Moral hazard of censoring Dehlins' sexual assault, sexist compensation practices, and affairs.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I don't know what that word means. Have a great day, Billy.

You too, Skippy. 

[Pyreaux]

But in seriousness Hamilton, is the assault or investigation ongoing? Its been a while since I heard any new news.

Rosebud

[Hamilton Porter]

29 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

But in seriousness Hamilton, is the assault or investigation ongoing? Its been a while since I heard any new news.

Rosebud

Are you Rosebud?

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Not that I am aware of.  You can’t link to his stuff because the mods don’t want to provide free advertising for it***, but I believe you can link to stuff that criticizes him.  I have posted material from dearJohnDehlin (it is useful for quoting him) iirc.

***I can’t remember why, but I think it was because he would drop by to post a thread advertising his stuff, but not bother to stay for the discussion and that is against board rules.  He was doing that a lot for awhile iirc.

Yes, he, like many others here would ignore questions and CFR's etc. all the time.   If anyone questioned his position with a good argument, he would disappear for a while.

This is a discussion board- there is no need for anyone to be here if they are afraid of discussions.   I try to make it a point to answer every post unless it is so absurd that no one would take it seriously anyway.  But part of that is why I have a reputation I think for "snark" simply because I DO respond to things I find unreasonable.   

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

What anti-Mormon book is worth buying? The only one I've ever bought was New Mormon Challenge.

I don't think any of them are "worth" buying, especially now in the age of the internet.  

All ones I have, except perhaps for New Mormon Challenge (which I don't really consider to be an "anti-Mormon" book) and a couple of others, were obtained back in the 80's and 90's, mainly out of curiosity and because so many people on BBS feeds, AOL, and places like alt.religion.mormon, would just copy anti-Mormon arguments straight out of the books available at the time, and about 99% of the time they didn't provide their true source for what they were saying.  I obtained the books because I wanted to know what was being said against the church so I could research it and be informed, and also so I could know what was true and what wasn't true.  And some of the claims and arguments were so ridiculous that they might be considered as a sick form of entertainment if it were not for the fact that many people (mainly outside the church) actually believe some of the stuff about "Mormonism" published in those books.  I'm not saying all of it was that way, but there are many books (or portions of the books) that fall into that category.

Having the sources available also came in handy and led to a few fun surprises.   For example, in early 1996 I saw a post on a message board on AOL that was using quotes from LeGrand Richard's, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, in a peculiar way related to Isaiah chapter 29 (the "familiar spirit" part in verse 4 and the comparison of verses 11-12 to Martin Harris' visit to Professor Charles Anthon), and the person was obviously quoting commentary about the quotes from some anti-Mormon book.  I wondered what book the person was quoting from, and I found his argument nearly word for word in the book, Mormon Claims Answered, by Marvin W. Cowan (Salt Lake City, 1975, Marvin W. Cowan).  So I responded to the person's post and dealt with his arguments and mentioned that I was aware that he was copying from Cowan's book.  In response to my post the person denied he was copying anything.  So I posted the portion from Cowan's book that I thought he was copying from (pages 30-31), just as it was published.  To my surprise the person responded by finally admitting that he was indeed copying from an anti-Mormon book, but it wasn't Cowan's!  It was from Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons, by Ron Rhodes & Marian Bodine (Eugene, Oregon: 1995, Harvest House Publishers).  Fortunately I had very recently acquired that book as well.  As it turns out, Rhodes and Bodine had copied several pages from Cowan's book, nearly word for word, but the copied arguments were scattered through a few of their pages (i.e. pages 93, 97, 99-100), but they gave no credit at all to the Marvin Cowan book anywhere in their book, and they didn't list Cowan's book in their bibliography.  The copied arguments were reworded slightly and had the abbreviations removed (Cowan abbreviated The Book of Mormon as "B. of M." and A Marvelous Work and a Wonder as "M. W. & W.", for example), but they were definitely copied from Cowan's book.  It was kind of funny, actually.  

Edit:  I emailed my finding (detailed above) to FARMS, and you can see the comparison between Cowan's book and Rhodes and Bodine's book published on page 81 of Daniel C. Peterson's article, "Constancy amid Change," in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011: Vol. 8: No. 2, Article 9.

Edited May 27, 2023 by InCognitus

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I don't think any of them are "worth" buying, especially now in the age of the internet.  

