Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

MormonStories in Financial Trouble


Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

See here:

Hmm.  He has lots to say about how "phenomenal" the growth of MormonStories has been in 2023, but then says that "donations, weirdly, have flatlined, and even decreased in this same year where we've had phenomenal success."  He shows a donations chart that shows donations peaking at about 620K in 2021, then going going to slightly under $600K in 2022 and 2023.

"For some reason I can't understand exactly, we're losing donors as we double and triple our global impact."  He attributes this to

A) MS being "smeared, assaulted, attacked, defamed, that we think has dramatically impacted, has caused donors to cancel, and it's probably impacted new people willing to donate,"

B) MS not asking frequently enough for donations;

C) People lose interest and move on;

D) People fall on financial hard times;

Donations have decreased and cancellations have increased.

I suspect most of the decrease is attributable to (C) and (D).  Lots of inflation, so lots of people are having difficulty paying the bills.  Monthly donations to MS are, I think, likely to be a low priority.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the heads up.  I will make sure I increase my monthly donations to MS. 😁

Edited by Teancum
Link to comment
21 hours ago, CV75 said:

E) The devil has squeezed enough souls out of this flash in the pan.

There is no devil.

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

F) It is by the wicked that the wicked are punished.

Dehlin and MS are not wicked.  You may not like him or what his organizations does but that does make him or it wicked. Now if you want to discuss what is wicked we can do so.

Edited by Teancum
Link to comment
2 hours ago, rpn said:

Has he ever produced audited statements?   The last info I saw several years ago, Dehlin took the majority of the donations for himself.  (And there was internal upset over the disproportionality of compensation (though I don't recall all the details.)   I'd be surprised that this far in, anyone is thinking Dehlin can't survive on 600K (or even half of that).

I don't see audited statements.  But here is a link to some financial info. Only up to 2020 though.  

https://www.openstoriesfoundation.org/finances/

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

There is no devil.

Dehlin and MS are not wicked.  You may not like him or what his organizations does but that does make him or it wicked. Now if you want to discuss what is wicked we can do so.

I'll just move these up to A.1 and A.2 then.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Undeniably true for some, but hardly for all.   I've had two faith crises.  One from age 7-18, and the other from age 25-29.  

(I'm using the standard definition of 'crisis'.  Something to the tune of "An impossible to maintain current status quo, increasingly demanding some sort of major crucial change."    I am not defining it as something like a plain old traumatic or stressful event that knocks people off their center.  That 2nd thing certainly exists, but you can have a lack of impending urgent immediacy and still have a crisis.)

My first crisis started at my baptismal interview, when I lied about believing.   It was resolved when I went inactive, the year I "got big enough that mom couldn't make me go to church any more".  It was a period of self-examination and no shortage of doubt.  And yes, it affected some friends and family, but usually the impact was an increase in love/sympathy/empathy.  By people both in and out of the church.  One or two churchy folks went out of their way to invite and love-bomb the crap out of me, or openly worry about my soul.

My 2nd crisis was after I gained a testimony, returned to full activity, and began researching criticisms of my faith.  It was a period of testing a very simple testimony (God and Christ are real, the BoM is true, the CoJCoLDS is true), against all the unimaginably interesting, eclectic, and sometimes quite challenging bits of history, theology, and doctrine.  It also affected some friends and family, but again not too majorly.  LDS friends/family/peers reacted with worry or immediate disinterest or they found a boost in my stories about finding successful resolutions to criticisms and problems.  NonLDS friends/family/peers largely didn't care.  One or two nonLDS folks heavy on the critical side did their version of inviting and love-bombing, or actively worry about my ability to think and reason.   

 

Your experience is valid.   

I am curious as to how you are defining faith crisis though if your first experience was from a position of non-belief. Doesn't a faith crisis first require faith, followed by a significant change leading to some kind of crisis in one's life?   Your first example begins from a position on non-belief and ending in non-belief.  There was no serious change, loss of faith that once existed, or feeling of having the rug pulled out from under you.   There was no stable, comforting, life-directing, question fulfilling faith that you built your life upon and subsequently having it turn into quicksand underneath your feet.  

With your second example, would you say that you ever fell into a place of destabilization and distress (which is basically how Tacenda described her crisis)?  If not, what would you say was in crisis for you?  What is a faith crisis if there is no destabilization and distress?  Sure, there can be different degrees, but it seems like it is inevitable with such eternally impacting instability in core paradigms. 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, pogi said:

 

Your experience is valid.   

