We Do Not Support John Dehlin

[canpakes]

I want evidence. Group action does not create truth.

No, it does not.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Perhaps you need to have the impression that all the women are telling lies so that when you watch an episode of Mormon Stories to get your recommended daily allowance of Mormon criticism, you won't view John in a negative way.

No, I don’t. And I don’t need a daily allowance of Mormon criticism from you or anyone else.

Is Mayan Elephant/Cultellus/Binger/Lowrance still a Mormon? He’d fit right in over at LDSFF.

- Doc

[Kishkumen]

How do the 3 discredit the other 16? It’s as if they are all maligned because they agreed to condemn john Dehlin’s behavior. John says 0 for 19 when all he did is say a few things about the 19 he knows. 0 for 19 what? They’ve all seen or have seriously consider his behavior, I’m assuming, and found him to be a problem. Yeah. I mean duh. He’s shown that. Here. Even recently. Women and everyone should be cautious around the dude. He’s an egomaniac and can’t help but get a ton of self-satisfaction, apparently, by defending himself for behaving poorly. Every slippery excuse he could muster as it relates to rosebud came out from his lips. Yeah he’s sorry. He’s sorry his ploy got exposed. And guess what? He still has a host of fans who’d tear down anyone for daring to say a negative thing about him? And he’ll be leading that charge.

The three certainly don't lend credibility to the other 16. But, let's get back to basics. Let's pretend these are the Book of Mormon witnesses. Which of these witnesses do you want me to believe and why? Let's ground ourselves in the evidence, shall we? I have no idea what all of the witnesses individually thought about the Book of Mormon and the plates because they put their name to a group statement. I just know they agreed to sign the document. What was their motivation? What did each of them actually experience?

I don't go in for group-signature affidavits, and I don't go for group-signature denunciations either. You show me what each of these people have to say about their reasons for denouncing John Dehlin for being "unsafe," and I will be listening. I will judge the evidence for myself.

But let's go back to the witnesses. Now that you know that Joseph Smith lies and that Martin Harris is a gullible fool, what do you make of the other witnesses? Does your knowledge of Smith and Harris lend credibility to their signatures? Does it compromise their credibility in any way? Is the fact that the other witnesses signed exculpatory of the limitations of Smith and Harris?

I believe evidence. You show me that John Dehlin is a bad dude, and I will agree that he is a bad dude. I will not conclude he is a bad dude because 19 people signed a document saying he is such.

I know that John Dehlin had an inappropriate affair with Rosebud. (He is where he is today with all of this stuff because of that, in my opinion.) I saw evidence of that. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that he is generally a threat to the women he works with. That said, you show me the evidence that backs this up, and I will weigh it. If it is convincing, I will be convinced.

I don’t see how your similar sounding complaints about 3 women on the list does much more than offer a complaint about the 3 women.

I am not the one leveling public charges against people. You ask me why I don't find this believable, I will tell you why. If you don't care to hear, then please ignore it. I will stick with the principle of believing the evidence. I believed Dehlin had an inappropriate affair with Rosebud because the evidence was clear. I have no evidence to weigh the claims, whatever they may be, of these other 18 people.

Love you, kish, but this isn’t helping. There are 19 signatories not 3. If all of them are doing nothing but acting out in self-serving and vindictive ways that’d be nuts. No doubt. But come on. “I’m mad as hell he gets attention and I don’t. That’s it. I’m signing a letter warning other women to be careful around him. That’ll satisfy my lust for attention and my utter contempt that he’s getting attention and I’m not.” Really? They all be that crazy? If we grant 3 are acting in self-serving and vindictive ways does that really give us reason to think that the 16 others are too?

I am not here to help you. I am telling you that I follow the evidence. And, I am telling you that people do sign documents for all kinds of reasons. When I see concrete reasons for people to feel threatened by John Dehlin, then I will be concerned about people giving him attention. Just because someone feels uncomfortable doesn't mean the situation rises to the level of me thinking something serious needs to happen. I have worked with people in my life that were a real potential threat to others. The evidence was clear. I don't see anything like that here. I don't care how many people sign a document claiming to feel unsafe but offer nothing specific to back it up.

I have no reason whatsoever to believe John’s rendition of why any of these three want to warn others should be taken seriously. Can anyone confirm kristy money was paid fairly? How because John said so? Could there not be more to her complaint? There may be unconfirmed complaints here, but as I see it they are legitimate.

