Mormon Stories trying to expand its market.

[why me]

On 1/23/2019 at 3:00 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

https://www.mormonstories.org/truthclaims/

Lets give Dehlin's salary a boost, shall we?

What I find interesting is just how  he can keep going. I am absolutely tired of discussing about the lds church. I suppose if I were making some money doing it, I could keep going and put my energy into it. But to spend my life defending the lds church or examining its truth claims, well, I just can't do it for a lifelong hobby. If he does get money for it, just take it away and watch John become tired and go away. Money is a wonderful motivation to make being critical of the lds church a lifelong project. Food on the table is a wonderful motivator. I came across Mormonstories years ago when he got started and when I had more hair on my head. I am just surprised that he is still doing what he did years ago. I feel a little sorry for him.

Edited January 24, 2019 by why me

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, why me said:

What I find interesting is just how  he can keep going. I am absolutely tired of discussing about the lds church. I suppose if I were making some money doing it, I could keep going and put my energy into it. But to spend my life defending the lds church or examining its truth claims, well, I just can't do it for a lifelong hobby. If he does get money for it, just take it away and watch John become tired and go away. Money is a wonderful motivation to make being critical of the lds church a lifelong project. Food on the table is a wonderful motivator. I came across Mormonstories years ago when he got started and when I had more hair on my head. I am just surprised that he is still doing what he did years ago. I feel a little sorry for him.

He believes that he is helping people.  If you listen to him, he says it often.  I'm sure some here disagree but he certainly helped me at a very difficult and dark time.  And I am one of those who he helped stay IN the church.

Feeling that you are helping people is a powerful motivator, perhaps more than money.

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

He believes that he is helping people.  If you listen to him, he says it often.  I'm sure some here disagree but he certainly helped me at a very difficult and dark time.  And I am one of those who he helped stay IN the church.

Feeling that you are helping people is a powerful motivator, perhaps more than money.

I'm back and forth on John Dehlin. One thing is, he got me out and kept me in at the same time, does that make sense?

[bdouglas]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

He believes that he is helping people.  If you listen to him, he says it often.  I'm sure some here disagree but he certainly helped me at a very difficult and dark time.  And I am one of those who he helped stay IN the church.

Feeling that you are helping people is a powerful motivator, perhaps more than money.

How does destroying faith help others? It would be like an Evangelical or Catholic saying, “Reading Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great really helped stabilize my faith."

I realize JD wasn’t always what he is today, but he was always trending this way, even in his early podcasts: sowing seeds of doubt, undermining faith, all while (at least in his early podcasts) posing as someone “who just wants to get at the truth.”

He is a perfect example of someone who leaves the church but can’t leave it alone ... all while making a handsome living into the bargain.

[bdouglas]

39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

He believes that he is helping people.  If you listen to him, he says it often.  I'm sure some here disagree but he certainly helped me at a very difficult and dark time.  And I am one of those who he helped stay IN the church.

Feeling that you are helping people is a powerful motivator, perhaps more than money.

John Dehlin is a more sophisticated and polished version of Jerald and Sandra Tanner. I guess it's possible to say that Jerald and Sandra Tanner provided a service to believing LDS scholars by unearthing documents, etc., but I'm not sure this outweighs the harm they did.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

And Dehlin and OSF responded to the complaints and worked to resolve them the best they could.

In 2015, before the controversy, total OSF donations were $170,000.

In 2017, after the controversy, total donations were up to over $400,000 (with Dehlin's MS podcast along bringing in more than half of that amount).

Yup. Hasn't hurt his business for sure.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

So you agree that OSF provided some level of financial disclosure every year beginning with 2011 just not enough to prevent the controversy?

Yes. But I don't think I indicated otherwise in my original comments. As I said publishing a P/L isn't the same as publishing financials. Whether the current disclosure is sufficient for everyone I can't say. Certainly is sufficient for their donors who are still donating. 

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

So you agree that OSF provided some level of financial disclosure every year beginning with 2011 just not enough to prevent the controversy?

I figured the controversy would have occurred even with additional financial disclosure because it was about the methodology of compensation and Dehlin’s influence, not just the amounts.

And now are you implying that Dehlin broke the law?

No. Never remotely implied Dehlin broke the law. I said I don't think it matters how much money he takes so long as he doesn't violate IRS rules on being a non-profit. That's not in the least the same as claiming he's remotely close to it. I'm just saying he can take as much as the IRS allows and I don't care.

