Did LDS leaders get the vaccine because of preferential treatment?

[Jersey Girl]

Healthcare worker who sees patients

https://coronavirus-download.utah.gov/H ... meline.pdf

Does it make a difference if Dehlin is not currently seeing "patients"...?

https://www.johndehlin.com/coaching/

Lord give me patience. Please. What if he wants to see patients in person again? Isn't that why we're all working towards herd immunity? To get back to our previous in-person lives?

[Moksha]

Faith coaching is not the same as psychotherapy. John is taking a break from faith-coaching (which requires certification from the Olive Oil Association of America OOAA).

[IHAQ]

They were in the appropriate phase for getting the vaccine. I think you're being petty.

Well, I'm not the person who wrote the letter enquiring if LDS leaders got the vaccine because of preferential treatment. And the question isn't about wether or not they did so during a phase when they were classed as eligible, the question is about how so many of them collectively got "lucky" during that phrase.

It seems to me there's three possible answers to the OP letter writers question, which you and cinepro also seem to be putting forward.
1. They were simply lucky in the first-come first-served ballot which included everyone over the age of 70 in Utah - given the PR campaign around their vaccinations I'd suggest these seems an unlikely possibility.
2. The Utah Health Authority arranged with them to go first as a group to aid the PR campaign around getting vaccines - in principle sounds a good idea, but would still be problematic as it only included LDS clergy.
3. The Church leaders themselves decided to circumvent the system and get in early to aid the PR campaign around getting vaccines.

Like Lem, I don't think the letter writer is being petty to ask for clarity on the question of separation between Church and State in regards to vaccination distribution. They've asked a simple couple of questions in regards to a group of Apostles all getting the vaccine at the same time early on - How? and Why? I'd suggest it's reasonable to expect an answer from someone in authority.

Your mileage may differ *shrug*

[IHAQ]

For your consideration:



https://Twitter.com/johndehlin/status/1 ... 9178631171

Okay. What's your point? Are you posing the same questions about this as the OP is posing about how the group of LDS leaders all got the vaccine first? That is How? and Why?

Or are you taking the same stance that, no matter who gets it and when, so long as they do that's a good thing, especially when it's people who can influence others?

[honorentheos]

They were in the appropriate phase for getting the vaccine. I think you're being petty.

Well, I'm not the person who wrote the letter enquiring if LDS leaders got the vaccine because of preferential treatment.
...

I don't think the letter writer is being petty to ask for clarity on the question of separation between Church and State in regards to vaccination distribution.

Oh, the "I'm not saying but people are saying" defense used by Trump. Brilliant.

[Lem]

Well, I'm not the person who wrote the letter enquiring if LDS leaders got the vaccine because of preferential treatment.
...

I don't think the letter writer is being petty to ask for clarity on the question of separation between Church and State in regards to vaccination distribution.

Oh, the "I'm not saying but people are saying" defense used by Trump. Brilliant.

Good grief, honor. Address ihaq's points and quit with the petty shi-t.

[honorentheos]

For your consideration:



https://Twitter.com/johndehlin/status/1 ... 9178631171

Okay. What's your point? Are you posing the same questions about this as the OP is posing about how the group of LDS leaders all got the vaccine first? That is How? and Why?

Or are you taking the same stance that, no matter who gets it and when, so long as they do that's a good thing, especially when it's people who can influence others?

It came across to me as more of a question regarding how one reacts or feels when it's John Dehlin rather than church leaders.

With the comment about church leaders there was more to it than the poor representation you managed. It included their being in the current phase, having a high degree of influence, and that the moral conflict with their privilege likely getting them to the front of the line in that phase did present a moral conflict but the calculus of it suggests there is a meaningful degree of greater public good served.

Neither the church leadership nor John Dehlin getting the shot are particularly temperature elevating events to me. But I am curious what category Dehlin claimed for getting the shot.

I was talking with an industry peer/client yesterday whose wife teaches at ASU. She received her shot while he, being able to work from home, is likely far down the list of mid to late summer eligibility. Their school-aged kids won't likely be eligible for months, either, leaving them to consider where this really leaves them in relation to exposure overall. They joke about him needing to isolate at home now so she can go around the house without a mask on and the like. With Dehlin, it isn't obvious where his eligibility came from and it is curious. But I guess to me that's about the degree of it.

[honorentheos]

Oh, the "I'm not saying but people are saying" defense used by Trump. Brilliant.

Good grief, honor. Address ihaq's points and quit with the petty shi-t.

Using petty as a retort in this way is kinda petty. Yes, this is also petty but that's about where we are now.

All IHAQ did was deflect to the letter and say it was the author asking the question while he attempted to sidestep having a responsibility for owning a position. That's very Trump-like behavior.

[Lem]

Good grief, honor. Address ihaq's points and quit with the petty shi-t.

Using petty as a retort in this way is kinda petty. Yes, this is also petty but that's about where we are now.

All IHAQ did was deflect to the letter and say it was the author asking the question while he attempted to sidestep having a responsibility for owning a position. That's very Trump-like behavior.

Trump-like behavior. Good grief. That must be a new thing, kind of like how every discussion finally ends up invoking Hitler. How silly.

But if that's where you are, all I can say is what nonsense.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don’t know why cinepro using Dehlin as a rhetorical point would gain any traction on this forum. Dehlin has generally been someone who’s evoked a mostly ‘meh’ to ‘wtf’ response on this forum. I don’t know many current posters, if any, that would regard him highly. So, to act like we’d give him some sort of ex-mo celebrity pass is nonsense and tone deaf.

- Doc