Is he going out of his way to accuse these people of something? Or are they the ones accusing? The people who level the accusation have the case to prove, not the person they are accusing. I will treat this exactly like I treat other claims. You know, like Jesus did not exist or there were ancient Hebrew Christians in America before Christ lived on the earth.

I think you’re genuine in your well wishes. But accusing 19 women of manufacturing a campaign to malign someone, because they’re jealous he has an audience is a baseless charge. They are clearly concerned with his behavior. Signing their name to a document isn’t a campaign. If they started a podcast to detail their complaints about Dehlin or anything of that sort…well, that’s a campaign. Wanting to make clear that they want women to be warned about his behavior, that is obviously not a campaign. John’s gone on the offensive against Mormon people for their behavior. That’s fair… but as soon as someone points out his similar bad behavior they are vindictive and are on a campaign to malign him?

Nah. I say he ought to clean up his messy act. What he has been guilty of is just as egregious or worse than anything he’s accusing any Mormon of, with perhaps few exceptions. But somehow he’s a victim. Yeah, I buy that.

Why should I care that they are concerned about his behavior? Concerned about what? I have nothing to hang my hat on here. Here's what I say, go ahead and sign a document that says, "I wouldn't work for John Dehlin because he had an inappropriate affair with an employee of Open Stories Foundation who goes by the moniker Rosebud to protect her privacy." Done. Great. I love it. There is evidence to back that up. We have all seen it, and, honestly, I don't really want to work with someone who sleeps with underlings at work myself. I don't care how they rationalize the situation for themselves. I am not taking the chance. Just like I don't take chances with people who say, "Oh, by the way, I just recorded that conversation we had, boss." Nope, not taking a chance with either of them.

[dastardly stem]

John came here to defend himself and absolutely discredited himself. This is what he said he did:

Rosebud made multiple personal promises to me from the very start and throughout to “go away” if our relationship ever got to the point where it was hurting me or the Open Stories Foundation. This was a personal agreement we had made, which she agreed to prior to joining the board or coming on as an employee. I was only asking her to keep her promise. Frankly, I was stunned when she refused. I honestly thought I could trust her. But that was a personal plea.

He set up a power structure in a relationship in such a way that he had all the power. he said so, after having denied it for years. She had to disappear if ever their relationship was going to hurt him or hurt the foundation. A someone was supposed to disappear upon his discretion. I can't fathom how ridiculously awful that is. Seriously...disgusting,,,inhumane. Enough evidence there to melt the polars....But...worse yet. He went through with it. When he was finished with her, he actually approached her and asked she disappear quietly. So it's not so much they had an affair. Yiptey...and skiptey...It's not such much he set it up, from the start of the affair, such that he held all the power. it also that he actually followed through with it. The dude actually toyed with another person as if they were teenagers and then used his power, including involving others, to get rid of her, when she wasn't willing to give up on her budding career, if you will.

After she refused to go quietly he campaigned to paint her as a crazy person, and no one's saying she did herself any favors. And he followed that up by saying again and again he is completely innocent. Other women came forward and thy too were maligned. The evidence proving the problem that 19 women suggested is found on this site. You don't have to go any further. And other comments he made didn't help. All 19 are correct to warn others. Look this happened years ago. It's so far in the rear view its impossible to make a legal case about it. He's not cancelled. He's not a victim in anyway. I can't get on board with you on that, Kish. The dude acted poorly. These women aren't conspiracists. It happened years ago and yet Dehlin came here thinking he was defending himself by exposing the quid pro quo. The problem is that he actually thought he was innocent and yet revealed in his defense that he exploited her terribly.

The affair? Blah....Not really at issue, athough certianly not a good look. Its his extraneous behavior. And I'll maintain he maligns Church members in worse ways than these 19 women maligned him. And their complaints are true. he actually did that stuff. And, we're not done. he asks his followers, his members, to participate in his legal fights for him.

If you encounter damaging allegations on the Internet and consider yourself a friend to us and/or the podcast, please screen capture or audio/video record the comments and share with us, as we might be able to use the evidence as part of a defamation lawsuit.

What?

He took notes when he's criticized the Church and implores of his followers:

We can refuse to give the misinformation oxygen or visibility on our platforms (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, my blog).
We can block the smearing critics on social media, which we try to do regularly.
We can continue showing up – producing quality content that helps our viewers and listeners.
In the case of legal matters, we can hire an attorney, fight the false allegations with evidence/the truth, and release the evidence once attorneys give us the OK.

the dude has acted a mopologist. His defenses are so apologetic-like, they hardly make much sense. "i've been smeared" he laments. "I'm a victim" he complains. "but they're crazy and we can't give them our ear."

