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

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 I listened to one of his podcasts and found his presentation very oily and smarmy.

 

THOSE are the words I was looking for!  Perfect.

Quote

 

unc·tu·ous

ˈəNG(k)(t)SH(o͞o)əs/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   (of a person) excessively or ingratiatingly flattering; oily.

   "he seemed anxious to please but not in an unctuous way"

   synonyms:

   sycophantic, ingratiating, obsequious, fawning, servile, groveling, subservient, cringing, humble, hypocritical, insincere, gushing, effusive; More

2. 2.

   (chiefly of minerals) having a greasy or soapy feel.

 

1.  

Edited May 22, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Back to my main interest...his reported treatment a number of female colleagues, from FB in no particular order at this point:

----

The former moderator who was still a moderator when she posted this a few hours ago:

Alyson Draper:

 

From Dehlin to the now former moderator:

 

Well, he demonstrates here that he does love bullet points.

• Why can't he just read the moderators' discussion without having it boiled down into bullet points?
• Seems a lot to ask of people who are volunteering their time without pay.
• Who does he think he is, anyway?
• What if we all wrote in bullet points? What a boring world it would be!

Edited May 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Dehlin states on Reddit that directors are not compensated.  The other two board members, however, are also podcasters (one is President and may get a salary, haven't seen any info on that yet, but why would a .VP be paid and not a P?) and get compensated that way.

Iirc, Dehlin said the board determined the podcasting compensation package, but he may have said Directors, which would include more than just the Board, all of who are podcasters themselves and thus if only they were involved, were deciding their own rates (base pay same for all podcasters and then additional pay based on number of downloads, originally It was just number of downloads, which favored the more popular, longer going podcasts, which happened, I believe, to be men.

Just as an FYI for those like myself wondering about this in the past, apparently Dehlin reported this elsewhere and it was shared on Reddit by a supporter.

On the tax returns, it is reported his average work week is 50 hours.  This would include retreats (as these are included in his salary) it would seem.  Possible other work would be speaking engagements (though this isn't for certain, he could be receiving compensation for this elsewhere), time spend on social media as well as his podcasting.

Anyone pay attention to how much podcasting he does these days?  I understand he goes for hours per podcast and there appears to be no editing (beyond adding music perhaps?).

Just look at Mormonstories.org and John's FB. You'll see all the podcasts on there as well. I'm not vouching for John, just answering your question about where to see how much time he spends. I've listened to practically every single podcast he's done. And many other podcasts from other sites, because I'm a junkie on podcasts. 

I hope John works for an honest days pay, not sure how we can judge too much since the LDS church leaders all get over 120,000 for pay and we don't know exactly how much they all devote, I'm pretty sure it's a lot as well. 

I know John and his family are moving to the Salt Lake area. I want to say the Cottonwood Heights area but not sure. I heard him say something about it or read it. 

How about Fair, do they report their financial records? Just curious, not being defensive at all. But reading my words it may come across that way. 

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, he demonstrates here that he does love bullet points.

• Why can't he just read the moderators' discussion without having it boiled down into bullet points?
• Seems a lot to ask of people who are volunteering their time without pay.
• Who does he think he is, anyway?
• What if we all wrote in bullet points? What a boring world it would be!

I haven't made the effort to figure out bullet pointing.

If using numbers and letters for outlining was good enough for Shakespeare as my 7th grade teacher may have taught me, it is good enough for me.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Just look at Mormonstories.org and John's FB. You'll see all the podcasts on there as well. I'm not vouching for John, just answering your question about where to see how much time he spends. I've listened to practically every single podcast he's done. And many other podcasts from other sites, because I'm a junkie on podcasts. 

I hope John works for an honest days pay, not sure how we can judge too much since the LDS church leaders all get over 120,000 for pay and we don't know exactly how much they all devote, I'm pretty sure it's a lot as well. 

I know John and his family are moving to the Salt Lake area. I want to say the Cottonwood Heights area but not sure. I heard him say something about it or read it. 

How about Fair, do they report their financial records? Just curious, not being defensive at all. But reading my words it may come across that way. 

I don't think I have read anyone complaining about how much he makes.  I certainly am not.

My issue with him is his reported treatment of others, particularly women...primary evidence being his most recent move of kicking off a longtime moderator without notice because he wouldn't tolerate her criticism, but also numerous others that gave their names and reported promises not lived up to, lack of recognition of others' hard work, etc.