I am curious as to how you are defining faith crisis though if your first experience was from a position of non-belief. Doesn't a faith crisis first require faith, followed by a significant change leading to some kind of crisis in one's life?   Your first example begins from a position on non-belief and ending in non-belief.  There was no serious change, loss of faith that once existed, or feeling of having the rug pulled out from under you.   There was no stable, comforting, life-directing, question fulfilling faith that you built your life upon and subsequently having it turn into quicksand underneath your feet.  

With your second example, would you say that you ever fell into a place of destabilization and distress (which is basically how Tacenda described her crisis)?  If not, what would you say was in crisis for you?  What is a faith crisis if there is no destabilization and distress?  Sure, there can be different degrees, but it seems like it is inevitable with such eternally impacting instability in core paradigms. 

 

I keep trying to DM you, but it won't go through. Didn't want to derail, I do that far too often. Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for this post. ❤️ 

Link to comment
On 11/28/2023 at 3:50 PM, smac97 said:

D) People fall on financial hard times;

Golly, maybe that tithing stuff actually works...  ;)

But seriously folks, my heart bleeds.🤭

 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, such lawsuits can result in the Streisand Effect:

I was not aware of these lawsuits, though it doesn’t surprise me at all that Dehlin publicly shared a coworker’s abuse story without checking with her first if I understand the complaint correctly. It is shocking to me that he didn’t remove it once she asked if that is true, sounds like it would be easy to show.  That is a very bad look.  Maybe it would have required removing the whole podcast and not just a short part of it and that meant “lost revenue” to Dehlin. 

The sexual jokes etc is harder to judge, but it is very easy for me to imagine this given his responses publicly and privately as reported in the past working with women and then how he responds when complaints are made (at the very least dismissively, often aggressively imo as in ‘excommunicating’ volunteers from message boards without warning so they couldn’t even tell long time friends how to contact them, iirc).

And since it is not him being attacked for being antimormon or whatever, but more accusations of his mistreatment of or disrespect for women, no wonder he didn’t provide details.

Thank you, smac, for once again taking the extra effort to find good background info. Always informative. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
13 hours ago, smac97 said:

1. Jennifer Ruth Kamp filed a federal lawsuit (downloadable here) against Dehlin and Clint Martin and Keri Witback (OSF board members).  It looks pretty flimsy.

The findings of the court document outlining what the court sees as happening does make that part of her case flimsy.  I found this on Discuss Mormonism, which is I believe the new version of a message board we are not supposed to cross post with. Since it is the only source I can find though since this does not appear in other discussions online that I can find so far, I am posting the court info that one poster there requested and received from the judge’s clerk apparently. So thanks to them for doing that work for this 

Quote

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, STATE OF UTAH
IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY
JENNIFER RUTH KAMP,
Petitioner, 
vs. 
JOHN DEHLIN, 
Respondent.
ORDER
Case No. 230901037
Judge Coral Sanchez

Pending before the Court is Jennifer Ruth Kamp’s ex-parte civil temporary 
stalking injunction against John Dehlin. The Court has reviewed all of the pleadings and 
has considered the admitted evidence and arguments of the parties at an evidentiary 
hearing held on March 7, 2023 at 9:00am related to an ex-parte temporary civil stalking 
injunction issued on February 14, 2023. For the reasons stated below, the ex-parte 
temporary civil stalking injunction is hereby REVOKED.  

