Two Trib Articles Re: John Dehlin

[smac97]

Two recent articles about John Dehlin:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/02/27/mormon-stories-podcaster/

‘Mormon Stories’ podcaster John Dehlin makes $236K a year from his nonprofit. Is that too much?
Whistleblower and critics shout yes, but Dehlin and others defend the group’s financial dealings.

Quote

The audience and donors for John Dehlin’s “Mormon Stories” and other podcasts have grown exponentially through the years, and so has his salary.

To well above $200,000.

And that has raised concerns from some insiders and outsiders about the finances and oversight of the nonprofit umbrella organization, Open Stories Foundation.

Tax disclosures show the foundation’s revenues from podcast contributions, events and direct donations shot up almost eightfold in a decade, from $58,580 in 2010 to $464,339 in 2019, the most recent year for which IRS documents are available.

Yearly revenues jumped by 67% in the aftermath of Dehlin’s widely publicized 2015 excommunication from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, tax forms show, from $198,136 in 2015 to $332,678 the following year.

At the same time, as the foundation’s reach and output rose, Dehlin’s annual compensation ballooned by more than 700%, according to nonprofit tax reports, swelling from $27,429 in 2010 to $236,021 in 2019. That six-figure salary made up 60% of the group’s total earnings from donors and podcast revenues.

I'm curious as to the ethical concerns that are being implied here.

Quote

Several employees who left the foundation in 2018 have complained he “curated” its board membership to boost his compensation and blur lines between donations and personal expenses amid what they assert was lax supervision.

“This evidence suggests that Dehlin sees the Open Stories Foundation as his and his alone,” a former associate producer, James Patterson, wrote in a 2021 complaint filed with the IRS, “with an independent board of directors merely a roadblock to him achieving his personal financial goals.”

In his whistleblower claims, Patterson also said the foundation maintained inadequate boundaries between donations to the podcast and Dehlin’s own life-coaching business, which the podcaster says he has since discontinued.

Dehlin is no longer "life-coaching?"  I had not heard that.

Quote

Dehlin, an avid fundraiser as part of his podcasts, has strenuously denied the financial allegations against him and touts his organization’s financial transparency. And as he takes an increasingly visible role in the nonprofit THRIVE and its in-person gatherings for former Latter-day Saints, Dehlin insists his efforts are about helping others, not financial gain.

His efforts are not about "financial gain"?  He's not a licensed therapist, and apparently is not even a life coach any more.  If OSF is his sole source of income, and if that source is substantial, then . . .

The next part is interesting:

Quote

In response to Patterson’s complaint, Dehlin said the Utah attorney general’s office audited three years of the nonprofit’s financials — and its investigators, he said, issued a letter saying it found no wrongdoing. Dehlin even noted in several podcasts he had feared bias from Attorney General Sean Reyes when the audit was initiated, given some of his critiques of Utah’s top prosecutor.

“We were audited by the theocracy,” he quipped about Reyes and state government in a December podcast. “We willingly gave three years [of] financial information and literally the answer came back, ‘We find no wrongdoing.’”

Clint Martin, a fellow board member on the nonprofit THRIVE with Dehlin, said he had also seen the audit letter and confirmed Dehlin’s description of it.

After months of inquiries by The Salt Lake Tribune and an open-records request, the Utah attorney general said it had no record of such an audit.

Huh.  So was there an audit, or not?  Was there a letter saying "We find no wrongdoing," or not?

This seems like . . . kind of a big deal relative to the story.  Either Dehlin or the AG's office is factually incorrect in their statements.

More:

Quote

In response to similar requests, the Utah Department of Commerce, which oversees nonprofits, would neither confirm nor deny it had audited the Open Stories Foundation. If it had, a spokesperson said, any resulting records would not be public — and they added that it was not uncommon for department investigators to seek anonymity in those cases.

Interesting.

Here's the other aticle:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/02/27/questions-surround/

Questions surround podcaster John Dehlin and the quest to build an ex-LDS community
“Mormon Stories” host has legions of fans but also some prominent critics who point to financial issues, his treatment of women and his combative style.