In fact, that’s how many religions get their start — with baseless, yet undisprovable lies. That’s why we value evidence.

No. The dude doesn't value evidence. And is "undisprovable" a word? Jesus Christ!

[pistolero]

Let's ground ourselves in the evidence, shall we?

When was it exactly that evidence became so overrated?

"My truth" is becoming particularly pervasive. Why can't people debate evidence any more? But instead stonewall everyone with their non-negotiable personal opinions?

I have no problem validating people's feelings and concerns, I think it's an important human response. I'd definitely take any accusation against anyone, evidence-based or not, into account when making my own decisions. But if it turns into what is, effectively, a campaign, in the public arena, then I want to see some evidence before I'm getting on board. I cannot better understand the motives of many of the signatories of the letter unless they provide more information, I'm left with a few second-hand anecdotes, non-specific accusations and not much else.

[drumdude]

Let's ground ourselves in the evidence, shall we?

When was it exactly that evidence became so overrated?

"My truth" is becoming particularly pervasive. Why can't people debate evidence any more? But instead stonewall everyone with their non-negotiable personal opinions?

I have no problem validating people's feelings and concerns, I think it's an important human response. I'd definitely take any accusation against anyone, evidence-based or not, into account when making my own decisions. But if it turns into what is, effectively, a campaign, in the public arena, then I want to see some evidence before I'm getting on board. I cannot better understand the motives of many of the signatories of the letter unless they provide more information, I'm left with a few second-hand anecdotes, non-specific accusations and not much else.

The last accuser was very specific. The “abuse” was John raising his voice at her and standing up out of his chair.

[Kishkumen]

John came here to defend himself and absolutely discredited himself. This is what he said he did:

Rosebud made multiple personal promises to me from the very start and throughout to “go away” if our relationship ever got to the point where it was hurting me or the Open Stories Foundation. This was a personal agreement we had made, which she agreed to prior to joining the board or coming on as an employee. I was only asking her to keep her promise. Frankly, I was stunned when she refused. I honestly thought I could trust her. But that was a personal plea.

So, you are saying that when John said he and Rosebud made an agreement--a completely stupid and inappropriate one--that Rosebud was not a party to that agreement. It would be good to know what your position is on that point.

He set up a power structure in a relationship in such a way that he had all the power.

He was in a de facto position of power, in that Open Stories Foundation really could not exist without its principal money-maker. I want you to be very clear about denying any agency to Rosebud in this whole thing. According to you, she had no choice but to have a sexual relationship with Dehlin, and she had no choice but to take a job with Open Stories Foundation when it was offered. She had no way of knowing that this was an inappropriate relationship and an inappropriate condition in which to be employed.

She had to disappear if ever their relationship was going to hurt him or hurt the foundation. A someone was supposed to disappear upon his discretion. I can't fathom how ridiculously awful that is. Seriously...disgusting,,,inhumane. Enough evidence there to melt the polars....But...worse yet. He went through with it. When he was finished with her, he actually approached her and asked she disappear quietly. So it's not so much they had an affair. Yiptey...and skiptey...It's not such much he set it up, from the start of the affair, such that he held all the power. it also that he actually followed through with it. The dude actually toyed with another person as if they were teenagers and then used his power, including involving others, to get rid of her, when she wasn't willing to give up on her budding career, if you will.

But she did not agree with him on this, right? Either she did or she did not. You are saying she was incapable of doing anything but his will and that she had no choice but to take this job. He was some kind of Rasputin or Mesmer pulling all the strings and making her sleep with him, making her take a job as his lover. Then, when he wanted to step away from the relationship, it is not that she wanted to kick Joanna Brooks out of her position and have her and John take over Open Stories Foundation together; it is just that she refused to stick with the original corrupt bargain that she consciously and willingly entered into. Is that your view?

After she refused to go quietly he campaigned to paint her as a crazy person, and no one's saying she did herself any favors.

So, after he refused to go along with her planned coup against Joanna Brooks, and she refused to be fired and rehired, as John Dehlin was going to be, she realized that she had the trump card of the original corrupt agreement to hold over him. And she did. I am crying crocodile tears here that these two had a disgusting affair that bit them both on the ass. It was grotesque at the outset, and it is grotesque today, and yet I am to choose sides here because why again? Because Rosebud has never lied? Because Dehlin has finally owned up to his mistakes?