Findings of Fact
1. Jennifer Ruth Kamp (“Petitioner”) began employment as the Director of 
Operations at the Open Stories Foundation (“Open Stories Foundation”) on February 6, 2023.
2. John Dehlin (“Respondent”) is the registered agent of OFS and a member of the 
Open Stories Foundation Board of Directors (“Board”).
3. Open Stories Foundation conducted a popular podcast called “Mormon Stories.” Respondent is the 
host of the podcast and has a large following. Typically, Respondent hosted the 
podcasts. Each podcast typically had the participation of a co-host to aid 
Respondent conduct the podcast. The co-host varied from podcast to podcast.  
Page 2 of 2
4. Initially, Petitioner’s job duties were limited to picking up mail and performing 
miscellaneous office work. Later, Petitioner learned how to do payroll and that 
became one of her job duties.  
5. A few months after Petitioner started her employment with Open Stories Foundation, Petitioner began 
co-hosting podcasts with Respondent. Petitioner was one of several co-hosts.  
Some of the podcasts were live and others were recorded, to be aired at a future 
date.  
6. Petitioner enjoyed participating in podcasts and was doing a good job in her 
podcast co-hosting role.  
7. Approximately in June or July, Petitioner participated in a podcast with host 
Christine Burton. The podcast was recorded. The podcast was focused on child 
sexual abuse. In the podcast, Petitioner told the host that she had personal 
stories about abuse. Petitioner believed that the podcast was not supposed to 
be broadcast. The podcast was later broadcast.  
8. Approximately in June or July, Petitioner and Respondent agreed to have 
Petitioner conduct her own podcast with a group of guests. The podcast was 
recorded. The podcast had a total of four women participating and was focused 
on female body autonomy.

1. During the podcast, Petitioner shared the details of sexual abuse 
they experienced as children. The other podcast participants also 
shared the details of traumatic events of abuse they experienced.
Page 3 of 2

1. Respondent did not listen to the entire podcast as it was being 
recorded, but periodically checked in to make sure that there were 
no technical issues with the recording.  

9. Petitioner asserts that she never intended the podcast to be aired and only used 
it as a practice podcast. However, a week after Petitioner recorded the podcast 
focused on female body autonomy, Petitioner sent Respondent a text that 
included the podcast on female body autonomy in a list of recorded podcasts that 
she suggested should air. Additionally, it is unlikely that a group of participants 
would gather together in a podcast setting, and that Respondent and Petitioner 
would be concerned about any technical issues with the podcast, if the podcast 
was a practice session that would never air.  

10.Prior to August 10, 2022, Petitioner and Respondent agreed to have a special 
series of podcasts where Petitioner would discuss details of the sexual abuse 
she suffered as a child. Petitioner and Respondent planned to approach the 
subject in a series of four podcasts.  

11.On August 10, 2022, Petitioner, Respondent, and another male hosted a live 
podcast about sexual abuse involving the LDS Church and the Boy Scouts of 
America. The podcast was also recorded. During the podcast, Respondent 
made a statement, to the effect of, “I know this is a topic that it is important to 
you” when discussing child sexual abuse. Petitioner was bothered by this and felt 
“outed.” After the podcast ended, Petitioner expressed her discomfort to 
Respondent. Respondent offered to edit out the part of the recording discussing 
Petitioner’s child sexual abuse, but Petitioner said, “no.”  

12.On August 22 and 23, 2022, Petitioner did a podcast where she disclosed the 
details of the child sexual abuse she suffered. Respondent was the host and 
Respondent’s wife was the co-host. The podcast was broken up into four 
separate podcasts and all were recorded.  