All ones I have, except perhaps for New Mormon Challenge (which I don't really consider to be an "anti-Mormon" book) and a couple of others, were obtained back in the 80's and 90's, mainly out of curiosity and because so many people on BBS feeds, AOL, and places like alt.religion.mormon, would just copy anti-Mormon arguments straight out of the books available at the time, and about 99% of the time they didn't provide their true source for what they were saying.  I obtained the books because I wanted to know what was being said against the church so I could research it and be informed, and also so I could know what was true and what wasn't true.  And some of the claims and arguments were so ridiculous that they might be considered as a sick form of entertainment if it were not for the fact that many people (mainly outside the church) actually believe some of the stuff about "Mormonism" published in those books.  I'm not saying all of it was that way, but there are many books (or portions of the books) that fall into that category.

Having the sources available also came in handy and led to a few fun surprises.   For example, in early 1996 I saw a post on a message board on AOL that was using quotes from LeGrand Richard's, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, in a peculiar way related to Isaiah chapter 29 (the "familiar spirit" part in verse 4 and the comparison of verses 11-12 to Martin Harris' visit to Professor Charles Anthon), and the person was obviously quoting commentary about the quotes from some anti-Mormon book.  I wondered what book the person was quoting from, and I found his argument nearly word for word in the book, Mormon Claims Answered, by Marvin W. Cowan (Salt Lake City, 1975, Marvin W. Cowan).  So I responded to the person's post and dealt with his arguments and mentioned that I was aware that he was copying from Cowan's book.  In response to my post the person denied he was copying anything.  So I posted the portion from Cowan's book that I thought he was copying from (pages 30-31), just as it was published.  To my surprise the person responded by finally admitting that he was indeed copying from an anti-Mormon book, but it wasn't Cowan's!  It was from Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons, by Ron Rhodes & Marian Bodine (Eugene, Oregon: 1995, Harvest House Publishers).  Fortunately I had very recently acquired that book as well.  As it turns out, Rhodes and Bodine had copied several pages from Cowan's book, nearly word for word, but the copied arguments were scattered through a few of their pages (i.e. pages 93, 97, 99-100), but they gave no credit at all to the Marvin Cowan book anywhere in their book, and they didn't list Cowan's book in their bibliography.  The copied arguments were reworded slightly and had the abbreviations removed (Cowan abbreviated The Book of Mormon as "B. of M." and A Marvelous Work and a Wonder as "M. W. & W.", for example), but they were definitely copied from Cowan's book.  It was kind of funny, actually.  

I don’t think I’ve ever read a strictly “anti-Mormon” book. A few random pamphlets, I suppose. Generally speaking, I’ve never been impressed with Evangelical arguments against Mormon doctrines and beliefs. They’re often reliant on misrepresentations of LDS beliefs or a priori acceptance of evangelical interpretation of scripture. 

[InCognitus]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t think I’ve ever read a strictly “anti-Mormon” book. A few random pamphlets, I suppose. Generally speaking, I’ve never been impressed with Evangelical arguments against Mormon doctrines and beliefs. They’re often reliant on misrepresentations of LDS beliefs or a priori acceptance of evangelical interpretation of scripture. 

Some are definitely more sophisticated than others.  But even some of the more "respected" anti-Mormons, like Jerald and Sandra Tanner, fall prey to Protestant or evangelical assumptions, the most obvious is their 3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon book.  We don't claim any scriptural text to be absolutely "inerrant" because man is always involved in the process (the only possible exceptions that come to mind are the original tables of stone on which the Lord wrote the law and commandments in Exodus 24, or the writing on the wall of the king's palace in Daniel 5.  But we don't have the original tables of stone or the plaster from Belshazzar's wall anyway.  We only have an account, written by a man, of those events).

[Hamilton Porter]

1 minute ago, InCognitus said:

Some are definitely more sophisticated than others.  But even some of the more "respected" anti-Mormons, like Jerald and Sandra Tanner, fall prey to Protestant or evangelical assumptions, the most obvious is their 3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon book.  We don't claim any scriptural text to be absolutely "inerrant" because man is always involved in the process (the only possible exceptions that come to mind are the original tables of stone on which the Lord wrote the law and commandments in Exodus 24, or the writing on the wall of the king's palace in Daniel 5.  But we don't have the original tables of stone or the plaster from Belshazzar's wall anyway.  We only have an account, written by a man, of those events).

 Believe it or not, Dehlin is pimping Tanners' Changed to the Book of Commandments on his show.

[InCognitus]

16 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

 Believe it or not, Dehlin is pimping Tanners' Changed to the Book of Commandments on his show.

Doesn't surprise me.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

don’t think I’ve ever read a strictly “anti-Mormon” book.

