Problematic John Dehlin, a short list

[Kishkumen]

Exactly my point. Advertising both but neglecting the licensing required for one implies either ignorance or intent, but not both.

Yes, but ignorance of what and intent of what kind requires a lot more information to establish.

But, hey, it is funny and clever to say this stuff on a silly message board for the halibut.

Not sure I'm feeling too concerned, anyone going to John for life coaching...hmm how do I finish that sentence without being harsh on at least two people?

Yes, stem, I would not go to John for life coaching. That said, it is surprising how many helpers and guides in life have big problems of their own. Most of us here used to be LDS. Maybe we feel better poking at John because many of us are embarrassed we once fell for Joseph Smith. Life coaching is much cheaper than the Law of Consecration, eh? And I don't recall the last time John said an angel made him sleep with your daughter or demanded you sell your farm so he could publish his book.

Now, Rosebud, on the other hand . . . . Her fabrications and grandiosity seem to me to be quite a bit closer.

[Tavares Standfield]

I had the opportunity to take advantage of John's life coaching experiences. It changed the trajectory of my life. John was able to help me identify how my problematic relationship with my Mother caused me so much pain when leaving the LDS Church. And also my addiction to huffing paint.

Point being: John Dehlin, and his coaching services, are a blessing to those who use them. Call it therapy or call it coaching. The result is the same: a healthy exit from the LDS Church.

[Lem]

Now, Rosebud, on the other hand . . . . Her fabrications and grandiosity seem to me to be quite a bit closer.

On that, we are in complete agreement.

[Symmachus]

I enjoy Dehlin's podcasts whenever he uses them to inform or advance a discussion, which has been pretty rare over the past decade. It's not his fault, really: Mormonism is just such an ant-sized slice of life that you quickly run out of people who are interesting because of their place in Mormonism.

Regarding Dehlin's PhD vs. life coaching certificate vs. psychotherapy license or whatever: I think it's all pretty much BS. Each of those is a minimum level of qualification; the body of work that grows out of that minimum qualification is what should be measured. Is he really helping all of those people in a way that they wouldn't be able to help themselves? Seems mixed. And of course the minimum qualification is sometimes not even that relevant to have when the body of work that grows by some other means or in the absence of the minimum qualification is significant in its own right. Personally, I have never cared what school my palm reader went to obtain whatever degree or license palm readers need. It's the quality of the palm reading that counts. We take a rather different view of medical doctors, however, as well as of liver readers, so I find use of the title "Dr." in a public-facing setting by people not addressing an issue of the body to be a soft form of deception. "Dr. John Dehlin" is basically trading on the authority that the title signifies in a medical context in a pseudo-medical context. Unless he can diagnose and prescribe, he shouldn't do that. I don't think a license or life-coaching certificate is a substitute, since licensing and certification regimes for, basically, dispensing advice for listening to people talk about themselves is of the same order. But such is the culture, which has taken what is essentially a marketing tool and scaled it up to the level of a quasi-religious cultic function. It's not Dehlin's fault that, having abandoned altars and priests, people still want gurus.

As for the comparison to religion and Dehlin and how that impinges on his legal vs. moral obligation as businessperson in a market economy, I think there is some truth to the comparison. I don't at all see how Dehlin sets himself up as an ersatz religious figure intentionally, but the fact is that he serves that function for some people, which has been to his advantage, though again I don't see how he is to blame, given the culture. People need religion or they will create it; Dehlin gives them a little sufficient for their needs in exchange for some filthy lucre, which might be distasteful but I don't see a remedy to be applied that won't itself be a greater outrage than the original sin.

Speaking of outrageous sins, what I find most problematic about John Dehlin is his use of the the word "super" ever 14 seconds. Anyone who is "psyched" to that level should see kelp, preferably well-credentialed kelp.

[Kishkumen]

Speaking of outrageous sins, what I find most problematic about John Dehlin is his use of the the word "super" ever 14 seconds. Anyone who is "psyched" to that level should see kelp, preferably well-credentialed kelp.

God yes.

[Kishkumen]

I had the opportunity to take advantage of John's life coaching experiences. It changed the trajectory of my life. John was able to help me identify how my problematic relationship with my Mother caused me so much pain when leaving the LDS Church. And also my addiction to huffing paint.

Point being: John Dehlin, and his coaching services, are a blessing to those who use them. Call it therapy or call it coaching. The result is the same: a healthy exit from the LDS Church.

That's good to hear, Tavares. He has a lot of experience talking with people are they go through their transitions with Mormonism.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I had the opportunity to take advantage of John's life coaching experiences. It changed the trajectory of my life. John was able to help me identify how my problematic relationship with my Mother caused me so much pain when leaving the LDS Church. And also my addiction to huffing paint.

Point being: John Dehlin, and his coaching services, are a blessing to those who use them. Call it therapy or call it coaching. The result is the same: a healthy exit from the LDS Church.

I’m heartened to see you’ve overcome your mothering and paint huffing thanks to John Dehlin’s coaching.

- Doc

[Tavares Standfield]

I’m heartened to see you’ve overcome your mothering and paint huffing thanks to John Dehlin’s coaching.

