rodheadlee Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 Thanks Al. I just had the wrong glasses on
juliann Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 This has nothing to do with other organizations or "transparency" or what I think about it personally. It has to do with the disclosure of his very healthy income right before his council. It is ironic, however, that the church is being used as a defense since one of the most often used accusations against it is how much GAs supposedly make. That proves the point that such disclosures are supposed to be embarrassing, it doesn't help Dehlin's case. At any rate, Dehlin himself now proves that this is an embarrassing disclosure with his rather telling response and criticism of the one who has probably given him the most media assistance. http://mormonstories.org/a-response-to-peggy-fletcher-stack-about-osf-finances/ In his What Were You Thinking, Peggy Stack?? response he accuses, Within the active, believing LDS context (Peggy’s context, frankly), it could easily be interpreted as an attempt to elicit shame and ill-will, given our tendency as a church to condemn those who profit from religious endeavors (i.e., “priestcraft”). Again, I do not necessarily believe that this was Peggy’s intent, only that this will likely be the reaction for many, which (again) raises questions about the timing of the article. Trouble is, it isn't just an LDS thing. Nobody likes social crusaders who are making big bucks off of their followers. (That this obvious fact is followed up with another look at what the Red Cross CEO makes! is proof of that such disclosures are considered embarrassing.) After reading this, I think it pretty clear that his real concern is that donations will dry up when his donors find out how much he makes. What is the first thing he tries to do? Shame Peggy Stack. Then he tries to shame LDS leaders for what they make...while also using it as an excuse for what he makes. Or something. Rather ironic. And best comment ever.... John, is it possible that an editor for the paper picked the title and not Peggy? She is usually on your side so these just seemed odd to me… 4
juliann Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 And more on the double standard crusade as Dehlin corrects a reporter but demands the church cease and desist doing what he does... http://mormonstories.org/a-request-for-mormon-newsroom-and-eric-hawkins/ 1
juliann Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 More seeming contradictions from him....he claims in his Peggy Stack scolding article, Having given up six-figure-salaried and fully-benefited jobs at Microsoft and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to do my work with Mormon Stories, Yet, here it says that he left Microsoft to be a USU coordinator and director while completing an MS. No mention of Mormon Stories at all until 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_DehlinIn 2004, Dehlin moved to Logan, Utah to begin work under David A. Wiley at Utah State University (USU) on OpenCourseWare-related projects.[18] Dehlin would serve as USU's OpenCourseWare Consortium Coordinator and Director of Outreach for the Center for Open and Sustainable Learning Director of Outreach for two years, where he promoted OpenCourseWare to other universities.[16] While at USU, Dehlin also completed a Master of Science degree in Instructional Technology in 2007.[19] In January 2007, MIT hired Dehlin as the Director of the OpenCourseWare Consortium.[18] If this is true, his story about leaving a high paying job to start MS isn't true. And this has always seemed to me to be a way to emphasize the sacrifice he and his family has made to "do the right thing." I think that is very established by now. MS is just another money making endeavor for him, in a long line of money making endeavors. People can put whatever slant on that they want, care or not care, but the problem remains that he hasn't been transparent to those who are sending him money. 3
Brian 2.0 Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) People can put whatever slant on that they want, care or not care, but the problem remains that he hasn't been transparent to those who are sending him money. And yet those who have sent him money, and are reading the same articles you are now, and have listened to him all along in his fundraising efforts (not sure if you have Juliann) are saying he's been totally transparent and none of this is surprising. So where is the outrage from actual donors if this is such an issue? Edited February 7, 2015 by Brian 2.0 1
why me Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 And yet those who have sent him money, and are reading the same articles you are now, and have listened to him all along in his fundraising efforts (not sure if you have Juliann) are saying he's been totally transparent and none of this is surprising. So where is the outrage from actual donors if this is such an issue?I don't think that the donors have figured it all out yet. I think that they are too much into their own hatred for the lds church. If one is motivated by hatred, one does not apply crtical thinking skills. I just think that they are only focused on the messages of mormonstories and not focused just where the money is going or they just don't care because of ulterior motives.
Brian 2.0 Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 For those that think the donors have been deceived, where do you think the donors thought their money was going towards? Just web hosting fees?
Stargazer Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 I don't know the financials myself, but "rich" isn't a word that gets used in the podcasting business world ever... with the exception of maybe Adam Corolla. I doubt he'll be making much more than a "living stipend" that other organizations I know of often pay their leaders.Leo Laporte's little podcasting empire (see http://twit.tv/) makes oodles of dough. Enough to have a full-time paid staff. And this is not via donations, but by eager, paying sponsors. In 2012 he said his annual revenue was approaching $4 million. And he's not even dumping on the LDS Church for his living.