I was not inclined to post this thread until I saw him ban the woman for speaking out.  And then it appeared that the board he has been pointing to all this time as the decision maker consists of him and two other people.

However, there are quite a few who have been demanding all along more transparency from him so one can figure out where the funds are actually going because he has complained about the lack of transparency in the Church, in part because you are not legally allowed to create a charity for the sole purpose of giving you a salary...which is what it appears the original purpose was and still is the primary purpose by the percentage of donated funds spent.

If you can point out where FairMormon is requesting others to be transparent in their finances in a way they are not being themselves, please post this and I will go scold the Board and President myself, especially if there are any board members giving themselves salaries.

It is Dehlin's inconsistency that is at issue...his claims he is a feminist while apparently treating women unfairly, his push for transparency and openness in the Church and from church leaders while being relatively vague himself (who is the board who he claims makes all the decisions, apparently he is on it and likely is the most influential member as founder, etc.)...and his claim to be a major ally in the LGBT and feminist movements while apparently in the opinion of some of those he worked with primarily intent on getting attention for himself while actually doing little to help.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Calm

[sjdawg]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

 

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:

 

Haha.  I'm ashamed to say it but actually agree with this portion.  I dislike the presentations as well and have always secretly harbored a strange thought that his face was punchable.  It is a stretch however to go from a dislike of his personality to saying he is cheap and ripping people off.   Plenty of honest decent people also annoy me.

[Calm]

It may not be dishonesty, but just really, really poor managerial and social skills.  I have known psychologists who were clueless in their own lives, while thinking they had everyone else figured out.

Plus someone brought up on the Reddit, iirc, the Founder's Syndrome, something that I have been aware of for 30 years since it was one of those things I got to hear out when my husband would discuss his dissertation with me.  A huge amount of start up businesses fail because the founder can't give up control over their vision and get people in to do the work they aren't good at.

"Founder's syndrome (also founderitis) is a popular term for a difficulty faced by organizations where one or more founders maintain disproportionate power and influence following the effective initial establishment of the project, leading to a wide range of problems for both the organization and those involved in it.^[1][2][3] The passion and charisma of the founder or founders, which was such an important reason for the successful establishment of the organization, becomes a limiting and destructive force, rather than the creative and productive one it was in the early stages.^[3] It occurs in both non-profit and for-profit organizations. It may simply limit the further growth and success of the project, may lead to bitter factionalism and divisions as the scale of demands made on the organization increases, or may result in failure. There are recognised and proven ways in which a founder or organization can respond and grow beyond this situation."

My husband had another term for it, but is in meetings, so can't call.  Maybe I will text him to see.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder's_syndrome

I remember John Larsen of Mormon Expressions years ago getting 'excommunicated' from Dehlin's organization after Larson had taken over the podcasting when Dehlin had walked away from it (in 2008 iirc, came back in 2010).  I got the impression from what Larson said that Dehlin saw Larson (sen?, hasn't posted in too long, the memory is fading, too bad, he was a nice guy, though I thought some of the events he and his wife planned for mass resignations were a bit over the top) as too much competition.  JL shared it on this board, but long ago so may have been lost.  I may try and find it.  I was thinking at the time that was going to be a problem for Dehlin to keep colleagues and allies if he didn't change his behaviour of dumping and blocking rather than trying to work out differences.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

John Larsen's opinion:

"2 main issues. John ossolates between courting ex-Mormons and Mormons. When he is courting ex-Mormons he tends to focus on tolerance of communication. When he is courting Mormons, he tends towards censorship of the more strident critical voices. They are then shown the door and asked not to return.

The second issue is that John has many great talents and is a wonderful guy in a lot of ways, but he strongly values loyality and will go after anyone he believes has crossed him or is not showing due support for his ideas. He has had many run ins with almost all of the ex-Mormon and liberal Mormon online communites.

Also, Dehlin's followers can be fairly zealotus and will go after folks too."

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58213-dehlins-methodology/?do=findComment&comment=1209141042

 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

It may not be dishonesty, but just really, really poor managerial and social skills.  I have known psychologists who were clueless in their own lives, while thinking they had everyone else figured out.

Plus someone brought up on the Reddit, iirc, the Founder's Syndrome, something that I have been aware of for 30 years since it was one of those things I got to hear out when my husband would discuss his dissertation with me.  A huge amount of start up businesses fail because the founder can't give up control over their vision and get people in to do the work they aren't good at.

