Sure, and I'm not sure I'm following you very well here. I suppose I was thrown off by your inclusion of the Strengthening Church members committee, as if it fits the context. John was ex'd years back, I thought, and they sneaking around, to whatever extent they did, following his public profile doesn't really compare to him trying to flirt with a lady on Facebook and his subsequent over-reaction. I don't' mind that he flirted with her. I get that it's icky, though. I'm interested in the organization he's running. SOmehow her pointing out that he made her uncomfortable was an attack by an evil doer who is jealous and wanting to take down his whole org.Kishkumen wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 6:50 pmThank you for not putting the pieces together for me. I think it might be difficult to prove malicious intent.dastardly stem wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 6:18 pmI'm not putting the pieces together for you, is all I'm saying. It took me a minute to follow his clues and find her. I'm not sure it's doxxing per se anyway. It seems it'd have to include some sort of malicious intent.
I am not saying it does "justify" pretty normal human reactions to things, which don't really need justification anyway. They hardly even merit mention, or, rather, they do not merit mention at all, except for those who are obsessed with the ins and outs of John Dehlin's seriocomic adventures in Post-Mormon Vanity Fair.People had followed his public activities to gauge whether he believes or not? I don't think that's in the realm of attacking him. But I agree, there was some unseemly activity by church members there. I don't know why that justifies his over-reaction or his flirting, though.
I don't think you are following me very well at all. Just sitting there? Please do me the kindness of remembering that I have been peripherally involved in this whole mess since about the year 2001. So, knock it off. Don't attribute ignorant BS to me when you know damned well that I am fully aware he was not "just sitting there." I am saying, now that I have to spell it out for YOU, that someone who is inclined to be paranoid might be freaked out by this stuff, whether it was really provocative to that degree or not.He's no victim. There was questionable activity. He should expect some sort of complaints if he has an affair, attacks a Church publicly, and seeks money from donors for helping people. You seem to be framing this all as he was just kindly sitting there minding his own business when out of nowhere people threw all sorts of stones and spears because he was so nice. No he's putting himself out there as someone who is saving people. He's publicly attacking an institution for it's treatment of it's adherents. He's admittedly silencing all of his dissenters. He's calling his critics names in response to criticism like "you've made me uncomfortable", painting them as crazy fools, evil conspirers, or jealous sychophants.
You might have noticed that I said it was up to him to decide what to do if he couldn't stand the heat in his own kitchen.
No, it isn't "of course" just because you said "of course." Both of them are married. Why does this make it a powerplay? It is a powerplay because they are both married? Nah. A feeler? Possibly. But I have not even conceded that we know what these pictures look like and whether liking them would be unambiguously flirtatious, or that he reliked a few of them to make some kind of emphatic creepy point to her.That's a deflection of course.
I don't join you in your unwarranted assumptions, and I don't think one friend liking the pictures of another friend on Facebook is a "powerplay."
Yeah, OK. Flying off the handle in his social media crib can be called a powerplay. He says, "I am the dominant ape here, and you guys need to back off." Pretty weak, but still a weak wannabe dominant ape's powerplay.He flew off the handle because she did as he requested, apparently, trying to play victim, intimidate her, or other such things....it all comes off as an act of flexing is influence muscles to me. It may not be....granted. That's why I noted I may be playing a little over-dramatic as he often does.
We agree on that much. The rest not so much if at all.
You seem to say something about how that Mopologist wrote up a document on him and how he's bad and his reaction to the lady who said he made her uncomfortable is in the same ballpark. As I said I"m not following you very well. That's what is sounds like. But I can't figure out why else you mentioned all of that. It didn't make sense to me.
I think I'm more sold on the explanation I gave earlier in this thread.
And I could be way off.John has done some good work, as they say, to set up a good interviewing business, with added accessories. In so doing, though, it appears, he's set himself up as a leader of a group of devoted followers who testify of his worth much like Church members do regarding the Church, and perhaps its leaders. This helps build his following. He relies off of donations from these followers--people devoted to the point of thinking his product is worth selling, much like the Church (of course the Church is so rich it need not the donations and on that ground is running the scam MS will probably never build itself up to). People devoted or casually attached wonder if it's worth scrutinizing since it's been a helpful product, some may even go so far, as it seems at least one poster here has done, to say a voice opposed is the voice of the enemy. That is, of course, just like the Church--heavily devoted members and those who are attached casually often see voices of descent as voices of the enemy.
He's also admitted a number of times that he has to squelch descent. His letter attached to this incident suggests this is his survival technique, much like the Church did in it's early days trying to survive. He's also painted it as if those who dare criticize him are evil, are out to get him, are just jealous and other such things. This is a precise description of the Church, of course. So as it is, he now has sway over perhaps a few hundred devoted followers (True Blue Dehlinites) and perhaps many more casual followers. He's played the victim to the degree no Mormon I know has ever done, in order, it seems, to maintain his position. And he does all of this on the grounds of saying, "hey look, I'm just trying to help people."
Yesterday as this little story about liking pictures was happening I went to MS Facebook page to view the noise. I saw at the top a post titled "Warning signs of a Cult".
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.
In addition to the above, it might be worth pointing out that for every Tavares Standfield, willing to defend Dehlin because of his great benefit to his life, there are a million or so Mormons willing to defend Mormonism for being even a greater benefit to their lives. So there's proper imbalance, in terms of impact in numbers and quality, that should be noted.
All of that said, I say, Dehlin is just another guy, running in this world, trying to make noise in his own way, trying to do what he thinks is good. It always seems ugly to single out someone out there, trying to be a part of the world, and calling out his minimally bad behavior. One must ask is it going too far, are we digging to deep to call out a ten year old relationship or a taboo of liking sexy photos from a young lady? That's all personal business and shouldn't really matter to the product. some seem intent to shame any who might think it worthwhile. And in the end, maybe it's not worth it. But the question is if the Church is wrong with it's behavior then why not point out the one criticizing that behavior seems to be setting up a copied organization benefitting financially, a very few, at the expense of others? Should someone at the top of an organization devoted to helping people wield that kind of power?
Maybe I'm playing a bit of Dehlin with this flare for the dramatic. Maybe. Or Maybe, Dehlin needs far more pushback, far more questioning, and followers need to realize the community saves as a whole and not one person.
One important mention, I think, since it was brought up in this thread. This is not a case of some random woman bombarding and harassing Dehlin as he has painted it, with friends piling on. This is a case of Dehlin requesting to identify specific cases of men in the exmormon world behaving poorly towards women, and one woman calling out an incident wherein Dehlin treated a woman poorly. He asked for this information and when it came he went wildly crazy attacking the person as evil and jealous and many other things. It all comes off as very disingenuous to maintain business cred.
