Two Trib Articles Re: John Dehlin

[smac97]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A sample from Kate Kelly:

”

I AM SICK & TIRED OF WOMEN DOING WORK FOR FREE. Especially Mormon women. We are expected to do everything for the “good of the cause” and to expect no compensation for our time and talent. I just talked to Kristy Money who does an amazing podcast called Mormon Transitions as part of Mormon Stories AND SHE DOESN’T MAKE A SINGLE CENT.

 

This is unacceptable. John Parkinson Dehlin if I want to specifically donate to Kristy Money or Gina Colvin’s podcasts & not to Mormon Stories generally, how do I do that? If there isn’t a way, there needs to be a way. Yesterday.

 

Lindsay Hansen Park and so many others do podcasts & work that cost so much time & they make pennies on the dollar to men.

 

And, no one better argue that they are less talented or get less downloads or I am SERIOUSLY GOING TO LOST IT.”

 

 

I think someone earlier in the thread indicated that OSF podcasters were paid based on their download numbers, and that Dehlin's podcast has the largest numbers by far.  Is that correct?

I am not familiar with how many OSF podcasts there are or have been.  Does anyone have a list?  

Of the past and present podcasters, how many have been male (other than Dehlin)?

If there have been male podcasters, are they paid under the same structure as women (based on download numbers)?

The "We Do Not Support John Dehlin" letter doesn't do much for me.  It's vague.  It's an attack, but then denies its an attack:

• He takes advantage of vulnerable people in crisis, who are in legitimate need of help and community.
• 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. 
• We aren’t people who protect the Mormon Church, and we also don’t protect men who put the community at risk— whether they are Mormon or not. 
• 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. It’s not safe. We refuse to be used as a mask for abuse. 
• ...
• This is not an attack. It’s a clarification of values. Our values are to support and believe women. 

Kate Kelly is a lawyer.  I would expect her to be able to marshal some semblance of a body of evidence.  The letter is full of conclusory and disparaging assertions.  Not a lick of evidence or explanation as to what Dehlin has done.

As it happens, I have read other materials about John Dehlin.  https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/ has some pretty interesting stuff (though also a ton of dreck), as does this entry RFM entry:

Quote

Mormonism LIVE!: 021: Sexual Allegation Against John Dehlin Goes Down In Flames

This Week RFM and Bill Reel takes a deeper look at the an old allegation that has been dragged out once again by critics against John Dehlin. And specifically the facts and documentation surrounding the case. And what do they find…… but that the claims the alleged victim seems to contain two major discrepancies. One is her motivation which seems riddled with blackmail and manipulation and the other seems to strike at the heart of her claims, namely her allegations countered by her very own text messages.

Exhibit A Blackmail Email – https://mormonismlive.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Exhibit-A-Blackmail-Email.pdf

Exhibit B New Hampshire Complaint – https://mormonismlive.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Exhibit-B-New-Hampshire-Complaint-redacted.pdf

Exhibit C Dehlin Statement – https://mormonismlive.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Exhibit-C-Dehlin-OSF-Response.pdf

Exhibit D Anne’s Withdrawal – https://mormonismlive.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Exhibit-D-Annes-Withdrawal.pdf

Exhibit E OSF Response – https://mormonismlive.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Exhibit-E-OSF-Response.pdf

Unlike Kate Kelly's conclusory letter, there is actual evidence of what John Dehlin has been doing, not just conclusory deprecations.  "Exhibit C" is perhaps the most illuminating.

If Kate Kelly has evidence against Dehlin, I think it would be better for her to present it rather than essentially hide it and then write a disparaging letter based on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 3, 2022 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think someone earlier in the thread indicated that OSF podcasters were paid based on their download numbers, and that Dehlin's podcast has the largest numbers by far.  Is that correct?

I am not familiar with how many OSF podcasts there are or have been.  Does anyone have a list?  

Of the past and present podcasters, how many have been male (other than Dehlin)?

If there have been male podcasters, are they paid under the same structure as women (based on download numbers)?

The "We Do Not Support John Dehlin" doesn't do much for me.  It's vague.  It's an attack, but then denies its an attack:

• He takes advantage of vulnerable people in crisis, who are in legitimate need of help and community.
• 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. 
• We aren’t people who protect the Mormon Church, and we also don’t protect men who put the community at risk— whether they are Mormon or not. 
• 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. It’s not safe. We refuse to be used as a mask for abuse. 
• ...
• This is not an attack. It’s a clarification of values. Our values are to support and believe women. 

Kate Kelly is a lawyer.  I would expect her to be able to marshal some semblance of a body of evidence.  The letter is full of conclusory and disparaging assertions.  Not a lick of evidence or explanation as to what Dehlin has done.

As it happens, I have read other materials about John Dehlin.  https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/ has some pretty interesting stuff (though also a tone of dreck), as does this entry RFM entry:

Unlike Kate Kelly's conclusory letter, there is actual evidence of what John Dehlin has been doing, not just conclusory deprecations.  "Exhibit C" is perhaps the most illuminating.

