Two Trib Articles Re: John Dehlin

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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

Thanks for deleting the video!!! I can be an idiot sometimes! I'll delete it as well! Oops maybe you didn't delete it, at first I didn't see it. 

Edited February 28, 2022 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

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".  

Why do you classify Dehlin as simply making money off haters?  Seems like a broad brush.

[Danzo]

10 hours ago, kimpearson said:

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).

Just a couple of small corrections.

15.3% payroll tax is just on income up to $142,800 (2021 number), then he pays only 2.8 % Medicare tax on the income up to $200,000 (or 250,000 if he is married, I don't know if he is) then the Medicare tax jumps to 3.8% so his total tax rate would be less than the 50% you quoted. 

Also a deduction of up to $600.00 for someone who is married is allowed this year for anyone who takes the standard deduction, so small donations made this year and last year could be deducted.   It is also my experience that most people who itemize aren't itemizing because of charitable contributions but because of mortgage interest deduction.   If the person itemizes mainly because of mortgage interest deduction than any charitable contributions would be tax deductible.  Also many states have a much lower standard deduction than the federal standard deduction so often smaller deductions reduce the state tax even when they take the standard deduction on the federal return.

It is also possible that a portion of his compensation is non taxable (Medical Insurance, life insurance and 403B matches are common reasons).

Non of this, of course has anything to do with whether John is a good person or a bad person, but I just wanted to set the tax  record straight.

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by Danzo

[Danzo]

Duplicate

Edited February 28, 2022 by Danzo

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why do you classify Dehlin as simply making money off haters?  Seems like a broad brush.

I think that must have been a typo -- hatters!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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".  

He was at one point working with Dehlin. There is a hundred plus page thread on the other board when Rosebud reappeared that he actively posted in. No offense to those that like Dehlin, but he seems like a narcissist. Super personable and friendly to casual acquaintances but toxic and controlling the closer you get.   

Edited February 28, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why do you classify Dehlin as simply making money off haters?  Seems like a broad brush.

I agree with this. Dehlin’s audience has haters for sure, but I’d say the majority would be better classified as those whose largest emotion is hurt or betrayal. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

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

Apparently there are folks who have concerns about Dehlin's salary being excessive.  See, for example, Pogi's post.

I'm fairly ambivalent about Dehlin's salary.  I don't contribute toward it, and it's apparently legal.  I therefore don't have much of a dog in that fight.

I am, however, interested in seeing how this plays out.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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

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

"Life coaching" seems like a substantial step down from clinical therapist.  And hosting podcasts seems a substantial step down from life coaching.  But he's making a fortune at it, so...

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

I am curious as to your thoughts about the calculus that was apparently used to set Dehlin's salary.  From the first article in the OP (I did not quote this previously) :

Quote

Natasha Helfer, a sex therapist and motivational speaker who works with Dehlin and is a former member of the Open Stories Foundation board, said Dehlin’s compensation has been based on market analysis and comparisons with other nonprofits.

“I’m comfortable,” Helfer said, “that the board has made decisions that are fair according to market value.”

Dehlin said the Open Stories board had “generously set my salary at a fixed level” — one matching what he earned when he left his job as a Microsoft executive 17 years ago.

“I told my board I’d never need another raise, ever,” he said. “That’s how I feel now.”

This seems a bit . . . odd.  It seems a bit contradictory for Helfer to characterize Dehlin's compensation as being "based on market analysis and comparisons with other nonprofits," whereas Dehlin himself says that his salary was based on the salary he was earning at Microsoft.

So which is it?  Is his salary based on "market analysis" or on Delhi's prior salary while at Microsoft?

Moreover, it seems like Dehlin's emphasis on the generosity of "the Open Stories board" is part of the criticisms raised by form OSF folks.  Again from the article:

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.”

Helfer's explanation as to how Dehlin's salary was calculated seems a bit off given A) the mismatch with the information in Pogi's post ("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"), and B) the mismatch with the information from Dehlin himself (who states that the OSF board used his former salary at Microsoft, not "market analysis and comparisons with other nonprofits," to set his salary).

