NOM

What relationship does open stories foundation have with the mormon mental health group? In other words is OSF a mechanism for bringing business to therapists? If that is the case, very interesting. Not that the information they provide is not useful or helpful.

I don't mind John making money off this. If anything it's a good thing because at one point that money was given to the church in the form of tithing but with John's help people are now keeping most of it, even if some are donating a bit to John Delin. I would rather someone like John get it over the church. At least he's there for emotional support. The church never has been.

Fifi de la Vergne wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:07 am 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.

Well said Fifi.

I also think this whole thing is a good reminder that we can't just transfer our faith from the prophet of LDS inc. to another person. I saw a lot of "I'm on Kate's side" or " I'm on John's Side" on FB. Neither side was willing to listen to or think critically about the other side's argument. They were going to defend their leader with religious zeal. I think a lot of our TBM programing follows us into post Mormonism. We think we have to have a person we look to for answers. I love John and Kate. Their work has helped me tremendously. I hope everyone involved in this can use it as an opportunity for growth.

MoPag wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:34 am I also think this whole thing is a good reminder that we can't just transfer our faith from the prophet of LDS inc. to another person.

This a good point, but I think there's a percentage of the population out there that just wants to follow a prophet, be treated like kids and be told what to do. This is a big part of the LDS programming and for many it's just an easier way to go to stay plugged into a matrix of one kind or another. These are likely the same folks that post only inspiring quotes from others on their FB pages, without any original thoughts from themselves. Some are just not comfortable with gaps in knowledge and need to feel they have all the answers and or a sure path to follow. As a TBM transitioning to NOMdom I went through some of this anxiety but have now become comfortable in the land of continual discovery and remaining mysteries.

I think John is certainly influenced by the money, but I think he still does a pretty good job of offering a forum where the information and opinions can be scrutinized without consequence. He's in a realm where most of the listeners are discovering or already using their critical thinking caps. There is no threat of eternal damnation or other consequence for not donating; that's a big contrast to the COB.

I recognize Dehlin has been a godsend (or FSM-send, as you may prefer) for many LDS. However, much like how I feel about John Larsen, I've never been comfortable with him. It feels like he enjoys the accolades, attention and dedicated following a bit too much. He seems to relish the creation of a following. I can see such a thing would be rather intoxicating, but I don't see any effort on his part to counteract this phenomenon. U2 summed it up nicely (from Original of the Species):

"Some things you shouldn't get too good at
Like smiling, crying and celebrity
Some people got way too much confidence baby
Baby"

RubinHighlander wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:35 pm

MoPag wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:34 am I also think this whole thing is a good reminder that we can't just transfer our faith from the prophet of LDS inc. to another person.

This a good point, but I think there's a percentage of the population out there that just wants to follow a prophet, be treated like kids and be told what to do. This is a big part of the LDS programming and for many it's just an easier way to go to stay plugged into a matrix of one kind or another. These are likely the same folks that post only inspiring quotes from others on their FB pages, without any original thoughts from themselves. Some are just not comfortable with gaps in knowledge and need to feel they have all the answers and or a sure path to follow. As a TBM transitioning to NOMdom I went through some of this anxiety but have now become comfortable in the land of continual discovery and remaining mysteries.

I think John is certainly influenced by the money, but I think he still does a pretty good job of offering a forum where the information and opinions can be scrutinized without consequence. He's in a realm where most of the listeners are discovering or already using their critical thinking caps. There is no threat of eternal damnation or other consequence for not donating; that's a big contrast to the COB.

Rubin - there was some talk earlier in the thread about NOM not being an echo chamber (echo...echo...echo). Aren't you King of the Echo People?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wEIDfHZf9kI

Stig wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:11 pm I recognize Dehlin has been a godsend (or FSM-send, as you may prefer) for many LDS. However, much like how I feel about John Larsen, I've never been comfortable with him. It feels like he enjoys the accolades, attention and dedicated following a bit too much. He seems to relish the creation of a following. I can see such a thing would be rather intoxicating, but I don't see any effort on his part to counteract this phenomenon. U2 summed it up nicely (from Original of the Species):

"Some things you shouldn't get too good at
Like smiling, crying and celebrity
Some people got way too much confidence baby
Baby"

This kind of delves into territory where I can't really opine since I don't actually know him. he professes to want to help people, that is what he has oriented his life around. Now that he is famous (sort of, in a weird way among a very small subset of people) and makes money off his helping it does seem to be a bit much. I think I would *echo mopag's thought from above where it is also incumbent on us to hold the hero worship in check.
I don't know that I would counteract the hero worship if I somehow became a famous NOM through my NOMishness. But I don't and John doesn't profess to be above that sort of thing, unlike some other people who come to mind.

I could care less how much John Dehlin pays himself from OSF. It's no secret he gets his livelihood from OSF and I won't criticize that. My understanding is that the criticism coming from KK is about unequal pay between male and female podcasters which I do care about.

I like Kate Kelly for the most part. I like John Dehlin for the most part. If OSF is paying female podcasters less than male podcasters for the same work they should absolutely be called out on that and they should absolutely remedy that situation.

Of course it is not a problem that JD pulls a salary from the organization he created. All non-profits pay salaries because people gotta live. Good for JD creating a business that provides value that people are willing to pay for. Yay capitalism! He does not claim to be doing anything in the name of God or make bold unsupported assertions about the the purpose of life. This is the difference between OSF and the church.