Whether the controversy would have happened anyway, I don't know. I suspect it was more due to a split within the organization as some became disgruntled and looked for a way to get back at him. But again as I said, that's not me. I don't care. It's his business so long as it's legal and the donors are happy, who cares?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/22/2019 at 6:00 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

https://www.mormonstories.org/truthclaims/

Lets give Dehlin's salary a boost, shall we?

I note that he says that "This project attempts to honor, stand beside, and build upon the incredible resources already created to explore Mormonism, including: UT Lighthouse Ministry, MormonThink, CES Letter, and Letter for my Wife."

So he does not appear to be competing with FairMormon, but perhaps he wants this to become the Anti-FairMormon source.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, why me said:

What I find interesting is just how  he can keep going. I am absolutely tired of discussing about the lds church. I suppose if I were making some money doing it, I could keep going and put my energy into it. But to spend my life defending the lds church or examining its truth claims, well, I just can't do it for a lifelong hobby. If he does get money for it, just take it away and watch John become tired and go away. Money is a wonderful motivation to make being critical of the lds church a lifelong project. Food on the table is a wonderful motivator. I came across Mormonstories years ago when he got started and when I had more hair on my head. I am just surprised that he is still doing what he did years ago. I feel a little sorry for him.

Perhaps he is shifting into high gear (his version of "hastening the work"), with a renewed intent to fully undo the LDS Church by attacking its foundations.  I'd say that it is a fool's errand, but vengeance is a strong motivator.

[rockpond]

Just now, bdouglas said:

How does destroying faith help others? It would be like an Evangelical or Catholic saying, “Reading Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great really helped stabilize my faith."

I realize JD wasn’t always what he is today, but he was always trending this way, even in his early podcasts: sowing seeds of doubt, undermining faith, all while (at least in his early podcasts) posing as someone “who just wants to get at the truth.”

He is a perfect example of someone who leaves the church but can’t leave it alone ... all while making a handsome living into the bargain.

I can only speak to my experience...

I was teaching early morning seminary when my faith transition began.  I started learning of things that were really troubling, things that cast doubt on my entire testimony and on the very foundations on which I had built my life.  My wife did not want to talk about it.  There were no "gospel topics essays" at that time.  I felt that I had absolutely nobody to talk to about it.  It was much later that I heard the phrase "dark night of the soul" but it was certainly an accurate description of what I was going through.

Somehow, I came across the New Order Mormon forum.  I turned there for help but it felt like there were just two sides (those who criticized the church and those who criticized me for not falling in line with the church).  But, on those threads, I kept hearing of this guy named John Dehlin.  Eventually I found his podcasts.  He introduced me to people who knew the things that I knew but found ways to stay in the church.  Those podcasts helped me navigate the troubling issues I had learned about. 

If I hadn't had the space that Mormon Stories and A Thoughtful Faith gave me and the time that they encouraged me to take before making life-altering decisions, I'm confident I would have walked away from the church.  And it would have had devastating impacts on my family.

The podcasts enabled me to process the new truths I had learned in light of those I already had from the first 30 years of my spiritual journey.  I'm happier and more at peace because of it.

To jump back to your first question:  My faith didn't get destroyed by the podcasts, my faith got destroyed by the betrayal I felt from the Church.  The time I spent listening to all those interviews and reading the books/scripture that they recommended helped me find a way to pick up all the pieces and rebuild.

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

As I said publishing a P/L isn't the same as publishing financials. Whether the current disclosure is sufficient for everyone I can't say. Certainly is sufficient for their donors who are still donating. 

Just to be clear, OSF's website shows not just a P&L (aka Income Statement) for the years leaving up to the controversy (2011 through 2015) but also a Balance Sheet for each year.  And the P&L/Income Statements break down both the income and the expenses by each of the different podcasts including what was paid in "contract services" which I believe is the pay given to the host of each podcast (including Dehlin himself).  The Income Statements even get down to the level of detail of how much was spent on meals, internet, bank fees, cell phones, etc.

But is there always more detail that could be asked for in finances?  Sure.  I mean, we don't even know what Dehlin's health plan copay is!!!

Edited January 24, 2019 by rockpond

[bdouglas]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I can only speak to my experience...

