Problematic John Dehlin, a short list

[dastardly stem]

Agreed, except on some details. As far as I know Dehlin did not ban her, but he did delete some of her posts. He did however, delete and block a bunch of people who spoke up in support of her, including very civil commenters.

Thanks for that information, meadowchik.

[Dr Exiled]

I agree that he overreacted, stem. I am not sure how many times I need to concede that before we discover we don’t really disagree on that point.

Well that's really been my whole contention here. The degree of his over reaction is the problem considering the stated purpose of his community.

The question is why, and that appears to be where we really disagree. So, I don’t know about you, but I have never had any kind of following, never done any level of Ted Talk, never been featured in a newspaper article, never been interviewed on tv. In short, I have never been a public person. That feels nice, free, and relaxing to me. I felt really good just typing that. Since I have never been in John Dehlin’s shoes, and I really don’t want to be, I find myself thinking it could be pretty stressful. Now, he would definitely be better off if he were unflappable, but it looks like he isn’t. Still I extend a measure of sympathy and allowance to the person who has to deal with those pressures I would not want.

Much of his complaints about the church is it does not allow criticism. And yet he is less tolerant than the church when it comes to, not only criticism, but in this case , requested feedback.

Quick review because it seems to me like we keep talking about two different cases here.

John, attempting to appear to support women, requests for specific cases where exmo men mistreat or make exmo women uncomfortable.

She responds pointing out how his actions made her uncomfortable.

Whether or not he attempted to flirt, he proceeds to ban her and her friends, whoever they may be (assuming mostly women), deletes a number of their posts in his thread and then accuses her of being evil, exceedingly jealous of his lofty position, and wanting to take his whole organization down.

That is, of course, far more than some simple overreaction. It's a degree of overreaction that demonstrates that his livelihood, hanging his hat on problems with the church, are larger problems for him than they are for the church. Again why would he run over someone like that and yet complain about the church when the church is far less problematic on this front (I know that because I've made actual and harsh criticisms about the church and the church shrugs and moves in without throwing a fit.

As it is the big problem here has very little, if any, to do with whether he actually attempted to be flirty. It has everything to do with his cult-like activity.

I agree that Dehlin's apparent hypocrisy is shining a little brighter as a result of his banning negative comments. Over and over Dehlin parades out the victims of church excommunications, trying to hype their victimhood and doing these tired and overplayed excommunication vigils and probably reporting such to the press in order to increase the hype. I get it, the church doesn't like dissent and likes to childishly divorce those who do. Big deal. It's a real estate scam dressed up with religious sleight of hand and the divorced should be celebrating down here in Las Vegas instead of acting like they just lost a child to cancer. They are lucky they don't have to pay all that money for the "privilege" to do loyalty oaths to the church in the expensive real estate the church builds any longer. It should be a happy occasion.

Then Dehlin acts like the church and excommunicates those who support the claimant against him. Too rich.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well that's really been my whole contention here. The degree of his over reaction is the problem considering the stated purpose of his community.



Much of his complaints about the church is it does not allow criticism. And yet he is less tolerant than the church when it comes to, not only criticism, but in this case , requested feedback.

Quick review because it seems to me like we keep talking about two different cases here.

John, attempting to appear to support women, requests for specific cases where exmo men mistreat or make exmo women uncomfortable.

She responds pointing out how his actions made her uncomfortable.

Whether or not he attempted to flirt, he proceeds to ban her and her friends, whoever they may be (assuming mostly women), deletes a number of their posts in his thread and then accuses her of being evil, exceedingly jealous of his lofty position, and wanting to take his whole organization down.

That is, of course, far more than some simple overreaction. It's a degree of overreaction that demonstrates that his livelihood, hanging his hat on problems with the church, are larger problems for him than they are for the church. Again why would he run over someone like that and yet complain about the church when the church is far less problematic on this front (I know that because I've made actual and harsh criticisms about the church and the church shrugs and moves in without throwing a fit.

As it is the big problem here has very little, if any, to do with whether he actually attempted to be flirty. It has everything to do with his cult-like activity.

I agree that Dehlin's apparent hypocrisy is shining a little brighter as a result of his banning negative comments. Over and over Dehlin parades out the victims of church excommunications, trying to hype their victimhood and doing these tired and overplayed excommunication vigils and probably reporting such to the press in order to increase the hype.

...

Then Dehlin acts like the church and excommunicates those who support the claimant against him. Too rich.

This is the thing that surprises me with the more sympathetic posters on this thread and perhaps other threads here and across social media. This is where I’m actually seeing some parallels to Joseph Smith and early church leaders. Issues of intrasex dynamics, othering of people who point out problematic behaviors, banning, shunning, and crap talking ‘evil’ excommunicados. This is the hardest part of a new religious movement, and believe you me a charismatic ringleader trying to THRIVE in the market of spiritualism is nothing new - the inevitable jealousies, sniping, community building, and hostilities every nascent religion experiences. Frankly, if I were a board member I’d resign because this is moving beyond folks in Mormonland telling their stories on a podcast into post-Mormon culture building with a dude making a living off it that’s morphing into a cult of personality.

- Doc

[Dr Exiled]

I agree that Dehlin's apparent hypocrisy is shining a little brighter as a result of his banning negative comments. Over and over Dehlin parades out the victims of church excommunications, trying to hype their victimhood and doing these tired and overplayed excommunication vigils and probably reporting such to the press in order to increase the hype.

...

Then Dehlin acts like the church and excommunicates those who support the claimant against him. Too rich.