Richard Abanes gave me one of his books along with his Harry Potter exposé and a CD of his music.  He was hoping I would be an editor of his second edition to make it better and so he could claim he took criticism seriously. He didn’t, though he did change a few things members pushed him to change.  I just couldn’t get past him insisting on using the term “celestial sex” after numerous Saints told him we never referred to eternal marriage and spiritual procreation that way and it gave the wrong impression.  He wouldn’t change it because he said that was how his readers interpreted our belief….which made it clear to me he wasn’t serious about actually helping nonmembers understand our beliefs from the typical Mormon POV, but instead wanted a sensational expose (as evidenced by his titles and content choices).  We talked a lot while he was on ZLMB and then this board early on. He came to a FAIR conference too. 
 

I read a couple of others. Most I found in the library were too stupid or over dramatic to endure. 

Edited May 28, 2023 by Calm

[Nevo]

19 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

The consequence of censoring anything critical of Dehlin, is that there will be be no constraints on his behavior.

Dehlin gets criticized all the time on this board. Sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly (in my view). I don't think any of it has changed his behavior.

19 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

By deleting all critical posts, you are abetting the silencing of his female accusers.

Which of Dehlin's accusers has ever been silent? The "Rosebud" business happened over 10 years ago and it is still regularly dredged up on this and other boards.

Dehlin has never been charged with any crime, but he continues to be hounded and publicly humiliated by a particularly vocal group on the interwebs.

Suppose he did engage in a consensual emotional affair in 2011-2012 that eventually escalated to furtive attempts at petting. Suppose he didn't pay every female podcaster as much as she thought she deserved. Suppose he does receive a six-figure income for doing Mormon Stories. I honestly don't care. He's a flawed human being like the rest of us. People don't have to work for him or listen to him or donate to his organization. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Richard Abanes gave me one of his books along with his Harry Potter expose and a CD of his music.  He was hoping I would be an editor of his second edition to make it better and so he could claim he took criticism seriously. He didn’t, though he did change a few things members pushed him to change.  I just couldn’t get past him insisting on using the term “celestial sex” after numerous Saints told him we never referred to eternal marriage and spiritual procreation that way and it gave the wrong impression.  He wouldn’t change it because he said that was how his readers interpreted our belief….which made it clear to me he wasn’t serious about actually helping nonmembers understand our beliefs from the typical Mormon POV, but instead wanted a sensational expose (as evidenced by his titles and content choices).  We talked a lot while he was on ZLMB and then this board early on. He came to a FAIR conference too. 
 

I read a couple of others. Most I found in the library were too stupid or over dramatic to endure. 

I remember interacting with him online (maybe on the old FAIR board?). My impression mirrors yours: he never really attempted to understand what we actually believed. He was more interested in spinning our beliefs the way evangelicals wanted to see them. 

[Hamilton Porter]

17 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Which of Dehlin's accusers has ever been silent? The "Rosebud" business happened over 10 years ago and it is still regularly dredged up on this and other boards

He told others his accusers were crazy. 

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Are you Rosebud?

No, it's an apotropaic phrase intended to keep he that must not be named at bay.

*Spits three times on the fingertips, then wave them in the air; throws salt; and says in Yiddish, "kayn aynhoreh" ("no evil eye")*

[Hamilton Porter]

17 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

No, it's an apotropaic phrase intended to keep he that must not be named at bay.

*Spits three times on the fingertips, then wave them in the air; throws salt; and says in Yiddish, "kayn aynhoreh" ("no evil eye")*

Are you an Ashkenazi Jew?

[Nevo]

32 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

He told others his accusers were crazy. 

Having read dozens of posts by Rosebud on another message board, as well as dozens (hundreds?) of her late-night text messages to Dehlin, as well as one of her letters to the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights, and having visited her revenge websites against John Dehlin—published for "future historians" to analyze—and having reviewed Jenn Kamp's stalking claim against Dehlin, I don't think his characterization is too far off the mark. Neither of them strike me as very stable. 

Edited May 28, 2023 by Nevo

[Hamilton Porter]

4 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Having read dozens of posts by Rosebud on another message board, as well as dozens (hundreds?) of her late-night text messages to Dehlin, as well as one of her letters to the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights, and having visited her revenge websites against John Dehlin—published for "future historians" to analyze—and having reviewed Jenn Kamp's stalking claim against Dehlin, I don't think his characterization is too far off the mark. Neither of them strike me as very stable. 

Yeah, you've been drinking the Kool aid.

