John Dehlin's podcast and aftermath

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If so, then wouldn't he know who was being paid, if not how much?  

Seems like this guy should be on the compensation committee at least.

 

He knew it was around $85k.  Dehlin told him it was $82,500.  

He is on the compensation committee.  And he knew quite a bit off the top of his head - clearly a qualified board member.  I don't fault him for not knowing the exact amount of Dehlin's salary.  That wasn't the point of the podcast. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Come on, Hagoth. Somebody still has to do it. I sat on a non-profit board with a lot of similarities for two decades. 

 

Except he didn't. John had to correct him there, too. Whenever it came to the Dehlin family income, the finance guy had memory lapses. This seems a small point, I'm curious why you guys are picking this for your hill to die on. So to speak. 

 

I recall the board member (I need to look up his name) stating that he thought Dehlin's income was $85k.  For me, that is a close enough recollection for a board member.  Remember, we're 5 months after the end of the year. 

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hagoth,

The reason why the apparent lack of notes is a serious consideration for me is because the sole reason of this podcast was presented was for answering the questions and controversies that had arisen around the OSF financials.  This question of if and what .Dehlin's wife was being paid is a pretty major part of the discussion.  If this was not prepared for and prechecked for accuracy, why should I assume the individual knew anything he was talking about for sure?

I am not a fan of the rambling, unprepared talk show hosts, which is why I never watched Larry King and preferred Bill Moyers and others who could have informed, educational discussions.  **** Cavett was my favorite with his sense of humor and delivery.  (If anyone knows someone who comes close these days, let me know) However, I don't consider those who are popular as not deserving their pay as it is their audiences who pay them and it appears that is the style they like.

I'm not sure where Dehlin gave the "reason for the podcast" as being what you claim.  That isn't the way he presented it in the podcast. 

Since I doubt you are a donor to OSF, you weren't the target audience as well. 

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"4. So they don't merit their pay.

Does that accurately sum up the Dehln threads?"

Definitely not in my view.  It was not my purpose in beginning the one I started nor do I think anyone can reasonably conclude that from the thread alone.

Then I'll be more frank/direct. It's the unspoken concern about priestcraft that I was asking about. The elephant in the room.

Taboo to even mention in polite society.  

Some might say my judgment is off in this matter, but I believe it's the unconscious and/or unspoken reason the Dehlin issue repeatedly raises so much vocal attention/ire.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"This seems a small point, I'm curious why you guys are picking this for your hill to die on"

My previous iceberg thread answers part of that question in full.

No fatalistic plans for dying on that hill. I rarely enter Dehlin threads.

Edited May 29, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[juliann]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I recall the board member (I need to look up his name) stating that he thought Dehlin's income was $85k.  For me, that is a close enough recollection for a board member.  Remember, we're 5 months after the end of the year. 

Nope. He gave the $70 something figure. Dehlin, again, jumped in to correct him. This is getting downright silly. You guys don't even know what was said and are defending to the death what you think was said. Why is this so important?

Does anyone really think OSF will go under? I'm sure it won't. It's built a good apparatus and has a hungry audience. What has surprised me to no end is the hostility from so many of those in the exmo community I assumed would be his supporters. But we get that kind of stereotyping about what we are suppose to think or believe on this end, too. 

Edited May 29, 2017 by juliann

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

----

Given your choice to summarize the threads in such a way (it is much more than just a simple defense of a possibly simple mistake), I am now wondering the same thing Juliann did earlier:

"This seems a small point, I'm curious why you guys are picking this for your hill to die on"

You are still trying to be me, aren't you. I am Nemesis! The all mighty! Last warning. 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

He knew it was around $85k.  Dehlin told him it was $82,500.  

He is on the compensation committee.  And he knew quite a bit off the top of his head - clearly a qualified board member.  I don't fault him for not knowing the exact amount of Dehlin's salary.  That wasn't the point of the podcast. 

I really need to watch it, but watching Groucho Marx on D ick Cavett is much more interesting.

My understanding was he wasn't aware of Dehlin's wife being paid or was it just the amount?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

You are still trying to be me, aren't you. I am Nemesis! The all mighty! Last warning. 

Go get a life.  This is My Board.

[probablyHagoth7]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

Nope. He gave the $70 something figure. Dehlin, again, jumped in to correct him. This is getting downright silly. You guys don't even know what was said and are defending to the death what you think was said. Why?

Why engage? (Assuming I'm now deemed to be one of 'you guys'.) Because one doesn't need to be informed on every detail to comment on the larger concern. 

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

Does anyone really think OSF will go under?

Not a concern that's on my radar.