1. Petitioner was allowed to take two days off after the podcast.  
Petitioner opted to take one day off and work from home the 
second day, which was August 25, 2022.  
13.On August 25, 2022, Petitioner was working from home. Respondent contacted 
Petitioner to inform her that he needed to meet with her at the office. Petitioner 
was upset that she had to go into the office and rearrange her day. When she 
and Respondent met, Petitioner and Respondent got into an argument.  
14.On August 25, 2022, Petitioner texted Clint Martin and Keri Witbeck, both 
members of the Board. Petitioner expressed her concerns about Respondent 
asking her to come into the office on a day she was scheduled to work from 
home. 
15. Mr. Martin and Ms. Witbeck organized a meeting for August 30, 2022 to address 
Petitioner’s concerns.  
16.Petitioner, Respondent, Mr. Martin, and Ms. Witbeck attended the August 30, 
2022 meeting. The meeting was held virtually and recorded. Petitioner spoke for 
60% to 70% of the duration of the meeting. During the meeting, Respondent 
brought up concerns about Petitioner’s poor job performance and Petitioner’s use 
of private information that she had access to in order to support a salary increase 
for herself.  
Page 5 of 2
17.During the August 30, 2022 meeting, Petitioner asserted that she felt threatened 
and scared during the August 25, 2023 meeting because Respondent yelled at 
her and was threatening her. Petitioner told Ms. Witbeck and Mr. Martin that 
Respondent was aggressive, kept standing up, and made threatening gestures.  
Petitioner also told Ms. Witbeck and Mr. Martin that she “loves working with John 
[Respondent]” and that she and Respondent make a great team.  
18. After the August 30, 2022 meeting, Mr. Martin and Ms. Witbeck were concerned 
by Petitioner’s allegations and pulled a video from a camera that captured the 
August 25, 2022 meeting between Petitioner and Respondent.  
1. In reviewing the video footage, Mr. Martin did not observe 
Respondent engage in any threatening behavior. On the contrary, 
Mr. Martin observed that Petitioner yelled and engaged in 
insubordination. Mr. Martin noted that Respondent remained calm, 
in light of Petitioner’s behavior towards Respondent. After 
observing the video, Mr. Martin felt that the Petitioner 
misrepresented to him what occurred at the August 25, 2023 
meeting.  
1. In reviewing the video, Ms. Witbeck did not observe Respondent 
act aggressively towards Petitioner. Ms. Witbeck concluded that 
the video footage contradicted Petitioner’s allegations and felt that 
Petitioner misled her.  
19. On August 31, 2022, when Petitioner was still employed by Open Stories Foundation, Respondent 
texted Petitioner. In his text to Petitioner, Respondent requested to have a 
Page 6 of 2
conversation with Petitioner before the Board made a decision about Petitioner’s 
employment. Petitioner did not respond to Respondent’s text.  
20.On September 2, 2022, the Board terminated Petitioner’s employment with 
Open Stories Foundation.  
21.On September 10, 2022, Respondent sent a video to Petitioner via text and 
email. The contents of the text message and email are identical and both contain 
the same video attachment. In his email and text message, Respondent 
expresses his desire to reconcile with Petitioner. The video contains a lengthy 
message from Respondent to Petitioner where he expressed his wish to 
reconcile with Petitioner.  
22.On September 11, 2022, Petitioner sent Respondent and the Board a message 
asking that Respondent and members of the Board stop all communications with 
Petitioner. 
23.After receiving Petitioner’s September 11, 2022 request to stop all 
communications, Respondent stopped all contact with Petitioner.  
24.On January 17, 2023, Petitioner filed a lawsuit against Respondent and members 
of the Board.
25.On February 7, 2023, Respondent filed a lawsuit against Petitioner.  
26.On February 12, 2023, Petitioner, who now has her own podcast, broadcasted a 
live recording on her Instagram account. During the broadcast, Petitioner noticed 
that Respondent logged on. Respondent, who was attempting to collect 
evidence for his lawsuit, logged off as soon as he realized that the video was live 
and not a recording.  
Page 7 of 2
27.On February 14, 2023, approximately four people at Petitioner’s place of 
employment received an email that contained a video of the August 25, 2023 
Board meeting and a copy of the complainant in Respondent’s lawsuit. There is 
no evidence that Respondent was directly or indirectly involved in sending the 
email to Petitioner’s workplace.  
28.On February 14, 2023, Petitioner applied for a temporary civil stalking injunction 
and the injunction was granted.
29.On February 17, 2023, Respondent filed a request for a hearing to address the 
temporary civil stalking injunction.  
30.Since her employment was terminated at Open Stories Foundation, Petitioner has publicly discussed 
the August 25, 2022 meeting with the Board and her pending lawsuit numerous 
times on different podcasts/social media channels.  
31.Since her employment was terminated at Open Stories Foundation, Petitioner has publicly discussed 
on various social media platforms allegations against Respondent involving 
claims of sexual harassment involving other females that Petitioner has no 
