John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

[_Sister Mary Lisa]

I don't believe you slander JD in this thread.

Equality, for what it's worth, I don't believe you slandered JD in this thread either ... now shoe, other foot, show where I have "defended" JD in this thread ... past giving him a thumbs up for defending himself. For the past couple months my battles with Mayan have not been in defense of JD but in annoyance to his obsession with JD which was turning into pure spamming of OP's others had interest in.

This little group you have associated with appear to be an emotional lot, with a lot of butt hurt over something, which seems to give you open license to quickly tag and attack anyone that dares even mention the name JD (i.e. me getting paid by the word to defend etc.).

Topped with Hank and Sister's drama queen entrances (a day late and dollar short) all I can say is grab a drink and fresh popcorn.

A few of the words you yourself have used to describe the people in your supposed non-defense of JD:

Rosebud:
~you linked her to the Fatal Attraction trailer to point out that you feel she's too much like a fictional character who stalked someone and tried to kill him. Note how nobody has likened JD to the adulterous male in that same movie.

Hank Reardon:
~you admonished him for posting AT ALL

Mayan Elephant:
~you called him a "leach"
~you called his posts "obsession in JD hate"

On Page 8 you said

In contrast to a long history of MDB threatened lawsuits, JD's simply facing up directly with the individuals in hopes of resolving what has become a long history of stalking and slander is what wins my thumbs up.

On Page 7 you said

Thanks for clearing this up JD!
Rosebud and Mayan are simply a serious case of sour grapes.
I was thinking this all along while reading .... how come, out of a decade + of JD we only see these one or two consistent haters?

How exactly is this not you defending JD? You are quick to believe JD when he cries "obsessive stalkers!" and jump on board with JD by denouncing those people who are calling out JD for being a narcissist with an agenda. Why are you not also asking JD to point to actual slander? You have defended JD throughout the entire thread. To say anything else is disingenuous at best.

As for the "this little group you have associated with" and "drama queen" verbiage above: don't think the dismissive-of-women attitude has escaped anyone here. Nice.

[_RockSlider]

Not really emotional at all, in any of my posts. Not that there is anything wrong with emotion. Or drama, for that matter. Reason, emotion, drama. I embrace them all. I guess maybe I was emotional when I laughed at JD's suggestion that I have a Napoleon complex. Laughter is an emotional response, so yes, I guess I was emotional. Do you find emotion offensive?

Maybe emotional is the wrong word .... not sure what would be the right word.

I felt I had reached out to you in my last words to you before this evening, noting some respect for your posting history here as well as some advice with good intention to distance yourself from the craziness I have been seeing here.

I am once again attacked by you in a fairly vicious way. Whatever the word is that would justify to you your attack on me tonight is what I'm looking for.

i.e. I express great interest in seeing rosebuds (as a another noted ... blackmail) documentation and so I'm a whore defending MS and deserve all out attack.

[_Rosebud]

Hello Rosebud!

Please forgive my intrusion.

I think mormonstories and church leadership can both be dangerous to Mormons depending on how they act and I'd like them _all_ to shape up and stop being so selfish.

Would you be willing to expand/elaborate on your above quote little?

For the purpose of fairness and transparency with you (because you probably don't have a clue who "Ceeboo" is), I am a never-Mo.

Thanks in advance and peace,
Ceeboo

Ceeboo.... here's an op-ed I wrote that I hope will sort of address the ways in which I think Mormon leadership can be dangerous for Mormons.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58 ... d.html.csp

I'm sorry that's not an answer written just for you and is just an example of what I believe and how I approach the subject. It's just that this is a message board and that's a big question. If I were really to answer it, I'd do it in a different format.

As for why Mormonstories is dangerous for Mormons. I think I"ve made it pretty clear in this tread that I think he's a threat to women, that he shouldn't be in a position of leadership or the one person who represents progressive Mormons, and that I'm concerned about most of the progressive Mormon donations going to a man who is scamming people. Were you looking for something more specific than that?

[_Spanner]

Shows how dense I am. I thought the white rattlesnake/narcissistic triangulation spiels were aimed at Rosebud.

Anyway, I think calls of misogyny for using the term "histrionic" are totally unfounded, and have simply introduced another angle of attack which, unfortunately, has been adopted enthusiastically by some. The word histrionic has nothing to do with the word hysteria and it doesn't have any gender baggage. In fact, given that only males were allowed to act on stage when the root word emerged, it would have been much more likely to apply to males rather than females if anything. JD would be well aware of the proper use/origin of the word through his work, so I think playing the misogyny card is unfounded and better left for identifying the real thing.

I am less comfortable with the bunny-boiler comparison (because of the "spurned woman" implications), but spending 2 years threatening to release career-destroying information without actually providing decent evidence of any real wrong-doing is going to attract some sort of stalker comment.

Rosebud, if you think there is some reason why you should be protecting vulnerable people from JD, you need to contact the appropriate licensing board for the state and make a formal complaint. They will take you very seriously and conduct a proper investigation. Ideally you need to do this before JD finishes and goes for registration and a clinical license. The way you are going about this is totally inappropriate if there really is a problem.