So if we go with Dehlin's explanation, that the OSF board "generously set {his} salary," the next logical question is: is the OSF board sufficiently independent of Dehlin's influence?  Is there any probative value to be given to the former OSF folks who claim that Dehlin "curated" the members of the board?

Again, I'm fairly ambivalent about his salary.  I am curious, however, if now that OSF is apparently his sole source of income, and that income being very substantial, does that affect what he is doing with OSF and how he does it? 

I'm sort of reminded of YouTubers, reality TV contestants, "influencers," celebrities (typically actors and singers) with waning popularity, etc.  When your livelihood - whether it is about making enough money just to pay the bills or making enough to maintain an affluent lifestyle -  is heavily contingent on public exposure / notoriety / celebrity, then I can't help but think that you might be tempted to tailor your behavior to maximize attention to yourself.  Your behavior becomes less about principles, idealism, being "authentic," etc., and more about maintaining and growing your fanbase. 

I do not attribute these things to Dehlin, as I am not really paying sufficient attention to him.  But in broad strokes, I wonder if this is happening.  There's apparently not a lot of money to be made in the "faith transition" basis, hence Dehlin's salary gobbling up 60% of OSF's revenue.  It's something of a zero sum game.  Kate Kelly and other contributors apparently expected to receive larger pieces of the OSF pie, but when 60% of its revenue is going to Dehlin (who, it seems, has shut down any other sources of income for himself), splitting up the remaining 40% amongst overhead costs and the various other individuals would leave those individuals with . . . not a lot.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

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. 

"Blew him in?"  Could you explain what that means?

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

Money, personality conflicts, and personal weaknesses and foibles.  In other words, Dehlin and Kelly and Rosebud are as human and prone to error as the rest of us.  

Has their departure from the Church and its tenets improved them as human beings?  I hope so.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I do not view Dehlin as seeking to create following or to be a "prophet" to the exmo world.

From the second article in the OP:

Quote

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.”

Many devout Latter-day Saints blame Dehlin for drawing people away from the church with his critiques, and more than a few, he acknowledges, see him as “evil.”

He has taken to calling himself Mormonism’s “Voldemort,” a reference to the “he-who-must-not-be-named” archvillain in the “Harry Potter” books.

I think references to him as "evil" are hyperbolic (the Trib notably doesn't actually quote any "devout Latter-day Saints"), but his purported interactions with Rosebud (see here), if established, would be a very substantial indictment on his personal integrity and honor. 

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

I can understand that.  I have two friends, a married couple, who have left the Church and the Latter-day Saint community, and who seem to harbor some real resentments toward it, but who also "miss the community" and have been looking for a substitute.  No luck so far.  And I don't think an "Ex Mo" community would be a long-term solution.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

IMO, Dehlin materially diminished himself when he called 911 on Kwaku.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 28, 2022 by smac97

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Why do you classify Dehlin as simply making money off haters?  Seems like a broad brush.

No nefarious reason.  It was just a play on words because that is how you described Patterson (hope I got his name right) so i used the same phrasing.   That's why I put the word "hater" in quotes.

Dehlin makes a living off of people who typically used to be positively disposed towards the church but are now are negatively disposed, and he now he finds himself in a similar situation.

[rpn]

The charity doesn't seem at all like a charity to me.   Those who pay, get the content (like going to a story for groceries).   Yes, legitimate non-profits do pay their executive directors, and sometimes healthy sums.    But Dehlin formed this "non-profit" and has always used it for his own personal good, and personally benefited (to a significant degree compared to those doing the work to provide the content and make it available at least in the past, haven't looked in 2 years) with increasing sums as it raises more money.