personal knowledge of. 
32.No evidence was presented that Respondent directed a third-party to contact 
Petitioner or discuss matters related to Petitioner. Specifically, there is no 
evidence that Respondent directed or influenced Radio-Free-Mormon to discuss 
any matters related to Petitioner. There is no evidence that Respondent was the 
person who leaked the recording of the August 25, 2022 meeting. There is no 
evidence that Respondent provided the recording of the August 25, 2022 to 
Mormon Discussion Inc. or that Respondent directed them to broadcast the 
Page 8 of 2
recording on February 9, 2022. The link to the video is part of a complaint, a 
readily accessible public court document, which was filed on February 7, 2023.  
See Third District Court case number 230900882, Plaintiff’s Exhibit A. 
Conclusions of Law
1. Since Respondent requested a hearing in writing within 10 days of being served 
with the ex parte civil stalking injunction, the burden is on the petitioner to show 
by a preponderance of the evidence that stalking of Petitioner by Respondent 
occurred. See Utah Code Ann. Sec. 78B-7-701(4).  
2. The standard that the Court must apply is an “individualized objective standard.”  
See Baird v. Baird, 2014 UT 8, 322 P.3d 728 (2014). The burden is on Petitioner 
to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in a 
course of conduct that would cause a reasonable person in Petitioner’s 
circumstances to suffer emotional distress. See id.  
3. In applying this individualized objective standard, it is helpful to look at the 
factors identified in Baird v. Baird. Id at ¶ 27. The Court finds the following:
a. Prior to August 25, 2022, Respondent and Petitioner enjoyed a 
healthy work relationship. There was no history of abuse between 
Petitioner and Respondent. Petitioner and Respondent enjoyed a 
mutually beneficial relationship–Respondent benefitted from 
Petitioner co-hosting podcasts with him because they were popular 
with Open Stories Foundation’s audience and Petitioner gained experience and was 
encouraged by Respondent to pursue a goal of hosting podcasts 
individually. At the August 30, 2022 Board meeting, Petitioner 
Page 9 of 2
described to the Board that she and Respondent were a great team 
and that she loved working with Respondent.  
a. Petitioner was understandably sensitive about the trauma she 
endured as a child. Although it was insensitive of Respondent to 
disclose that Petitioner was a victim of child sexual abuse during 
the August 10, 2022 podcast, Respondent did not disclose the 
information in an effort to exploit Petitioner’s vulnerability.  
Petitioner had already agreed to do a multi-part podcast with 
Respondent detailing her child sexual abuse and had already 
recorded a podcast where she insinuated that she was a victim of 
child sexual abuse. In reviewing footage of the podcast, the Court 
finds that Respondent was attempting to promote the upcoming 
podcast about Petitioner’s child sexual abuse rather than exploiting 
Petitioner’s vulnerability about her experience as a victim of child 
sexual abuse.  
a. The alleged stalking occurred via electronic communication. None 
of the alleged stalking occurred physically near Petitioner’s home or 
her children.  
4. The Court finds that the text messages Respondent sent prior to her termination 
on September 2, 2022, were work related and geared towards improving the 
work relationship between Respondent and Petitioner.  
5. Petitioner did not present evidence that directly or indirectly ties Respondent with 
any statements or publications made by Radio-Free-Mormon or Mormon 
Page 10 of 2
Discussion, Inc. Therefore, these statements or publications are not relevant to 
the Court’s determination of whether Respondent engaged in a course of 
conduct, pursuant to section 76-5-106.5. See Utah Code. Ann. Sec. 76-5-
106.5(1)(a)(i).  
6. Petitioner did not present evidence that directly or indirectly ties Respondent to 
the email sent to Respondent’s place of employment on February 14, 2023.  
Therefore, the email is not relevant to the Court’s determination of whether 
Respondent engaged in a course of conduct, pursuant to section 76-5-106.5.  
See Utah Code. Ann. Sec. 76-5-106.5(1)(a)(i).  
7. The almost identical, but separate text and email messages and video 
attachment that Respondent sent Petitioner on September 10, 2023, constitute a 
“course of conduct,” as defined by section 76-5-106.5(1)(a)(i). See id. Utah’s 
stalking statute defines “course of conduct” as “two or more acts directed at or 
toward a specific individual” including “acts in which the actor . . . communicates 
to or about an individual” directly by any “action, method, device or means[.]”  
Utah Code Ann. Sec. 76-5-106.5(1)(a)(i)(A). By communication directly with 
Petitioner twice via an electronic device, Respondent’s conduct falls within the 
parameters of section 76-5-106.5’s “course of conduct” definition. However, to 
violate section 76-5-106.5, an actor must intentionally or knowingly engage in a 
“course of conduct directed at a specific individual” AND the actor must know or 
should know that “the course of conduct would cause a reasonable person” to 
fear for the individual’s own safety or the safety of a third individual” or “to suffer 
other emotional distress[.]” Utah Code Ann. Sec. 76-5-106.5(2)(a).