Emower wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:58 pm

Stig wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:11 pm I recognize Dehlin has been a godsend (or FSM-send, as you may prefer) for many LDS. However, much like how I feel about John Larsen, I've never been comfortable with him. It feels like he enjoys the accolades, attention and dedicated following a bit too much. He seems to relish the creation of a following. I can see such a thing would be rather intoxicating, but I don't see any effort on his part to counteract this phenomenon. U2 summed it up nicely (from Original of the Species):

"Some things you shouldn't get too good at
Like smiling, crying and celebrity
Some people got way too much confidence baby
Baby"

This kind of delves into territory where I can't really opine since I don't actually know him. he professes to want to help people, that is what he has oriented his life around. Now that he is famous (sort of, in a weird way among a very small subset of people) and makes money off his helping it does seem to be a bit much. I think I would *echo mopag's thought from above where it is also incumbent on us to hold the hero worship in check.
I don't know that I would counteract the hero worship if I somehow became a famous NOM through my NOMishness. But I don't and John doesn't profess to be above that sort of thing, unlike some other people who come to mind.

Clearly most people are OK with John Dehlin using his fight against the Church as a platform to earn a living, and I stopped needing people to agree with me a long time ago, so I'll stop talking about it (although here is an example of how it hurts his credibility: http://www.millennialstar.org/john-dehl ... ber-wards/). But I also agree with Stig - I find it troubling that he is such an attention fiend and seems to like the hero worship.

I'm stuck in a religion of rampant hero worship, so I have become deeply suspicious of those who receive it.

Like all things in life it is shades of gray.

I do not think that someone should be involved with a charitable organization built on donations and become wealthy.
Likewise, I do not think that someone should be involved professionally with a charitable organization built on donations and not be compensated.

It is very difficult to put a value to what is "wealthy" and what is "reasonable" as these are subjective terms. One might look at Dehlin's salary and see it as unreasonable, likewise people look at the GA pay as see it is unreasonable. Others will look at it and see it as reasonable.

My only "absolute" in my belief in compensation from donations is one thing: transparency. The salaries of the entire staff (including my own) of my church are published and handed to the membership and placed in the foyer. If we know John Dehlin's salary and finances from him and I personally find it reasonable, then I have no issues. If he is pulling a salary from donations and not disclosing anything, then I have issue.

I generally avoid the Dehlin / Kelly drama. It annoys me to no end. It could be that my disaffection went a different route that was outside of the podcast world (NOM) and I have little emotional attachment to either person. John Dehlin's voice disgusts me because it is eerily similar to the boy who stalked and raped me in high school (this is not John's fault, but I cannot listen to his podcast without having a panic attack) and I was already out of the church when Kelly came to notoriety. It is for this reason that I just don't care about those two.

trophywife26.2 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:58 pm If OSF is paying female podcasters less than male podcasters for the same work they should absolutely be called out on that and they should absolutely remedy that situation.

I haven't followed this issue at all but I agree with the above statement.

The great thing about podcasts is that you can choose to either listen or not listen, donate or not donate. I'm just glad John Dehlin doesn't have the power to hold my family hostage or threaten to deny me/them essential saving ordinances if I don't pay up.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:39 am

Emower wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:58 pm

Stig wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:11 pm I recognize Dehlin has been a godsend (or FSM-send, as you may prefer) for many LDS. However, much like how I feel about John Larsen, I've never been comfortable with him. It feels like he enjoys the accolades, attention and dedicated following a bit too much. He seems to relish the creation of a following. I can see such a thing would be rather intoxicating, but I don't see any effort on his part to counteract this phenomenon. U2 summed it up nicely (from Original of the Species):

"Some things you shouldn't get too good at
Like smiling, crying and celebrity
Some people got way too much confidence baby
Baby"

This kind of delves into territory where I can't really opine since I don't actually know him. he professes to want to help people, that is what he has oriented his life around. Now that he is famous (sort of, in a weird way among a very small subset of people) and makes money off his helping it does seem to be a bit much. I think I would *echo mopag's thought from above where it is also incumbent on us to hold the hero worship in check.
I don't know that I would counteract the hero worship if I somehow became a famous NOM through my NOMishness. But I don't and John doesn't profess to be above that sort of thing, unlike some other people who come to mind.

Clearly most people are OK with John Dehlin using his fight against the Church as a platform to earn a living, and I stopped needing people to agree with me a long time ago, so I'll stop talking about it (although here is an example of how it hurts his credibility: http://www.millennialstar.org/john-dehl ... ber-wards/). But I also agree with Stig - I find it troubling that he is such an attention fiend and seems to like the hero worship.

I'm stuck in a religion of rampant hero worship, so I have become deeply suspicious of those who receive it.

This final statement (bolded) really hits the nail on the head for me. Add to that, professionally I work in an area where I am looking at the bad acts of various malignant pied pipers with regularity and my skepticism meter gets pegged pretty easily.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:26 pm Rubin - there was some talk earlier in the thread about NOM not being an echo chamber (echo...echo...echo). Aren't you King of the Echo People?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wEIDfHZf9kI

Hahahahaha!

Well played sir, well played.