While there may be those willing to pay for someone (John Dehlin in particular) to trash the church in the guise of helping people transition or get over ???, that doesn't fit within the group that our tax laws identify as meeting a common good, filling a hole unfilled by equivalent of public service.    But then it is less than $300K at the moment.   So do we really want our government to allocate limited resources to challenging that  status?   Everyone who donates surely knows exactly where the money is going, and to whom. 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

38 minutes ago, rpn said:

The charity doesn't seem at all like a charity to me.   Those who pay, get the content (like going to a story for groceries).

Except that everyone gets the content for free. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

No nefarious reason.  It was just a play on words because that is how you described Patterson (hope I got his name right) so i used the same phrasing.   That's why I put the word "hater" in quotes.

I based that on watching what he said on another board. And referred to one person not an entire group.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

 

Dehlin makes a living off of people who typically used to be positively disposed towards the church but are now are negatively disposed, and he now he finds himself in a similar situation.

Nobody is immune from criticism at times. I am glad there are resources for those who become disaffected.  Whe the process started for me, and it was a long journey, it was very lonely initially because the resources were not there. I stumbled across Dehlin and Mormon Stories around 2007 or 2008 and it was great to have a connection and even talk with someone about it.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

$236k to me is not an excessive salary.

But if others employed by the Foundation do not have salaries in line with such (say they get little above minimum wage) or if there were those who donated large amounts of time and effort with no compensation, would you have a problem with that?

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I based that on watching what he said on another board. And referred to one person not an entire group.

Nobody is immune from criticism at times. I am glad there are resources for those who become disaffected.  Whe the process started for me, and it was a long journey, it was very lonely initially because the resources were not there. I stumbled across Dehlin and Mormon Stories around 2007 or 2008 and it was great to have a connection and even talk with someone about it.

It wasn't an indictment of your use of it.  Just an explanation of why I i choose to use that specific play on words.

I'd give you a rep point but I've been out most of the day.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

.................................

Quote

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.

The LDS Church has been enormously successful over time, but complaints are to be expected, justified or not, and some will naturally fall back on "common consent" as though that implies "consent of the governed."  There have always been complaints, and there always will be.  One has to be very naive not to expect that.  Moreover, as Pres Uchtdorf pointed out, there have been mistakes made along the way.  When humans are in charge that is bound to be the case.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

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 such a common frame of reference is not sufficient to create the sort of cohesion a community needs.

.......................

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

.............................

Dehlin is a successful businessman, just like the MyPillow guy, and there is nothing at all wrong with him making a good salary.  He has always played fast and loose with the facts, again just like the MyPillow guy, but isn't that what many businessmen do?

[Tacenda]

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Except that everyone gets the content for free. 

That is a good point, I've gained from watching the balanced podcasts, I haven't donated yet. Sometimes I feel a bit guilty, but every time Dehlin goes on and on about donations it sours me, maybe one day. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That is a good point, I've gained from watching the balanced podcasts, I haven't donated yet. Sometimes I feel a bit guilty, but every time Dehlin goes on and on about donations it sours me, maybe one day. 

It is a charity, not a consumer service.  Others donate because in essence they want to gift the podcasts to others.  Accept their gift with gratefulness and you have done all that is right.  You should not feel guilty about watching them for free no matter the pressure that Dehlin puts on you if you feel conflicted by supporting it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That is a good point, I've gained from watching the balanced podcasts, I haven't donated yet. Sometimes I feel a bit guilty, but every time Dehlin goes on and on about donations it sours me, maybe one day. 

 

1 minute ago, Calm said:

It is a charity, not a consumer service.  Others donate because in essence they want to gift the podcasts to others.  Accept their gift with gratefulness and you have done all that is right.  You should not feel guilty about watching them for free no matter the pressure that Dehlin puts on you if you feel conflicted by supporting it.

And Dehlin seems to be getting by just fine without your donation!

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Apparently there are folks who have concerns about Dehlin's salary being excessive.  See, for example, Pogi's post.