If Kate Kelly has evidence against Dehlin, I think it would be better for her to present it rather than essentially hide it and then write a disparaging letter based on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

The RFM presentation was pretty damning to Rosebud’s case and credibility. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The RFM presentation was pretty damning to Rosebud’s case and credibility. 

I agree.  She did not come off very well in those exchanges. I have no dog in the fight and really no opinion on who did the most wrong between Dehlin and Rosebud (though I am not a fan of Dehlin in general so I do have that bias).  They kind of sound like they deserved each other a little, if I'm remember right.  It's been a while since i've listened to/read this stuff though.

This interview does give me pause, as much as it does not come out in Rosebud's favor, because I think it plays into Dehlin's hands a bit.  Because we know that he is very charismatic and very capable of sounding extremely sincere and honest, even during those times when (in my opinion) he's not really much of either. 

As an aside--It's a shame that personality and charisma impacts so much how believable we find someone.  On one hand, usually there is so little evidence with these kinds of things that we have to use what we have, and persona is something we have.  But on the other, how you come across really has no bearing on whether or not you are being truthful in a lot of cases.  It's a poor, unreliable way to judge someone's guilt or innocence, but we use it all the time. 

For those who are gifted with the ability to come across well no matter what, they can certainly get away with quite a bit.  And those who don't have that gift will often get the short end of the stick, even when they don't deserve it.

[Teancum]

54 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A sample from Kate Kelly:

”

I AM SICK & TIRED OF WOMEN DOING WORK FOR FREE. Especially Mormon women. We are expected to do everything for the “good of the cause” and to expect no compensation for our time and talent. I just talked to Kristy Money who does an amazing podcast called Mormon Transitions as part of Mormon Stories AND SHE DOESN’T MAKE A SINGLE CENT.

 

This is unacceptable. John Parkinson Dehlin if I want to specifically donate to Kristy Money or Gina Colvin’s podcasts & not to Mormon Stories generally, how do I do that? If there isn’t a way, there needs to be a way. Yesterday.

 

Lindsay Hansen Park and so many others do podcasts & work that cost so much time & they make pennies on the dollar to men.

 

And, no one better argue that they are less talented or get less downloads or I am SERIOUSLY GOING TO LOST IT.”

 

 

I don't recall the details on this but I thought at that time they were getting paid based on podcast downloads and some of the podcasts had low downloads.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think someone earlier in the thread indicated that OSF podcasters were paid based on their download numbers, and that Dehlin's podcast has the largest numbers by far.  Is that correct?

THat was me and  that was my understanding.  Could be wrong.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not familiar with how many OSF podcasts there are or have been.  Does anyone have a list?  

Not sure currently. I think there used to be more but some have died off.  My guess is 4-6. 

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Of the past and present podcasters, how many have been male (other than Dehlin)?

Best guess is only a couple.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

If there have been male podcasters, are they paid under the same structure as women (based on download numbers)?

Cannot say.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The "We Do Not Support John Dehlin" doesn't do much for me.  It's vague.  It's an attack, but then denies its an attack:

• He takes advantage of vulnerable people in crisis, who are in legitimate need of help and community.
• 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. 
• We aren’t people who protect the Mormon Church, and we also don’t protect men who put the community at risk— whether they are Mormon or not. 
• 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. It’s not safe. We refuse to be used as a mask for abuse. 
• ...
• This is not an attack. It’s a clarification of values. Our values are to support and believe women. 

Kate Kelly is a lawyer.  I would expect her to be able to marshal some semblance of a body of evidence.  The letter is full of conclusory and disparaging assertions.  Not a lick of evidence or explanation as to what Dehlin has done.

Well these were my thoughts as well. Seems pretty vague and non specific and almost like "We think John is a bad person so don't associate with him."  That is why I asked about the nature of their complaints.  I am all for calling him out for bad behavior but I would like to know what it was and have some evidence. I am very supportive of women but I also do not believe just because a woman, or man, accuses someone of bad behavior that I should automatically beleive them.  I would like to know more, see evidence if it is there. If it is he said/she said well then it is more difficult but I usually defer to the woman especially in abuse situations. But even then it is a tough issue.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

As it happens, I have read other materials about John Dehlin.  https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/ has some pretty interesting stuff (though also a tone of dreck), as does this entry RFM entry:

Yes indeed.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Unlike Kate Kelly's conclusory letter, there is actual evidence of what John Dehlin has been doing, not just conclusory deprecations.  "Exhibit C" is perhaps the most illuminating.

If Kate Kelly has evidence against Dehlin, I think it would be better for her to present it rather than essentially hide it and then write a disparaging letter based on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree.

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well these were my thoughts as well. Seems pretty vague and non specific and almost like "We think John is a bad person so don't associate with him."  That is why I asked about the nature of their complaints. 

That is a reasonable request.  And given how much information about Dehlin's conduct is readily and publicly available, it seems odd that Kate Kelly and her co-signatories did not point to or address any of it.  Why is that? 

