John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

[_Mayan Elephant]

suni, those are not threats. those are conditions for being a member of an organisation that mormonstories is antagonizing. that civil and polite request came at the conclusion of some dialogue. they are no more of a threat than a polite request to stop using names on this board as a condition of membership or participation, while acknowledging that mormonstories was antagonizing by disregarding basic rules.

[_Sister Mary Lisa]

The most fascinating part of watching a narcissist at work is how they wield their displeasure as a way of keeping people from calling them out. People who defend him must know that if they cross him they will pay.

Uhuh. Has it occurred to you that perhaps the overwhelming majority of us out here haven't had any part in any of the ****storm that apparently characterizes his interactions with certain other people? Personally I appreciated Mormon Stories podcasts when I first lost my faith, and I'll always appreciate that. What's gone on since then, or in his professional dealings or personal life, I have no idea, and honestly I couldn't care less. But in reality I'm just scared ****less of John Dehlin or something, right?

Wow.

Sethbag, I also appreciate many of the Mormon Stories podcasts. That work he did on podcasts has nothing to do with how he deals with others in professional and personal situations. In some of these interactions, we are discovering that JD directs narcissistic rage heatedly at people who criticize him. We have seen it in this thread already, no? We are all well aware that if he feels threatened by someone being critical of him, he is willing to reveal that person's real identity here repeatedly even after being asked not to. Even if you're not cowering in a corner in fear of him, you now know he is at least willing to go that far to make someone pay for crossing him. In other venues, he wields the power to block or ban people from the forums where he has admin status or sway. And Rosebud has given us examples where he blackballed her and kept her from in-person venues she had every right to attend. So I don't think I'm off base at all when I comment about how he makes people pay.

Narcissistic rages help narcissists do two things: 1. silence the person who dares criticize the narcissist, and 2. teach others watching that it may not be safe to criticize that narcissist in the future. Clearly he has taught everyone here, whether they are "scared ****less" of him, love him, or are unafraid to be openly critical of him, that he is willing to come up swinging and make them pay in whatever way he can.

[Guest]

And the reference

Blais, M.A., Hilsenroth, M. & Fowler, C. (1998). Rorschach correlates of the DSM-IV histrionic personality disorder. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70(2), 355-365

It's used three times in the section on History of the term. I can't get a PDF of it, but I'll take what's there over your protestations of my use of it until someone could show why I shouldn't. Please furnish your credentials or correcting reference(s) if you'd be so kind, and we can see what the nature is of the particular leg on which you're attempting to stand. If you can make your case, I'm happy to reconsider.

Well, I found the pdf easily through the university library. The original document provides absolutely no support for the derivation of "histrionics" from "hysteria". It is a scanned pdf and I really don't want to retype the whole first paragraph out. Anyway, it starts out with a four sentence spiel on hysteria as the Freudian starting point for psychoanalysis and says that formulations have "focussed on sexuality, excessive and shallow emotionality, and an overdeveloped fantasy life" It then goes on to talk about Histrionic Personality Disorder as one of the modern personality disorders, and describes the different characteristics of HPD. The authors have made the mistake of chucking in four largely irrelevant sentences at the introduction to their paper on HPD possibly due to the "excessive emotionality" factor being common to both (excessive emotionality is common to many of the personality disorders). Overall it is simply a poor introduction (what we would call "padding"). It certainly does not support the line "The history of Histrionic Personality Disorder stems from the word hysteria". It doesn't actually discuss the history of HPD at all.

Hysteria was a grab-bag term that covered a wide range of problems (as was "neurotic" and "psychotic"). Those early terms were dropped and the modern terms adopted as clusters of behaviour were identified. HPD was named for the theatrical behaviour that is distinctive to it.

The rest of the paper is on the Rorschach test - cripes I hope no one is still actually using the Rorschach test these days. We only studied it as part of "crazy things in psychological history".

However, you have missed my point - JD will be familiar with the accurate description of behaviours. "Histrionics" refers to dramatic or theatrical behaviour. The context in which he used it clearly indicates that that is what he meant. You are trying to imply that he was calling her hysterical by conflating the terms.

I am sure that after this ridiculous storm in a teacup, JD will simply use the terms "dramatics" or "theatrics". Although if he had done that this time I imagine he could have been accused of calling her a Drama Queen and still get labelled "misogynist".

Credentials - I went to the effort of closing my original login here to prevent disclosing in real life information, so I am not linking to anything that will give me away. I am a Behavior Analyst with a PhD in Psychology, but you will just have to take my word for that.

Affiliation - I am neutral towards JD, I follow the podcast, but find many of them too "emotional" so cherry-pick what I listen to. I prefer the podcasts where he discusses history or science - the Michael Coe interview was a favorite. I entered this bunfight because I think JD has been mislabelled a misogynist on dodgy grounds and I object to the bandying about of the term "narcissist" (which is a diagnostic term). JD declared his intention to withdraw from the thread and the slander continued unabated, prompting my objections. Introduction of the "misogyny" label has escalated to calling JD a "threat to women". Cripes.

Edit to add: had JD called her "histrionic" (like you guys are calling him "narcissistic"), that would be a problem. I would not be defending him in that case. But he didn't, he referred to "histrionics" in a context clearly indicating theatrical behaviors. Taken to extreme, what you guys are suggesting is that he has to avoid any word remotely related to any psychological term. Convert = conversion disorder? anxious = anxiety disorder? borderline = BPD? Give me a break!

[_harmony]

I entered this bunfight because I think JD has been mislabelled a misogynist on dodgy grounds and I object to the bandying about of the term "narcissist" (which is a diagnostic term). JD declared his intention to withdraw from the thread and the slander continued unabated, prompting my objections. Introduction of the "misogyny" label has escalated to calling JD a "threat to women". Cripes.

+1

[_hank rearden]

I'll stand corrected on that point, then. Let me sleep on the rest of this. Solid work, Spanner.

[_Bite Me]

[_Equality]

Best post ever. It's like a postmodern MDB performance art piece.

[_Rosebud]

I've been thinking today about this whole "histrionics" debate. I'd like to add, as the person to whom the disparaging word and other abusive remarks were directed, that I have learned to take mormonstories' many public and private attacks of my character to be indications that I have credibility rather than that my credibility should be in question. He is attempting to demonstrate that I am someone whose words can't be trusted and whose testimony is not reliable because it's to his benefit if people see me as less than I am. I believe that the fact that he works so hard to discredit me indicates that I have something credible to say. And that, for what it's worth, would be true even if I really did have a personality disorder (which I of course don't).

Here are a few questions for thought, however: What if I were "less" than I am? What if I weren't "stable"? What if I did have some sort of personality disorder? If those things were true (and they aren't, but if they were...) would that make my testimony any less valid than it is? Would my supposed problems make the ways he has treated me moral? In fact, wouldn't any vulnerability I might have only make any actions he may or may not have taken against me (since nothing has been proven) even more immoral? The "less" that I am (by whatever standards he is attempting to use today) only makes him more heinous for anything he does or has done to hurt me, does it not? One could argue that the stronger of a person I am, the less despicable his actions may be. My vulnerabilities at any time I have known him only increase his culpability, right?

One of the beautiful things about psychology in 2014, is that people aren't discriminated against for being "weak." A "weak" person isn't seen as less, but as someone who should be helped or who might need treatment or support. And people aren't seen as good or bad or credible or as people who don't have credibility, but as individuals with needs and weakness and strengths and positive traits and difficulties that might hold them back. If indeed I am "weak" or "histrionic" (ha!... that is pretty funny, no?), shouldn't mormonstories and all of you not serve me?

Also, if I am not weak, is it therefore more appropriate for him to attack me? The answer is of course no, but attacking a "histrionic" person is surely worse than attacking someone who is perfectly capable (as I am) of not taking the attack seriously. It's sad to think of how terrible it might be to publicly call a "histrionic" person "histrionic." That would be even lower than what mormonstories did and has done to me many times in the past.

And don't get me wrong, his many public and private attacks have hurt me in the past and I DO very much HATE being in this situation. (I can't say HATE strongly enough; what self-respecting woman would EVER want to be in my shoes?) I am not pretending to be a person who is made of steel; I see no value in striving to be that kind of human being and I do not believe that when a person acts emotionally, that person should be discredited. In fact, emotional responses, to me, are often testimonies against the person who is the attacker, not demonstrations that the person who has been attacked should not be listened to. It's just that over the last two years of being on the receiving end of so many personal and public attacks, I have become very cognizant that attacks tell me far more about the person who is attacking me than they do about me. Over time, I believe I have developed skills to deal with people who treat me the way mormonstories treats me (as he is not the only person I have dealt with in my life who perpetually attacks me). Over time, I have learned the skill of distancing myself from the attacks and seeing them as information about my attackers rather than information about me.

In a nutshell, nothing mormonstories says about me changes my credibility. What mormonstories says about me changes his credibility. I represent me; mormonstories represents him. And since I have safely distanced myself from him in enough ways (like blocking him on Facebook, for example) for me to feel comfortable engaging in this conversation, I can let his attacks roll off my back and know who I am regardless.

This strength comes from within and is something I feel thankful to have been able to gain much more of over the last two years. But.... like I said.... don't mormonstories' aggressive actions only act as evidence that I may have something to say even if I am choosing what I believe to be calm forbearance and compassion in my decision to not publicize my evidence for the sake of progressive Mormons and mormonstories' children and wife and my own future? Shouldn't my own perception that I am being calm, steady and am demonstrating restraint in my decisions at least affect your perceptions of my incentives and determinations to do what I hope is best even if you disagree with my decisions?

Do you, as members of the public, need my evidence or has mormonstories already provided enough of his own through his many exclusions of me and his public treatment of me in this thread and in other public and private forums? I am sure the answer will be different for each of you, but I do think this is a question that it might be worth asking yourselves if you find yourselves believing his attempts to discredit me. What do you think it is like to be in the position I am in? What would you do with all of these double binds that I am sure you are starting to see if you are paying attention and are attempting to put yourselves in my shoes?

[_Mayan Elephant]

Edit to add: had JD called her "histrionic" (like you guys are calling him "narcissistic"), that would be a problem. I would not be defending him in that case. But he didn't, he referred to "histrionics" in a context clearly indicating theatrical behaviors. Taken to extreme, what you guys are suggesting is that he has to avoid any word remotely related to any psychological term. Convert = conversion disorder? anxious = anxiety disorder? borderline = BPD? Give me a break!

ya know, spanner. this addition is actually an important distinction. and i appreciate it a lot. thanks.

i guess we disagree on the intent of the original comment. i still see it as something that was intended to weaken, insult and demean - even if it was used as a noun and not an adjective. i will take your information to heart and lay off the disorder associations (both in application and reading it into others' comments.)

any other words we are using inappropriately?

[_Mayan Elephant]

Nursery


Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:15 pm
Posts: 2

2 posts. i don't think you are old enough to comment on a mormonstories thread.