 

Ok.  I don't.  And I can take the approach most of you take when talking about the LDS Church and its finances.  You know, why should anyone care who does not donate, though many who care here did donate, substantially, for a long time.  I found Pogi's comments a bit hollow when I am sure he is quite fine with Ensign Peal Funds raking in billions of profits each year while never having used a dime for charitable causes yet is does not pay a dime in tax. At least Dehlin pays tax on his salary.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm fairly ambivalent about Dehlin's salary.  I don't contribute toward it, and it's apparently legal.  I therefore don't have much of a dog in that fight.

The length of your post seems to indicate otherwise.

 

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am, however, interested in seeing how this plays out.  

"Life coaching" seems like a substantial step down from clinical therapist.  And hosting podcasts seems a substantial step down from life coaching. 

In your opinion.  I think Joe Rogan might feel otherwise.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

But he's making a fortune at it, so...

$236k per year is hardly a fortune. 🙄

 

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am curious as to your thoughts about the calculus that was apparently used to set Dehlin's salary.  From the first article in the OP (I did not quote this previously) :

This seems a bit . . . odd.  It seems a bit contradictory for Helfer to characterize Dehlin's compensation as being "based on market analysis and comparisons with other nonprofits," whereas Dehlin himself says that his salary was based on the salary he was earning at Microsoft.

So which is it?  Is his salary based on "market analysis" or on Delhi's prior salary while at Microsoft?

Sound a bit loose.  The board may want to tighten things up.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, it seems like Dehlin's emphasis on the generosity of "the Open Stories board" is part of the criticisms raised by form OSF folks.  Again from the article:

Helfer's explanation as to how Dehlin's salary was calculated seems a bit off given A) the mismatch with the information in Pogi's post ("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"), and B) the mismatch with the information from Dehlin himself (who states that the OSF board used his former salary at Microsoft, not "market analysis and comparisons with other nonprofits," to set his salary).

So if we go with Dehlin's explanation, that the OSF board "generously set {his} salary," the next logical question is: is the OSF board sufficiently independent of Dehlin's influence?  Is there any probative value to be given to the former OSF folks who claim that Dehlin "curated" the members of the board?

Again, I'm fairly ambivalent about his salary.  I am curious, however, if now that OSF is apparently his sole source of income, and that income being very substantial, does that affect what he is doing with OSF and how he does it? 

Small NFPs are much different than say the United way and one way is they are more open to abuse. I am not saying there is abuse here but there could be. I am not in thein so I do not  know. I only know what I have heard Dehlin and Helfer talk about on podcasts about how they operate as a board and how the mange Dehlin.  Based on what they say it seems they at least believe they are operating with integrity.  

I had a small NFP client that did a lot of Charity work in Africa.  It was pretty loose as well on pay, loans to the founder, etc.  The founder however is one of the most kind and charitable persons I know.  And he put most of his own fortune in the charity to his own financial detriment actually at least over time.

 

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I do not attribute these things to Dehlin, as I am not really paying sufficient attention to him.  But in broad strokes, I wonder if this is happening.  There's apparently not a lot of money to be made in the "faith transition" basis, hence Dehlin's salary gobbling up 60% of OSF's revenue.  It's something of a zero sum game. 

Did you not just say Dehlin is making a fortune?  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Kate Kelly and other contributors apparently expected to receive larger pieces of the OSF pie, but when 60% of its revenue is going to Dehlin (who, it seems, has shut down any other sources of income for himself), splitting up the remaining 40% amongst overhead costs and the various other individuals would leave those individuals with . . . not a lot.

Best I an recall at one point they were paying podcasters based on downloads.  Dehlin got the most downloads and other female podcasters got less so they were paid less. Kate Kelly allegedly got mas about that.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Blew him in?"  Could you explain what that means?

Sorry.  Better put would have been to say filed a complaint.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Money, personality conflicts, and personal weaknesses and foibles.  In other words, Dehlin and Kelly and Rosebud are as human and prone to error as the rest of us. 

Of course. I do not think anyone is implying otherwwise.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

Has their departure from the Church and its tenets improved them as human beings?  I hope so.