Quote

As more and more Latter-day Saints extricate themselves from the Mormon cocoon that bred, raised, nurtured, taught and embraced them — and a church they now believe has betrayed, stifled or harmed them — countless digital and in-person communities have sprung up to welcome these displaced souls.

Similarly themed Facebook groups, websites, blogs, email lists, podcasts, hashtags, meetups, cyber wards and online videographers using YouTube and TikTok now reach vast audiences worldwide.

Many of them offer alternate and, some say, vital lifesaving perspectives to what members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are taught from childhood, along with safe spaces to help active, questioning and former members navigate what therapists call “faith transitions.”

Popular and prolific Holladay-based podcaster John Dehlin has emerged in recent years as an influential yet polarizing presence at the center of this loose-knit movement.

I think "loose-knit movement" seems apt.  I think it will always be difficult to create a "community" where the thing that everyone has in common is what they are not, what they have left and/or are opposed to.  As follows:

Quote

Popular and prolific Holladay-based podcaster John Dehlin has emerged in recent years as an influential yet polarizing presence at the center of this loose-knit movement.

The 52-year-old psychologist was an early pioneer in using the internet for Mormon-related content and describes his life’s mission as promoting “healing, growth and community for those experiencing a religious transition.”

After nearly 17 years as an outspoken online dissector of Latter-day Saint orthodoxy — and seven years after his high-profile excommunication from the church for “apostasy” — the former Microsoft executive and his co-producers and collaborators at his “Mormon Stories” nonprofit connect with tens of thousands of people daily.
...
“I personally do not follow John Dehlin or THRIVE,” said Ane Axford, a former Latter-day Saint and therapist living in New York. “It is not a community that is entirely inclusive of everyone that leaves Mormonism.”

Jacob Newman, who is gay, said former believers “create communities that thrive on disbelief, ignoring that there are LGBTQ+ Mormons who choose to stay.”

Such communities, Newman said, replicate “the exact same type of toxic behaviors that many of us tried to leave behind in Mormonism: No accountability for leadership, toxic obsession and fixation on an ‘identity’ as an ex-Mormon (as opposed to a believing Latter-day Saint).”

I'd like to better understand what Newman is saying here re: "toxic behaviors."  I can understand the sentiment re: "No accountability for leadership," as it seems predicated on viewing the leaders of the Church through a sort of political lens, where the members are the voters/constituencies to whom the leaders are answerable.  That doesn't quite work.

Then there's this part: "Toxic obsession and fixation on an 'identity' as an ex-Mormon (as opposed to a believing Latter-day Saint)."  I don't understand how finding and establishing one's "identity" in the world is "toxic," particularly where the identity is, well, good and wholesome and constructive.  I believe the doctrines (faith, repentance, eschatology, etc.), practices (focus on family, service, Word of Wisdom, Law of Chastity, tithes, education, repentance, etc.), the observances and ordinances (church attendance, serving in callings, temple worship, missionary work, etc.) generally make us good and productive people.  So I am happy to have "Latter-day Saint" as a principal "identity."  

That said, I can see some "toxicity" about formulating an "identity" around leaving/rejecting/disliking a thing.

Quote

The question also becomes: Can an engaged online audience be transformed into a successful in-person community? And, even if Dehlin were absent, is it possible to build a community on a shared negative, even traumatic experience?

Candidly, I think the long-term prospects are dim for an "in-person community" where the commonality is estrangement from (and, usually, substantial hostility to) the Church.  I can't help but think that such a common frame of reference is not sufficient to create the sort of cohesion a community needs.

Anyway the article turns back to Dehlin:

Quote

From some past employees and associates, Dehlin also faces open criticism over his organization’s finances, his treatment of women and his perceived role as a dogged antagonist to Utah’s dominant faith.
...
Dehlin launched the inaugural “Mormon Stories” podcast in 2005, reflecting his own brewing personal doubts about the faith, and ran it intermittently until 2010. He then founded the Open Stories Foundation and relaunched the podcast while based in Logan as he began work on a doctorate in psychology at Utah State University, with the mission of creating “online and in-person environments that allow for authentic self-expression and the open discussion of Mormonism.”
...
The foundation’s podcasts have evolved considerably since then, while retaining one key formula: interviews with well-known Latter-day Saint figures across a spectrum of Mormon culture, often keying off new developments in the faith’s tenets and programming or statements by its top leaders, while highlighting Mormonism’s controversies over history, doctrine, culture, race, women and LGBTQ teachings.