Stargazer Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 I don't think that the donors have figured it all out yet. I think that they are too much into their own hatred for the lds church. If one is motivated by hatred, one does not apply crtical thinking skills. I just think that they are only focused on the messages of mormonstories and not focused just where the money is going or they just don't care because of ulterior motives. Lots of people give financial support to their causes. If someone like Dehlin can attract donors that's fine, and I don't assume they can't think from one to five. It's called free speech -- except that some people pay for it. :-) 1
Jeanne Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 From what I gather from friends and online ...John sends statements out for what the money is going for. He is very upfront about it. Gees, do we know anybody like that???? The people who listen to John know that they don't have to donate to be a part of his community or just listen to his thoughts and ideas..and you have to admit that his is knowledgeable. I can listen to him or get online and even talk to him without giving anything. Now I know Bishops, and SP can try and do the same thing but they are not putting their livelihood and giving up anything in their professional life. The ultimate blessing the leaders/church provide is the temple blessings where you are require to pay. 1
Calm Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 giving up anything in their professional life Depends on the job and if the time required away from it for a bishop or SP is enough of an interference that they might miss a promotion or if paid by the hour or commission, loss of wages that way. Though I suspect the Church leaders are wise enough to take that into consideration when choosing bishops as having a bishop in difficulties is not going to be good for either him or the congregation he is in charge of. He needs to be able to focus on others' needs without too much worry over his own family's.
Popular Post juliann Posted February 8, 2015 Popular Post Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) And yet those who have sent him money, and are reading the same articles you are now, and have listened to him all along in his fundraising efforts (not sure if you have Juliann) are saying he's been totally transparent and none of this is surprising. So where is the outrage from actual donors if this is such an issue?I think you are missing my point....or I'm not making it well. I'm not judging. I'm commenting, just as Dehlin does on the church. I think I'm pretty open about problems in the church or unresolved issues. But for some reason, all hell breaks loose when the same openness and frankness is applied to this guy. The point is, his over the top reaction to this disclosure is proof that it is problematic for him. That is a given. The shaming (this is the word Dehlin used) of other organizations is also proof this is problematic. (Were attempts to shame the church not regular fodder from him, this disclosure probably wouldn't be quite so problematic. ) Also, trying to compare himself to the church is bogus. His situation is only comparable to a like situation. This is why Dan Peterson is regularly accused of making big bucks as an apologist. Those like Denver Snuffer or Rodney Meldrum are better comparisons. This flawed narrative is his problem...he is angry enough at Peggy for threatening it that he felt he had to put the narrative back in place: All in all, I do not believe it a stretch to estimate that I have forgone well over $1 Million in compensation over the last ten years as the result of my decision to go back to graduate school, and to start Mormon Stories (with a wife and four children courageously at my side). Nonetheless, I have intentionally chosen to make much less money to try to alleviate suffering and promote health within Mormon culture through my work with the OSF. I am proud of this decision, even though it has resulted in a significant financial sacrifice for me and my family. Would anyone reading this know the different story Wikipedia has...that he appears to have simply gotten a new job before MS? I don't think it would be extreme to wonder if it was going to grad school that resulted in him apparently quitting that full time job and taking on other endeavors that could accommodate a school schedule. So really, shouldn't he be saying that he could have made $1 million had he not decided to quit his job and go to grad school? But then he loses a critical part of his narrative, he made the sacrifice to alleviate suffering in the Mormon culture. Only...it wasn't much of a sacrifice when he shows up in a newspaper article making $90K plus expenses and perqs. To which he plans to add income from a therapy business. And this is what makes his blurts even stranger. He has just exclaimed he has given up a million bucks in ten years....the point being, wow, that is a lot of money!! Right? Well, what will he have made in ten years from his $90+K a year and his other ventures? By his own admission, a million bucks! A lot of money! This is why I find Dehlin so fascinating. He rarely seems to edit himself or even pay attention to what he is saying. He rarely seems to held to the same standard as those he criticizes. Now that the media finally did it...well, we see the outrage. As for current donors, as I said before, they aren't the issue. They are true believers. Every organization has those, the church has them. They stay. Only every organization needs a constant stream of new donors. That is what is at risk here. And Dehlin shows awareness of this as he exclaims, I can also imagine how many active, faithful LDS Church members will respond to an article written primarily about my compensation(???) on the eve of my disciplinary council. Why would this matter? He regularly insults LDS church members' intelligence for believing. There is no connection between them and his council. And why is he putting question marks after compensation? But he is worried about what people are thinking. Why is that? Peggy wasn't malicious. She didn't badmouth him. He is worried because this is the group of people he needs as future follower/donors. And his "compensation???" does matter...but only because of the narrative he crafted for himself. Edited February 8, 2015 by juliann 5
Calm Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) "Denver Snuffer"Denver Snuffer claims to donate any money received for royalties and to pay his own expenses, including rentals...at least in the past, don't know if he does now. Otoh hehas created a following who look to him as a leader, even a prophet...so similar in that sense of having followers.I think it is closer to Julie Rowe who does appear to be getting money and that would seem to be somewhat significant given her two books are top sellers in the lds market. I don't know if she receives anything for advertising an alternative health therapy on her site but someone is making money off of that. Edited February 8, 2015 by calmoriah
ERayR Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 From what I gather from friends and online ...John sends statements out for what the money is going for. He is very upfront about it. Gees, do we know anybody like that???? The people who listen to John know that they don't have to donate to be a part of his community or just listen to his thoughts and ideas..and you have to admit that his is knowledgeable. I can listen to him or get online and even talk to him without giving anything. Now I know Bishops, and SP can try and do the same thing but they are not putting their livelihood and giving up anything in their professional life. The ultimate blessing the leaders/church provide is the temple blessings where you are require to pay. Your innuendo is noted but rejected. 2
ERayR Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Depends on the job and if the time required away from it for a bishop or SP is enough of an interference that they might miss a promotion or if paid by the hour or commission, loss of wages that way. Though I suspect the Church leaders are wise enough to take that into consideration when choosing bishops as having a bishop in difficulties is not going to be good for either him or the congregation he is in charge of. He needs to be able to focus on others' needs without too much worry over his own family's. r a Doctor who must shift some of his case load to his partners.
