You're treating two very different cases as being alike. John is not charging 10% of people's income in exchange for promises in the next life. eternal life. He's paying people to perform work for OS. Informed consent is a good concept in certain circumstances. Personally, when it comes to religion, I'm more of a caveat emptor guy. But I haven't paid any attention to whatever Dehlin has said about informed consent in relation to the CLOJCOLDS.
That's the thing about principles, to me at least. They apply to situations regardless of the severity or magnitude. Stealing a candy bar or stealing a gold bar are both stealing. I'm not claiming that John is running an organization of the same scale as the LDS church, I'm just saying if he wants to be consistent he should practice what he preaches.
ChatGPT says these are quotes from Dehlin (it's very hard to search for quotes from thousands of podcasts any other way)
"Members deserve to know the full history of the church, including its problematic aspects, so they can make informed decisions about their faith and membership."
"When people find out later in life that they were not given the full story, it can cause significant psychological harm."
"Discovering unsettling information about the church later in life can lead to significant emotional distress and feelings of betrayal. It is crucial for members to be fully informed from the beginning."
Why shouldn't John tell his full history regarding the Open Stories Foundation, including problematic aspects, give us the whole story, tell the unsettling information? He's soliciting donations and making a living off of them just as church leaders are. Why not apply the same standards of truth and transparency?
Stealing is an easy principle to apply across contexts. But what would you do with Jean Valjean? How about climber caught in a blizzard who stumbles on a cabin that contains food?
I imagine John criticizes the church for not running background checks on youth leaders. Should he be required to run a background check on himself?
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
That's the thing about principles, to me at least. They apply to situations regardless of the severity or magnitude. Stealing a candy bar or stealing a gold bar are both stealing. I'm not claiming that John is running an organization of the same scale as the LDS church, I'm just saying if he wants to be consistent he should practice what he preaches.
ChatGPT says these are quotes from Dehlin (it's very hard to search for quotes from thousands of podcasts any other way)
"Members deserve to know the full history of the church, including its problematic aspects, so they can make informed decisions about their faith and membership."
"When people find out later in life that they were not given the full story, it can cause significant psychological harm."
"Discovering unsettling information about the church later in life can lead to significant emotional distress and feelings of betrayal. It is crucial for members to be fully informed from the beginning."
Why shouldn't John tell his full history regarding the Open Stories Foundation, including problematic aspects, give us the whole story, tell the unsettling information? He's soliciting donations and making a living off of them just as church leaders are. Why not apply the same standards of truth and transparency?
Stealing is an easy principle to apply across contexts. But what would you do with Jean Valjean? How about climber caught in a blizzard who stumbles on a cabin that contains food?
I imagine John criticizes the church for not running background checks on youth leaders. Should he be required to run a background check on himself?
Does Dehlin take care of a lot of youths? I certainly wouldn't trust him with my daughter, knowing what I know about him.
Stealing is an easy principle to apply across contexts. But what would you do with Jean Valjean? How about climber caught in a blizzard who stumbles on a cabin that contains food?
I imagine John criticizes the church for not running background checks on youth leaders. Should he be required to run a background check on himself?
Does Dehlin take care of a lot of youths? I certainly wouldn't trust him with my daughter, knowing what I know about him.
That, of course, is your choice.
If you are going to be principled yourself, don't you have to take the position that all employers should disclose claims of sexual harassment to all prospective employees? What about employees? Should they disclose negative aspects of their past that might possibly affect the employer's business?
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Does Dehlin take care of a lot of youths? I certainly wouldn't trust him with my daughter, knowing what I know about him.
That, of course, is your choice.
If you are going to be principled yourself, don't you have to take the position that all employers should disclose claims of sexual harassment to all prospective employees? What about employees? Should they disclose negative aspects of their past that might possibly affect the employer's business?
These are John's principles. Informed consent is a major theme of Mormon Stories Podcast. I'm criticizing him for making a business out of complaining about informed consent and then not applying it to himself.
It's in the mission statement, for heaven's sake:
Mormon Stories Mission Statement wrote:Some of the primary objectives of Mormon Stories podcast include:
Building greater awareness regarding accurate LDS/Mormon church history, doctrine, and theology – so that both active, believing Mormons and investigators of the church can make informed decisions regarding their investment in, and engagement with the church.
If you are going to be principled yourself, don't you have to take the position that all employers should disclose claims of sexual harassment to all prospective employees? What about employees? Should they disclose negative aspects of their past that might possibly affect the employer's business?
These are John's principles. Informed consent is a major theme of Mormon Stories Podcast. I'm criticizing him for making a business out of complaining about informed consent and then not applying it to himself.
It's in the mission statement, for heaven's sake:
Mormon Stories Mission Statement wrote:Some of the primary objectives of Mormon Stories podcast include:
Building greater awareness regarding accurate LDS/Mormon church history, doctrine, and theology – so that both active, believing Mormons and investigators of the church can make informed decisions regarding their investment in, and engagement with the church.
No, you're applying your own principle. You're just not stating it. Can you state it? As in "Any X must Y?"
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
These are John's principles. Informed consent is a major theme of Mormon Stories Podcast. I'm criticizing him for making a business out of complaining about informed consent and then not applying it to himself.
It's in the mission statement, for heaven's sake:
No, you're applying your own principle. You're just not stating it. Can you state it? As in "Any X must Y?"
I fully believe the statement "I'm criticizing him for making a business out of complaining about informed consent and then not applying it to himself." is sufficient to make the argument I'd like to make here.
No, you're applying your own principle. You're just not stating it. Can you state it? As in "Any X must Y?"
I fully believe the statement "I'm criticizing him for making a business out of complaining about informed consent and then not applying it to himself." is sufficient to make the argument I'd like to make here.
Then I will simply note that I think your criticism is unprincipled and move on.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
I fully believe the statement "I'm criticizing him for making a business out of complaining about informed consent and then not applying it to himself." is sufficient to make the argument I'd like to make here.
Then I will simply note that I think your criticism is unprincipled and move on.
I do find it interesting that the thread has gotten to the point of "what the definition of is, is" just to avoid calling Dehlin out.
Then I will simply note that I think your criticism is unprincipled and move on.
I do find it interesting that the thread has gotten to the point of "what the definition of is, is" just to avoid calling Dehlin out.
I don't think you have to worry that people are confused or unknowing. The information is public, people can do their own due diligence and decide for themselves. I certainly have. What more can one ask for?
Then I will simply note that I think your criticism is unprincipled and move on.
I do find it interesting that the thread has gotten to the point of "what the definition of is, is" just to avoid calling Dehlin out.
LOL. Is “calling out Dehlin” a new former Mormon purity test of some kind? The only avoidance going on here is you avoiding the fact that your “principled” basis isn’t principled at all. If you think JD should be humiliated or punished, that’s okay. Just don’t try to pass off whatever your deal with him as principled. A rule that you want to apply only to John Dehlin isn’t a principled anything.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