To the present day I say they are both delusional to one extent or another, and I wash my hands of them.

And he followed that up by saying again and again he is completely innocent.

Which is absolutely bonkers.

Other women came forward and thy too were maligned. The evidence proving the problem that 19 women suggested is found on this site.

It really isn't, stem. The fact that Dehlin is delusional about his culpability in the Rosebud situation does not prove that he did something equally horrible, or anywhere close, to Kate Kelly or Jenn Kamp.

All 19 are correct to warn others.

I say warn others of the facts. Stand by the facts for which we all have evidence. John Dehlin slept with Rosebud, knowingly had her hired at Open Stories Foundation when he was sleeping with her, and stayed with the company after she was fired for the affair. Denounce that for Pete's sake. Don't go into all of this other jazz that, as far as I have been able to see, lacks credibility and is unsubstantiated.

These women aren't conspiracists.

Guess what? They don't have to be, and I don't have to agree with them all the same. The tactics they are using, no matter how noble their intentions may be, are toxic and are compromising the worthy cause of standing up to unprofessional bullies in the workplace.

And their complaints are true. he actually did that stuff. And, we're not done. he asks his followers, his members, to participate in his legal fights for him.

What stuff? Look, don't give him money, stem. Problem solved. We can all talk about the many unworthy causes that people shell out money for. The political parties. The sketchy charities. The churches with ministers driving luxury cars and living in mansions. If you are upset about this, then you have a lot of bad stuff to keep you awake at night about.

the dude has acted a mopologist. His defenses are so apologetic-like, they hardly make much sense. "i've been smeared" he laments. "I'm a victim" he complains. "but they're crazy and we can't give them our ear."

Yeah, when you have something you feel you need to defend, you will defend it. He is not excited to have Kate Kelly, Jenn Kamp, and Rosebud destroy everything he has worked to build. That's not terribly surprising. Kate Kelly fatally compromised herself, in my view, when she went on Midnight Morons to attack Dehlin. Get outta here. I am comfortable with my conclusion that I don't trust Jenn Kamp's claims. Rosebud didn't just have an unwise affair. She set out on a personal vendetta, and it is not the only time she has stirred up controversy and drama of this kind.

So a pox on all their houses, I say. And yet, if Kate Kelly had a real great podcast, I would listen to it. When Dehlin interviews someone I want to hear from, I will listen to it. But I am not going to encourage all of this creepy circular firing squad nonsense to prove who is the best ally, whose time it is to represent the cause correctly, and all of the other narcissistic BS whereby people fight with each other to promote themselves on the back of a genuinely good cause.

[Kishkumen]

When was it exactly that evidence became so overrated?

"My truth" is becoming particularly pervasive. Why can't people debate evidence any more? But instead stonewall everyone with their non-negotiable personal opinions?

I have no problem validating people's feelings and concerns, I think it's an important human response. I'd definitely take any accusation against anyone, evidence-based or not, into account when making my own decisions. But if it turns into what is, effectively, a campaign, in the public arena, then I want to see some evidence before I'm getting on board. I cannot better understand the motives of many of the signatories of the letter unless they provide more information, I'm left with a few second-hand anecdotes, non-specific accusations and not much else.

The problem here is that without requiring evidence to keep people honest, demagogues can whip people up into a frenzy to commit atrocities. This is an absolutely real and well documented phenomenon. Cultural Revolution. January 6.

We have seen in real time how the "righteous" and self-flattering lies of con artists and opportunists have been used to get "aggrieved" people to try to overthrow an election. Now some of the same folks who probably decry that at the tops of their lungs are saying, "Hey, believe that John Dehlin is a bad dude because we say so."

Because we say so. Because you must believe us on account of who we are.

No matter how anyone attempts to justify that, we simply can't go that way or we're doomed.

[Kishkumen]

The last accuser was very specific. The “abuse” was John raising his voice at her and standing up out of his chair.

And I need a lot more than that, because I see have seen that situation many times before. The boss gets upset and yells. The boss stands up from the chair, stomps out of the room, etc.

OK.

Was it kinda scary?

Sure.

But we can't turn that kind of thing into a legal case every time it happens.

[pistolero]

The last accuser was very specific. The “abuse” was John raising his voice at her and standing up out of his chair.

That's not mentioned in her lawsuit.

It only mentions intentional harm, harassment (all sub-points sex-talk related), discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, unpaid hours, Lindbergh kidnapping, etc...