Problematic John Dehlin, a short list

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I’m interested in identifying cult-like thinking and then behavior. What we’re witnessing, much like with the Snufferites, is a nascent spiritual movement. So, of course I’m interested in watching the follies and foibles of a wannabe public persona earning a living by the temple. It’s really no different when a preachy politician, sports figure, or, uh, preacher is inevitably exposed as a greasy hypocrite - it’s the infinite recursion of human fallibility. It’d be nice if more people were actually decent like an Obama, or John Wooden, or Jimmy Carter, but they’re not. And it should be pointed out before they become a Smith or Trump.

- Doc

[Lem]

I’m interested in identifying cult-like thinking and then behavior. What we’re witnessing, much like with the Snufferites, is a nascent spiritual movement. So, of course I’m interested in watching the follies and foibles of a wannabe public persona earning a living by the temple....

And of the followers as well, I suppose. Only in this case, maybe we should call them the Stockholm syndrome hangers-on. Rosebud has recently posted a truly bizarre take on this:

...within my own Salt Lake City sect, we formed into two subgroups: the people commonly referred to as “TBMs” (or True Believing Mormons or, possibly, true believing Latter-day Saints) and the people we call “ex-Mormons.” While both of these subgroups are founded in my branch of Brighamite Mormonism, they interact in competition to each other. The ex-Mormons (or “anti-Mormons” as the TBM’s sometimes call them) may not consider themselves to be Mormon, but, more realistically, they are. When it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

Thus, the ex-Mormons are a sect within Mormonism.

And right now, John Dehlin, is the ex-Mormon sect’s leader. The ex-Mormons would not call him a “prophet” (because they’re secularists), but the role he plays is analogous to one.

The battle between the TBMs and the ex-Mormons is a constant battle for supposed “superiority.” The TBMs speak and act as if they are superior to the ex-Mormons due to their TBM belief and loyalty to the Salt Lake City religious authorities, and the ex-Mormons speak and act as if they are superior to the TBMs due to the ex-Mormons’ supposed ability to see Mormonism for what, to them, Mormonism really is.

This interpretation is beyond laughable. Dehlin may be starting his own cult, but to define every person who has left the LDS church as part of that is nonsensical. The only thing that defines me (and I suspect most) as ex-Mormon is the fact that I am no longer a member of the church I was born into. Period. That's it. Defining people who have left the LDS church as "a sect within Mormonism" only tells me that Rosebud still isn't able to move past this and unfortunately feels obligated to cast everyone else in the same role in which she feels stuck.

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

Wow. This thread took quite an unexpected turn!

Due to some glitches with the quote function, I'm kind of confused as to who was replying to whom, so I'm just going to reply generally. Just as another human being, I feel bad for the distress that this situation has obviously caused to NoManIsMyBishop and Chelovek.

I owe a personal apology to NoManIsMyBishop. I've spoken flippantly about you. And if another woman feels betrayed or victim-blamed by me, then I've screwed up. I'm really sorry.

Chelovek, I want to apologize to you, too. It warms my heart how you speak with such love and respect for your wife. I'm sorry for the ways in which I have not shown her respect. (I'm not trying to imply that you "own" her or any crap like that. But when a person disrespects my partner, they disrespect me, so that's where I'm coming from.)

The main thing is that I hope both of you heal. From the TSCC, from the injury, and from your interactions with Dehlin. That's all that should really matter to any of us.

I would like to confirm whether or not the two of you actually gave permission for that letter to be posted publicly and start this public conversation. If you did not, I'm going to withdraw completely from this thread and, if the two of you did not consent to public discussion, I think it would be most appropriate for admin to delete this thread altogether. (I have no power to make that happen. It's just my opinion.)

Also, just a head's-up: NoManIsMyBishop's Facebook page was not set to private as of yesterday. I was able to pull it up easily, because your names were not fully redacted from the letter. You may have changed the settings since then, but, if not, you might want to double-check that, because her profile and public posts were accessible within the last 24 hours. (And I'm quite sure that we're not Facebook friends, because I don't use my personal Facebook anymore, and I'd never heard of the two of you prior to this.)

Content warning: Everything below this line assumes that the existence of this thread was consented to by NoManIsMyBishop and Chelovek, and that, therefore, public discussion and varying opinions are welcome and acceptable. I'm going to try to watch my words more carefully, but I also haven't really changed my overall opinion much. So, proceed with caution for anyone who might find that upsetting.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be very clear, a concussion/mild traumatic brain injury is NOT a mental illness. Not that mental illness is anything to be ashamed of, but they are two very, very different things. I apologize for any confusion about that. Concussion does cause some symptoms that a lay person might mistake for mental illness (for example, rapid changes in mood, memory loss, or perceptual disturbances). Social reactions that seem unusual or disproportionate are as common with head injury as a headache. I don't think it was beyond-the-pale to consider that that might have played a role in the situation.