I was teaching early morning seminary when my faith transition began.  I started learning of things that were really troubling, things that cast doubt on my entire testimony and on the very foundations on which I had built my life.  My wife did not want to talk about it.  There were no "gospel topics essays" at that time.  I felt that I had absolutely nobody to talk to about it.  It was much later that I heard the phrase "dark night of the soul" but it was certainly an accurate description of what I was going through.

Somehow, I came across the New Order Mormon forum.  I turned there for help but it felt like there were just two sides (those who criticized the church and those who criticized me for not falling in line with the church).  But, on those threads, I kept hearing of this guy named John Dehlin.  Eventually I found his podcasts.  He introduced me to people who knew the things that I knew but found ways to stay in the church.  Those podcasts helped me navigate the troubling issues I had learned about. 

If I hadn't had the space that Mormon Stories and A Thoughtful Faith gave me and the time that they encouraged me to take before making life-altering decisions, I'm confident I would have walked away from the church.  And it would have had devastating impacts on my family.

The podcasts enabled me to process the new truths I had learned in light of those I already had from the first 30 years of my spiritual journey.  I'm happier and more at peace because of it.

To jump back to your first question:  My faith didn't get destroyed by the podcasts, my faith got destroyed by the betrayal I felt from the Church.  The time I spent listening to all those interviews and reading the books/scripture that they recommended helped me find a way to pick up all the pieces and rebuild.

"... my faith got destroyed by the betrayal I felt from the Church."

I find this "victimhood" narrative, so common among ex-Mormons or those on the fence who haven't decided which side they are going to come down on——I find this "I am a victim of the church" narrative troubling.

Edited January 24, 2019 by bdouglas

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, bdouglas said:

"... my faith got destroyed by the betrayal I felt from the Church." I find this "victimhood" narrative, so common among ex-Mormons or those on the fence who haven't decided which side they are going to come down on——I find this "I am a victim of the church" narrative troubling.

Perhaps there is a reason it is common -- because it's a very real experience for those who have gone through it... or are still going through it.

And I agree, it is troubling.  And sad.  

[bdouglas]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Perhaps there is a reason it is common -- because it's a very real experience for those who have gone through it... or are still going through it.

And I agree, it is troubling.  And sad.  

If you don't mind my asking, how are you or anybody else a "victim" of the church?

[bdouglas]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Perhaps there is a reason it is common -- because it's a very real experience for those who have gone through it... or are still going through it.

And I agree, it is troubling.  And sad.  

Because you weren't spoon-fed the history?

For my part I never expected church leaders to teach me the history of the church in conference talks or wherever. I expected them to teach the Gospel, and I feel they did a pretty good job at it.

As for history, I read up on that all by myself, starting from the time I got off my mission until now. The books were available anywhere, even in the chapel library (which is where I first came across B. H. Roberts "Comprehensive History Of the Church").

There was Backman's "The First Vision", published by Deseret Book in 1970, which contained all of the extant first vision accounts, then I read "Investigating the Book Or Mormon Witnesses" by Anderson, published by Des. Book or Bookcraft, which came out around the same time (it was from this book I first learned about seer stone), then I read Donna Hill, etc., etc., and I have kept going till today.

And when I was at BYU I took a 300-level church history class where I was, for the second time, exposed to the raw history of the church. I found it fascinating. It strengthened my faith. But never once did I think, "Why aren't the GAs teaching this raw history in conference?"

Edited January 24, 2019 by bdouglas

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I note that he says that "This project attempts to honor, stand beside, and build upon the incredible resources already created to explore Mormonism, including: UT Lighthouse Ministry, MormonThink, CES Letter, and Letter for my Wife."

So he does not appear to be competing with FairMormon, but perhaps he wants this to become the Anti-FairMormon source.

I would have felt more impressed by his 'exploration' of Mormonism if the sources he was honoring included the Joseph Smith Papers and other academic sources as opposed to going straight to works that condemn the Church.  It appears his method of exploring intends to be using only one side of the island.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Back in early 2017 (around April), I posted a bit of a rant on the topic here.  If I could find it, I'd quote it.  But changes to MDDB have made it harder to go that far back.  As I recall, it came from the heart.  But, there is this from May 2017 on the Dear John Dehlin blog...

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69038-open-stories-foundation-dehlin-money-and-compensation/

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69060-john-dehlins-podcast-and-aftermath/

Still looking for your specific rant, Kevin.