- Doc

John's coaching was super amazing.

[Meadowchik]

But I can tell you exactly what I think of the people who dedicate so much time to moaning about Dehlin. I have vanishingly little respect for them and their moaning, and I am at peace with that. Let them go be successful in their own thing and knock him out of the market fair and square.

What it sounds like to me is that you are tired of people who complain, they are not useful or interesting, so you'd like them to go away. Do you have something more substantial than that in your censure of people who "come after" John Dehlin, a public figure?

I agree that a high-visibility life comes with risk and headaches. I agree that it is a very, very different from anonymous living. It can come with benefits, too, though.

Let me ask you to think about this a bit differently. First, imagine a relatively anonymous person with average social capital who treats those around him badly. What do you expect to see as an outside observer?

Now imagine a person with clout and heavy exposure who treats those around him badly. Tell me, what difference does the clout and exposure make for him?

Does it make it easier for him to treat others badly? Does it give him more access to new people? Does it help him avoid consequences? Does it make it easy for him to, intentionally or not, undermine the people who complain about him? (I would answer yes to these questions.)

What difference, then, does clout and heavy exposure have on how outside observers see him?

My answer to that is that we will not see or know about all the bad treatment. There's multiple obstacles a person must go through to even realize they're being mistreated and then complaint and then perhaps report it.

Who gets through all those obstacles in such a situation? In my observation, very often it is people who have much less to lose who come forward about mistreatment. And very often others, who cannot afford to risk what they do have, do not appear under public scrutiny. So we don't see them.

I will be the first to say that I don't agree with John Dehlin's business model, but it is the one he uses, and it is not beyond the pale. There are people who didn't benefit from it and came to feel they should have benefited more than they did. OK. So. Don't sign on to that kind of thing again. OK? Next.

And I really can't muster any sympathy for KK in her gripes with Dehlin. It has all the marks of being someone who has managed her own brand poorly using her grudge against Dehlin to create a kind of relevance-building crusade against him. Her allies have been, guess who, Kristey Money and Rosebud.

Oh, well, that's underwhelming to say the least. And now because there are these "concerns" about what is "problematic" about Dehlin built around the gripes and ambitions of people who barely nudge the sympathy meter when they aren't repulsing me, I just can't muster a lot of outrage against Dehlin.

I don't get into life coaching.

I don't go on cruises.

I am not a podcaster.

And I am not gonna get my rip cord wrapped around the axle over the ways that John Dehlin has peeved people off by mishandling his social media, or treating his podcasting almost like an MLM. If you don't like it, don't sign up.

I remember when a former friend called me up to push AMWAY on me. That friendship didn't go very far after that. But I didn't waste my time contacting all of our mutual acquaintances to run the guy down for trying to monetize our friendship. I found it distasteful, so he left my Rolodex.

Problem solved.

Other than self-preservation, you haven't presented any guiding principles here. It's fine for you, but--other than saying you don't like getting burned and so you get away from the fire--it doesn't offer a broader reasoning applicable to the topic.

This thread is not about legalities. I only employed hyperbole to rebutt your strawman. I have not used it to scaffold my own arguments.

Yeah, it’s not about legalities. Never said it was. I was being cheeky. I understand it is hard to communicate that kind of thing unless you use emojis and I’m just not good about that.

But it’s not really a straw man. It’s basically me telling people who moan about this crap to get a life and do their own thing. If Coca-Cola makes me sick, I buy Pepsi. If I don’t like slasher flicks, I don’t see them. If I don’t like one therapist, I see another. If my job sucks, I find another job ASAP. I don’t spend the rest of my life complaining about the things I opted out of.

The LDS Church is a little different. John Dehlin, however, is not the LDS Church. Nor is he a surrogate for the LDS Church. The sooner his superfans and haters figure this out, the sooner they will find self respect and move on.

John Dehlin is a big fish in a small pond. You have several ponds to choose from, good for you.

Church, these days is basically business. I enjoyed my discussions with Dr Peterson on this topic. Read the mission statements and goals of large corporations and you'll see they say they are all about serving people, helping and doing good in the world. Just like church. Of course business' main goal is money, they just don't put that in writing. The church is no different. It really needs money to survive and apparently sees money making as the highest priority. Sounds like John has adopted the church's business model.

Of course in another way there is comparison, church can be seen as refuge for the beleaguered, not unlike those who John caters to. Indeed I believe I read a follower of John on this very board just today offer a testimony of how John "literally" saved hundreds of people.

There seems to be more comparisons then at first glance.

Yes? I thought this was something that bothered a lot of us because we didn’t think it should be that way. You know, like the Kingdom of God is not GM? Now you are saying, what? That John Dehlin should be expected to act like the ideal church the LDS Church failed to be?

He's not the church, but he is repeating some unhealthy patterns of the church. He is claiming to be offering and supporting Mormon-adjacent communities, though. Is it to much to ask for someone to improve their community standards?