I just honestly have very little way to make sense of how or why this was so upsetting. In looking at the pics in question (as of yesterday, NoManIsMyBishop's screenshot of the pics was still on Mormon Stories' Facebook), most of them don't strike me in any way as "sexy pics." Most of them just look to me like a woman going about her everyday life with her family, which is exactly why I objected to characterizing the images as "sexy." Sexualizing a woman's body just because she's going about her daily life is objectifying, in my opinion.

If I'm standing in front a Christmas tree or out playing in the snow or wearing a swimsuit, and people other than my partner were to describe that as "sexy," I would feel objectified by that. If somebody sees anything in that other than a woman out living her life, then that's their headtrip, not mine. If I posted it, they're welcome to like it, but I wouldn't assume they were having sexual thoughts about me unless they said or did something to indicate that.

I'm not even being hypothetical. I'm sure my partner has photos of me in a swimsuit somewhere in his Facebook albums. I don't give a damn who's liked them. Sexual comments would be a very different matter, but I just don't care who views them or likes them or how often.

Obviously, NoManIsMyBishop and Chelovek do feel that the images in question were almost exclusively "sexy," so....I guess I don't know what else to say about that.... I don't mean any disrespect. All I can say is I would not characterize the pics that way, and so therefore I don't see that a male acquaintance liking the pics, even in rapid succession, is obviously being a creeper, especially since Dehlin had reason to be looking through their social media pages (including older material) in advance of their appearance on Mormon Stories.

I'm not an avid Dehlin fan. I left the church prior to Mormon Stories coming on the scene (it may have been around by then; I'm not sure, but podcasts in general weren't a big thing yet). In any case, Mormon Stories and John Dehlin played no role in my transition out. I watch Mormon Stories, RFM, and a few others with hit-or-miss regularity, if I'm interested in the topic. But, no, I'm not a fangirl. And I certainly don't think Dehlin is a prophet! If I thought he'd been a jackass, I would have no problem saying so.

I have observed a generational difference in Facebook use that may be a factor here. I abandoned my personal Facebook account a few years ago, but my partner still uses his, including posting photos of me, us, our kids, our pets, etc. I've noticed that, while friends about our age (40-ish) and younger will simply "like" or "heart" a batch of photos, our older relatives (50-ish and older) tend to go through and like or comment on a whole slew of photos individually. It's mildly annoying because it produces a bunch of notifications. That's why I described Dehlin's behavior as basically old-person Facebook behavior. I just think it's really reaching to assume that this was a sexual thing. I mean no disrespect by that; I just don't see it as something he should have known was obviously inappropriate.

Chelovek has mentioned that the notifications arrived each day for three days. Dehlin appeared to like the pics, then like them again the next day, and then like them yet again the day after that. (In Chelovek's words: "[Dehlin] cherry picked mostly sexy pics that he had previously already liked....he unliked them, then liked them again. This happened ALL AT ONCE. He did this THREE TIMES OVER THREE DAYS.")

I assume that no one could possibly remember whether a particular person had liked their pics weeks or months prior, so therefore we're talking about three likes over the course of three consecutive days. Odd? Yes. Creepy? Well, I don't see the pics as sexual in the first place, so...maybe? There are just so many intermediate steps in there to assuming he was aroused or trying to send veiled flirtatious messages.

I do still see it as quite possible, even likely, that these were duplicate notifications, especially if they were arriving at the same time each day. It's impossible to know for certain, because Facebook doesn't send notifications of unlikes. (I'm thinking more and more that duplicate notifications may be a Facebook feature, because I awoke this morning to two duplicate notifications on my work Facebook. It may be something they've added to increase user engagement. Or maybe I'm just noticing it because we've been talking about it.)

I don't understand why, having had a four-year casual friendship with the Dehlins, NoManIsMyBishop and Chelovek didn't bring this up to Dehlin privately around the time that it happened. Sure, James P. has said that Dehlin reacts badly to criticism, but, even if that's true, casual friends of his wouldn't have had any reason to know or assume that. I don't understand why just saying, "Hey, I don't like that. Don't do it. It made us both uncomfortable," was not Option One from the get-go.

Never having been put on notice that he had done something that crossed another person's boundaries, it's understandable to me why Dehlin would have been gobsmacked by having this first brought to his attention via being put on blast in his Facebook comments. I don't assume that more subtle violations of my boundaries are necessarily obvious to other people unless I make my boundaries clear to them.

