Hookers and blow

[Emower]

So the kerfluffle over John dehlin, the OSF, kristy, and Kate has been amusing. How does everyone here feel about John making a pretty decent living from the transitioning community?

I don't care one bit because I haven't donated any money to him and he hasn't told me that I am going to hell because of that. That's been refreshing. I don't care if he uses it on hookers and blow; I am happy that he can take the pile of horse crap that we all get and make money off it.

[Korihor]

Let him make all the money he can, good for him.

I've tossed him a couple dollars, I don't care what he uses it for. His services have helped me a great deal.

The one caveat is he is appealing to a vulnerable crowd. If he's on the up and up, who cares? But if he's cooking the books then he's the same as the corporation.

He has made this his life's work and deserves whatever compensation that is fairly obtained.

[Not Buying It]

I disagree. I find John Dehlin using the Church to make money as distasteful as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or anyone else using the Church to get money. As soon as you throw money into an equation a person's motives tend to become a lot less pure. Is teaching God's truth nothing more than a way to make a buck? Is pointing out the lies of those who claim to have God's truth nothing more than a way to make a buck?

Hey, the Church isn''t what it claims to me. By the way, send me some $$$ for pointing that out to you.

Dehlin has done much to bring issues with the Church a lot of attention. He has also done much to bring himself a lot of attention, and money along with it. While it is true that there are costs associated with producing Mormon Stories, profiteering cheapens any crusade for truth, as does self-promotion, and I think Dehlin has been involved in both to some extent. In my view, Dehlin has damaged his credibility as a critic of the Church considerably by seeking monetary renumeration for his criticisms of the Church. I felt the same way about Jeremy Runnell's requests for donations.

But I know there are plenty of you here that disagree with me.

[Linked]

I appreciate what John Dehlin has done, he is the reason I found out I am not alone in going through a faith transition, and that has been very valuable to me. If someone told me they would go back in time and take away John Dehlin and my path to NOM unless I paid them, I would probably pay them a lot of money. So there is real monetary value there. And he isn't hiding his content behind a paywall, he's not holding me hostage unless he gets his cut. But mixing money in does complicate it. It makes it seem less altruistic, and makes it harder to trust him.

But it doesn't make my radar of things that keep me up at night.

[Raylan Givens]

I do think it affects his message, but work is work. Whether at Walmart or on podcasts, how we value that is up to community/society and the person.

My friend's UU pastor makes a nice six digit wage (he is also trained at Yale and Harvard, and according to his congregation, worth every penny).

If people are willing to support John and give him the wage he has set aside, so be it. He seems to be fairly transparent.

[Korihor]

But I know there are plenty of you here that disagree with me.

I'm just glad this place isn't an echo chamber.

[Emower]

But I know there are plenty of you here that disagree with me.

I'm just glad this place isn't an echo chamber.

Ditto. It's not interesting or useful if there is complete agreement.

Not buying it, I agree that the self-promotion is low class, especially as it seemed to really turn up 10 notches or so in the last year. But, if you can make a buck, point out the lies of those who claim truth, and only take the money of those who want to give it to you, I think I would go down the same road.
Runnells is a different ball of wax for me. The CES letter never really resonated with me though.

[PalmSprings]

I don't see anything wrong as he is not charging anyone for the podcasts. And asking for donations is fine as hosting and bandwidth of a popular podcast is not anywhere near cheap. Plus this is not taking advantage of anyone, people know what they are giving money to. He's a journalist and like any other youtuber or podcast producer it's fair for him to get a piece of the pie.

[moksha]

"It is written that one should not indulge in podcastercraft or risk losing their immortal soul."

What? I've been informed that I just made that up. Well, let me try again. "Thou shall have no podcast before me." Not quite right? Okay, then "He who lives by the podcast shall die by the podcast." Now that one has a ring of truth to it. It's like that kid who builds a magnificent sandcastle at the beach. You just know someone is going to come along and kick it, whether it is the beach bully or some girl who had a crush on that sandcastle kid. Sand ends up all over the place, which works out well being that it is on the beach, but don't let mom catch you bringing it home in your pockets. If you like the sandcastle before it is kicked, drop some coins in the hat by the sandcastle.

Hope that helps.

[wtfluff]

I don't care if he uses it on hookers and blow; I am happy that he can take the pile of horse crap that we all get and make money off it.

Are there any podcasters out there who are actually using donations for hookers and blow? I might want to actually toss a few $$ their way.

[Corsair]

I have no problem at all with John Dehlin making a good living off the OSF. I don't owe him anything but choose to provide some support because I agree with him in large measure. it's simply a case where he has crafted a financially functional organization centered on a subject that is important to a lot of people.