Would rather see OSF pivot to a different message.

Being that we don't control what OSF does, would rather focus on what we do control...how we opt to address (and attempt to bridge) differences.

 

Edited May 29, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Then I'll be more frank/direct. It's the unspoken concern about priestcraft that I was asking about. The elephant in the room.

Taboo to even mention in polite society.  

Some might say my judgment is off in this matter, but I believe it's the unconscious and/or unspoken reason the Dehlin issue repeatedly raises so much vocal attention/ire.

I am more concerned with alleged sexism than I am priestcraft as far as Dehlin is concerned.  I figure the people paying generally know what they are getting.

The ones that don't know aren't donating (but come upon it or are sent to it unprepared) and thus their experience (which I am concerned about and always have been) is a completely different topic then priestcraft, imo.

I don't get why you think priestcraft is a taboo subject.  If you mean to discuss whether Church leadership is involved in it or not, the reason it was not allowed in my thread was because it would have imo drowned out the original purpose of examining Money's claims given past threads.  There was no problem in my view with starting a new thread on it, the topic has been endlessly discussed already, so why not another?

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure where Dehlin gave the "reason for the podcast" as being what you claim.  That isn't the way he presented it in the podcast. 

Since I doubt you are a donor to OSF, you weren't the target audience as well. 

You are right.  It definitely was not solely to deal with the controversy or solely about compensation or financials

However, compensation was one of the major reasons for the podcast according to his announcement and the list of what was discussed:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1551961358179142&set=p.1551961358179142&type=3&theater

No, not target audience.  Just rather surprised if he was as unprepared to talk about what was a huge topic in the exmormon community, a topic that appears to be damaging his reputation there from what I have read, and likely the reason for the timing of the podcast.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Calm

[probablyHagoth7]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am more concerned with alleged sexism than I am priestcraft, as far as Dehlin is concerned.

Which is what I initially thought. 

I don't get why you think priestcraft is a taboo subject. 

I don't think it is. But thought it was deemed such in such threads.

In this instance, a repeated focus on precise dollar amounts suggested the underlying concern was something other than alleged sexism. 

Fair 'nuf?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Which is what I initially thought. 

I don't think it is. But thought it was deemed such in such threads.

In this instance, a repeated focus on precise dollar amounts suggested the underlying concern was something other than alleged sexism. 

Yeah, transparency and whether or not .Dehlin is a hypocrite in that regard (claiming he would hold to a standard of transparency and allegedly not doing so).  What does that have to do with priestcraft?

"Off topic" does not qualify a topic for the label of "taboo".  That is just silly when there are other threads on that topic.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Calm

[probablyHagoth7]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yeah, transparency and whether or not .Dehlin is a hypocrite in that regard (claiming he would hold to a standard of transparency and allegedly not doing so).  What does that have to do with priestcraft?

"Off topic" does not qualify a topic for the label of "taboo".  That is just silly.

Will retreat from "silly" and let the thread resume.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

Nope. He gave the $70 something figure. Dehlin, again, jumped in to correct him. This is getting downright silly. You guys don't even know what was said and are defending to the death what you think was said. Why is this so important?

Does anyone really think OSF will go under? I'm sure it won't. It's built a good apparatus and has a hungry audience. What has surprised me to no end is the hostility from so many of those in the exmo community I assumed would be his supporters. But we get that kind of stereotyping about what we are suppose to think or believe on this end, too. 

"Defending to the death?"  I was just sharing with you what I recalled.  I don't think it's that important.  He's a board member trying to recall what they decided Dehlin's salary would be... a decision that was likely made many months ago.

ETA:  Dehlin's salary was $75k for 2016.  Perhaps that's where the confusion was.

I agree that OSF isn't going away.  That was one key take away from the podcast is that OSF is experiencing a lot of growth.

I also believe Dehlin has done some really great work in the past 18 months.

 

Edited May 29, 2017 by rockpond

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

You are right.  It definitely was not solely to deal with the controversy or solely about compensation or financials

However, compensation was one of the major reasons for the podcast according to his announcement and the list of what was discussed:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1551961358179142&set=p.1551961358179142&type=3&theater

No, not target audience.  Just rather surprised if he was as unprepared to talk about what was a huge topic in the exmormon community, a topic that appears to be damaging his reputation there from what I have read, and likely the reason for the timing of the podcast.

Yeah... and I think Dehlin was prepared to give the specifics of his compensation.  I'd agree that the board member didn't seem concerned about the specific details but rather the decision making process. 

2016 financials for OSF are now posted. 

[rpn]

Quote

He knew it was around $85k.  Dehlin told him it was $82,500.  

And this is part of the problem.  The financial statements 2016 published the same day as the broadcast says that it paid JD in 2016 75K salary and 15K bonus for 90K.   Perhaps JD was saying that 2017's base salary is $82,500 (which would be a 9.1% raise when the CPI increased 2.38%).   But at the minimum, if the statements are accurate, then why aren't they able to say what it says instead of something different?

The other thing that is relevant is that Craig addressed the fact that it was done as a non-profit because the founder wanted it to be about the cause, not about him getting rich on the backs of others (I'm not trying to distort or exaggerate, I just don't recall the exact words).   So this whole deal about how much JD gets paid is a reaction to whether the non-profit label is intentionally misleading.    I'm not sure this is about how MUCH, but whether he is trying to enrich himself while pretending it is about the cause itself (the priestcraft issue).   People simply don't trust that JD is really about the cause rather than the money.   (And some probably are disgusted at the idea that someone is getting rich off exmos, just like they are disgusted at the same sort of thing from the LDS church.)

Edited May 29, 2017 by rpn

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, rpn said:

And this is part of the problem.  The financial statements 2016 published the same day as the broadcast says that it paid JD in 2016 75K salary and 15K bonus for 90K.   Perhaps JD was saying that 2017's base salary is $82,500 (which would be a 9.1% raise when the CPI increased 2.38%).   But at the minimum, if the statements are accurate, then why aren't they able to say what it says instead of something different?

The other thing that is relevant is that Craig addressed the fact that it was done as a non-profit because the founder wanted it to be about the cause, not about him getting rich on the backs of others (I'm not trying to distort or exaggerate, I just don't recall the exact words).   So this whole deal about how much JD gets paid is a reaction to whether the non-profit label is intentionally misleading.    I'm not sure this is about how MUCH, but whether he is trying to enrich himself while pretending it is about the cause itself (the priestcraft issue).   People simply don't trust that JD is really about the cause rather than the money.   (And some probably are disgusted at the idea that someone is getting rich off exmos, just like they are disgusted at the same sort of thing from the LDS church.)

I don't think a raise to $82.5 is a problem. That is not that high of a salary for someone with his experience and education (in my opinion, but I don't know the Utah market).  It is still substantially less than LDS general authorities make.

Regarding your first question:  the podcast wasn't about giving an accounting, in exact dollars, of the finances.  If you want exact numbers, you could open the statements while you listened. 

If people don't trust that JD is really about the cause they should just not donate.  But, in deciding if John isn't truly about the cause, I'd recommend looking at his track record - the amount of his life he has dedicated to the project and his income potential in his previous career or with his new degree. 

 

[Judd]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But, in deciding if John isn't truly about the cause, I'd recommend looking at his track record - the amount of his life he has dedicated to the project and his income potential in his previous career or with his new degree. 

 

As a clinical psychologist he could make $80-100k working a lot more and with a lot less flexibility than he currently has, and with much less fanfare.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Judd

[Teancum]

On 5/27/2017 at 0:15 PM, rpn said:

I just realized that this might more properly be assigned to the News section.   If mods wish to do that I have no objection.

The OP for the other thread recommend starting a new one to discuss any response.

It was a very positive podcast.

He announced that in 2015 a whole new board of directors was formed when he made OSF his life's work (info now on site, and delayed because their person who is doing the website just hasn't gotten to it).  He doesn't say how they were selected, or whether it was according to bylaws, or whether he was personal friends with any of them other than the one who also spoke on the podcast.  (He also didn't speak of who they replaced and why they left.)  He did describe the accomplishments of the board members in general terms, and the website does a little more  (IME, Board member biographies list the full names of employers and of other boards on which they sit (e.g. http://www.redcross.org/local/california/los-angeles/about-us/leadership : OSF's is not that detailed.  s the type of business involved for all but .   All together there are five, and a board secretary, including John.  (As he said in the podcast, it isn't uncommon for a CEO to also be on the Board, but it is usually as an ex-officio member or as the Board Secretary).   The Board apparently wants more board diversity (minorities and LGBTQ) and will be adding board members.   Altogether, the new information (aside from the lack of disclosure of how they were chosen, and whether the board member whose job is an angel investor was given the board seat in exchange for an infusion of revenue, and whether the Board Finance Chair (who is the personal friend and who apparently but not clearly is the one doing the financial statements and accounting for OSF) should give people reassurance that the OSF Board is being governed soundly.

