We Do Not Support John Dehlin

[drumdude]

The policy only existed after his affair. So much like the church, he hides behind a technicality.

[jpatterson]

The policy only existed after his affair. So much like the church, he hides behind a technicality.

Exactly. The man who preaches transparency and "informed consent" is a hypocrite and reinforces himself as such every single time he makes public claims about never harassing anyone.

[Markk]

Number of John Dehlin podcasts I’ve listened to: 0
Number of John Dehlin Podcasts I plan on listening to: 0
Amount of money donated to John Dehlin: 0
Amount of money I plan on donating to John Dehlin: 0
Amount of time I’ve known how to accurately pronounce his last name: Less than a year.

Hey Steuss,

I have a three-hour commute and listen to his episodes often. in my opinion it is one of the best sources for church FAQ's and Truth Claims, in an "easy listening way" and just some interesting "Mormon stories." Some are unrufflable, and I click out after 5 or 10 minutes. But if you can get past John's interview style, there is some very good content that needs to be archived. Folks like Sandra Tanner, Grant Palmer, Vogel, Bushman, Han's Mattsson, Quinn, Michael Coe, Tom Phillips (his second anointing), and many others.

For me it is the classic throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Another one I listen to is "Mormonism with the Murf." I like his approach and commitment, even if I am 180 from his ideology. He has great episodes with Vogel, really informative, the best I have heard from Dan on Money Digging and the birth of the Book of Mormon, and unlike John he lets the interview-ee, go for it, while John inserts himself too much. Murf is a Mormon, but very fair and objective. He did an interview with Smoot that I had to puke about every 5 minutes, but it was a very good interview in understanding the different views of Mormonism being thrown around by members. But again, you need a strong stomach at times. He has some with Brian Hales that I haven't listened to that will be hard to stomach, but worth it in the end to understand the other side.

[Markk]

Typo above …unruffable should read insufferable

[bill4long]

This is something I just learned in the past few days...

Duly noted.

Next.

[Canadiandude2]

I use my unholy exmo power to reanimate this thread.

If only to find out if this is “the last time this was mentioned” thread everyone keeps talking about.

Honestly I’m still frustrated and confused as to how to even follow along. Yes I have Rosebud’s claims on the Mormon wiki but I suspect that’s actually not all, as again, I distinctly remember Dehlin freaking out at Benjamin Park and I would very much like to know where Park got his information, and what did he do to earn Dehlin’s enmity. I’m not saying Park could never be in the wrong, but there admittedly are some scholars who- when and where I do disagree with them- I kinda feel inclined to go back and double check 2, 3, 4 times to make sure I’m confident as to why I think that.

When I look at the evidence so far, I still see at the very least a sexual abuse of power. I can and have made plenty of criticism of Rosebud; I’ve challenged her for her Mormon hate-mongering allies of convenience.

But like c’mon. The way that Dehlin continues as recently as in this here thread to downplay his actions, and mobilize the Exmo community against anyone that disagrees with him (again, actual Mormon studies scholars with a proven track record for professionalism and ethics) or denounces an action as harmful -is in fact harmful. He’s not even totally penitent.

[Moksha]

I use my unholy exmo power to reanimate this thread.

Canadiandude, this is not the right major blowout thread evidence thread. That one was unbelievably long. Perhaps the longest thread ever on this forum. If I remember right, the best evidentiary posts on that thread were by Consiglieri. He posted message texts between Dehlin and Rosebud that showed the perfidy of her blackmail-like demands. That was a watercooler romance from hell.

[Marcus]

I use my unholy exmo power to reanimate this thread.

Canadiandude, this is not the right major blowout thread evidence thread. That one was unbelievably long. Perhaps the longest thread ever on this forum. If I remember right, the best evidentiary posts on that thread were by Consiglieri. He posted message texts between Dehlin and Rosebud that showed the perfidy of her blackmail-like demands. That was a watercooler romance from hell.

Sigh. Let's tell both sides, please. Posts also showed his abuse of power and the behavior of the board that constituted sexual harassment of the victim "from hell."

Downgrading this to a "watercooler romance" is irresponsible, but frequently the bird's jokes are indistinguishable from irresponsibility, so its difficult to tell what they really mean.

[Physics Guy]

I only had a late and peripheral interest in the great thread, but I took away a point from Marcus that was new to me. The worst part of Dehlin's behavior from a professional point of view was something that one could easily overlook (at least I did) because it doesn't fit the trope of the leering boss pressuring an underling for intimacy. He got someone fired because it made him uncomfortable to be around them, because of his (at that point) former romantic relationship with them.

In one way, that's the opposite of firing someone because you can't have sex with them: it's firing them so that you can't have sex with them. If the only moral issue you're noticing is the boss's chastity, then you give this boss high marks for being a paladin of virtue. This is the part of the story where Dehlin was repenting, the lingering Mormon judgement might say; this is the part where he finally started doing the right thing. No, wrong.

What Marcus pointed out is that firing someone to remove their temptation from your life is still hurting someone in order to make your sex life more to your own liking. The fact that what you're wanting is marital fidelity is completely irrelevant to the issue of sexual harassment. People can have all kinds of sexual preferences; as far as the harassment issue is concerned, a preference for not being tempted to adultery is no different from a foot fetish.

As long as the employee is actually behaving professionally, a boss can't cause them professional hardship just because of the boss's own romantic or sexual feelings about them—regardless of the precise nature of those feelings. Sexual harassment is a separate issue from the boss's sexual virtue, and sexual harassment can be just as wrong, professionally, even if the perpetrator is a paragon of chastity. To clarify this point by showing it in an extreme case, consider a violent dictator who maintains their marriage vows by having every tempting underling executed. The commitment to marriage does not mitigate the mass murder one bit.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

The policy only existed after his affair. So much like the church, he hides behind a technicality.

Exactly. The man who preaches transparency and "informed consent" is a hypocrite and reinforces himself as such every single time he makes public claims about never harassing anyone.

Speaking of which, will RFM answer my questions? You know. In the spirit of transparency and openness?

- Doc