The five regular podcasts — “Mormon Stories,” “Mormon Matters,” “A Thoughtful Faith,” “Mormon Mental Health,” and “Mormon Transitions” — drew a total of 6.6 million downloads and YouTube and Facebook views in 2018, according to the latest available reports at openstoriesfoundation.org. “Mormon Stories,” the marquee show, amassed nearly 5.8 million views and downloads alone and reached a milestone of 1,000 episodes that same year.

Today, the “Mormon Stories” podcast community on Facebook boasts 16,800 members, while its YouTube account has more than 54,000 followers. With the recent addition of a younger and more social media-savvy co-host, Carah Burrell, and a concerted push onto the video-focused social media channel TikTok, Dehlin said, “Mormon Stories” has a following approaching 122,000.

To many of his devotees, Dehlin is a godsend.

He is revered as a savior of sorts by some. One compared him recently to Jesus, saying both critiqued the religious authorities of their day. His writings, public speeches and what he says are nearly 1,700 hours of podcasting over the years elicit adulation, gratitude and an ardent core of followers and donors among those departing Mormonism.

“You all have changed my life and gave me what I needed in a time when it felt like there were no answers or help,” a follower named Hailey said in a testimonial featured on one of Dehlin’s websites. “As my husband and I have transitioned ... out of the LDS Church, the wisdom shared from these podcasts have driven vital conversation and helped us maintain our dignity and grace throughout the process with our family and friends.”

Interesting stuff.

Quote

Some, though, have issues with Dehlin.

“People are raw emotionally and lost in a lot of ways, with their worldview flipped upside down,” said Ethan Gregory Dodge, co-founder of the Truth & Transparency Foundation (formerly MormonLeaks). “He comes across as someone who has all the answers and then starts asking for money. People will give John money out of gratitude, but eventually fall out of love with him.”

His “business model thrives on drama,” Dodge said. “The more drama he can drum up, the more podcast downloads and YouTube hits he will get.”

Many former believers will state that Dehlin has done so much good “he doesn’t deserve any criticism,” Dodge added. “But that’s exactly the same tactic the LDS Church applies to general authorities.”

Is this accurate?  For those of you that follow Dehlin, is he string to create "drama" to drup up attention (and viewers and, in the end, money)?

Quote

What about women?

Dehlin’s interactions with women through the years have brought out some of the toughest criticism against him.

Kate Kelly, a feminist and founder of Ordain Women, which supports women entering the all-male Latter-day Saint priesthood, has given public voice to long-simmering concerns from more than a dozen women who say they’ve been demeaned in their personal and professional dealings with Dehlin.

Kelly, who was excommunicated for “conduct contrary to the laws and order of the church” a year before Dehlin, recently posted a letter-turned-petition, saying the podcaster “takes advantage of vulnerable people in crisis, who are in legitimate need of help and community.”

“John has used our talents, time, movements and reputation to bolster his brand and enrich himself,” Kelly wrote in the online post. “When women come forward with critiques of his behavior or allegations of wrongdoing, he retaliates by lashing out at them and attempting to publicly discredit them.

“...Many of us have worked with him in the past, and want to make clear that we no longer do and don’t encourage any other women to do so,” Kelly stated. “It’s not safe. We refuse to be used as a mask for abuse.”

Those who need therapy, she added, “should seek out a professional who is actually licensed by the state to provide those services.”

(Dehlin has a doctorate in psychology but is not a licensed therapist.)

Kelly’s one-page statement was signed by more than a dozen ex-Mormon feminists, including two of his former employees at the Open Stories Foundation.

