Problematic John Dehlin, a short list

[dastardly stem]

Then why did you interject in my exchange with consiglieri who said it was just one photo?

consiglieri has always known it was more than one pic too.

Unless Consiglieri has more information, I don't think he has much of a point here. He suggested there is one picture in question and she has not deleted it. And it is not in any way a sexy one. Dehlin suggested there were many pics of the woman in swimming trunks and lingerie. She apparently indicated he singled out certain sexy pics and not others. Consig, bless his heart, mentions one pic that is in question. And he attempted to doxx the lady, and basically called out her looks, which is all just yucky.

Lem's condemnation might have gone too far, but Consiglieri is playing a weird game here, to put it nicely.

[Dr Exiled]

consiglieri has always known it was more than one pic too.

Unless Consiglieri has more information, I don't think he has much of a point here. He suggested there is one picture in question and she has not deleted it. And it is not in any way a sexy one. Dehlin suggested there were many pics of the woman in swimming trunks and lingerie. She apparently indicated he singled out certain sexy pics and not others. Consig, bless his heart, mentions one pic that is in question. And he attempted to doxx the lady, and basically called out her looks, which is all just yucky.

Lem's condemnation might have gone too far, but Consiglieri is playing a weird game here, to put it nicely.

It's a common defense, however unseemly it may be, in sexual harassment law, to raise the issue of who is likely to be harassed based on looks. Then put in the mind of the judge/jury that the alleged conduct probably didn't happen or wasn't that serious if the alleged victim is not one of the beautiful people. In this case, who me, John Dehlin, Mormon rock star, who could have any woman, would like a picture and have it be anything other than innocent? I'm the guy who is afraid of beer, golly shucks. I support all the good causes and love being good and go against the mean church, etc. How dare you accuse me?

[Kishkumen]

Unless Consiglieri has more information, I don't think he has much of a point here. He suggested there is one picture in question and she has not deleted it. And it is not in any way a sexy one. Dehlin suggested there were many pics of the woman in swimming trunks and lingerie. She apparently indicated he singled out certain sexy pics and not others. Consig, bless his heart, mentions one pic that is in question. And he attempted to doxx the lady, and basically called out her looks, which is all just yucky.

Lem's condemnation might have gone too far, but Consiglieri is playing a weird game here, to put it nicely.

Um, doxx her how exactly? I was unable to figure out who this person was based on information on this board, which I think would be the point of doxxing someone. Suddenly doxx has come to mean all kinds of new things that I don't recognize. Does doxx mean "talk about in a way that they would know you are talking about them but only other insiders would know too"?

I probably would not have talked about her looks, so we can agree that this is a little harsh. I don't know anything about any of these pics, and I don't know why a person would post their pics in lingerie on their personal Facebook page anyhow. Not that it is any of my business (although people are urgently trying to make it my business).

I take consiglieri to be saying, "I don't get what the big deal is here," and I join him in that. I don't either. I don't see this as a "pattern." I don't see this as harassment. I find it slightly odd and off-putting. It is certainly worth approaching John privately to tell him to cut it out. But I still don't see why this would be thought to be relevant to the larger discussion of John's (un)acceptability to the woke ex-Mo community.

[Kishkumen]

It's a common defense, however unseemly it may be, in sexual harassment law, to raise the issue of who is likely to be harassed based on looks. Then put in the mind of the judge/jury that the alleged conduct probably didn't happen or wasn't that serious if the alleged victim is not one of the beautiful people. In this case, who me, John Dehlin, Mormon rock star, who could have any woman, would like a picture and have it be anything other than innocent? I'm the guy who is afraid of beer, golly shucks. I support all the good causes and love being good and go against the mean church, etc. How dare you accuse me?

I think he went a little far with it, but I think the basic idea was this: why would anyone be particularly self-conscious about this picture? Unless the picture is entered into the discussion, which I don't think we want, and I don't think she wants, then there isn't much to discuss. He has seen the picture, and I think he is saying he doesn't see why it would trip off suspicions that JD was creeping on it.

Anyway, I don't want to see the picture, or the other pictures, and I don't think there is enough to go on here to make any judgment. She felt uncomfortable. He did something that was a serious faux-pas in online etiquette. She should have gone to him personally and privately. He should have apologized and cut it out.

That about sums it up, and I don't know why anything more would be made of the situation than this. It really is not further evidence of JD's "troubling pattern" of behavior until it is shown to be such, and I don't think it can be.

Now, if the "troubling pattern of behavior" were John flipping out on social media when people confront him there rudely, then, yes, definitely part of a pattern of "troubling behavior." This is a pattern that led me to select the "unfollow" option on Facebook for JD's social media long before these events.