I am NOT saying my boundaries are the "correct" ones. I'm saying: All of us have different boundaries; none of us are mind-readers; and I don't see this behavior as something that he should have realized was obviously offensive without needing to be told.

Dehlin goes on to later like (and possibly un-like and re-like) a repost from Zelph on the Shelf....which NoManIsMyBishop and Chelovek perceive as him baiting them....and now I'm just completely lost.... I'm sorry, but I fail to see any flirtation or secret messages going on with that at all. If anything, it further convinces me that Facebook has added duplicate notifications as a feature AND that Dehlin was not perusing for revealing photos.

Granted, Dehlin did post, asking women for examples of sexist behavior by exMo men. And it's hard to tell now what happened, because it shows that a large number of posts were removed. However, NoManIsMyBishop's complaint about him was not ultimately removed. It was still up there as of yesterday. So he doesn't seem to be making any attempt to silence it.

He may have been trigger-happy with the delete button on that thread, but given the decade-long, ever-escalating Rosebud Brigade, I can't say I blame him for shutting down any sexual allegations against any identifiable person, including himself. If he allowed that against someone other than himself, he would be responsible for slander. If he allowed it against himself, the Rosebud crowd would never go away. I don't know if he receives regular legal advice, but I would be floored if they didn't advise him to immediately remove allegations against any identifiable individuals, including himself.

Based on the letter, I think he mischaracterized the criticism/harassment that he was receiving as coming from personal friends of NoManIsMyBishop and Chelovek, acting at their behest. I obviously don't know that's not true, but I would assume it's not, and it was unfair of him to blame them unless he was quite certain that they had encouraged their personal friends to excessively contact him. I'm not sure if Dehlin is well-attuned to the online phenomenon (which I mentioned yesterday) of immediately jumping to accept a stranger's story and then dogpiling the person identified as at fault.

This isn't always about sexual stuff. Jon Ronson (author of "So You've Been Publicly Shamed") has written extensively about this Internet phenomenon. The pinnacle for me, in my final days of keeping a personal Facebook page, was when I'd see memes saying, "If anyone on my friends list has harmed you in any way, let me know and I will remove them." Really? So, you'd dump your best friend because a stranger tells you to? There are numerous examples, but I'll leave it at just that one.

I don't think it was fair of Dehlin to assume or to blame NoManIsMyBishop and Chelovek for encouraging anyone to go after him. If he had any sense, he'd have left the two of them alone after his well-worded public apology. Clearly, they did not wish to hear from him any further.

Part 2 of the letter is still being mischaracterized though. He does not call NoManIsMyBishop and Chelovek "evil" or "jealous." He calls what he perceives to be campaigns to discredit him (by Mopologists, by TSCC, by other exMos, etc.), he calls those campaigns "evil" and suggests "jealousy" as a possible motive. Part 2 is a confusing mishmash of thoughts that really should have remained a part of his own private processing and should never have been sent to anyone.

He's paranoid, and given the Rosebud Brigade and the online trend of immediately inserting oneself into an offline situation with no actual information, it seems that, just because Dehlin is paranoid doesn't mean a few people aren't out to get him. Unfortunately, he often doesn't use very good judgment and his attempts to defend himself only dig himself into a deeper hole.

[jpatterson]

This interpretation is beyond laughable. Dehlin may be starting his own cult, but to define every person who has left the LDS church as part of that is nonsensical. The only thing that defines me (and I suspect most) as ex-Mormon is the fact that I am no longer a member of the church I was born into. Period. That's it. Defining people who have left the LDS church as "a sect within Mormonism" only tells me that Rosebud still isn't able to move past this and unfortunately feels obligated to cast everyone else in the same role in which she feels stuck.

I didn't read your quoted part as saying that everyone who's ever left the church is part of an ex-Mormon sect, rather that there is a definable community of ex-Mormons, which is absolutely true. And one of the things that defines this group is their gravitation to (mostly online) communities (like this one) where they discuss their ex-Mormonism, continue to discuss LDS Inc within the context of their ex-Mormonism, etc etc. There's a very vibrant world of ex-Mormon content, message boards being among them. You consume that content.

The fact that you're posting here demonstrates there's more than one thing that defines your ex-Mormonism. I agree that she's stretching the metaphor here a bit but to borrow a tired phrase of middle-way-dom, you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater here.

[jpatterson]

He's paranoid, and given the Rosebud Brigade and the online trend of immediately inserting oneself into an offline situation with no actual information, it seems that, just because Dehlin is paranoid doesn't mean a few people aren't out to get him. Unfortunately, he often doesn't use very good judgment and his attempts to defend himself only dig himself into a deeper hole.

