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

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Some of the value might be that by giving the woman the benefit of the doubt (instead of the man), it makes it easier for the truth to come out.  

What i mean is, women typically have less social power than men do.  That's pretty much a given based on research.  So, all women, in disagreements with men, start out behind in some ways.  Basically, it's not a fair fight from the beginning and some 'affirmative action' can have value by helping to even the playing field, if nothing else.

That doesn't mean that women should always be believed after evidence has been put forth and information has been presented-it doesn't mean that we should take a 'the woman is always right' point of view.   From my perspective it's more of a "because it is very easy for you to be bullied/ignored/discriminated against, i'm going to assume you are telling the truth while i'm looking into this deeper."

This makes sense. So essentially by trusting the woman from the outset, the environment is created wherein women feel safe to share other concerns instead of feeling like they will be attacked. I get that. It seems very similar to the idea of accepting the claims of an abuse survivor. Hear the complain. Accept it. Then investigate it to condemn the perpetrator. I don't have a problem with that system so long as the initial belief can be scrutinized for accuracy.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Some of the value might be that by giving the woman the benefit of the doubt (instead of the man), it makes it easier for the truth to come out.  

What i mean is, women typically have less social power than men do.  That's pretty much a given based on research.  So, all women, in disagreements with men, start out behind in some ways.  Basically, it's not a fair fight from the beginning and some 'affirmative action' can have value by helping to even the playing field, if nothing else.

That doesn't mean that women should always be believed after evidence has been put forth and information has been presented-it doesn't mean that we should take a 'the woman is always right' point of view.   From my perspective it's more of a "because it is very easy for you to be bullied/ignored/discriminated against, i'm going to assume you are telling the truth while i'm looking into this deeper."

I think that's basically a good way to approach it.  I'm not sure anyone is treating it differently as it pertains to OSF.  The problem I think most have with the allegations of sexism about John is there seems to be very little specific or much to go on.  So, I'm kind of like, "yeah, some of this sounds terrible.  There might be something to it.  But I simply can't tell since there is so little specifically being alleged." 

I know I've been back and forth and up and down on this.  This is not easy.  I'd hate to wish upon anyone a crusade to stop someone's livelihood if the allegations are untrue (thus I want to sympathize with John).  I'd hate to ignore the allegations while someone is getting propped up to continue to do bad things (thus I sympathize with his accusers). 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

The default is to doubt women. Where you would say automatically assume a woman is correct "simply because she's a woman," what you are really saying is that you are automatically assuming the man is correct. Any change starts with language. 

 

I think there is a middle ground between believing and doubt that we sometimes forget about-being neutral.  Being neutral in disagreements is probably good stance to take typically, though in male/female accusations i do think that believing the woman at first can help things to end up more just in the end.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This makes sense. So essentially by trusting the woman from the outset, the environment is created wherein women feel safe to share other concerns instead of feeling like they will be attacked. I get that. It seems very similar to the idea of accepting the claims of an abuse survivor. Hear the complain. Accept it. Then investigate it to condemn the perpetrator. I don't have a problem with that system so long as the initial belief can be scrutinized for accuracy.

Exactly.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

How many of Dehlin's podcasts have you listened to? 

I admit that I've only listened to one, but I found it to be excellent and extremely well done and interesting.

 

Quite a few, actually.

None all the way through. I took as much of them as I could stand.

Oh wait. There was that one he did with Bill Reel (the latest one of two that he did with Bill, the one in which Bill savaged Brian Hales. I did listen to that one from start to finish. It was like a train wreck; I couldn't turn away.

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[juliann]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

 . I don't see why that is a bad thing, assuming both men and women are treated the same.

They aren't treated the same. That is the point. 

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

  Some, men in particular, don't often seem to get when they are crossing the line of harassment and feel their behavior is harmless when it is not.  That doesnt' mean the man who might be accused in such a situation is lying about it.  The problem is he simply didn't see it as harmful when others and a victim did.   

 

When has ignorance ever been a protection? You surely wouldn't give a man a pass on rape because he thought it was harmless. What is the difference? What you are really saying is that predatory sexual behavior can't be automatically be defined as harmful. That is, quite frankly, really scary. 

Quote

With that said, if he has treated women poorly and has harassed many as they worked with him through OSF, well, that'd be terrible.  He'd get no pass from me. 

There is more than enough evidence that discrimination on different fronts can be assumed unless multiple women aren't considered reliable witnesses. Their sidelining can be seen in the persistent attempts to smear Money as being angry about not being paid more rather than in her statement about financial impropriety and inappropriate behavior. 

[juliann]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This makes sense. So essentially by trusting the woman from the outset, the environment is created wherein women feel safe to share other concerns instead of feeling like they will be attacked. I get that. It seems very similar to the idea of accepting the claims of an abuse survivor. Hear the complain. Accept it. Then investigate it to condemn the perpetrator. I don't have a problem with that system so long as the initial belief can be scrutinized for accuracy.