I think Kate Kelly is fairly melodramatic in her own right, and broad, unsubstantiated disparagements like this don't normally come across well.  But this board has provided some substantive information about Dehlin that is not included in the article, so that context lends credence to what Kelly is saying.  Further, the "open letter" referred to here is apparently signed  by quite a few people:

• Kate Kelly, founder of Ordain Women
• Joanna Smith
• Amy Grubbs, former Director of Operations for Open Stories Foundation (OSF)
• Sharon Price, former Events Coordinator for Open Stories Foundation (OSF)
• Dr. Kristy Money
• Dr. Amber Choruby Whiteley
• Dr. Mica McGriggs
• Marisa McPeck-Stringham, MSW, CSW
• Emily Clyde Curtis
• Chelsi Barnard Archibald
• Tresa Brown Edmunds
• Aimee Evans Hickman, former editor-in-chief of Exponent II
• Hannah Wheelwright
• “Rosebud,” representing herself and the many women John has intimidated into silence

"Rosebud" aside, this is a substantial list.  Wow.

Quote

By most accounts, Dehlin’s “Mormon Stories” podcasts have helped many former Latter-day Saints who have lost their faith in the 16.6 million-member church, but some say that is not enough for long-term involvement.

Latter-day Saint writer-researcher Jana Riess, author of “The Next Mormons: How Millennials Are Changing the LDS Church,” has had a longtime interest in the sentiments of young Mormon adults and now is looking specifically at former believers. “Mormon Stories” podcasts have come up often in her interviews.

“For many, it is the first entry point into the ex-Mormon world,” Riess said, but that need “goes away after the first year or two and then [they] tend to cycle out of those communities.”

That model is distinctly different from creating an organized, supportive and enduring community for former church members, which Ryan McKnight, Dodge’s partner at the Las Vegas-based Truth & Transparency Foundation, calls “a tall order.”

That is “all fine and dandy when you are first processing your way through leaving the faith, but in short order it becomes boring and redundant,” McKnight said. “I don’t see that as a setup for long-term success, and I think the ethics of it are nebulous at best.”

I agree with Riess and McKnight here.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 28, 2022 by smac97

[sunstoned]

I am surprised by these numbers.  I also have questions on how someone who is not clinically trained can spin what he is doing into a IRS approved non profit. 

As an aside, I have noticed that over the past couple of years John seems to have become much more negative toward the church.  He is not a neutral moderator.  I don't get through many of his pod casts because I can't stand how he constantly interrupts his guests.  It is really quite annoying.  His catty attitude toward the church is also an annoyance. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I am surprised by these numbers.  I also have questions on how someone who is not clinically trained can spin what he is doing into a IRS approved non profit. 

I'm not sure I follow.  What does clinical training have to do with the legitimacy of OSF as a 501(c)(3)?

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

As an aside, I have noticed that over the past couple of years John seems to have become much more negative toward the church.  He is not a neutral moderator.  I don't get through many of his pod casts because I can't stand how he constantly interrupts his guests.  It is really quite annoying.  His catty attitude toward the church is also an annoyance. 

I think the same can be said of folks like Kate Kelly, Sam Young, Bill Reel, Denver Snuffer, and so on.  Whether their prior posture (a seemingly generalized respect/faith/affection for the Church and its doctrines and leaders) was sincere or merely a facade does not, in the end, seem to matter.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I think in general there should be greater scrutiny of non-profits (including churches). I don’t think what John and other (Reel and RFM) should qualify as non-profit work. Remove that caveat, and then good for Dehlin earning a living and being open about what he makes. If it wasn’t him it would be someone else. Haven’t listened to any of his stuff since he left. Way to long winded. RFM on the other hand is more fun to listen to. I’d even consider adding him to the content creators I support, but refuse on principle since he is operating as a “non-profit”. 

[sunstoned]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think in general there should be greater scrutiny of non-profits (including churches). I don’t think what John and other (Reel and RFM) should qualify as non-profit work. Remove that caveat, and then good for Dehlin earning a living and being open about what he makes. If it wasn’t him it would be someone else. Haven’t listened to any of his stuff since he left. Way to long winded. RFM on the other hand is more fun to listen to. I’d even consider adding him to the content creators I support, but refuse on principle since he is operating as a “non-profit”. 

Both Bill Reel and RFM are easer to listen to.  Both use to post here.