Yes people can actually thrive outside the Church and become even better than they may have been, believe it or not.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

From the second article in the OP:

I think references to him as "evil" are hyperbolic (the Trib notably doesn't actually quote any "devout Latter-day Saints"), but his purported interactions with Rosebud (see here), if established, would be a very substantial indictment on his personal integrity and honor. 

I disagree.  There are plenty of active LDS that view Dehlin as evil.  Let's start with the Midnight Mormon team.  As for Rosebud I have read and listened to a lot on that issue.  Dehlin and Rosebud appeared to have romantic feeling at one point in time but when Dehlin tried to extricate himself from this Rosebud seemed to go off the deep end.  I could say much more but really don't want to nor do I desire to be public about it when it involves someone I frankly have some to view and rather unstable.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can understand that.  I have two friends, a married couple, who have left the Church and the Latter-day Saint community, and who seem to harbor some real resentments toward it, but who also "miss the community" and have been looking for a substitute.  No luck so far.  And I don't think an "Ex Mo" community would be a long-term solution.

IMO, Dehlin materially diminished himself when he called 911 on Kwaku.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

[Teancum]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

But if others employed by the Foundation do not have salaries in line with such (say they get little above minimum wage) or if there were those who donated large amounts of time and effort with no compensation, would you have a problem with that?

I do not know or think that is currently the case. But sure I think I would have a problem with that. 

Edited February 28, 2022 by Teancum

[Buckeye]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I knew Bill very well before he moved to St. George and began his podcast. I can assure you he was very sincere and had great affection for the church. There wasn’t a more dedicated bishop in our stake than him. He’s movement away from the church began with sincere desires to focus on grace and the atonement. My opinion is that his separation from the church stems from an unhealthy focus on negatives, but his sincerity shouldn’t be questioned. 

[Calm]

My one of two issues with Dehlin making what he does is the reported history he has of making promises to compensate and then not living up to them.  Past threads have documented claims, but I don’t believe were able to establish it because most I have heard of were word of mouth.  Iirc he did switch by terminating people as employees and then hiring them as subcontractors to save on salaries…which not willing to provide health benefits for others when that was a huge part of his original compensation showing he knows the importance having that benefit…it is an insight into what is, I believe based on reports of those who have been close to him, his “me first and foremost” world.

My other issue with Dehlin making the money he does is his past criticism of income of higher up church leaders who as far as I can tell make half of what he does now.

Both of these could be resolved by him giving compensation as promised or at least providing the same sort of benefits so important to him to those who work for him and for him to apologize for criticizing church leaders’ compensations.  I am not suggesting he is getting paid too much.

As a side note, I find the structuring of the salary based on the Microsoft job interesting because iirc he made a big deal about how taking the MS job was a big financial sacrifice to him because he could never recover from the loss of giving up his Microsoft job.  I will try and find documentation of that.

Here it is:  https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2021/04/28/questions-faithful-osf-subscriber-should-avoid/

Edited February 28, 2022 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

23 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I knew Bill very well before he moved to St. George and began his podcast. I can assure you he was very sincere and had great affection for the church. There wasn’t a more dedicated bishop in our stake than him. He’s movement away from the church began with sincere desires to focus on grace and the atonement. My opinion is that his separation from the church stems from an unhealthy focus on negatives, but his sincerity shouldn’t be questioned. 

It is my impression that Bill’s journey was pretty straight forward and shared openly the whole way. With Dehlin, I feel like there was a long period where he was feigning belief that was no longer genuine to suit what he felt was best for his organization. Just my impression. 

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I found Pogi's comments a bit hollow when I am sure he is quite fine with Ensign Peal Funds raking in billions of profits each year while never having used a dime for charitable causes yet is does not pay a dime in tax. At least Dehlin pays tax on his salary.

I would think that the people employed by Ensign Peak also pay tax on their salaries.

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I'm fairly ambivalent about Dehlin's salary.  I don't contribute toward it, and it's apparently legal.  I therefore don't have much of a dog in that fight.