JD made  a change to his personal website in which he refers to his private practice, eliminating the word "psychologist" from the credentials.  But he continues to refer to himself as a psychologist on other sites (one of which for one day, but no longer, acknowledged that he is not licensed).   He said he was fully compliant with all the training and experience required to be licensed but just hasn't had time to study for and take the test, claiming 6 or 3 fulltime months were just too much for him, but without acknowledging that many if not most professionals do not do full time studying for the professional exams in a way that prevents them from working and earning during the same time ---which isn't to ignore that there are cottage industries that make a great deal of money off anxious applicants who are persuaded they must.   He claimed that his coaching is the same as what Dr. Kristy Money and other mormon therapists do.    He also claims he doesn't do any psychotherapy, but in the podcast he specifically said OSF podcasts were designed to addres anxiety, depression and PTSD.   I don't know whether he is legal in Utah.  But I do know that in many states everyone who does personal counseling has to be licensed. 

The Board member's explanation of the Dr. Kristy Money pay problem seemed reasonable.   But it also doesn't fit with what she has said.   I think we would know better if JD had released the correspondence.

The explanation for why JD's wife has taken over Mormon Transitions is that she stepped in after Money left, and the listeners skyrocketed such that they determined Margy was an appropriate replacement, and she has been paid starting in May 2017.  I wondered why they didn't release the documents that say there was such a huge increase, but of course they are under no obligation to do so.

The explanation of why they did a non-profit is that it was intended to benefit those who donate.   Not the reason, but Craig also said it fit with the idea that OSF was not about making money, but about furthering a cause.  The problem with this explanation is that the IRS requires that when a donor gets some gift or benefit, the market value of that gift/benefit has to be deducted from the amount they can claim as a tax deduction.   In the OSF world this suggests that none of those paying monthly subscriptions are likely eligible for tax deduction on it --- the fact that they are willing to pay the monthly subscription rate appears to definitively make it the market value of what they get.   Only persons who donate and do not partake of the podcasts could legitimately take the deduction.   OSF doesn't have to send an acknowledgement of a donation identifying the fair market value of any thing donor gets in exchange for what the donor gives, but the donor cannot take the deduction, without such an acknowledgement for donations of more than $250 (and lots of 501(c)(3)'s send the disclosure of fair market value of benefit to all those who donate as a matter of course..  https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1771.pdf     But I do think JD's statements and OSF statements that all payments are tax deductible are at least misleading.   (OTH, maybe this is a theoretical problem because "donors" know very well they cannot buy something and expect to deduct what they paid for it, even if it is a 501(c)(3) org.)    If I were a donor who listened to OSF podcast and deducted what I paid as a charitable contribution, I'd have to be wondering if I shouldn't amend the tax return.   And I would not deduct in the future anything I paid to OSF, unless it was completely without any tangible or intangible benefit (so any of those seminars or cruises I'd have to pay for without deduction).

OSF published yesterday a 2016 financial statement, but not the late 990.   (In 2015 there was a difference in the financial statement disclosures and the 990 that was not addressed in the podcast.)   It is also still not clear how much JD is receiving.  Craig did say that JD does not approve his own expense reports.

The podcast did not address who owns the Mormon Stories podcasts either before 2015 or after.   It appears that since then, podcasts are owned by OSF, not by the podcaster who started it (which is why Dr. Money had to start a different one).

 

 

 

Nice summary.  One point.  I think anyone who donates to OSF but listens to podcasts should still be able to take the deduction on their taxes.  Tithing is deductible but think of all the benefits a member gets from that tithing.  A nice church building, temples and temple attendance, church programs, etc.  I do agree if there is a donation and something like a product that goes with it then the amount deductible has to documented.  For example of you donate to a PBS fund drive and they say something like "If you donate $500 now you get a mug, t shirt and a DVD of (some show they are playing) then PBS would send you a receipt showing the $500 donation and subtract the fair value of what you receive. 

I don't think listening to free podcasts would fall into that. Now if there was a subscription price for the podcasts then yes.

[Teancum]

On 5/27/2017 at 1:32 PM, rpn said:

The tax problem that I see isn't for OSF, except that they claim all donations are tax deductible when it is only those that exceed the fair market value of the benefit the donor gets in return.  Anyone who is paying a monthly "subscription" to hear the podcast, is getting the podcasts as benefit (and their willingness to pay the amount, makes it the fair market value.   By all means, consult your own tax provider.

Yes, it is true that OSF says they've filed for an extension for filing the 990.  It is just curious why they can't produce one in five months after their end of financial year.