Well stated!

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

They aren't treated the same. That is the point. 

When has ignorance ever been a protection? You surely wouldn't give a man a pass on rape because he thought it was harmless. What is the difference? What you are really saying is that predatory sexual behavior can't be automatically be defined as harmful. That is, quite frankly, really scary. 

That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying, sometimes those who do real harm by harassing think they aren't doing anything harmful.  I did not say that's an excuse for the behavior at all. 

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

There is more than enough evidence that discrimination on different fronts can be assumed unless multiple women aren't considered reliable witnesses. Their sidelining can be seen in the persistent attempts to smear Money as being angry about not being paid more rather than in her statement about financial impropriety and inappropriate behavior. 

I haven't followed Money other than her initial supposedly well considered post wherein she drew up her initial concerns and criticisms, except fro seeing a few other comments here or there.  I've addressed why I find her initial post problematic a number of times.  I don't see her alleging any sort of sexual harassment. 

Quote

-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 any allegation of sexism no less harassment. 

[juliann]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think that's basically a good way to approach it.  I'm not sure anyone is treating it differently as it pertains to OSF.  The problem I think most have with the allegations of sexism about John is there seems to be very little specific or much to go on.  So, I'm kind of like, "yeah, some of this sounds terrible.  There might be something to it.  But I simply can't tell since there is so little specifically being alleged." 

I know I've been back and forth and up and down on this.  This is not easy.  I'd hate to wish upon anyone a crusade to stop someone's livelihood if the allegations are untrue (thus I want to sympathize with John).  I'd hate to ignore the allegations while someone is getting propped up to continue to do bad things (thus I sympathize with his accusers). 

There are specifics. There seems to be no dispute that a sexual harassment lawsuit almost happened. I think the problem is in how you are phrasing your doubts and talking about these things is no more a crusade than when we talk about sexism in the church. I don't see the distinction aside from identity politics. So again, is this about being concerned about sexism or is it about whose ox is being gored? 

The complaint is that concerns have been presented for years to no avail. Thus, Money was the first to go public out of frustration. Again, having sat on the board of a 501c for a couple of decades, I'm really surprised that Dehlin doesn't seem to know what an audit is or that your accountant shouldn't be sitting on the board. That doesn't mean burn down the place. It means fix some stuff quick. 

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying, sometimes those who do real harm by harassing think they aren't doing anything harmful.  I did not say that's an excuse for the behavior at all. 

 

And the new term for allowing for that at all is rape culture. 

Quote

I haven't followed Money other than her initial supposedly well considered post wherein she drew up her initial concerns and criticisms, except fro seeing a few other comments here or there.  I've addressed why I find her initial post problematic a number of times.  I don't see her alleging any sort of sexual harassment. 

So you haven't looked into it and your default position is to doubt the women.      

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

And the new term for allowing for that at all is rape culture. 

I didn't allow for anything. 

1 minute ago, juliann said:

So you haven't looked into it and your default position is to doubt the women.      

Of course not.  I've seen Money's well considered post and find it wanting and do not see any allegations of sexism or sexual harassment in there.  That's all I've said about that.  I haven't doubted any women. 

[rpn]

I think I hear people saying that believing women as default is how we allow women to open up.    But isn't it accurate to say that while anyone's description of an event is usually their own truth, that doesn't automatically make it THE truth.   We know that eyewitness get things wrong all the time.   That our brains solidify things that are not the whole truth, and we remember only partially, sometimes less when we are stressed.  

When sexual assault survivors tell a story, it is often materially different than the description the suspected perp gives.   And sometimes lots of things are the same, and the differences can be reconciled.

Sometimes when another recounts a story that a participant is hearing, the participant says that isn't what happened at all, or maybe Of that's not what I meant.

So why cannot the default be to withhold deciding what story is the ultimate truth, and act on the likelihood that the description is what the narrator experienced it, without appearing to dismiss the witness of women?

[juliann]

On 5/21/2017 at 6:49 PM, juliann said:

Mormonleaks will get right on this. 

Call me surprised https://medium.com/@ryanmcknight_61338/the-rift-that-could-tear-apart-the-post-mormon-community-7c9c26bba3ec

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

Call me surprised https://medium.com/@ryanmcknight_61338/the-rift-that-could-tear-apart-the-post-mormon-community-7c9c26bba3ec

hm...

Quote

The most sensitive issue out there is the one dealing with a former female employee of OSF who filed some sort of complaint against you or OSF or both. Rumors seems to indicate that some sort of settlement was reached. Now, there are rumors surrounding this woman and what the nature of her complaint was, but I really don’t care. Where I think there has been a disservice is in an apparent cover-up of the situation. Was there a complaint? Was there a settlement? How was that settlement paid? Would a tithe payer not legitimately ask the same question of the Mormon Church?