I am defeated unfortunately.  Nothing is coming up for that time period.  Do you remember a couple of key words or names you likely used?

Edited January 24, 2019 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Just to be clear, OSF's website shows not just a P&L (aka Income Statement) for the years leaving up to the controversy (2011 through 2015) but also a Balance Sheet for each year.  And the P&L/Income Statements break down both the income and the expenses by each of the different podcasts including what was paid in "contract services" which I believe is the pay given to the host of each podcast (including Dehlin himself).  The Income Statements even get down to the level of detail of how much was spent on meals, internet, bank fees, cell phones, etc.

Right, but my point is that those crying transparency aren't talking a P/L sheet nor a Balance Sheet. Again, having dealt with investors, audits, insurance companies, certifiers and so forth few would be satisfied with those. Now again if you're talking about what I think a company should release, I think they should keep everything private except what's necessary by law. But if donors are demanding more, then that's kind of like investors. You make a decision over what to release based upon a guess of what you have to release to get the necessary money.

Just to be clear, I have zero issue with what Dehlin did or didn't release. To me it's a non-issue. However for people who worry about transparency it's a big deal. I'm just not them. Admittedly non-profits are tricky just because many donors are nervous precisely because so many non-profits have the bulk of donations going to payroll of a few. That's particularly an issue in politics and even in charities for poverty reduction. The reason people raise the issue of transparency is because of those corruption issues. Maybe corruption isn't the best word - but certainly people donating money worry about how much of the money actual goes to the project they want created. So I'd never give to the NRA, for instance, despite being a big 2cd amendment proponent just because I'm very skeptical the money would be spent well. There's far better organizations to give to (part of the reason the NRA is in financial trouble) Likewise most charities to poverty in Africa I'd not trust. Were I donating money there I'd almost certainly give to Catholic Relief agencies.  

I think donors just have to figure out if Dehlin is the best use of their money. I'm not really able to judge that since I'm obviously not terribly sympathetic to how his endeavor has evolved. (I was originally a big supporter and even interviewed Dehlin his first year) Clearly by the increased donations Dehlin's convincing enough people it's worth it. But ultimately from my perspective the only people who should care about transparency are the donors. I'm never going to donate. And I bet a large donor could get a better look at the financials, much like an investor to a for profit corporation would. If they're happy, who cares? Heck, even if Dehlin was taking 90% if he could convince donors and didn't run afoul of the IRS I'd say more power to him.

Edited January 24, 2019 by clarkgoble

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

If you don't mind my asking, how are you or anybody else a "victim" of the church?

I didn't say I was a victim.  You used that term.

I said that I felt betrayed.  I felt betrayed because I had been taught a false narrative by people in whom I had placed a great deal of trust.

[bdouglas]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I didn't say I was a victim.  You used that term.

I said that I felt betrayed.  I felt betrayed because I had been taught a false narrative by people in whom I had placed a great deal of trust.

It is still a "victim" mentality, and that is neither healthy nor mature.

Church leaders have not "betrayed" anybody. They have made mistakes. There are things they could have done better. But that could be said of any of us. But "betrayal"? That's over the top. And it is "victim" thinking.

Edited January 24, 2019 by bdouglas

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

Because you weren't spoon-fed the history?

For my part I never expected church leaders to teach me the history of the church in conference talks or wherever. I expected them to teach the Gospel, and I feel they did a pretty good job at it.

As for history, I read up on that all by myself, starting from the time I got off my mission until now. The books were available anywhere, even in the chapel library (which is where I first came across B. H. Roberts "Comprehensive History Of the Church").

There was Backman's "The First Vision", published by Deseret Book in 1970, which contained all of the extant first vision accounts, then I read "Investigating the Book Or Mormon Witnesses" by Anderson, published by Des. Book or Bookcraft, which came out around the same time (it was from this book I first learned about seer stone), then I read Donna Hill, etc., etc., and I have kept going till today.

And when I was at BYU I took a 300-level church history class where I was, for the second time, exposed to the raw history of the church. I found it fascinating. It strengthened my faith. But never once did I think, "Why aren't the GAs teaching this raw history in conference?"

You didn't mention JS's style of polygamy, where did you first learn of it? That was my stumbler.

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

Because you weren't spoon-fed the history?

I have never expected to be spoon-fed the history.