[oliver_denom]

Like the capitalist American pig that I am, I think anyone who provides a service is entitled to payment. I'd even be fine with the church having a paid clergy, so long as that paid clergy actually provided some sort of benefit or service to the members that paid them. The alternative to this is embracing some sort of poverty vow, or unintentionally limiting these vocations to the already well to do. As I think many of us have experienced, the church takes a lot from its members through both tithing and free service without returning much more than position in the social hierarchy. Why that is seen as a morally superior system is beyond me.

What we don't want is some yahoo threatening people with damnation and social isolation if they don't pay up, or someone who offers some sort of hocus pocus in exchange for cash. The former is an extortionist and the latter is a huckster. I don't think John Dehlin is either of those things. He provides a service that people are willing to pay for. It's not like he's promising miracles, claiming magic powers, threatening people's families, damning souls, or giving nothing in return for the money.

[Silver Girl]

I see John Dehlin's podcasts as the Internet version of news reporting. He has brought forward information that I'd not otherwise have known. I suspect many people here feel the same way - would you have known of Tom Phillips, or Hans Mattson were it not for the podcasts? His podcasts fill a niche, and it is a lot of work. We pay for newspaper subscriptions, and news reporters (TV, print or radio) are paid. Nothing wrong with that. Documentary producers are paid.

Unlike news subscriptions, the podcasts can be viewed or listened to without paying. Contributions are exactly that - they're voluntary. I agree that his work in exposing the church might semantically suggest that it should rise above monetary gain, but that is not realistic. The church spends a fortune hiding the truth. There's no way to uncover it and make it available without investing time and money.

I'm thankful for the podcasts because they humanized some issues; I was able to see the sincerity of some people who've been at the front lines. The podcasts are very long (one of my few criticisms about them), and there's no way the same amount of depth and variety would have surfaced on commercial television or print news coverage. Or even PBS. Why? Because unlike Scientology (which is already branded as a scam), the LDS church is still in a gray area and the type of information Dehlin brings forward often has only a limited audience (the percentage of church members who are potentially disaffected, who have access to the internet, and who have ever heard of John Dehlin and/or the issue being discussed).

I imagine Sandra Tanner's bookstore and ministry are also non-profit operations, but I don't know for sure. Her operations were launched before today's Internet world, and we don't criticize her, do we? Dehlin's operation is similar, but in the virtual arena. We need it. We need all the people we can find who bring forward the facts, whether they earn money or it or not.

[Not Buying It]

You all make good points, but I have learned to be suspicious when religion and money get mixed up. Money has a funny way of affecting people's motives. And I do think trying to make a living criticizing the Church undermines Dehlin's credibility somewhat.

[Red Ryder]

You all make good points, but I have learned to be suspicious when religion and money get mixed up. Money has a funny way of affecting people's motives. And I do think trying to make a living criticizing the Church undermines Dehlin's credibility somewhat.

Yup! (echooooo, echoooooooo, echooooooo....)

Did Dehlin ever get his professional license or credentials as a therapist?

[Korihor]

If we look at the other side of the coin, are Mike Ash, Dan Peterson, Teryl Givens, etc, all held to the same standard as Dehlin? They all monetized their influence in religion.

[Red Ryder]

If we look at the other side of the coin, are Mike Ash, Dan Peterson, Teryl Givens, etc, all held to the same standard as Dehlin? They all monetized their influence in religion.

Or the apostles with book sales, motivational speeches, and billion dollar real estate projects?

Of course if Dehlin starts building condos to house the unbelievers then the majority of people will start to complain.

Whatever. Capitalism and free markets dictate success. Most of us choose with our wallets and feet anyway.

[Fifi de la Vergne]

I agree that Dehlin has a right to compensation for the time and resources he has poured into his organization. He provides a lot of value.

I think the issue is that he goofed in setting Open Stories Foundation up as a non-profit and staffing the board with people who had a conflict of interest because they were also the primary employees. There's a proper way to do non-profit and he didn't follow it. I think it could have been an honest mistake, but it should be rectified.

[redjay]

As long as he is transparent I don't see any problem. The guy is a published PhD psychologist, so there is an opportunity cost. I'd rather he earned enough to keep going than had to throw the towel in. Donations are voluntary.

[GoodBoy]

Like the capitalist American pig that I am, I think anyone who provides a service is entitled to payment. I'd even be fine with the church having a paid clergy, so long as that paid clergy actually provided some sort of benefit or service to the members that paid them. The alternative to this is embracing some sort of poverty vow, or unintentionally limiting these vocations to the already well to do. As I think many of us have experienced, the church takes a lot from its members through both tithing and free service without returning much more than position in the social hierarchy. Why that is seen as a morally superior system is beyond me.

What we don't want is some yahoo threatening people with damnation and social isolation if they don't pay up, or someone who offers some sort of hocus pocus in exchange for cash. The former is an extortionist and the latter is a huckster. I don't think John Dehlin is either of those things. He provides a service that people are willing to pay for. It's not like he's promising miracles, claiming magic powers, threatening people's families, damning souls, or giving nothing in return for the money.

This.