"Founder's syndrome (also founderitis) is a popular term for a difficulty faced by organizations where one or more founders maintain disproportionate power and influence following the effective initial establishment of the project, leading to a wide range of problems for both the organization and those involved in it.^[1][2][3] The passion and charisma of the founder or founders, which was such an important reason for the successful establishment of the organization, becomes a limiting and destructive force, rather than the creative and productive one it was in the early stages.^[3] It occurs in both non-profit and for-profit organizations. It may simply limit the further growth and success of the project, may lead to bitter factionalism and divisions as the scale of demands made on the organization increases, or may result in failure. There are recognised and proven ways in which a founder or organization can respond and grow beyond this situation."

My husband had another term for it, but is in meetings, so can't call.  Maybe I will text him to see.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder's_syndrome

I remember John Larsen of Mormon Expressions years ago getting 'excommunicated' from Dehlin's organization after Larson had taken over the podcasting when Dehlin had walked away from it (in 2008 iirc, came back in 2010).  I got the impression from what Larson said that Dehlin saw Larson (sen?, hasn't posted in too long, the memory is fading, too bad, he was a nice guy, though I thought some of the events he and his wife planned for mass resignations were a bit over the top) as too much competition.  JL shared it on this board, but long ago so may have been lost.  I may try and find it.  I was thinking at the time that was going to be a problem for Dehlin to keep colleagues and allies if he didn't change his behaviour of dumping and blocking rather than trying to work out differences.

It occurs to me that founder's syndrome may be just a sub-category of garden-variety narcissistic personality disorder.

 

[Calm]

I disagree.  It is often just a result of putting one's heart and soul into this project, their creation for years, practically identifying with it.  It becomes as hard to give up as it would be for a parent to give up their child.

There may be other reasons this occurs at various times, but I don't see narcissism as a cause of that, especially since true narcissism may not be that common,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

Narcissism may cause similar control issues for different motivations.

"People with NPD tend to exaggerate their skills and accomplishments as well as their level of intimacy with people they consider to be high-status. Their sense of superiority may cause them to monopolize conversations[10] and to become impatient or disdainful when others talk about themselves.[7] In the course of a conversation, they may purposefully or unknowingly disparage or devalue the other person by overemphasizing their own success. When they are aware that their statements have hurt someone else, they tend to react with contempt and to view it as a sign of weakness.[7] When their own ego is wounded by a real or perceived criticism, their anger can be disproportionate to the situation,[10] but typically, their actions and responses are deliberate and calculated.[7] Despite occasional flare-ups of insecurity, their self-image is primarily stable (i.e., overinflated).[7]

To the extent that people are pathologically narcissistic, they can be controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others' views, unaware of others' needs, the effects of their behavior on others, and insist that others see them as they wish to be seen.[7] Narcissistic individuals use various strategies to protect the self at the expense of others. They tend to devalue, derogate, insult, blame others and they often respond to threatening feedback with anger and hostility.[11] Since the fragile ego of individuals with NPD is hypersensitive to perceived criticism or defeat, they are prone to feelings of shame, humiliation and worthlessness over minor or even imagined incidents.[10] They usually mask these feelings from others with feigned humility, isolating socially or they may react with outbursts of rage, defiance, or by seeking revenge.[7][8] The merging of the "inflated self-concept" and the "actual self" is seen in the inherent grandiosity of narcissistic personality disorder. Also inherent in this process are the defense mechanisms of denial, idealization and devaluation.[12]"

Accordingto the DSM-5, "Many highly successful individuals display personality traits that might be considered narcissistic. Only when these traits are inflexible, maladaptive, and persisting and cause significant functional impairment or subjective distress do they constitute narcissistic personality disorder."[7] Although overconfidence tends to make individuals with NPD ambitious, it does not necessarily lead to success and high achievement professionally. These individuals may be unwilling to compete or may refuse to take any risks in order to avoid appearing like a failure.[7][8] In addition, their inability to tolerate setbacks, disagreements or criticism, along with lack of empathy, make it difficult for such individuals to work cooperatively with others or to maintain long-term professional relationships with superiors and colleagues.[13]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

"An organization suffering from founder's syndrome typically presents many of the following symptoms:

The organization is strongly identified with the person or personality of the founder.