[pistolero]

1. The leader is ALWAYS right.
2. Criticism of the leader or questioning the leader is consider persecution.
3. Anything the leader does is justified, no matter how harmful it may be.
4. The leader is the only source of truth, everybody else is lying.
5. Disciples must be devoted to the leader and NEVER question him.

Applying this to Mormonism, I get why ex-members be like, ok...I mean there's some application here. I would say as much as this applies to Mormonism it applies to Mormon stories, or John Dehlin's org. Neither group is completely spelled out in the 5 points. Both, though, seem to fit, at least roughly. Surely John Dehlin's cult is even smaller than Mormonism's. It'll never be larger due to it being but a scavenger feeding off of Mormonism's scraps. But here we are a group throwing stones at another group, while residing in a glass house.

I understand what you're saying there, there are certainly organisational features you can compare, but come on, JD doesn't explicitly claim to be divinely inspired. And I'm fairly certain he isn't offering eternal salvation as a reward for behaviours.

I've heard JD publicly apologise plenty of times. Try and get an apology from LDS Church Inc. That said, clearly there are times when JD doesn't always do as well. I think anyone under extreme attacks might fly off the handle too, he's very human. He's not hiding behind a PR department (although there are times when I wish he would), he's a one-man show.

Glass houses and stones is a nice phrase, but I'm absolutely for throwing stones when it's necessary. It may indeed damage one of my own windows, but I hope that I can learn from this as I repair my window. By studying other organisation's weaknesses, I might recognise a few more of my own. Plus, if someone is doing something seriously wrong, surely it's always right to call this out?

[Dr Exiled]

It's a common defense, however unseemly it may be, in sexual harassment law, to raise the issue of who is likely to be harassed based on looks. Then put in the mind of the judge/jury that the alleged conduct probably didn't happen or wasn't that serious if the alleged victim is not one of the beautiful people. In this case, who me, John Dehlin, Mormon rock star, who could have any woman, would like a picture and have it be anything other than innocent? I'm the guy who is afraid of beer, golly shucks. I support all the good causes and love being good and go against the mean church, etc. How dare you accuse me?

I think he went a little far with it, but I think the basic idea was this: why would anyone be particularly self-conscious about this picture? Unless the picture is entered into the discussion, which I don't think we want, and I don't think she wants, then there isn't much to discuss. He has seen the picture, and I think he is saying he doesn't see why it would trip off suspicions that John Dehlin was creeping on it.

Anyway, I don't want to see the picture, or the other pictures, and I don't think there is enough to go on here to make any judgment. She felt uncomfortable. He did something that was a serious faux-pas in online etiquette. She should have gone to him personally and privately. He should have apologized and cut it out.

That about sums it up, and I don't know why anything more would be made of the situation than this. It really is not further evidence of John Dehlin's "troubling pattern" of behavior until it is shown to be such, and I don't think it can be.

Now, if the "troubling pattern of behavior" were John flipping out on social media when people confront him there rudely, then, yes, definitely part of a pattern of "troubling behavior." This is a pattern that led me to select the "unfollow" option on Facebook for John Dehlin's social media long before these events.

This is what consiglieri said:

Ah, but I have the picture!

I could breathlessly reveal it to the world.

But I don’t think people would pay to see it.

Not exactly the Eighth Wonder of the World, if you know what I mean.

Is this the face that launched a thousand ships.
And burnt the topless towers of Illium?




Probably not

Sounds to me like he is saying that the woman isn't exactly a playboy model, probably not someone JD would chase.

Here again, it is a necessary defense tactic that the firm I used to work for would use. We represented casinos against harassment claims and the first question asked was about how the claimant looked. Judges and juries give less to the less attractive because the defense can be raised that there must have been a misunderstanding and the poor defendant never meant for the comments to be unwelcomed. In essence, this claimant isn't that harassable.

[Kishkumen]

Sounds to me like he is saying that the woman isn't exactly a playboy model, probably not someone John Dehlin would chase.

Here again, it is a necessary defense tactic that the firm I used to work for would use. We represented casinos against harassment claims and the first question asked was about how the claimant looked. Judges and juries give less to the less attractive because the defense can be raised that there must have been a misunderstanding and the poor defendant never meant for the comments to be unwelcomed. In essence, this claimant isn't that harassable.

