some of the most fundamental Church doctrines in order to find that happiness.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Darren10

[why me]

Please explain. Being supported by a tax exempt organization calls into question one's sincerity and motives?

I think that it means that he has more invested in this than just helping people. He needs the salary and this may skew his reasons for keeping all of it going.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I have wondered how he pays for his schooling at USU, and what expenses are covered by his 501c3 tax exempt foundation. Those kinds of things are in the public domain and can easily be determined. Sandra Tanner, without even my asking, provided me with her tax returns. This is required by the tax code. They had just over $200,000 in income and something like $160,000 in expenses. They were obviously just able to put bread on the table. Some sectarian anti-Mormon countercult agencies are very well funded but most Mom and Pop operations are loud and noisy and unseemly but not good business investments. The secular agencies are very well funded. The most successful of which is the one that publishes Free Inquiry and Prometheus Books and has popularized secular humanism. The Utah version of this operation--Signature Books--has a huge endowment, but it is tiny when compared with the Mother Ship of militant atheism. It is, however, possible to make a good living attacking the Church, if one is subtle and crafty.

It's all right here:

http://openstoriesfoundation.org/finances/

http://openstoriesfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/OSF2011-PandL.pdf

No need to wonder.

[why me]

I respectfully disagree, I think John is sincere. He isn't using the church (my words) for anything other than to find happiness as he has stated he wasn't as happy without it, I don't believe this is some kind of ploy (my word).

He may be sincere. But his public flip flops can perhaps only hurt people who latch on to him; thereby, he could be affecting other people's happiness.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I think that it means that he has more invested in this than just helping people. He needs the salary and this may skew his reasons for keeping all of it going.

So is this only fair to say of people "opposed" to the church, or is it okay to say stuff like this about people working for the church too?

[The Grimace]

To gloss a famous passage in the Book of Mormon, it is better that one man not be paid a good salary, and provided with a pension, than many or even some young people be led out the he Kingdom of God. The Palmer incident, I have been told, led to a change of policy. If one harbors unresolved doubts about or disbelieves the grounding narrative of the faith of the Saints, one's employment is terminated. There is no longer probation for disbelievers.

What better reason to lie about one's faith, then? Self-preservation is a strong motivator.

[why me]

So is this only fair to say of people "opposed" to the church, or is it okay to say stuff like this about people working for the church too?

When someone is operating a foundation and receives a salary from that foundation that they have created, and they depend on this salary to give additional support to their family, it would stand to reason that they may wish to keep it going for that reason. It would not be fair to say that the person is operating with only altruistic reasons. The picture can become just a little more cloudy.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

When someone is operating a foundation and receives a salary from that foundation that they have created, and they depend on this salary to give additional support to their family, it would stand to reason that they may wish to keep it going for that reason. It would not be fair to say that the person is operating with only altruistic reasons. The picture can become just a little more cloudy.

So you would say the same of Joseph Smith?

ETA: My only point in this line of questioning is that some of the arguments used to undercut John's credibility could and have been applied for years to many in the church.

Edited February 27, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ERayR]

What better reason to lie about one's faith, then? Self-preservation is a strong motivator.

I can't understand how someone who doesn't believe would want to stay and teach, as truth, something they don't believe.

[Teancum]

Wow. After all the fuss he made for it to be published after the fuss he made to get it censored..he has "no substantive response to Greg Smith’s article". Could be he read it and discovered it's not a hit piece, eh?

Or maybe the best response to really what was a review of mostly bad things Dehlin has said and not of MS is to say little at all and move on. That is pretty classy.

[ALarson]

Or maybe the best response to really what was a review of mostly bad things Dehlin has said and not of MS is to say little at all and move on. That is pretty classy.

This.

John Dehlin took the high road. Good for him.

[Darren10]

Or maybe the best response to really what was a review of mostly bad things Dehlin has said and not of MS is to say little at all and move on. That is pretty classy.

Accuracy is always classy.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

This.

John Dehlin took the high road. Good for him.

Or he took the confounded road.

[Darren10]

I can't understand how someone who doesn't believe would want to stay and teach, as truth, something they don't believe.

You can say it's "unbelievable".

[Darren10]

Are you and others really sure that I am not Professor Peterson's ghost writer?

Sweet, Louis Midgley may be the Dan Peterson's Ghost Rider:

Oh, wait, it's "writer", not "rider". Bummer!!!

Edited February 27, 2013 by Darren10