[kimpearson]

All salaries paid by a non profit to employee's are taxed so even if the non profit itself pays no taxes, John and any other employees are paying taxes.  Non-profits are prohibited from providing personal benefits to anyone tax free unless it is for charitable purposes.  John can use contributions to buy equipment, rent a studio, pay for trips to give seminars or interview people.  John is doing nothing different than thousands of other non profit entities operating in the United States.  Based on John's reported net income of the 236K, John's federal overall tax rate would be between 25% and 30%.  John's state rate would be 5%.  John would pay 7.65% in payroll taxes and the non profit would pay 7.65% in payroll taxes.  That's total tax rate of 45% to 50%.  I would guesstimate the overall tax rates of other employees to be in the 20% to 30% range.  With the higher standard deductions of the current tax laws, many people don't itemize so I doubt much of the contributions to John's non-profit are reducing contributor's taxes unless someone is making very large contributions (like 10% or more).

I know John personally and I have family and friends connected to his programs.  John is arrogant, dismissive of views that don't agree with his and caught up in his own stardom.  John is also sincere in his desire to help those who leave the Church and provides workshops and discussions that help a lot of people through the trauma and pain of leaving the Church.  His message and style appeals to many that are questioning or leaving the Church.  Many see John as one of the few voices that are loud enough, that the issues that John highlights with the Church, which in most cases are legitimate issues, will be heard by enough people to bring about change in the Church.  John obviously has a bias against the Church that causes him to exaggerate and overstate things in all of his podcasts.  I have been following John for years and first met him 8 years ago.  His popularity has only grown and continues to grow.  I am curious to see if he can handle the success or implodes like many folks operating in the arena he operates in.

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think in general there should be greater scrutiny of non-profits (including churches). I don’t think what John and other (Reel and RFM) should qualify as non-profit work. Remove that caveat, and then good for Dehlin earning a living and being open about what he makes. If it wasn’t him it would be someone else. Haven’t listened to any of his stuff since he left. Way to long winded. RFM on the other hand is more fun to listen to. I’d even consider adding him to the content creators I support, but refuse on principle since he is operating as a “non-profit”. 

The tax code that lays out what qualifies as an NFP is pretty broad.  When a corporation applies for NFP status there is a cumbersome application form.  NFP status is granted if they applicant meets the requirements but it is contingent and is monitored for I believe at least five years. The annual Form 990 has become fairly cumbersome as well in what the tax form ask for.  Dehlin would also pay personal income and payroll tax on the salary he draws.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The tax code that lays out what qualifies as an NFP is pretty broad. 

And I think it should be narrowed. I’m not saying what Dehlin is doing is illegal. Just that don’t think it merits a government subsidy.  I think all churches should be required to disclose financials but currently not doing so is not illegal. 

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Two recent articles about John Dehlin:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/02/27/mormon-stories-podcaster/

‘Mormon Stories’ podcaster John Dehlin makes $236K a year from his nonprofit. Is that too much?
Whistleblower and critics shout yes, but Dehlin and others defend the group’s financial dealings.

I'm curious as to the ethical concerns that are being implied here.

 

Are you saying there are ethical concerns or are you saying you are interested in seeing how this plays out?

 

 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Dehlin is no longer "life-coaching?"  I had not heard that.

Yes.  He has not been doing that for some time now.

 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

His efforts are not about "financial gain"?  He's not a licensed therapist, and apparently is not even a life coach any more.  If OSF is his sole source of income, and if that source is substantial, then . . .

Personally I have no problem with his salary and I donate to him as well as RFM and Reel's efforts. I do this more because I selectively listen to the podcasts for entertainment purposes primarily.  $236k to me is not an excessive salary.  There are plenty of large NFPs where those who run it are paid millions.  Just take a look at large hospitals. Obviously the scale is different but there is nothing shady here and the financial data is transparent.  Dehlin provides an annual verbal summary of the Open Storie Foundation financial activity and posts links to the data.

 

 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

The next part is interesting:

Huh.  So was there an audit, or not?  Was there a letter saying "We find no wrongdoing," or not?

This seems like . . . kind of a big deal relative to the story.  Either Dehlin or the AG's office is factually incorrect in their statements.

More:

Interesting.

IT seems to me that someone who had a bone to pick with Dehlin blew him in. THat is not uncommon in organizations that can be personality driven.  I know John, but not well and I have interacted with him a few times over the years.  They have always been pleasant interactions.  But from what I have heard he does have a large ego and can be difficult.  I do nto know what happened between him and Kate Kelly but it I think it had to do with $$. I was surprised by  the fall out but I don't view Kate Kelly all that stable and from what I have seen of "Rosebud" she seems to really need some help.