Yeah, OK. I don't contest your surface interpretation, but, then, I also know consiglieri and his sense of humor. I took him to be saying that he didn't understand why liking this picture would provoke suspicions that JD was creeping on this lady. I wouldn't see the point of such a two-dimensional tactic as seriously calling this person unattractive in this environment, since there is no jury and no one is on trial. Furthermore, what JD finds attractive may be completely different from what others of us find attractive, and that is no slight to people whom JD finds attractive. Everyone has their own taste. consiglieri knows that, and I think he was therefore indulging in a little humor in poor taste. Hell, he knows JD a lot better than I ever have or ever will, and he probably wrote that because he knows JD is following these threads--as we have seen with our own eyes--and he wants to tweak his associate.

In any case, I don't like discussing this person's attractiveness in any way. I will just move on from this.

[consiglieri]

The comments from consiglieri and Kishkumen have been extremely revealing. It is people like these two that make it so difficult to come forward when something has happened.

Between the comments like 'mental,' 'are you unhinged', 'she's losing it', 'serious things happened today how dare you have a problem,' the 12 single sentence paragraphs mocking the person while simultaneously stating they don't know the person, the poster who suggested this is trivial but still made the effort to look up a pic and determine if it was actually "sexy" or not, the one who stated it was her fault for doing the "crap" necessary to notice excessive liking but won't acknowledge that someone may legitimately feel uncomfortable, the "you don't know anything" while NEVER applying a similar standard to his own posts, all while defending their abuse by saying they think Dehhlin could behave better--but not actually applying the same rigid standards to him that they have used to trash women, etc. , this thread is a perfect example of the Crap people face when trying to come forward about something.

Kish, you stated recently that you think you have interacted well with women online. Let me add to your information--no, you haven't. You absolutely have NOT. And consig, wow. I would never have thought this before this week, but you're a pig.

On the other hand, other posters such as Doc Cam, dastardly stem, Dr. exiled and others have made some great, rational comments. Thank you. It has been an enlightening week here. I'm pretty sure I understand why various well known women from MD's past have for the most part left this forum.

Bingo. Thanks, Lem.

And this is why, when a person was willing to come forward, I took the time to post it here as a relevant addition to this thread. As trivial as it may seem to some, it does demonstrate a pattern of behavior that others who have been close to John Dehlin have claimed to observed and experienced.

But this person has NOT “come forward.”

Instead she has apparently deputized you to be her cat’s paw, just as Rosebud did James Patterson.

This makes everything you post hearsay.

The primary reason hearsay is not admissible is because the declarant is shielded from cross-examination.

And there are a number of questions I and others have about this strange story of tracking likes, unlikes and likes, among others.

Another issue I have is with Lem calling me a pig. Lem is free to call me whatever she wants. I can take it.

But how would Lem react if I called her a stereotypical animal name in return?

I expect she and others would suddenly get a serious case of the vapors.

This is because, according to the rules of your game, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Should the time come when you really want women to be treated as equals, I will continue to engage with you.

Until then, I am no longer interested in playing this game by your decidedly unequal rules.

[warbreaker]

And there are a number of questions I and others have about this strange story of tracking likes, unlikes and likes, among others.

This is not complicated to anyone who uses Facebook. I get on a couple times a week and even I'd notice something like that. I've been on Facebook for 10 years and this has happened to me zero times. When you post a new picture on Facebook, Facebook gives you one notification for everyone that likes your picture. So you post it, come back the next day and Facebook gives you one notification saying 45 people liked your picture or whatever. When someone goes through your posting history however and starts liking past posts, you get one notification for each post. So if someone liked 12 of your old photos one after the other, you would have to be stupid not to notice. And if you use Facebook, you would have to be stupid not to know this.

It's not hard to track even for someone like me who is only on a few times a week. Now if you are like a lot of women you are on Facebook several times a day. So if someone is liking the same picture multiple times (indicating a like, followed by and unlike, then a like) you again would have to be stupid not to notice that.

If someone did that to me, I could see a number of different reactions. If it was an old friend that I just friended on Facebook, I would take it as they were letting me know that they were going through my past history and telling me they were catching up. If it was someone I hardly knew, but I was interacting with on a professional level (as JD was indicating interest in interviewing on MS podcast), and they were the opposite gender, and they weren't liking my family pictures and posts, but only the ones where I appeared, or ones where I was striking a sexy pose (whatever that means for a guy), yeah that would be weird. I would interpret that as creepy and flirting.

It's a free country. Men and women are free to come on to whoever. My wife goes to business conferences occasionally and is constantly hit on by married men. It's a free country. Is it appealing for her? No. Is it creepy for her? Yes - she’s a professional at a business conference, not a club. Does it indicate a moral failing in those men? Well that depends on how you view marital fidelity.

[Kishkumen]

Fair enough, warbreaker. I obviously don't post enough pictures on Facebook or check my notifications closely enough to notice these things. Can you remind me what happens when someone unlikes a picture? Does that generate a notification. I don't recall that it does.