[Pyreaux]

25 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Yeah, you've been drinking the Kool aid.

Just because you're a crazy female doesn't mean a male psychological counselor isn't using his position to assault you.

[Hamilton Porter]

38 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Neither of them strike me as very stable. 

Also, even if they're both crazy, you think that exonerates Dehlin? Michael Jackson only preys on crazies too.  That's an alibi.

If you're one of Dehlin's misogynistic lap dogs, just say so. Don't beat around the bush 

Edited May 28, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

you're one of Dehlin's misogynistic lap dogs, just say so. Don't beat around the bush 

So uncalled for.  Just stop it.

[Nevo]

7 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Also, even if they're both crazy, you think that exonerates Dehlin?

No. But neither do I think Dehlin is some kind of modern-day Svengali preying on vulnerable, powerless women.

I do think there's credible evidence that he can be naïve and clumsy, that he sometimes overshares, oversteps boundaries, makes verbal gaffes, lies, and isn't the best judge of people. I don't think there's credible evidence that he's a predator or a misogynist.

[Hamilton Porter]

56 minutes ago, Nevo said:

No. But neither do I think Dehlin is some kind of modern-day Svengali preying on vulnerable, powerless women.

I do think there's credible evidence that he can be naïve and clumsy, that he sometimes overshares, oversteps boundaries, makes verbal gaffes, lies, and isn't the best judge of people. I don't think there's credible evidence that he's a predator or a misogynist.

Yeah that's his schtick. It's called vulnerability charisma in psychology. Rosebud talks about it in her testimonial. You fell hook, line, and sinker.

There's plenty of credible evidence he's misogynistic and a predator. And a narcissist too, but that's a story for another thread.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Just because you're a crazy female doesn't mean a male psychological counselor isn't using his position to assault you.

Rosebud isn't crazy.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Also, even if they're both crazy, you think that exonerates Dehlin? Michael Jackson only preys on crazies too.  That's an alibi.

If you're one of Dehlin's misogynistic lap dogs, just say so. Don't beat around the bush 

This is very rude.  There is no reason to act like this.

Edited May 28, 2023 by sunstoned

[Pyreaux]

14 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Rosebud isn't crazy.

I was just using the term that was being thrown around, to actually defend the accusers. A psychological councilor was made into a leader by basically his mental health patients, they may have other mental health issues besides just "recovering from Mormonism" and it's from this pool that his accusers come. Not to discount them as victims, rather the opposite, since that may simply be the reality any and all would-be victims come with. Where you and I could discount our accusers solely on the basis of their mental health amongst the random mix of people in our social circle, John can't as a mental health coach, since mental patients are a rather large part of his social circle.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, Nevo said:

No. But neither do I think Dehlin is some kind of modern-day Svengali preying on vulnerable, powerless women.

I do think there's credible evidence that he can be naïve and clumsy, that he sometimes overshares, oversteps boundaries, makes verbal gaffes, lies, and isn't the best judge of people. I don't think there's credible evidence that he's a predator or a misogynist.

I understand trying to show he's not the evil person people set him up to be. I have an idea that you're a very empathetic soul for all people not just him, so kudos for that. 

Many years ago in 2012 I attended a Mormon Stories Conference in Salt Lake City, where people would get up and speak about their faith journeys. And Richard and Claudia Bushman spoke, or maybe just Claudia, memory is foggy. I rounded up this youtube of it below. I remember inviting my daughters to go with me, since they probably wondered what was going on with me and the change in me. They were completely bored, haha.

Anyway, I was too afraid to approach John Dehlin during a break in between the meeting. We were all in the church lobby where refreshments were served and there was a moment when he was walking around swiftly probably making sure everything goes smoothly. I felt like he wasn't very approachable and I didn't have a good first impression of him.

I attribute links that popped up on my computer around 2005 or 2006 to a whole new world. The first not from him, was what set me down the rabbit hole, the link to Joseph Smith's wives and a list of the wives, other men's wives and their ages. I felt like I've felt when being in an a car accident, everything in slow motion.

I might not have gone down the hole if that's all I saw, but his podcast came up weirdly, or algorithms were so new to me. So I watched from the very beginning, his podcasts. And I attribute these and what was brought up, along with FairLDS's list of things I'd never heard of, to my complete downfall. Or I shouldn't say downfall, maybe I needed it to happen. Being a clueless LDS that I was I can empathize better now, I think. I grew up and really had to have my own faith not rely on others. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxlD_shNiCE&t=214s

 

Edited May 28, 2023 by Tacenda