I could spend several paragraphs on the rest of your post, but suffice it to say that I couldn't help but notice that you spent several paragraphs apologizing for minimizing Chelovek and NMIMB's feelings and then three times that amount of real estate further minimizing their feelings with a "well this is how I would feel if the same thing happened to me" diatribe.

You really should have stopped at the apology part.

As for the above, this trope of "the Rosebud Brigade" is exactly the kind of narrative that John and his lackeys want. It suits them to simply paint everyone who levels legitimate concerns at him with a broad brush of "crazy" and "out to get me." Oh, and that they're all conspiring against him as part of some coordinated attack (even better, link it to TSCC).

This is exactly what he does in his letter to the aforementioned couple and I'm sure what he's telling people about them in private as we speak. "Oh, they're just part of the crew that's out to get me. They're just jealous of my success. Don't pay attention, it's just more of the same."

It's become accepted now within these threads that John has, at best, repeatedly exhibited poor judgement. And this kind of narrative is exactly how he avoids accountability.

[Lem]

This interpretation is beyond laughable. Dehlin may be starting his own cult, but to define every person who has left the LDS church as part of that is nonsensical. The only thing that defines me (and I suspect most) as ex-Mormon is the fact that I am no longer a member of the church I was born into. Period. That's it. Defining people who have left the LDS church as "a sect within Mormonism" only tells me that Rosebud still isn't able to move past this and unfortunately feels obligated to cast everyone else in the same role in which she feels stuck.

I didn't read your quoted part as saying that everyone who's ever left the church is part of an ex-Mormon sect...

I did. Rosebud:

Thus, the ex-Mormons are a sect within Mormonism.

rather that there is a definable community of ex-Mormons, which is absolutely true. And one of the things that defines this group is their gravitation to (mostly online) communities (like this one) where they discuss their ex-Mormonism, continue to discuss LDS Inc within the context of their ex-Mormonism, etc etc.

I can see that may work for some, but for myself, I would have to disagree. I left the Mormon church and don’t define any relationships I have as being based on being NOT something. This is one of the places where I discuss the ongoing events in the Mormon world that I grew up in, and that are still part of the world of my many Mormon relatives, but no, it’s not MY ex-Mormonism, it’s a world I am no longer a part of but still have an interest in. I consider this board to be a community, but it’s certainly not all ex-Mormon.

The fact that you're posting here demonstrates there's more than one thing that defines your ex-Mormonism.

It may to you, but not to me. It simply defines my interest in a world in which I was raised, but which no longer defines me.

[Tavares Standfield]

I relate John Dehlin to Joseph Smith in this context because that's where it all begins. Ironically you don't gain power in a cult until members within the cult are put in a situation to question that leader but do not because of who they are. I guarantee you Joseph Smith started with the very same small steps as John Dehlin is now taking. Do I think John Dehlin is trying to be like Joseph Smith, no. I do believe he has gained traction and power within the ex-Mormon communities and the story is the same story of old when it comes to power. The ex Mormon community is a very vulnerable community. I was a bishop and on a regular I get ex-Mormons reaching out to me for advice "because I was a bishop". I don't know these people or their situation but because I was once a bishop in their minds I had dealt with similar situations and can help. John Dehlin thrives on these vulnerable communities. As far as explaining his behavior I don't think it was any more than "morning wood". Only he can speak for himself on that one because I really don't know. We have nothing to gain by calling him out and only communities to lose. I may just do this so it would give an actual presentation on what he actually did.... If I were to follow in his footsteps and like exactly the same images he liked in the same order I guarantee you would take me at least an hour. These were posts made with at least dozens of other post in between them. I should do this and film it so people would get a real view of exactly what he did. What hurt the worst was that he did do it at all. Even once was inappropriate it just compounds when it's multiple times. He has never denied that he did do this.... Only that it's just something "everybody does" and he didn't realize it would make her uncomfortable. I do not see how he would not see that it would make her very uncomfortable and also make it impossible to actually do an interview with him and talk about the sensitive things we would be talking about in his presence. Talking to him in private would have been exactly what he would have liked and most definitely protects him. If you could have seen the comments John Dehlin was deleting as they were being posted of other women he has misbehaved with you would understand why it needed to be public.

I have to say that this post makes you seem completely sane and reasonable. /facepalm

What planet do you live on? John Dehlin is Joseph Smith because he liked a publicly posted photo on Facebook.

Get a grip.

[Tavares Standfield]

It may to you, but not to me. It simply defines my interest in a world in which I was raised, but which no longer defines me.