But, having dedicated my entire life to attending church, graduating from seminary, serving a mission, graduating from BYU, attending institute during grad school, studying church publications, etc. I didn't anticipate having been taught a narrative that left out so many critical details.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

It is still a "victim" mentality, and that is neither healthy nor mature.

Church leaders have not "betrayed" anybody. They have made mistakes. There are things they could have done better. But that could be said of any of us. But "betrayal"? That's over the top. And it is "victim" thinking.

Betrayal is defined as a violation of a person's trust or confidence.  For my experience, it is an accurate word.

 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Accurate in a scholarly & scientific sense.  I thought I made that clear.  

I don't believe there is a way to eliminate bias with 100% confidence, no.  But I also recognize there is a wide range of what is clearly biased and what is closer to unbiased perspectives.  Thats where the tools of critical thinking, peer review, and carefully crafted methodology come in handy.  

Funny that I'm having a conversation with Clark Goble in another thread right now, and I'm essentially arguing that there is no way to establish religious truth as truth, and he's the one arguing for this idea that there is a religious truth in some objective sense that we need to align ourselves with.  Then you on the other hand are criticizing me for even using the word truth at all.  Crazy how I get caught in the middle of these debates sometimes.  

 

I have never criticized anything about "truth" - if you remember the Rorty video (!) he says essentially "we know what truth is, we just can't define it."

Of course there is a way to establish religious truth- it is found in the heart.  It is like romantic truth.  You know when you find a true companion for your life and the truth of your relationship- how? In your heart!  You know what gives you purpose in life- how? In your heart.  You already know your purpose I assume- 

With any theory of truth there comes a theory of metaphysics which shows how the epistemology works with  the metaphysics.  Metaphysics allegedly shows us what "reality" is and epistemology shows how it is possible to "know" what the metaphysics says is "real".

But no one has come up with such an explanation which proves to be coherent under rigorous examination

Neither you nor Clark present a coherent metaphysics that works with an epistemology, and more importantly NO ONE ELSE HAS either in the last 150 years --I don't mean people on this board I mean anyone.

The only arguments that work are ones like Wittgenstein finally accepted- that these are semantic confusions and not really "problems" at all.  As these comments show, they are about the definitions of words like "knowledge" and "real" and "truth" and how the WORDS interact to provide confusion

These  board discussions ignore 2000 years of philosophy.   Let's just say they would not stand up to peer review. 

But this is a big digression from the OP

Edited January 24, 2019 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Neither you nor Clark present a coherent metaphysics that works with an epistemology, and more importantly NO ONE ELSE HAS either in the last 150 years --I don't mean people on this board I mean anyone.

Epistemology, following Descrartes, is typically viewing justification as an issue of justification at a particular time. I agree that's deeply problematic. If you switch from epistemology normally practice to a more process oriented view then there's really no metaphysical incoherence that I can see. You either are doing your duty of inquiry or not. You're a finite being and can't evaluate everything. Inquiry is ultimately an issue of communities rather than just individuals due to large issues of individual finitism. To the degree you and your community are doing their duty, you're inquiring, and your beliefs persist through time that's as close to truth as we're apt to get. I don't see there the incoherence arises. (And of course Peirce only died in 1914   )

That's not to say epistemology is useless, mind you. Just that it doesn't capture all that's important.

Edited January 24, 2019 by clarkgoble

[bdouglas]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Betrayal is defined as a violation of a person's trust or confidence.  For my experience, it is an accurate word.

 

Reading about Oliver Cowdery is interesting. He was x-d in 1838, and stayed away until 1847. Why? Because he felt he’d been betrayed, treated unjustly. In other words he thought himself a victim.

And year after year he nursed these grudges, waiting for an apology which never came.

Somebody, one of the brethren, reached out to him after JS died and persuaded him to come back. When he finally did come back there was no, “I am owed an apology! I am a victim!” Rather he was humble and contrite and offered his services in any capacity in which the Brethren might see fit to use him.

And then he died before ever making to Salt Lake.

A sad story. Who was to blame for what happened to Oliver? Was Joseph to blame? Some of the other Brethren (who Oliver felt had tarnished his reputation)?

I’m sure there was plenty of fault to go around, but what was the point of Oliver dwelling on it? What did he have to gain by thinking himself betrayed, a victim?

(I don’t know what your story is, so please forgive me if I have offended you.)