The founder makes all decisions, big and small, without a formal process or input from others. Decisions are made in crisis mode, with little forward planning. Staff meetings are held generally to rally the troops, get status reports, and assign tasks. There is little meaningful strategic development, or shared executive agreement on objectives with limited or a complete lack of professional development. Typically, there is little organizational infrastructure in place, and what is there is not used correctly. There is no succession plan.

Key staff and board members are typically selected by the founder and are often friends and colleagues of the founder. Their role is to support the founder, rather than to lead the mission. Staff may be chosen due to their personal loyalty to the founder rather than skills, organizational fit, or experience. Board members may be under-qualified, under-informed or intimidated and will typically be unable to answer basic questions without checking first.[4]

Professionally trained and talented recruits, often recruited to resolve difficulties in the organization, find that they are not able to contribute in an effective and professional way.[4]

The founder responds to increasingly challenging issues by accentuating the above, leading to further difficulties. Anyone who challenges this cycle will be treated as a disruptive influence and will be ignored, ridiculed or removed. The working environment will be increasingly difficult with decreasing public trust. The organization becomes increasingly reactive, rather than proactive. Alternatively, the founder or the board may recognise the issue and take effective action to move beyond it as outlined below."

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, he demonstrates here that he does love bullet points.

• Why can't he just read the moderators' discussion without having it boiled down into bullet points?
• Seems a lot to ask of people who are volunteering their time without pay.
• Who does he think he is, anyway?
• What if we all wrote in bullet points? What a boring world it would be!

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."

[Meadowchik]

I have come to appreciate much of Dehlin's work, while I continue to broaden my consumption of ideas in post-Mormon life. I love getting to know people like you can in his very long interviews with Mormons and ex-Mormons, and non-Mormons.

I think there are many unhealthy behaviors learned in Mormonism and even some that can be learned in ex-Mormonism, some being carryovers. 

But, for me, I have identified my failing as a Mormon. It was prioritising Joseph Smith over my own humanity and conscience. I am committed to learning from this and not putting anyone or anything over those values.

I think that the ex-Mormon community is learning and will continue to learn how to coalesce around solid values and standards rather than any one person. Hopefully it, including Dehlin, can do so together in healthier and healthier ways as the days progress. 

 

Edited May 22, 2017 by Meadowchik

[sjdawg]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I have come to appreciate much of Dehlin's work, while I continue to broaden my consumption of ideas in post-Mormon life. I love getting to know people like you can in his very long interviews with Mormons and ex-Mormons, and non-Mormons.

I think there are many unhealthy behaviors learned in Mormonism and even some that can be learned in ex-Mormonism, some being carryovers. 

But, for me, I have identified my failing as a Mormon. It was prioritising Joseph Smith over my own humanity and conscience. I am committed to learning from this and not putting anyone or anything over those values.

I think that the ex-Mormon community is learning and will continue to learn how to coalesce around solid values and standards rather than any one person. Hopefully it, including Dehlin, can do so together in healthier and healthier ways as the days progress. 

 

I'm not a big fan of his interviewing style.  At times it feels like he is trying to get a specific answer from them that suits his interpretation of events.  It may be because in his pre-interview prep work they have already discussed the topic and he know there is more to come but I don't like it.

[probablyHagoth7]

2 hours ago, 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

That may be how you opt to feel, but likely isn't *at all* how a typical writer feels about an intended audience. If I may, the choice to take offense seems about as productive as taking offense over someone's font choice.

Offensive overkill for you? Understood.

Appreciated clarity for another? Perhaps.

With fixed text, you simply can't please everybody.

I would encourage people to avoid taking arbitrary offense over such seeming trifles...especially where zero offense was likely intended. We have much bigger fish to fry, don't we?

Apologies for the brief tangent from the OP.

Edited May 22, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, sjdawg said:

I'm not a big fan of his interviewing style.  At times it feels like he is trying to get a specific answer from them that suits his interpretation of events.  It may be because in his pre-interview prep work they have already discussed the topic and he know there is more to come but I don't like it.

I can see that. 

I like to vary topics and media...just pointing this out because it feels like some--not you--seek to frame Dehlin as the ex-Mormon prophet, upon which ex-Mormonism will succeed or fail. While John Dehlin has done enormous good for transitioning Mormons, people will keep leaving with or without him. And, unlike ex-Mormonism which is a vast and broad space, Mormonism does indeed rely on the legitimacy of one prophet.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Meadowchik

[sjdawg]

53 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I can see that. 