 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here's the other aticle:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/02/27/questions-surround/

Questions surround podcaster John Dehlin and the quest to build an ex-LDS community
“Mormon Stories” host has legions of fans but also some prominent critics who point to financial issues, his treatment of women and his combative style.

I think "loose-knit movement" seems apt.  I think it will always be difficult to create a "community" where the thing that everyone has in common is what they are not, what they have left and/or are opposed to.  As follows:

I'd like to better understand what Newman is saying here re: "toxic behaviors."  I can understand the sentiment re: "No accountability for leadership," as it seems predicated on viewing the leaders of the Church through a sort of political lens, where the members are the voters/constituencies to whom the leaders are answerable.  That doesn't quite work.

Then there's this part: "Toxic obsession and fixation on an 'identity' as an ex-Mormon (as opposed to a believing Latter-day Saint)."  I don't understand how finding and establishing one's "identity" in the world is "toxic," particularly where the identity is, well, good and wholesome and constructive.  I believe the doctrines (faith, repentance, eschatology, etc.), practices (focus on family, service, Word of Wisdom, Law of Chastity, tithes, education, repentance, etc.), the observances and ordinances (church attendance, serving in callings, temple worship, missionary work, etc.) generally make us good and productive people.  So I am happy to have "Latter-day Saint" as a principal "identity."  

That said, I can see some "toxicity" about formulating an "identity" around leaving/rejecting/disliking a thing.

Candidly, I think the long-term prospects are dim for an "in-person community" where the commonality is estrangement from (and, usually, substantial hostility to) the Church.  I can't help but think that fixating on an 

Anyway the article turns back to Dehlin:

I do not view Dehlin as seeking to create following or to be a "prophet" to the exmo world. I have mixed feelings about Thrive. I do miss  the community of the Church.  If I lived in an area with more LDS persons I might try a Thrive just to meet some people that have the commonality of having left the Church.  But I have no desire to identify as such.  For me it would be about community and support.

 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Interesting stuff.

Is this accurate?  For those of you that follow Dehlin, is he string to create "drama" to drup up attention (and viewers and, in the end, money)?

I don't know. Perhap to some extend. For example I thought his coverage of the Brad Wilcox talks was excessive.  A 3.5 hour podcast as well as another long one where people called in to comment.  RFM did one on the talks that was only an hour long.  I thought it was much better.  And John and Cara can be a bit dramatic at times by playing to outrage over things. I am really selective in what I listen to from them. But I do think they do a service and help fill a void.  For some it is just tranitory and others more long term.  Whatever works for people.

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think Kate Kelly is fairly melodramatic in her own right, and broad, unsubstantiated disparagements like this don't normally come across well.  But this board has provided some substantive information about Dehlin that is not included in the article, so that context lends credence to what Kelly is saying.  Further, the "open letter" referred to here is apparently signed  by quite a few people:

• Kate Kelly, founder of Ordain Women
• Joanna Smith
• Amy Grubbs, former Director of Operations for Open Stories Foundation (OSF)
• Sharon Price, former Events Coordinator for Open Stories Foundation (OSF)
• Dr. Kristy Money
• Dr. Amber Choruby Whiteley
• Dr. Mica McGriggs
• Marisa McPeck-Stringham, MSW, CSW
• Emily Clyde Curtis
• Chelsi Barnard Archibald
• Tresa Brown Edmunds
• Aimee Evans Hickman, former editor-in-chief of Exponent II
• Hannah Wheelwright
• “Rosebud,” representing herself and the many women John has intimidated into silence

"Rosebud" aside, this is a substantial list.  Wow.

I agree with Riess and McKnight here.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Nice summary of the articles. Thanks

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think in general there should be greater scrutiny of non-profits (including churches). I don’t think what John and other (Reel and RFM) should qualify as non-profit work. Remove that caveat, and then good for Dehlin earning a living and being open about what he makes. If it wasn’t him it would be someone else. Haven’t listened to any of his stuff since he left. Way to long winded. RFM on the other hand is more fun to listen to. I’d even consider adding him to the content creators I support, but refuse on principle since he is operating as a “non-profit”. 