[_hank rearden]

Symmachus, there's no need to evade the point I raised. If you were aware of the context Rosebud's speaking from, you might see it differently, and would not excuse obviously boorish behavior by several male posters here.

There's no excusing such unseemly, bigoted language and behavior. If one has a point he/she only cuts into the efficacy of such when it's accompanied by such clearly bad form.

I'm not excusing anything (nor evading, for that matter), but a half-wit glenn close reference by an anonymous poster or the subtle sexism of the word histrionics are not morally equivalent to a threat to destroy someone's livelihood.

But you're right, I don't know the context, since Rosebud prefers innuendo to laying out facts. I'm sure Rosebud has very good reasons for threatening to destroy JD's career and alleging that he is a perpetrator of some sort in messages that make frequent reference (by name) to his wife and children, reference which will now forever remain through Google easily connectable to JD (thankfully, the moderators have ensured that Google will never connect Rosebud's threats to Rosebud's identity for any of us who came late to the party and are not in-the-know).

I see that kind of behavior as rather worse than boorish, even vicious--go ahead and enlighten us on the context if that's unfair--but perhaps, if it goes some way towards banishing the word "histrionics" and any reference to Glenn Close (unless it's about "Albert Nobbs"), for you it is worth excusing as just "a little strong."

I'll let Rosebud do what she will, as that's her call. The context changes how one would perceive her posts here.

Again, you avoid addressing the point I raised, excusing bad behavior of at least a few males here by dancing around my point. How about sticking with that for a moment - was it bad or not? Do you not detect the misogyny I'm saying pops up at least a few times on this thread? Or are Rosebud's offenses (as you interpret them) more than enough excuse for devolved communication? Is that the ethical standard you subscribe to overall? Is that how you raised your kids? Is there no responsibility to counter bad speech ethically? Is that the overall tenor of this joint? I had understood that actual dialogue happened here.

Guys, again, I'm no lefty. I hate the fundamental dishonesty behind most political correctness. But as a white male, I have learned about both white privilege and male privilege, and neither does us white males any favors. If you didn't see that happening, regardless of where you land re certain players here, then I don't know what else I can say to help you see it, even if you don't like the implications of it.

[_Equality]

He's destroying himself.

I think this is exactly right, and what President Newsroom and his 15 assistants are hoping he will do. They don't want to ex him now, which is why they told King to take a wait and see approach. They are hoping MS/JD will self-destruct and his base of support will crumble, at which point they can ex him without a massive PR backlash.

Yes, very much. And they're informed about this kerfluffle. It would be much easier for them if I'd take him out for them. When did they ever provide people like me with assistance? (wink) But the thing is that even though I think mormostories is dangerous for Mormonism, I also think church leadership is dangerous for Mormonism. I'm not really against mormonstories. And I'm not really against Mormon leadership. I think I'm just plain pro-Mormon, but not in the way the church would prefer. I'm pro-Mormon people not pro-Mormon leadership. I think mormonstories and church leadership can both be dangerous to Mormons depending on how they act and I'd like them _all_ to shape up and stop being so selfish.

Yes, it feels weird to be doing Otterson's work for him. President Newsroom should send me, you, and Mayan a box of chocolates.

But seriously, you hit it out of the park with this one. Just because the church is an unhealthy organization right now does not mean that everyone who points out that fact is someone to be trusted and followed and made into an unassailable icon of goodness and virtue. Trading devotion to one self-proclaimed prophet for another is not healthy. Odd that expressing that idea here is so controversial.

[_hank rearden]

Topped with Hank and Sister's drama queen entrances (a day late and dollar short) all I can say is grab a drink and fresh popcorn.

There was no communication when I signed up that I was to check in with you first. I evidently missed that. If I've breached a freshness dating rule this board has, my bad. Just point me to where the rules are and I can play along.

Can you begin to understand how minimizing this response is? I'll open it up a little - you're not merely misogynistic, although you have that down well - you choose to engage willfully fallaciously with anyone with whom you disagree. You don't appear to care about better understanding, just doubling down on your own confirmation bias.

[_RockSlider]

Rosebud:
~you linked her to the Fatal Attraction trailer to point out that you feel she's too much like a fictional character who stalked someone and tried to kill him. Note how nobody has likened JD to the adulterous male in that same movie.

No, Rose just thanked someone for the Glenn Close remarks. She had taken them as a complement and had obviously missed the context. Her following responses brought back memories of Nick the white faced Mormon.


There appears to be some serious issues here, and I'm backing out of this based on this observation.

[_Gobias]

hank rearden, posts 1...

good god how many more are there yet to come out of the wood work?

I don't know, but here's another.

[_Meister_Monkey]

I'm concerned about most of the progressive Mormon donations going to a man who is scamming people.

If Rosebud could please elaborate on this, It would be much appreciated.