I like to vary topics and media...just pointing this out because it feels like some--not you--seek to frame Dehlin as the ex-Mormon prophet, upon which ex-Mormonism will succeed or fail. While John Dehlin has done enormous good for transitioning Mormons, people will keep leaving with or without him. And, unlike ex-Mormonism which is a vast and broad space, Mormonism does indeed rely on the legitimacy of one prophet.

I tune into Dehlin when I see a topic that might interest me.  Otherwise I am pretty oblivious.  The longer I am out of mormonism the less interest I have in any of it.  

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

I tune into Dehlin when I see a topic that might interest me.  Otherwise I am pretty oblivious.  The longer I am out of mormonism the less interest I have in any of it.  

Off-topic, but even in my TBM days I liked Jill Bolte Taylor and her personal and scientific insight into the brain and how it helps build a scientifically supported basis for morality and mindfulness. Very cool.

But like with Dehlin, although I appreciate her, it's not about her but about the learning, about shared information that can then be independently verified.

She herself has stated as much and I would hope Dehlin agrees regarding his own work. Either way, we don't need permission from him to assimilate what we want from his content and set aside the rest.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Meadowchik

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't think I have read anyone complaining about how much he makes.  I certainly am not.

My issue with him is his reported treatment of others, particularly women...primary evidence being his most recent move of kicking off a longtime moderator without notice because he wouldn't tolerate her criticism, but also numerous others that gave their names and reported promises not lived up to, lack of recognition of others' hard work, etc.

I was not inclined to post this thread until I saw him ban the woman for speaking out.  And then it appeared that the board he has been pointing to all this time as the decision maker consists of him and two other people.

However, there are quite a few who have been demanding all along more transparency from him so one can figure out where the funds are actually going because he has complained about the lack of transparency in the Church, in part because you are not legally allowed to create a charity for the sole purpose of giving you a salary...which is what it appears the original purpose was and still is the primary purpose by the percentage of donated funds spent.

If you can point out where FairMormon is requesting others to be transparent in their finances in a way they are not being themselves, please post this and I will go scold the Board and President myself, especially if there are any board members giving themselves salaries.

It is Dehlin's inconsistency that is at issue...his claims he is a feminist while apparently treating women unfairly, his push for transparency and openness in the Church and from church leaders while being relatively vague himself (who is the board who he claims makes all the decisions, apparently he is on it and likely is the most influential member as founder, etc.)...and his claim to be a major ally in the LGBT and feminist movements while apparently in the opinion of some of those he worked with primarily intent on getting attention for himself while actually doing little to help.

So far it just seems to be a lot of allegations. 

I am really disappointed with his removing Alyson as a moderator.  No defense for that. 

I haven't noticed him mistreating women or LGBT persons on his podcasts and I listen to many of them. 

As for the finances, most of those questions should be answered when 2016 reports are published. 

[Atheist Mormon]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

He could have come out and said he was a board member, but recuses himself on anything that impacts him financially, but he didn't.  So that makes me think he likely doesn't.  However, if anyone has come across better info, I would be very interested to hear of this.

https://missionandvision.org/nonprofit/272026793/open-stories-foundation-inc/overview

•  

What information exactly you would like hear or see other than how much Natasha Parker made in 2015? This is worse than an MLM gig. I could never stand this disingenuous guy. Paying his foundation president 5% of what he is cashing?

I run a business, I could not look straight the eyes of my employees day after day knowing how blatantly I exploit their good will....Yes I'm guilty too, I listened most of his podcasts in the beginning, when they were interesting, but I did not contribute any money to him, frankly I don't believe any of his methods...Heck, I'm an exmormon, I did not need all this fanfaring, mourning process of lifetime....I won't feel sorry for John because the evidence shows he is no different than most of the MLM leaders.

This looks bad from every angle.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Atheist Mormon

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

So far it just seems to be a lot of allegations. 

I am really disappointed with his removing Alyson as a moderator.  No defense for that. 

I haven't noticed him mistreating women or LGBT persons on his podcasts and I listen to many of them. 

As for the finances, most of those questions should be answered when 2016 reports are published. 

I've heard allegations in the past about JD "treating" people badly, whatever that means. It may be true. It may be sour grapes. I really don't know.