I agree.

I don't think it really matters how much Dehlin makes.  If people are willing to pay him then he is 'worthy' to make whatever they want to pay him.  Doing so under a nonprofit could be problematic though, especially if he's pulling the strings of the board to ensure he's getting most of the cash that comes in.  

But I'm not a member of that organization and, unless he's doing something illegal, they can handle it (and Dehlin) however they see fit.  

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I am surprised by these numbers.  I also have questions on how someone who is not clinically trained can spin what he is doing into a IRS approved non profit. 

As an aside, I have noticed that over the past couple of years John seems to have become much more negative toward the church.  He is not a neutral moderator.  I don't get through many of his pod casts because I can't stand how he constantly interrupts his guests.  It is really quite annoying.  His catty attitude toward the church is also an annoyance. 

When you make money off of people who are angry and feel negatively towards the church, then you kind of have to cater to that crowd.  It makes sense that he has become more negative in his approach.  Those people are his meal ticket.  He can't afford to alienate them.

[Teancum]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And I think it should be narrowed. I’m not saying what Dehlin is doing is illegal. Just that don’t think it merits a government subsidy.  I think all churches should be required to disclose financials but currently not doing so is not illegal. 

I have no disagreement with that.  I think big NFP medical groups should pay tax given their hefty profits and the fact that many pay their chief officers millions.

[pogi]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

‘Mormon Stories’ podcaster John Dehlin makes $236K a year from his nonprofit. Is that too much

Geesh!

 

Quote

 

What Is Reasonable Compensation?

It all starts here.  The IRS requires compensation packages for nonprofit executives…and other nonprofit employees, for that matter…to be reasonable.  Unfortunately, the IRS doesn’t really define reasonable…at least not in a way that you could look up in Websters.  Reasonable compensation is best understood in light of factors the IRS examines when determining whether or not a charity is exceeding reasonableness with its compensation arrangements.  These factors look something like this:

• Actual job description
• Required level of education or experience
• Compensation averages in your area
• Number of hours worked
• The overall budget of the charity

 

How Much Is Too Much?

Its also important to note that each factor is weighted differently depending upon the circumstances.  It is a very subjective exercise.

We’re often asked, “How much is too much?” Good question, but hard to answer.  Frankly, it just depends.  There are some charitable organizations whose executives make up to, and sometimes more than, $250,000.  For a very select few, a lot more.  And, these highly compensated individuals have salary packages that fall within the reasonable zone.

But, if you have an employee whose compensation package exceeds $100,000, you should be prepared to defend it.  Needless to say, Wall Street-style perks and bonuses are out of the question.  And, depending on your organization’s budget, a $10,000 salary package could be considered unreasonable.

 

 

Quote

$464,339 in 2019

His single income is almost exactly 50% of total contributions in 2019.  That seems ridiculously excessive!  

Quote

While ZipRecruiter is seeing salaries as high as $187,256 and as low as $19,419, the majority of Nonprofit CEO salaries currently range between $44,386 (25th percentile) to $117,902 (75th percentile) with top earners (90th percentile) making $173,847 annually in Utah.

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Nonprofit-CEO-Salary--in-Utah

 

Why is Dehlin deserving of a salary that is almost double that of some of the best paid nonprofit CEO's in Utah???  I am glad to see that there are some whistleblowers speaking up.  I don't know how that kind of salary can be defended given a market analysis of salaries and reported contributions.  

Edited February 28, 2022 by pogi

[ttribe]

One of the people who filed complaints with both the Utah AG's office and the IRS has been quite open about his reasons for doing so over on 'other' board we aren't allowed to mention over here.  The poster goes by the moniker of 'jpatterson.'

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

One of the people who filed complaints with both the Utah AG's office and the IRS has been quite open about his reasons for doing so over on 'other' board we aren't allowed to mention over here.  The poster goes by the moniker of 'jpatterson.'

What is he saying?

[CA Steve]

It's okay he makes this much money because he may need it for the apocalypse or a really bad rainy day.

[Tacenda]

 

My .02 cents is John Dehlin needs to spread the wealth. He has hired a few people to help interview people and others that do so much as well. Recently I heard he's even getting help from Dr. Julie Hanks, a member in good standing unless it's changed, to help those in faith crises.