Says the transphobic TERF with 1200+ posts.

LOL

[jpatterson]

I didn't read your quoted part as saying that everyone who's ever left the church is part of an ex-Mormon sect...

I did. Rosebud:

Thus, the ex-Mormons are a sect within Mormonism.

rather that there is a definable community of ex-Mormons, which is absolutely true. And one of the things that defines this group is their gravitation to (mostly online) communities (like this one) where they discuss their ex-Mormonism, continue to discuss LDS Inc within the context of their ex-Mormonism, etc etc.

I can see that may work for some, but for myself, I would have to disagree. I left the Mormon church and don’t define any relationships I have as being based on being NOT something. This is one of the places where I discuss the ongoing events in the Mormon world that I grew up in, and that are still part of the world of my many Mormon relatives, but no, it’s not MY ex-Mormonism, it’s a world I am no longer a part of but still have an interest in. I consider this board to be a community, but it’s certainly not all ex-Mormon.

The fact that you're posting here demonstrates there's more than one thing that defines your ex-Mormonism.

It may to you, but not to me. It simply defines my interest in a world in which I was raised, but which no longer defines me.

I mean, you're more than free to reject the label, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a widely accepted label that anyone who has a cursory understanding of your background (used to be Mormon) would apply to you. Just because a label applies does not mean it wholly defines.

Your objections really just read as a bunch of distinctions without any real difference.

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

He's paranoid, and given the Rosebud Brigade and the online trend of immediately inserting oneself into an offline situation with no actual information, it seems that, just because Dehlin is paranoid doesn't mean a few people aren't out to get him. Unfortunately, he often doesn't use very good judgment and his attempts to defend himself only dig himself into a deeper hole.

I could spend several paragraphs on the rest of your post, but suffice it to say that I couldn't help but notice that you spent several paragraphs apologizing for minimizing Chelovek and NMIMB's feelings and then three times that amount of real estate further minimizing their feelings with a "well this is how I would feel if the same thing happened to me" diatribe.

You really should have stopped at the apology part.

As for the above, this trope of "the Rosebud Brigade" is exactly the kind of narrative that John and his lackeys want. It suits them to simply paint everyone who levels legitimate concerns at him with a broad brush of "crazy" and "out to get me." Oh, and that they're all conspiring against him as part of some coordinated attack (even better, link it to TSCC).

This is exactly what he does in his letter to the aforementioned couple and I'm sure what he's telling people about them in private as we speak. "Oh, they're just part of the crew that's out to get me. They're just jealous of my success. Don't pay attention, it's just more of the same."

It's become accepted now within these threads that John has, at best, repeatedly exhibited poor judgement. And this kind of narrative is exactly how he avoids accountability.

That's what the content warning was for. So anyone who did not want to read my opinion could easily skip it. Maybe you should have.

I meant the apology. And I haven't changed my opinion a whole lot. Both are true. I put a clear line there, so especially if the two of them don't want to read it, my opinion can be very easily avoided. If they reply that they did not consent to this discussion, I'm outta here immediately and I should hope that admin would pull the whole thread.

I don't really give a good goddamn what John Dehlin wants or doesn't want. I've never met the guy. I don't care what serves his interests or what doesn't. But there is very obviously a group of people who love to carry water for Rosebud. Some of them may have had some interaction with her. It seems hard to believe that they all have. (Or maybe some of them are sockpuppeting. I have no idea. It's a cluster.)

I've already said I don't think it's good for her. And you know why I feel that way. But they will bring up the escalating allegations every single solitary chance that they get. And even if the allegations are true---especially if they're true----I don't think that's good for her. It's mostly a very self-centered campaign. (Not you, but in general.)

This current business about the pics will come and go, but we can be sure the Rosebud saga will carry on. Because the Brigade doesn't give two craps about the woman behind the "Rosebud" handle. They're using her for their own purposes. (Again, not referring to you. You've actually come across to me as perhaps the first person on Rosebud's side who may truly BE on her side. For her sake, I hope so.)

Look, I gave you a content warning. Use it or don't, but don't act like I didn't put it on there. I mostly intended it for the two of them, but anyone can obviously use it.

If the couple involved wanted this to go public and for there to be this whole public discussion about it, if they were ok with the not-fully-redacted letter being released, then they can't expect that everyone is going to agree with their interpretation of the situation.

The order in my post was very intentional:
Apology first.
Then I want to know if they consented to the letter release/public discussion.
Then a content warning, followed by material that I will no longer continue to engage in if they did not consent to the matter going public.

We good? Or, at least....as good as we're probably gonna get?