I am not seeing anything on the sexual jokes being part of the work environment being addressed. 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, CV75 said:

You may not like him or what his organizations does but that does make him or it wicked.

Does this statement not need a NOT after the second 'does ' . I see that my 'my' needs an 'a ' for may. Pot kettle syndrome ! 

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You mean calling Mormon stories MS?  Edit that?

No

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Does this statement not need a NOT after the second 'does ' . I see that my 'my' needs an 'a ' for may. Pot kettle syndrome ! 

No

There must be some mistake: I did not make the statement in your post above that has been attributed to me -- both are from @Teancum

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Calm said:

The findings of the court document outlining what the court sees as happening does make that part of her case flimsy.  I found this on Discuss Mormonism, which is I believe the new version of a message board we are not supposed to cross post with. Since it is the only source I can find though since this does not appear in other discussions online that I can find so far, I am posting the court info that one poster there requested and received from the judge’s clerk apparently. So thanks to them for doing that work for this 

I am not seeing anything on the sexual jokes being part of the work environment being addressed. 

The lawsuit in item #2 in my previous post was for a civil stalking injunction, and not a lawsuit seeking money damages.  So it would not be unexpected to have different allegations included in her federal lawsuit (item #1 in my previous post).

I am not staking out a conclusive position on the credibility of Kamp's claims.  Candidly, I think she has some credibility issues.  That said, Dehlin does seem to have gotten on the wrong side, in really serious ways, of many women who are otherwise ideologically aligned with him.  He has apparently admitted to having had an extramarital workplace affair with a paid subordinate, "Rosebud" (see, e.g., here), and some of his defenders have also admitted that he had an affair (here).  Then there is Dehlin's purported "sexual banter" with another paid (and notably younger) female subordinate,  "Nuancehoe," which was called out by another ideologically aligned fellow (Mike Norton).  And the allegations from Kate Kelly, who is also ideologically aligned.

If the "Where there's smoke..."-style conjecture applies to Tim Ballard, perhaps it can apply to Dehlin as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
20 hours ago, pogi said:

I am curious as to how you are defining faith crisis though if your first experience was from a position of non-belief. Doesn't a faith crisis first require faith, followed by a significant change leading to some kind of crisis in one's life?   Your first example begins from a position on non-belief and ending in non-belief.  There was no serious change, loss of faith that once existed, or feeling of having the rug pulled out from under you.   There was no stable, comforting, life-directing, question fulfilling faith that you built your life upon and subsequently having it turn into quicksand underneath your feet.  

My first 'crisis' experience, from 7-18, had me basically living the life of a believing LDS kid, but I did not believe.   I didn't disbelieve, I merely didn't know one way or the other.   I consider it a crisis, because starting with baptism and continuing through every priesthood advancement, I was basically lying about believing.  I didn't like doing it, but I was too terrified of adults, and too cowardly to do anything different.   (I was a very unimpressive kid and teenager, even to myself at the time.)  It's odd to think my crisis lasted over a decade, but my immature and still growing self had some notion that I was living "An impossible to maintain current status quo, increasingly demanding some sort of major crucial change."  Hence, I call it a spiritual crisis.

 

Quote

With your second example, would you say that you ever fell into a place of destabilization and distress (which is basically how Tacenda described her crisis)?  If not, what would you say was in crisis for you?  What is a faith crisis if there is no destabilization and distress?  Sure, there can be different degrees, but it seems like it is inevitable with such eternally impacting instability in core paradigms. 

I don't suppose there has been much in the way of internal destabilization or distress for me, ever since gaining my testimony.  During my inactive years, I developed a fierce desire to hold onto truth and truth alone.  Changing my opinions about things required a very high bar of evidence/proof/fact/knowledge/understanding.  And while I was unimpressive as teenager, I've always considered myself not exactly the brightest bulb in the drawer.  I'm slow to learn, slow to understand.  But when I could crowbar some light or intelligence or fact into my fat skull, it tended to stay until a superior thing came along and pushed it out.   It did happen on occasion.  I've done an unrelated political philosophy 180 in my life.  I've evolved in seeing value in various principles, sometimes contradictory principles.  I guess this is what people call "growth" and "growing up", yeah?  Anyway, once I received my undeniably real testimony, and I fully believed in the God, the church, and it's truth claims, I still had to acknowledge the very real possibility that I might encounter something better, and lose it.  I remember how utterly convinced of my own correctness about something, only to find out I was wrong at some point in the future.  And here I was in all the apologetic and critic-filled message boards, wanting to see if anyone had anything that could/should dent my testimony.   I call that period of time a crisis too, because even though I never was distressed, I hardly felt bulletproof.