It is worth noting that one of the signatories is Anne Peffer, a/k/a "Rosebud" (that cat has been out of the bad long enough, I think).  Is it possible that Kate Kelly et al. don't want to discuss the evidence because doing so would also paint Anne Peffer in a pretty unflattering light?  I mean, really unflattering?

Quite a bit of "friendly fire" being lobbed back and forth in the active-and-self-identifying-Ex-Mo community (though we see that here, too, just not quite as visceral).

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am all for calling him out for bad behavior but I would like to know what it was and have some evidence.

There is plenty of information out there.  And since so much of it is from sources on Dehlin's "side" (former Latter-day Saints hostile to the Church), and since so much of it is from percipient witnesses (including Dehlin himself) and publicly-available documents, videos, recordings, etc., Dehlin's claim that Kwaku and church members are trying to get him seems . . . odd.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 3, 2022 by smac97

[JamesPatterson]

On 2/28/2022 at 1:45 PM, 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.

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.

I'm quite the conundrum for John and John's defenders because they don't really understand how to bracket me.

I'm not a member of the church. But I'm also not a vociferous ex-Mormon. I used to be great friends with John Dehlin. Now I'm one of his main "haters."

It is quite ironic that John finds himself in the crosshairs of someone who used to not only root for him, but actively worked with and for his foundation.

Anyway, if you want more about why I resigned from the Cult of John Dehlin, you can follow my new video series where I tackle Rosebud's story, including examining hundreds of pages of documents that prove John sexually harassed Rosebud and also show a clear pattern of manipulation and abuse.

 

[why me]

On 3/30/2022 at 7:37 PM, JamesPatterson said:

I'm quite the conundrum for John and John's defenders because they don't really understand how to bracket me.

I'm not a member of the church. But I'm also not a vociferous ex-Mormon. I used to be great friends with John Dehlin. Now I'm one of his main "haters."

It is quite ironic that John finds himself in the crosshairs of someone who used to not only root for him, but actively worked with and for his foundation.

Anyway, if you want more about why I resigned from the Cult of John Dehlin, you can follow my new video series where I tackle Rosebud's story, including examining hundreds of pages of documents that prove John sexually harassed Rosebud and also show a clear pattern of manipulation and abuse.

 

This was an interesting presentation. And it does seem to be very serious. I remember when John began his podcasts. And they were discussed on these boards years ago. I had this impression that John in his first interviews was trying to figure out his own questions with mormonism, hoping that the people interviewed would help him out. But that was years ago. I don't think that at that time, he would have thought that his podcasts would reach such heights of success with non paid employees, a board, and a large following.

If I were in his shoes, it would be constant work for it not to go to my head.

[JamesPatterson]

On 3/3/2022 at 11:46 AM, smac97 said:

this entry RFM entry:

Unlike Kate Kelly's conclusory letter, there is actual evidence of what John Dehlin has been doing, not just conclusory deprecations.  "Exhibit C" is perhaps the most illuminating.

If Kate Kelly has evidence against Dehlin, I think it would be better for her to present it rather than essentially hide it and then write a disparaging letter based on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm in the process of debunking that entire Mormonism Live episode.

 

There's plenty of evidence to prove, for example, that Natasha was lying (or at least had a really, really, really hard time remembering the chain of events leading to Rosebud's falling out with OSF) during her interview with RFM.

 

I know for a fact that John selectively edited the texts in Exhibit C to create a false narrative that Rosebud was making "unwelcome" sexual advances, when in fact John was sexting with her during that same conversation, and John never showed the texts where Rosebud told her she was done with the sexual aspect of their relationship. The next day, John moved to fire her.

Even if you do concede that Rosebud was making sexual advances at John unilaterally in Aug of 2012 (which I do not), there is a mountain of evidence showing that John sexually groomed her, manipulated her and then abused her within a toxic relationship. Between that and the power imbalance that existed between them, John is in no position to claim that allegations of harassment and abuse against him are "baseless."

 

[Nofear]

Thank you for your posts JamesPatterson.

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, JamesPatterson said:

I'm in the process of debunking that entire Mormonism Live episode.

 

There's plenty of evidence to prove, for example, that Natasha was lying (or at least had a really, really, really hard time remembering the chain of events leading to Rosebud's falling out with OSF) during her interview with RFM.

 

I know for a fact that John selectively edited the texts in Exhibit C to create a false narrative that Rosebud was making "unwelcome" sexual advances, when in fact John was sexting with her during that same conversation, and John never showed the texts where Rosebud told her she was done with the sexual aspect of their relationship. The next day, John moved to fire her.

Even if you do concede that Rosebud was making sexual advances at John unilaterally in Aug of 2012 (which I do not), there is a mountain of evidence showing that John sexually groomed her, manipulated her and then abused her within a toxic relationship. Between that and the power imbalance that existed between them, John is in no position to claim that allegations of harassment and abuse against him are "baseless."

 

It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.  

[Nofear]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.  

Video was taken down. I wonder if James Patterson will show here up again.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Video was taken down. I wonder if James Patterson will show here up again.

Maybe a Copyright issue.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Calm