I get that some do not see a problem with how JD represents himself in his "private practice".  And JD did state that he is confident that no one he helps in those sessions misunderstands what he is doing (although he doesn't articulate how those clients would know if he ever crossed the line he acknowledges)..   I just think that he should not identify himself to potential clients as a psychologist or counsel people, when he is not a licensed counselor of any kind, even if he calls what he does "coaching".   And if I were he, I'd do the test, sooner rather than later. 

 

I work with tax law and many in my firm do work on Non Profits. It absolutely common the file an extension past the  May 15th deadline.  We do it all the time.  A monthly donation is absolutely tax deductible. All sorts of charities have the option to give a set monthly amount.  People do this all the time to all sorts of organizations.    The monthly donation is NOT for the podcasts. The podcasts are free.  You don't have to donate to listen to them.  If there is some other benefit for a monthly donation that has tangible value above a normal donation then a monthly donation would have to be adjusted accordingly.

[Teancum]

On 5/27/2017 at 2:03 PM, rpn said:

It was troubling that the person who is giving all this financial info is someone JD called on the podcast his personal friend (apparently from before he became a board member).  OTOH, the man is in charge of auditing for a CPA firm, so he must have some professional reputation for reliability.

You can't be friends with a CPA or an attorney who provides you services?  Maybe the friend is a CPA who is doing the work at a low cost or on his own time that was already a friend with Dehlin.

[rpn]

Quote

still be able to take the deduction on their taxes.  Tithing is deductible but think of all the benefits a member gets from

There is an exemption for intangible religious benefits, that is not available to other charitable organizations.

[rpn]

Please do not derail this thread with comparisons to other entities, or with discussion of feminism which was not raised in the podcast at all.

[Judd]

Regarding the issue of life coaching, a year or two ago I had noticed that on his website and found it rather interesting. If I recall, he had even toned it down a bit after a while and made the life coaching more prominent. While I am in psychiatry and not psychology, I'm familiar with their training, so seeing his website kind of stands out fairly obviously that he's not practicing as a psychologist but while also leaving it intentionally vague. I'm saying this more from the perspective of healthcare rather than the church conflict issue but the problem advertising as "Dr. So-and-so" is that it presumes the doctorate is clinically relevant. There's been big controversy before where people who were, for instance, nurse practitioners, but held a doctorate in an unrelated field such as history or whatever, refer to themselves in a clinical setting as "Dr. ______." Certainly people who earn doctorates could be called doctor, but in clinical settings they're fairly inappropriate because of what the title is to convey. John Dehlin clearly earned a doctorate. The title "Dr. John Dehlin" presumes he's practicing under that title (i.e. a doctorate in clinical/counseling psychology) of which he hasn't meant the requirements to be independently license by. An exception to this would be if one were working in a supervised capacity (such as being in a post-doctoral fellowship), but even that they'd technically be licensed but it would be a type of provisional/training license. Utah licensing apparently does not require a post-doctoral fellowship but does require a total of 4,000 hours they don't specify where those have to be post-doctoral so it would be assumed you could count pre-doctoral hours, but it's been pretty apparent by all accounts that he hasn't done any post-doctoral hours. As said, people are often completing this through formalized training in a year of a full-time post-doctoral fellowship. Getting a PhD isn't the end of training and the most meaningful training (i.e. actually engaging in supervised therapy) is where one actually learns their craft. I haven't listened to the podcast, but if the impression that I get is correct that he's saying he's "technically almost there" and just "has to take a test" then that's a fairly silly statement and would likely not be looked upon very favorably by the profession.

If he's not willing to put in the requirements to become a licensed psychologist then he may want to consider simply being "John Dehlin the life coach" rather than "Dr. John Dehlin."

So how big of a deal is this? Not huge. There are plenty of people out there who are practicing in a certain capacity but structure their advertising to let people connect the dots to something that isn't true, but since they never were explicitly misleading they can justify being technically correct while being indirectly misleading. While not a huge deal, this type of 'innocent deception' is the kind of stuff John Dehlin rose to, as Kate Kelly puts it, "pseudocelebrity status" by condemning and crusading against. It could certainly be an opportunity for him to either do some personal reflection on his own motives and actions or perhaps re-evaluate the standard by which he has criticized so many others. I won't hold my breath. 

On the other hand, it's interesting that Kate Kelly brings this up as it's fairly unrelated to the issues she's raising and she's calling on people to report him to DOPL. Unless, of course, she's weaving this into the greater fabric of his misleading the public. In any case, one must ask that if this is such a big issue for her, why wasn't it raised previously in all the years she was associated with him? I suppose this problem is serious enough for a DOPL report but was willing to let it slide when she felt like he was "on her side," so to speak? Another instance where a modicum of self reflection would be appropriate.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Judd