Also, I don't like the Tik Toks against the church  and don't like how John goes on and on at the beginning and end of the podcasts asking for donations.

 

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

Geesh!

 

 

His single income is almost exactly 50% of total contributions in 2019.  That seems ridiculously excessive!  

Why is Dehlin deserving of a salary that is almost double that of some of the best paid nonprofit CEO's in Utah???  I am glad to see that there are some whistleblowers speaking up.  I don't know how that kind of salary can be defended given a market analysis of salaries and reported contributions.  

WHat is the source of the reasonable comp item you site? I think the biggest issue with Dehlin's salary as you point out it the % of the donations it represents. That said the organization is really driven by the personalities involved.  It isnot like the Red Cross or United Way.  So I can see a larger % going to the person who is really the main focal personality in the podcasts.  I highly doubt his salary would be challenged.  

[Teancum]

38 minutes ago, ttribe said:

One of the people who filed complaints with both the Utah AG's office and the IRS has been quite open about his reasons for doing so over on 'other' board we aren't allowed to mention over here.  The poster goes by the moniker of 'jpatterson.'

 He is a real Dehlin hater.  Obsessively so.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Teancum

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

He posts on the board that cannot be named. He is a real Dehlin hater.  Obsessively so.

Did he use to be a part of the organization and a "follower" of Dehlin, or has he always been a hater?

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

WHat is the source of the reasonable comp item you site? I think the biggest issue with Dehlin's salary as you point out it the % of the donations it represents. That said the organization is really driven by the personalities involved.  It isnot like the Red Cross or United Way.  So I can see a larger % going to the person who is really the main focal personality in the podcasts.  I highly doubt his salary would be challenged.  

Here is the source.  Sorry, forgot to post it.

https://www.501c3.org/nonprofit-executive-compensation/
 

The other issues are 1) comparative salaries for other nonprofit CEO’s in Utah, 2) job description - podcaster?  There are other nonprofit CEOs in Utah managing and directing hundreds of employees and staff with huge operations making half as much.   How many employees is John executive over?  How big and complicated are his operations?  The dude runs a podcast.  How essential is his personality to the success of the organization?  That is debatable.  His personality might have been instrumental in its founding, but at this point, he could hire any number of viable podcasters as employees and oversee things behind the scenes without interruption.   His actual duties as a CEO are negligible.

I think those 3 issues are pretty serious.

Edited February 28, 2022 by pogi

[Teancum]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I know it's against the rules to post links to MormonStories. But hopefully since this thread is about the Tribune article, is it okay to see their response below? Mods, I'll take it down immediately if not allowed.

My .02 cents is John Dehlin needs to spread the wealth. He has hired a few people to help interview people and others that do so much as well. Recently I heard he's even getting help from Dr. Julie Hanks, a member in good standing unless it's changed, to help those in faith crises.

Haven't listened yet, but I'm guessing he's addressing where the funds go. 

 

I don't think this is a recent podcast in response to the new articles.

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Did he use to be a part of the organization and a "follower" of Dehlin, or has he always been a hater?

Not sure of his history.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Not sure of his history.

I'm not sure it matters, I'm just curious.

Though there is some kind of poetic justice in someone, who makes a living off of people who once cared about an organization and then became 'haters", having someone who onced cared about him and then became a "hater".  

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Here is the source.  Sorry, forgot to post it.

https://www.501c3.org/nonprofit-executive-compensation/
 

The other issues are 1) comparative salaries for other nonprofit CEO’s in Utah, 2) job description - podcaster?  There are other nonprofit CEOs in Utah managing and directing hundreds of employees and staff with huge operations making half as much.   How many employees is John executive over?  How big and complicated are his operations?  The dude runs a podcast.  How essential is his personality to the success of the organization?  That is debatable.  His personality might have been instrumental in its founding, but at this point, he could hire any number of viable podcasters as employees and oversee things behind the scenes without interruption.   His actual duties as a CEO are negligible.

Ok.  I have no real skin in this. I don't object to his salary and I donate to his organization.  We could debate as to whether his organization should be an NFP.  Maybe it shouldn't be.