Glad to hear he changed it then. I think the issue is that you assume nefarious intent. Is it possible that he never wanted to go through with the process of getting licensed because the coaching aspect of his career is minimal and fairly non-important? That MS is his main project and the coaching is something he does on the side? Like I said originally I didn't even know that he did 'life coaching'. He hasn't been actively advertising it on MS. Chances are he was offering it because he comes from a place of experience faith crisis wise, does have a background(a damn PhD) in counseling psychology, and wants to help people. I don't know why the assumption has to be that he is nefariously trying to scam people out of their money by not explicitly stating in the way you want whether or not he is officially licensed. He saw that maybe it could be misleading so he changed it. Good for him. That's what we want right? For him to better his ways?

No. That’s just it. They don’t want that. They want him to leave. The decision has already been made, and they are waiting for the rest of us to agree that they are right that John must go. And they don’t really need us to agree. They just want it to be known that they were always right about John being wrong. They will comb through everything he does and shine the worst light on it. This is essentially a kind of coup attempt on a much smaller scale. The goal is to push John aside so others can be the heroes for pushing him aside and people can take his audience.

But, of course, there is a reason why they aren’t in his shoes right now. Because people frankly don’t like them. Because they are obviously strident phonies who are even more narcissistic and mentally unhealthy than John is. They just know and are able to play victim politics whereas John left himself wide open to being attacked from that angle. Along the way he chose to do things that made this inevitable. There was no way after the last year that this was not going to happen.

But I predict it will fail for the reasons I stated above.

That's unfair.

Dehlin mistreated people, he didn't make amends, he's still repeating the pattern, and so people who were mistreated are still complaining about him. It's a small pond.

[Meadowchik]

I stand by my view that notoriety is a harsh taskmaster. The life of peace, anonymity, and little drama is best.

So he should just pack up and leave if he doesn't like the harshness, right?

Glad to hear he changed it then. I think the issue is that you assume nefarious intent. Is it possible that he never wanted to go through with the process of getting licensed because the coaching aspect of his career is minimal and fairly non-important? That MS is his main project and the coaching is something he does on the side? Like I said originally I didn't even know that he did 'life coaching'. He hasn't been actively advertising it on MS. Chances are he was offering it because he comes from a place of experience faith crisis wise, does have a background(a damn PhD) in counseling psychology, and wants to help people. I don't know why the assumption has to be that he is nefariously trying to scam people out of their money by not explicitly stating in the way you want whether or not he is officially licensed. He saw that maybe it could be misleading so he changed it. Good for him. That's what we want right? For him to better his ways?

John Dehlin could get in big trouble for practicing psychotherapy without a license. It was irresponsible of him to offer it on his website and for someone with a PhD in the field, he absolutely should have known better.

The reason people feel squicky about what he’s doing now is because he gets the *shine* of having a PhD but without the accountability of the license.

So people think “Oooh, I can get access to his PhD knowledge and skills!” It might attract people to his services and they might put greater trust in him and his abilities.

But if he does something inappropriate or unethical, there is no “Life Coaching Board” to report him to. People don’t have the security of a body that creates standards, enforces regulations, and imposes consequences.

He gets the *clout* while escaping the responsibility.

Does he HAVE to get his license? No.
Is he prohibited from doing life coaching? Also no.

But those are the reasons some people don’t feel good about what he’s doing now.

Those are good reasons. Thank you.

Yes, I am sure people are “concerned” about John’s “problematic” life coaching. After all, many are too stupid to tell the difference between life coaching and psychotherapy, which are two terms that look practically the same. And, yes, I think it is really irresponsible to engage in life coaching when all you have is a PhD in clinical and counseling psychology instead of a six-month long certificate program and a GED. If I were shopping for a life coach, I’d go for the latter kind of help and feel very reassured that I didn’t go with that unqualified dude with the PhD in psych. I don’t know how he lives with himself. Can you imagine what kind of sociopathic “mental health” practitioner Natasha Helfer must be to deal with him as he carries on with occasional life-coaching sessions?

Some people.

So people are stupid and can only blame themselves? Jeez, Kish, you can't really believe that people who use medical credentials shouldn't be held to high professional standards. Regulating bodies do exist for good reason. Dehlin is working outside of their supervision while advertising his medical credentials as an asset.

Exactly my point. Advertising both but neglecting the licensing required for one implies either ignorance or intent, but not both.

Yes, and in an area of practice where the practitioner must be better at the ethics of the job than their clients expect them to be.

It should also be noted that people coming out of the LDS church are often dealing with issues of over-trusting others, especially male figures. Someone with Dehlin's education should be aware of that. This same standard applies to anyone being entrusted with the care of people in vulnerable situations.

Taking a cue from Kishkumen, if Dehlin doesn't get much from coaching, why does he do it? If he wants to use his medical expertise to counsel people, why doesn't he get licensed? If he doesn't want to be in the public's crosshairs and deal with such conflict, why doesn't he just get his license and move on with his life? If he didn't depend upon public perception to make a living, he might be much less defensive and reactive to people who clash with him. And by taking his career out of the equation, he might ultimately be a better contributor to the communities he says he's trying to support.

Or, he could simply stop treating people like crap when they call him out, and make amends for when he has done so. See how easy that is, Kish?