Calm Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 "The ultimate blessing the leaders/church provide is the temple blessings where you are require to pay"I don't earn any income, pay no tithing and haven't for the vast majority of my adult life and have full temple blessings.
sunstoned Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Does this mean that he is making more money now than any of the Brethren?Of course not.
Storm Rider Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 This seems like a situation where one group points at another and condescendingly sneers and chides them about drinking the kool-aid and wearing rose colored glasses. The other group is pointing back and mimicking the exact same narrative. The MS group comes out with snotty comments while also screaming their king is wearing a glorious robe. Where is all their vaunted neutrality and rational thinking? Their king is not wearing any clothes and hasn't in a very long time. Faith and Reason are eternal companions for the dedicated disciple of Christ. I absolutely believe that both benefit the other when used amply in our daily life. When one of us, whether a faithful LDS or those that have moved beyond the Church of Jesus Christ, begins to abandon Reason or Faith there is where we weaken ourselves in discipleship.
Robert F. Smith Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 ............................................................................I believe the number of active dissenting groups numbers in the dozens if not hundreds. Heck, my own LDS congregation meets only a mile away from a Rigdonite congregation.There have been hundreds of splinter groups, and Steven Shields' Divergent Paths of the Restoration (4th ed., Herald House, 1990), listed many of them years ago. Many have come and gone, and most never amounted to much. I have personally seen such groups flourish for awhile with one congregation, then disappear. The Community of Christ (RLDS) has been splintering into several groups in recent decades, and has about an eighth-of-a-million members now -- from a high of a quarter-million a generation ago.
Robert F. Smith Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 "The ultimate blessing the leaders/church provide is the temple blessings where you are require to pay"I don't earn any income, pay no tithing and haven't for the vast majority of my adult life and have full temple blessings.Is income the same as "increase," and are we supposed to pay a tenth of our net or gross "increase"? What is increase anyhow?
Robert F. Smith Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 From what I gather from friends and online ...John sends statements out for what the money is going for. He is very upfront about it. Gees, do we know anybody like that???? ..............................................................................................The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) always had an independent auditor examine their books. I think it is good to be up front about donations and expenses. I have no problem with that. Neither does the IRS. So what's the big deal?
Jeanne Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Your innuendo is noted but rejected.Of cousrse it is. Without a thought it is rejected right away.
Jeanne Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) always had an independent auditor examine their books. I think it is good to be up front about donations and expenses. I have no problem with that. Neither does the IRS. So what's the big deal?The big deal is you really don't know where any of the church money goes..I don't either of course. But all the money I gave to the church does not show on any statement where it has gone..that should at least be a requirement at tithing settlement.
VideoGameJunkie Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 What time today is his disciplinary council?
Stargazer Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Is income the same as "increase," and are we supposed to pay a tenth of our net or gross "increase"? What is increase anyhow? Income is not the same as increase. Increase is the same as profit. The reason for the word "increase" is that the vast majority of households used to be farms. If you plant some land in wheat, using 100 pounds of seed, for example, upon harvest you will have, say, 1,000 pounds of wheat. Assume for the example that you don't sell any of it, but retain some for seed, some for consumption, and some for barter. How do you calculate your tithing? On the increase, which in this case would be 900 pounds (harvest minus seed). So you give the bishop 90 pounds of wheat for tithing. If your chickens had produced 200 eggs, then you would pay 20 eggs for tithing. In short, "increase" is a term that deals with "in kind" donations.
Recommended Posts