Anyway, I feel my testimony is pretty bullet proof these years.  I had 4-5 screen names before I landed on "Loudmouth Mormon", which reflects my certainty and maturity in such things.    I've plumbed the depths of criticism of my faith and church and beliefs and mormons.  I interacted with absolutely everything everyone had against it all, and I emerged with my testimony not just unscathed, but emboldened and stronger.  My topic/criticism/apologetic file reached over 200 pages, and I noticed I stopped adding to it, because there wasn't anything new to add.  It was just all old stuff. No more crisis. 

Cool questions @pogi!  Hopefully some of that makes sense.

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment
On 11/29/2023 at 12:31 PM, smac97 said:

3. Dehlin filed a defamation lawsuit against Kamp (downloadable here) in February in state court in Utah (Case No.  230900882).  This one looks like it has been heavily litigated throughout this year.  By my quick count the parties have filed around fourteen motions, each one likely requiring expenditure of attorney fees in the many hundreds to a few thousand dollars to fully brief, argue and resolve.

...

I think Dehlin is the master of his own destiny here.  Only one of the foregoing lawsuits looks like it is creating extensive expenses for Dehlin, and it's the one where Dehlin is the plaintiff.  I have limited experience in defamation litigation, but my general sense is that neither lawyers nor judges like them.  Damages are often difficult to prove, evidence is hard to come by, the melodrama quotient tends to run high, etc.  Moreover, such lawsuits can result in the Streisand Effect:

...

Here, Dehlin is suing a disgruntled former OSF employee.  I think he would be better of dismissing the suit, letting blowback and online gossip dissipate, and then carry on.  This would allow OSF to avoid further litigation expenses.  Instead, he is forging ahead in what is likely a quixotic legal effort, which will likely cost a lot of money and yield little or no meaningful results.

For those of who are interested in Dehlin's lawsuit against Jenn Kamp, I have downloaded several of the filings in that case (they are all public documents that can be downloaded by anyone).  Here is a link to a downloadable zip file of these docs.

I did not dive into them much, but a quick skim yields the following thoughts:

First, the parties are really spending a lot of money on this lawsuit.

Second, working as OSF appears to involve a lot of melodrama, from all sides.

Third, Dehlin appears to be working hard to avoid being deposed.  Depositions are basically a free-for-all, where the attorneys can ask pretty much anything they want.  I can imagine all sorts of topics that Dehlin would prefer to not have to be compelled to explain (under oath, no less).

Fourth, what a big fat waste of time this lawsuit is.  I'd wager that Kamp would be thrilled to have it over with.  If so, that this suit is still proceeding, still costing the parties huge amounts of money, is all on Dehlin.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment

I think Mormon Stories provides a much needed perspective on Mormonism. I also think the reduction in donors may be more related to content length than anything. Many of the stories are 4-12 hours long and I think the attention span of many people is declining with short video segments platforms like TikTok and Instagram. It seems like we are living more in a Cliff Notes world than an Epic Saga.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I think Mormon Stories provides a much needed perspective on Mormonism. I also think the reduction in donors may be more related to content length than anything. Many of the stories are 4-12 hours long and I think the attention span of many people is declining with short video segments platforms like TikTok and Instagram. It seems like we are living more in a Cliff Notes world than an Epic Saga.

Forget short TikTok clips.  If someone wants me to devote an hour or so to a podcast, that's one thing.  Four to twelve hours?  :huh:  That is another thing entirely! :rolleyes:   (It seems, to me, to be a case of, "[Big Whiff] Our crap smells so much better than anyone else's crap!  Honest!  Try it.  Take a whiff." <_<)  If Mr. Dehlin were a more effective interviewer, and if he were (or if he had) an effective editor, he could do a weekly, hour-long podcast and, perhaps, be very effective at it and have an even bigger following.

But if he did that, he wouldn't be able to listen to himself talk for hours at a time, which is, I suspect, one of the things (along with $$$$$ Cha-ching! $$$$$) that, really, it's all about for him.

Apropos of nothing, I went to school [yes, that would be, Cough-Cough-Cough, law school] with Judge Sanchez.  Still apropos of nothing, I know the Plaintiff in Baird v. Baird, one of the cases she cites, personally.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...