Regarding the finances, I guess I don't really see what the problem is. Kristy was complaining that 2016 financials hadn't been made available, but that is usually a process that takes a little time. I don't know if May 2017 is slow for getting the report out or not, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable timeframe. She seems to have wanted this info released many months ago which I'm not sure is a reasonable expectation.

Many of her accusations are very vague so it's hard to know what she's even talking about regarding his "personal behavior."

I have no vested interest in JD being some kind of moral, righteous, kind person so I'm willing to follow the evidence where it goes, but at least from what I've seen so far, there doesn't seem to be a lot of detailed allegation, let alone evidence, being offered. 

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, sjdawg said:

I'm not a big fan of his interviewing style.  At times it feels like he is trying to get a specific answer from them that suits his interpretation of events.  It may be because in his pre-interview prep work they have already discussed the topic and he know there is more to come but I don't like it.

I don't follow the guy - I feel I have better things to do with my time than follow someone trying to make money off other's "recovery" - I don't see much doubt that he is doing that - I personally don't identify with the movement at all. I went inactive, and wasn't crushed or experience any need for "recovery." I think most of what he is doing is served in more of a non-profit way with various internet boards - even like this one. The things dug up by Calm certainly don't help his case at all.

I am responding to you tho because there is no doubt that his interviews are pre-filtered or maybe even somewhat rehearsed. All people doing this kind of thing are going to do this. Lawyers do it too. I have no doubt John has a nice list of his "bullet-points" he has somehow gathered about a person which he wants to bring out in the interviews, which he checks off as the interview progresses. So I am sure this is what you are noticing. He is trying to get his guest to speak(more) about one of the bulletted points, so he may even seem kind of "lawyer-ish" rather than simply conducting a free-flowing interview. Let's just put it this way - he's no Johnny Carson.

[stemelbow]

Hey if OSF is growing, good for him and those involved.  Sounds like Kristy was replaced on a podcast that got hardly any notice or patronizing.  Whatever.  It's sad or sickly funny, I guess, to see those who pretend to have staked claim on a higher moral pedestal then others get all petty.   But we're all human and this definitely speaks to that.

I've seen John claim to have saved many lives and helped many families.  That's great.  He said he knows because of the daily emails he gets.  I don't know how many people I've heard "testify" to the same things for the Church though.  Sometimes his elitist position and terrible way he speaks about some LDS likely contributes to difficulties in families and associations--at least int he same way as he's helped.  If we were able to weigh int he balance those who claim he has helped and those who feel like he's hurt, by families, attitudes and associations feeling hurt...is it a net positive or negative?  We'll never know.  But claiming salvation for others because of "testimony" level emails feels disingenuous on such grounds.  I admit that's my main issue with this whole affair.  I've lost interest in his podcasts, for the most part.  I've never given money, unless somehow I did without realizing it.  I don't mind his persona.  I remember my wife first listening and complaining about his continued interruption and seeming arrogance, which for some reason before that I had not noticed. It never really bothered me, at least until then and I had already pretty much lost interest anyway.  My wife says she's equally annoyed by Kristi Money and for the same reasons. 

So whatever. 

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So he is being cheap and ripping off those who work with him to live on only about $92,000 a year? That is kind of pathetic and sad. C'mon Dehlin! If you are going to sell out have some dignity about it and go after real money.

I think its somewhat of supplemental income.  He's a trained professional therapist of sorts now.  I'm sure he gets paid for his professional therapist work too. 

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think its somewhat of supplemental income.  He's a trained professional therapist of sorts now.  I'm sure he gets paid for his professional therapist work too. 

According to him, he does 1-2 hours of private counseling a week, if that.

[Meadowchik]

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've heard allegations in the past about JD "treating" people badly, whatever that means. It may be true. It may be sour grapes. I really don't know.

Regarding the finances, I guess I don't really see what the problem is. Kristy was complaining that 2016 financials hadn't been made available, but that is usually a process that takes a little time. I don't know if May 2017 is slow for getting the report out or not, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable timeframe. She seems to have wanted this info released many months ago which I'm not sure is a reasonable expectation.

Many of her accusations are very vague so it's hard to know what she's even talking about regarding his "personal behavior."

I have no vested interest in JD being some kind of moral, righteous, kind person so I'm willing to follow the evidence where it goes, but at least from what I've seen so far, there doesn't seem to be a lot of detailed allegation, let alone evidence, being offered. 

The vagueness of accusations are bothersome to me, as well.