I believe that's the rosebud situation that was discussed early in this thread.  I've heard some of her story by reading at MDB, but as other posters over there have said, she won't get details, at least not many.  But this was the first I've heard of there being a cover up and a settlement.  That is interesting.  Rosebud was "was the founder of the Mormon Stories conferences and communities and served as the Operations Director of Mormon Stories until September of 2012", it is claimed. 

I know some are troubled by the hearsay type of stuff discussed here.  I get the concerns, but this is serious stuff. 

 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Quite a few, actually.

None all the way through. I took as much of them as I could stand.

Oh wait. There was that one he did with Bill Reel (the latest one, in which Bill savaged Brian Hales. I did listen to that one from start to finish. It was like a train wreck; I couldn't turn away.

Oh wow, really?  I would have thought that one would be good (with Bill....not the savaging of Brian Hales part).  

I have a difficult time listening to an entire podcast (just finding the time...).  But I felt Dehlin handled the interview well that I did listen to.

Edited May 25, 2017 by JulieM

[Jeanne]

38 minutes ago, juliann said:

Call me surprised https://medium.com/@ryanmcknight_61338/the-rift-that-could-tear-apart-the-post-mormon-community-7c9c26bba3ec

I was impressed with Ryan's honesty and concerns.  This was good.

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

hm...

I believe that's the rosebud situation that was discussed early in this thread.  I've heard some of her story by reading at MDB, but as other posters over there have said, she won't get details, at least not many.  But this was the first I've heard of there being a cover up and a settlement.  That is interesting.  Rosebud was "was the founder of the Mormon Stories conferences and communities and served as the Operations Director of Mormon Stories until September of 2012", it is claimed. 

I know some are troubled by the hearsay type of stuff discussed here.  I get the concerns, but this is serious stuff. 

I went over last night and tried to read that thread (where Rosebud is posting).  She makes vague accusations but absolutely will not give details or provide the evidence she claims she has.  Some have wondered if Dehlin has something on her or if she's hiding something that she doesn't want to come out.  She's pretty disturbed and has obviously been deeply hurt.  She's also difficult to follow at times.

[Jeanne]

Just now, JulieM said:

I went over last night and tried to read that thread (where Rosebud is posting).  She makes vague accusations but absolutely will not give details or provide the evidence she claims she has.  Some have wondered if Dehlin has something on her or if she's hiding something that she doesn't want to come out.  She's pretty disturbed and has obviously been deeply hurt.  She's also difficult to follow at times.

I agree.  There are a lot of things she posted that is just partial to the whole thing and confusing.  I feel for her..but I believer her best bet is to be quiet now..unless she is going to give the whole story..she deminishes her concerns.

[juliann]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

hm...

I believe that's the rosebud situation that was discussed early in this thread.  I've heard some of her story by reading at MDB, but as other posters over there have said, she won't get details, at least not many.  But this was the first I've heard of there being a cover up and a settlement.  That is interesting.  Rosebud was "was the founder of the Mormon Stories conferences and communities and served as the Operations Director of Mormon Stories until September of 2012", it is claimed. 

I know some are troubled by the hearsay type of stuff discussed here.  I get the concerns, but this is serious stuff. 

 

It is a little too sketchy for my taste. I would assume, however, that the Mormonleaks guy would have something to base this on. But again, he does seem surprisingly unconcerned about lawsuits.  Nobody cares about a run of the mill affair anymore though. Back to the financial side, it is the idea of a settlement coming from OSF that is problematic.  

I am hoping that this summary catches you up on what women have been saying. 

[Jeanne]

For those interested.  Rosebud has put her name and face to the MD board.  I commend her for that.

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I agree.  There are a lot of things she posted that is just partial to the whole thing and confusing.  I feel for her..but I believer her best bet is to be quiet now..unless she is going to give the whole story..she deminishes her concerns.

This is why Dehlin needs to shut down the gossip machine. I have seen this allegation twice today so it seems to just be getting legs. If there was a settlement, I would assume there is non-disclosure which could account for the dancing around. Who knows.  The discussions are on reddit, she is active there. 

[JulieM]

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

hm...

I believe that's the rosebud situation that was discussed early in this thread.  

She claims she has not taken any legal action against Dehlin (and doesn't plan to).  

She has also stated their relationship was consensual and more of an emotional affair (I think that's what she called it).  According to her, they got physical but no consummation.  She really just kind of rambles on though....kind of sad.

Edited May 25, 2017 by JulieM

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

For those interested.  Rosebud has put her name and face to the MD board.  I commend her for that.

Frankly, I'd rather not know. 

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know about anyone else, but I always assumed The Nehor wanted to punch each one of us in the face.  I was surprised to see he seems to have Dehlin above me on his priority list. 

You're the guy, then!  Put up your dukes, and prepare for my wrath! 

 

[cinepro]

On 5/24/2017 at 4:55 PM, juliann said:

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.

 

I would recommend avoiding "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" in the future.