Falling out between Dehlin and Kate Kelly?

[_Tator]

Juliann, Calm and Rosebud certainly are the trinity of Drama Queens on this thread.

Be fair, Tator. I don't even know who Calm is and I am not the creator of this drama. JD is. If anything, I have been overly quiet.

JD is not posting on this thread you are.

Rosebud this drama thing you have played with us for years on this board is getting wearisome. Every time a JD thread shows up you tell a bit of the nuanced story. You start and stop and begin again but never all the facts or all the story.

Why don't you take the time and write out the whole story for your therapy and then post all that you can (or burn it or do something to get over this 5 year drama thing) (or sue the SOB) and be done with it. I see no "documentation" trail the way you are doing this or any good coming out of it. Posting a bit and a piece here and there and then being cryptic with the story is not helping you to be understandable. What do you really want to achieve here?

I see a woman scorned, prove your case or let it go.

[_Lemmie]

Tacenda is still wondering what happened!

I just saw that Calm put her back on limited (after she pretended to be her friend, then told Tacenda her thread was inappropriate for the social hall and locked it). Wow, that's not obvious

Then she tells Tacenda that she'd received her "last warning" last week and is being put on limited (in the mod red print).

Warned about what? Tacenda is one of the nicest and best posters over there. Calm and Juliann have treated her awful too (as they did you)!

I read that thread. What on earth was so wrong with it that it got her put on limited? And Calm says her topic isn't appropriate for Social Hall? Isn't that subforum their version of the Spirit Paradise/Prison forums here? Where else would it go?!

by the way, Calm gave herself away. She recently stated how in ZLMB she would give long explanations for banning. So now we see Mod-red bans on people's posts, concurrent with long explanations of why the bans "probably" happened in a nearby Calm post. So obvious.

[_Rosebud]

1) I did just realize I mentioned the word "crime" because there was a crime and the had to explain for legal reasons since I don't want facts here contradicting facts elsewhere because that could get me in trouble legally.

And it's true that

2) I'm not going to talk about what the "crime" was because it isn't important besides that it sucked and it happened. I only brought it up because I don't want to say it didn't happen here while I say it did happen elsewhere and then have some attorney someday say, "See, Rosebud, you lied about one of the two."

So there you have it. That was my mistake. I have too many pieces I'm holding together when trying to use this format. Legal is so different than ethical, etc. Figuring out and managing the laws with this thing was hard.

[_Xenophon]

I'm not a lawyer (perhaps one on the board could chime in) but it seems to me that if you have planned on needing to make a legal case over this at some point you would be best to not discuss it here at all.

[_Rosebud]

And I saw that Money is now going to try to work things out with JD. In other words, her public push got her what she needed from him and now she's done. And tired. It's all very tiring. Sigh.

If that ends the public push from elsewhere, my push isn't strong enough on its own.

I didn't see any statement or podcast. Did I miss something?

No idea if this means John has sufficiently silenced everyone.

So..... from my perspective, it's time to wait until more action happens elsewhere. Still happy to try to answer questions I haven't already answered if someone wants to ask them. But really do prefer to time this with other public pushes if and as necessary.

(Yes, I get that that can be confusing, but I don't really see why. It is the way media works right now: big, political, interactive conversation. I think I've been pretty consistent and that most information anyone needs is here already anyway.)

[_Rosebud]

I'm not a lawyer (perhaps one on the board could chime in) but it seems to me that if you have planned on needing to make a legal case over this at some point you would be best to not discuss it here at all.

Correct. I have no plans for a legal case. Posted about my reasoning above.

[_Rosebud]

(But as it is a legal situation, I still keep consistency between what I say here and elsewhere in mind. That's fairly easy if one is telling the truth, but can be harder to keep track of missteps in language and attorneys love to grab on to those. I do expect to be called to the carpet about it in the future and for people to be trying to trick me into saying something I don't mean, etc. Like attorneys. Therefore my care with the word and legal definition of "crime.")

Anyway, Money's tired.

[_Craig Paxton]

I understand the concept of equal pay for equal work. 2 people doing similar jobs should be paid equally, and in a perfect world that is how it should be...but the work environment is not always equal or similar. Take 2 individuals doing similar work. Individual "A" brings in 90% of a charities income stream while individual "B" brings in 10%...should these two individuals earn similar incomes? I say no...while these percentages may not reflect reality in the Open Stories Foundation I believe that the example is spot on with respect to what is going on. One party is responsible for a large percentage of the foundations income stream, where as other people's podcast's, who just happen to be women, bring in less income...yet demand equal pay.

In the market place of ideas...Kristy Money's podcast just didn't garner the downloads nor the financial support that MS did...I'm disappointed that this turned into the drama that it has...

[_Craig Paxton]

(But as it is a legal situation, I still keep consistency between what I say here and elsewhere in mind. That's fairly easy if one is telling the truth, but can be harder to keep track of missteps in language and attorneys love to grab on to those. I do expect to be called to the carpet about it in the future and for people to be trying to trick me into saying something I don't mean, etc. Like attorneys. Therefore my care with the word and legal definition of "crime.")

Anyway, Money's tired.

Rosebud...who are you in real life? It seems I'm the only one who has no idea who you are...and yet I'm guessing you are somehow at the center of this whole matter

[_Juggler Vain]

A history of Mormonism from a class perspective has yet to be written and probably won't be in the current "Mormon Studies" climate, but there is certainly something there. One way of looking at the Church is as the function of an aristocracy that was birthed by Joseph Smith. Polygamy is a sign of that aristocracy, and it was no accident in my view that Jeff Flake's and Mitt Romney's ancestors were polygamists—and probably John Dehlin's—but mine weren't. Theirs were settlers, farmers, and ranchers called to their places by the Church leadership that they were connected to by the chain-link of marriages. Mine were day laborers, coal miners, and rail workers: they worked either for the LDS polygamist farmers and ranchers or for the gentiles.

This entire exchange between Symmachus and Kishkumen deserves its own thread, rather than being buried in another JD shitshow thread. Great stuff.

My own obligatory exit narrative, which I use in real life but have never posted, has developed along these lines. I'm the first "white collar professional" type in my family. When got out of school and felt what it was like to inhabit the "leader class" of the church, it turned my stomach enough to opt out of the church altogether. My family background is very much like Symmachus' story. Some roots in the early Mormon movement, widely quoted journals, but not really the insider group. A temple artisan or settler here or there, but no GA types. The class-based analysis of the Church resonates.

It also explains why there is so little money to go around in JD's "Mormon Stories" business. He's essentially touching only the leader class narratives, full of dashed expectations that most cultural Mormons never have, and those are the only narratives anybody (few as they are) will pay money to hear (ad nauseum).