This is the thing that surprises me with the more sympathetic posters on this thread and perhaps other threads here and across social media. This is where I’m actually seeing some parallels to Joseph Smith and early church leaders. Issues of intrasex dynamics, othering of people who point out problematic behaviors, banning, shunning, and Crap talking ‘evil’ excommunicados. This is the hardest part of a new religious movement, and believe you me a charismatic ringleader trying to THRIVE in the market of spiritualism is nothing new - the inevitable jealousies, sniping, community building, and hostilities every nascent religion experiences. Frankly, if I were a board member I’d resign because this is moving beyond folks in Mormonland telling their stories on a podcast into post-Mormon culture building with a dude making a living off it that’s morphing into a cult of personality.

- Doc

Yup. I don't know him, but I bet he is someone who cannot sit still in a room until the spotlight is on him and fights to keep it there. The church will remain highly problematic with or without him. The Tanners and the Dan Vogels of the world did fine and then Google came along to cause the real problems.

Another questionable thing is that Dehlin couches his authoritarian moves regarding Facebook dissent in terms of if He loses, then the Church somehow wins. He misinterprets the market. It ain't about Him and someone else or a group of people will come in and fill the void if Dehlin no longer THRIVES.

[Kishkumen]

And though we disagree, kish, I consider it a massive deflection to justify his paranoia with cases that have nothing to do with him soliciting cases of women feeling mistreated.

I know I'm just repeating myself but it's apparent to me, his paranoia in trying to lead a community and mistreating people as a result is a problem, an unhealthy aspect of that which hes using people to profit off of.

I think you are joining the overreaction, stem. Accounting as much as possible for everything that informs a person’s perspective and state of mind is not a deflection.

[Atlantic]

The one facet in this conversation that feels important to emphasize again is that this person did not set out with the intention to attack and/or destroy John. The fact it was in response to a post soliciting advice for how ex-Mormon men can treat women better is highly relevant, in my opinion. Her original post and replies read as organic, real-time responses to the conversation happening within that specific post. This isn't the same thing as the Kwaku attacks. I'm willing to cut John some slack and accept that to err is human, but I do think he overreacted here.

[pistolero]

Happy for JD to be judged to have overreacted - seems like he did. Ultimately he pays the price for his actions, potentially fewer donations etc... MS/Open Stories Foundation is the complex function of many things including his bad behaviour. If he wants to be a dick, then that gets thrown into the mixer too. He reaps what he sows. It's not like he's promising eternal rewards and coercing behaviours based on any supposed reward - there are other places to get the same/similar product (plug here for RFM/ML). So whilst I see the Rockstar or Charismatic Leader (religious or otherwise) parallels, I'm not sure I see the TSCC comparisons as clearly.

I tend to judge TSCC by my understanding of their standards, I mean they are the one and only true church on planet earth with the most correct book every written, with God's mouthpiece telling us what we need to know and all that. JD just claims to be a fallible man providing support for the disenfranchised, and I will judge him on that. That said, if he wants to maintain his brand, he should really get a grip of himself.

[Chelovek]

So a woman posts sexy pics of herself on Facebook and is offended that a man likes them?

Do I have that right?

No....he barrage liked mostly her sexy pics on both Instagram and Facebook from over a years worth of post. He cherry picked mostly sexy pics that he had previously already liked....he unliked them then, then liked them again. This happened ALL AT ONCE. He did this THREE TIMES OVER THREE DAYS. If it was just her posting pics and him liking them as they are posted that would be normal. She woke up to a BARRAGE of John Dehlin's "likes" of these pics. That's not normal. If you don't agree.... Do it! I dare you to go on a married woman's page, someone who you are friends with both her and her husband, go back over a year and only like her more sexy pics. It's got to be at least 30 at once. Do it on both her Facebook & Instagram. Be sure on Facebook to only like the ones her husband is not tagged in. Let that sit a day...then do it again....then let it sit and do it a third time! Yeah....you would be creepy for sure! This is exactly what John Dehlin did. I am her husband...I saw it first hand. It caught us both totally off guard! He and Margi had been online friends of ours for over 4yrs. I was a bishop and we left the church while I was in the Stake presidency and we have a very unique story. John wanted to interview us and we planned to do so but had to wait until we felt the time was right with our family. John's behavior is completely unjustified except in the case of him trying to flirt or get attention. He knows us. He knows we are monogomus and he should have known this was NOT OK. I'm still in shock he did this and can't understand why.

[dastardly stem]

I think you are joining the overreaction, stem. Accounting as much as possible for everything that informs a person’s perspective and state of mind is not a deflection.

Mine is more an observation than a reaction. There seems to be some good parallels between his behavior and the behavior of the church and its leaders which he criticizes. It seems quite plain and this example story supports that. If that is anywhere in the realm of overreaction then convict me the evil, jealous sinner he would likely want to paint me to be.

All the best, my good man. It's been an interesting back and forth, including the Rosebud crap (I used the s-word to clarify) I haven't enjoyed calling all of this crap out on his part, so I hope at some point to be freed from it.

Special thanks to meadowchik for the thread though...it opened my eyes all the more.

[Kishkumen]

Welcome, Chelovek. It sounds like your are still very upset about all of this. I regret that this has become a topic of conversation here, honestly. I don't know you guys, and this is not the way I would want to become acquainted with you or anyone else. Be that as it may, I offer my apologies for contributing to your unhappiness about this situation. I do have one question, which you are free to ignore, but what came our of you and your spouse contacting John privately to work this out? I am assuming that you guys did, but that the outcome of the private confrontation was unsatisfactory. Is that correct?