The length of your post seems to indicate otherwise.

Not really.  I'm a mildly curious bystander.

 

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

But he's making a fortune at it, so...

$236k per year is hardly a fortune. 🙄

From JustanAustralian last year: "He's in the top 10.3% of household income purely from OpenStories income, and that's excluding anything his wife makes, or that he makes from other sources."

I plugged $236K into CNN's "Global Wage Calculator."  The results:

Seems rather "fortune"-ish to me.  YMMV.

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

I am curious as to your thoughts about the calculus that was apparently used to set Dehlin's salary.  From the first article in the OP (I did not quote this previously) :

This seems a bit . . . odd.  It seems a bit contradictory for Helfer to characterize Dehlin's compensation as being "based on market analysis and comparisons with other nonprofits," whereas Dehlin himself says that his salary was based on the salary he was earning at Microsoft.

So which is it?  Is his salary based on "market analysis" or on Delhi's prior salary while at Microsoft?

 

Sound a bit loose.  The board may want to tighten things up.

Sure.  But the discrepancy in explanations is still there.

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I do not attribute these things to Dehlin, as I am not really paying sufficient attention to him.  But in broad strokes, I wonder if this is happening.  There's apparently not a lot of money to be made in the "faith transition" basis, hence Dehlin's salary gobbling up 60% of OSF's revenue.  It's something of a zero sum game. 

Did you not just say Dehlin is making a fortune?  

Yes.  60% of the OSF pie to one person may well be characterized as a "fortune."  OSF is doing well enough to pay John Dehlin a salary that is 5.25 times the national average, and over ten times the global average.  But does OSF bring in enough revenue to provide similar salaries?  Nope.  

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Kate Kelly and other contributors apparently expected to receive larger pieces of the OSF pie, but when 60% of its revenue is going to Dehlin (who, it seems, has shut down any other sources of income for himself), splitting up the remaining 40% amongst overhead costs and the various other individuals would leave those individuals with . . . not a lot.

Best I an recall at one point they were paying podcasters based on downloads.  Dehlin got the most downloads and other female podcasters got less so they were paid less. Kate Kelly allegedly got mas about that.

Kind of sounds like the women's soccer lawsuit.

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I think references to him as "evil" are hyperbolic (the Trib notably doesn't actually quote any "devout Latter-day Saints"), but his purported interactions with Rosebud (see here), if established, would be a very substantial indictment on his personal integrity and honor. 

I disagree.  There are plenty of active LDS that view Dehlin as evil. 

Not sure why you prefaced this with "I disagree," since I specifically said such references to Dehlin are hyperbolic.  

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Let's start with the Midnight Mormon team. 

Why?  

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As for Rosebud I have read and listened to a lot on that issue.  Dehlin and Rosebud appeared to have romantic feeling at one point in time but when Dehlin tried to extricate himself from this Rosebud seemed to go off the deep end. 

Please note what I said: "{H}is purported interactions with Rosebud (see here), if established, would be a very substantial indictment on his personal integrity and honor. "

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I knew Bill very well before he moved to St. George and began his podcast. I can assure you he was very sincere and had great affection for the church. There wasn’t a more dedicated bishop in our stake than him. He’s movement away from the church began with sincere desires to focus on grace and the atonement. My opinion is that his separation from the church stems from an unhealthy focus on negatives, but his sincerity shouldn’t be questioned. 

It is my impression that Bill’s journey was pretty straight forward and shared openly the whole way. With Dehlin, I feel like there was a long period where he was feigning belief that was no longer genuine to suit what he felt was best for his organization. Just my impression. 

That has been my impression also.  The same goes for Kate Kelly.  I just did not buy into the narrative she was purveying prior to her excommunication.  

I also didn't find Sam Young's efforts to be at all sincere.  He was trying way to hard to be combative/provocative.  IMO he wasn't looking to persuade or change minds.  He was out to get himself kicked out of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac