John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Mayan Elephant
_Emeritus
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

Post by _Mayan Elephant »

Rosebud wrote: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?


ya know. i am going to be brutally honest here, rosebud. i know we do not know each other except by name and interactions that came up from this thread. (thank you very much mormonstories).

i have to tell you that when you asked the first question i quoted, i don't think my reaction was too favorable of you. i understand what you are saying, and asking. but i would not call your posts here, at nom, and especially the comments directed at mormonstories, by using the word "restraint." and if i, someone who is sympathetic to what you are saying, wondered if that was a lack of restraint or a premature disclosure, i can only imagine that someone else may have thought that too.

now the other part of your question. i really do not consider your perceptions when i am trying to measure the restraint. it felt like you were saying you had information and you would use it later. as if there was some shock coming later. i no longer have that impression. it feels more like two people know exactly what the other knows, and one is behaving in a way to intimidate the other to withhold information, and one is asking the other to change something. really, it all seems like a symbolic public negotiation at best, where both of you are really preparing for this to come to a head in some other way.

this is going to rely on your evidence regarding mormonstories IF you really want the public to know. when mormonstories and you had a split and you were no longer on the open stories foundation financial records or seen in public together, i think you were erased from the organization, except for the effort to erase you more. frankly, i do not think many really know anything about any of it, except that you were no longer around.

most people will never understand your position, because few have had to stand up to someone that was a confidant and a partner and a public figure - and then returned to face the person again. in this specific case, most people just go away. they erase their profiles where he may appear. they let him erase them from groups. they pretend the personal phone calls and private questions never happened, or that disclosing anything personal and private to mormonstories was just a mistake in an hour of desperation. they choose to leave. you did not. that said, even mormonstories treatment of you in this thread does not, and will not, paint a picture that aligns with your perceptions. the only thing any of us can really conclude from this conversation, regarding you, is that he acted completely douchey on this board and probably does it regularly.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
_Bite Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2014 4:15 am

Re: John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

Post by _Bite Me »

Mayan Elephant wrote:
Bite Me wrote:Image


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.


Bwahaha! You know me, NOM board. match the avatars.
Never sacrifice who you are because someone else has a problem with it.

People don't have a faith problem, the church has a truth problem, and all the "StayLDS" in the world isn't going to change that.
_suniluni2
_Emeritus
Posts: 1062
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:36 am

Re: John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

Post by _suniluni2 »

Mayan Elephant wrote: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.


I figured you'd say that, here's the difference-- one is done under well-established rules, the other is done, among other things, as a power play to silence dissent. If you can show me where the well established rules are that the sp is relying on, then I'll admit he's imposing conditions rather than threats.
_Mayan Elephant
_Emeritus
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

Post by _Mayan Elephant »

suniluni2 wrote:If you can show me where the well established rules are that the sp is relying on, then I'll admit he's imposing conditions rather than threats.


those items you highlighted match items that are listed in section 6.7.3 of the CHI. those are the conditions of apostasy and are numbered 1-4 in the handbook. items 2 and 3 in that section, regarding apostasy, have descriptions and each says "after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority."

mormonstories was not threatened with excommunication. he was not threatened with a church disciplinary council. he met with his stake president, and was "corrected by his bishop or a higher authority" (king.) king went by the book, flawlessly. the process was completely misrepresented by mormonstories. now, mormonstories has said he will defy king and do whatever the hell he wants. at that point king may host a disciplinary council and the sycophants will cry foul even though king and the church are acting with integrity regarding these well-established rules.

http://ge.tt/5OcBdKQ/v/0
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
_cwald
_Emeritus
Posts: 4443
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:53 pm

Re: John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

Post by _cwald »

Mayan Elephant wrote:
ya know. i am going to be brutally honest here, rosebud. i know we do not know each other except by name and interactions that came up from this thread. (thank you very much mormonstories).

i have to tell you that when you asked the first question i quoted, i don't think my reaction was too favorable of you. i understand what you are saying, and asking. but i would not call your posts here, at nom, and especially the comments directed at mormonstories, by using the word "restraint." and if i, someone who is sympathetic to what you are saying, wondered if that was a lack of restraint or a premature disclosure, i can only imagine that someone else may have thought that too.

now the other part of your question. i really do not consider your perceptions when i am trying to measure the restraint. it felt like you were saying you had information and you would use it later. as if there was some shock coming later. i no longer have that impression. it feels more like two people know exactly what the other knows, and one is behaving in a way to intimidate the other to withhold information, and one is asking the other to change something. really, it all seems like a symbolic public negotiation at best, where both of you are really preparing for this to come to a head in some other way.

this is going to rely on your evidence regarding mormonstories IF you really want the public to know. when mormonstories and you had a split and you were no longer on the open stories foundation financial records or seen in public together, i think you were erased from the organization, except for the effort to erase you more. frankly, i do not think many really know anything about any of it, except that you were no longer around.

most people will never understand your position, because few have had to stand up to someone that was a confidant and a partner and a public figure - and then returned to face the person again. in this specific case, most people just go away. they erase their profiles where he may appear. they let him erase them from groups. they pretend the personal phone calls and private questions never happened, or that disclosing anything personal and private to mormonstories was just a mistake in an hour of desperation. they choose to leave. you did not. that said, even mormonstories treatment of you in this thread does not, and will not, paint a picture that aligns with your perceptions. the only thing any of us can really conclude from this conversation, regarding you, is that he acted completely douchey on this board and probably does it regularly.


I think this is very well said actually. I think it is a fair (and yes, brutally honest) summary of the past week of MS threads here abs NOM.

I'm trying to be empathetic, I really am. ... but these recent Rose posts are simply not helping.
"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby

Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson
_hank rearden
_Emeritus
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:34 pm

Re: John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

Post by _hank rearden »

Spanner said

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.


We really seem to be down to some very fine detail here. Some of this may be attributable to the difference by the way Oz and a more politically correct USA. It's my belief that most enlightened males here would not use that word in speaking directly to a woman he's disagreeing with as adjective, noun or any other workable part of speech. Add in the idea of being a mental-health professional and someone who ostensibly champions equality for women (e.g., OW) and about the best I can account for MoSto here is a momentary lapse of judgment. It's charged language with a history of male privilege and I held that as true before even reading the wiki entry. I will certainly cop to the very fine point you went to some trouble to pin down - despite the vernacular, "histrionic" doesn't have the same etymology as "hysteria". And yet, even you acknowledge that it would be a problem if used as an adjective...it seems that we're doing a bit of a Talmudic do-si-do now.
"You can get along with anyone if you'll spot them two character flaws." The Oracle of Bedford, IN, even one Tug Beal, of Whom I am merely a messenger
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Re: John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

Post by _Sethbag »

I don't think that it's been established that "histrionics" is gender-charged language. I'm willing to be corrected, though. Personally, I would use the word "histrionics" to describe certain behavior patterns whether they were done by a male or a female.

by the way, "histrionics" comes from the Latin word histrōnicus, which relates to actors, and the tie-in is that histrionics are a public display.

Here, let me google that for you.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_Equality
_Emeritus
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:44 pm

Re: John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

Post by _Equality »

It is interesting that the same people saying that "histrionics" is not gender-specific are the ones using it to describe Rosebud's participation here but not MS/JD's. By the definition Sethbag is using, it seems to me that MS/JD was at least as "histrionic" as Rosebud. That it doesn't occur to folks to use the word in reference to MS/JD underscores the point that it is more often used to describe the actions of women than men.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain
"The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Re: John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

Post by _Sethbag »

Equality wrote:It is interesting that the same people saying that "histrionics" is not gender-specific are the ones using it to describe Rosebud's participation here but not MS/JD's. By the definition Sethbag is using, it seems to me that MS/JD was at least as "histrionic" as Rosebud. That it doesn't occur to folks to use the word in reference to MS/JD underscores the point that it is more often used to describe the actions of women than men.

As far as I can tell, JD's involvement in this thread ended 11 pages ago.

I disagreed with JD's outing of some of the posters in this thread by real name. He did face a sort of dilemma, though, with which I'm sympathetic. This thread was specifically about him (his name is in the title of the thread, for Pete's sake), and some of the posters he named were attacking him specifically, by name, with threats of destruction by the release of super-secret nuclear medieval-whoopass-can-opening evidence of his evil-doing, but without being willing to provide any specifics. He was in a sort of lose-lose situation.

I guess if I were JD in this case I'd have just ignored the thread altogether. He didn't, and he got smacked down for it, and then he dropped it and hasn't been back for three days now.

My opinion, at the end of all of this, is that MDB is not really a very good place for people to air their grievances about real-life people somehow related to Mormonism. Granted, people do that with DCP and Bill Hambone all the time, but at the very least they have the decency to post, in full lurid details, the quotes, writings, utterances, etc. that they take issue with. The discussion then centers around what DCP/Hambone/Midgely/etc wrote, said, or did, and not about them simply being disagreeable persons or threats to women/society/common decency, or what have you.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_hank rearden
_Emeritus
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:34 pm

Re: John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

Post by _hank rearden »

I did not make it up that histrionics is gender-charged. Although Spanner was correct on one fine etymological point, there is a controversial history of histrionics being a problematic term - women being diagnosed much more than men with HPD, and other personality disorders as a result of hypernormal application of tired gender stereotypes. Simply google and check it out if you're so inclined. Don't if not.

Some examples, randomly picked, not cherry picked to support my argument.

https://www.google.com/search?q=histrio ... 8&hl=en-US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-bia ... _diagnosis

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3258

Etc.

I'll be happy to cop to having more sensitivity about this because I'm on the east coast, because I have three female business partners, because I'm not an over-testosteroned alpha male,whatthehellever. It's real across enough of my own experience, much less that of the number of women affected by such marginalizing language and behavior. It seems like perseveration to me for others to deny it. If you're from the mountain time zone, I'm unlikely the first person to suggest that you're not in a region that's on the leading edge of gender equality. If you see yourself as a feminist (regardless of gender) and still haven't seen this, and care, then do some quick research and I'm satisfied you'll get it. If you don't care and need to dig in, ask yourself why.

This quit being about Rosebud in particular several posts ago. I don't get it, gents. Forgive me if any of you pushing back are female and I'm being presumptuous in assuming that all females would get what I'm saying. At this point, I don't know what else to say.
"You can get along with anyone if you'll spot them two character flaws." The Oracle of Bedford, IN, even one Tug Beal, of Whom I am merely a messenger
Post Reply