John, release your finances

[_Jersey Girl]

I am being rude to you by asking you to document a public statement you are making about someone else's income?

You are violating the rules by posting in real life information. Even if dehlin is considered a public figure, you would still need to document your information with publicly available resources. And yes, this is just a message board. A message board with rules. If you need to make it your pity party playground, fine, but you still have to FOLLOW THE RULES.

Post a source, or it is just gossip.

It appears that Shades is not enforcing the rules, or perhaps I am missing something. Maybe he, like we, suspects that Rosebud is making stuff up.

I think it is pretty clear who the person with the problem is. It’s the one who regularly shows up with empty accusations, no evidence, and psychological priapism for John Dehlin.

I think you are missing something that you may have forgotten. A very long time ago a decision was made on this board that public figures were basically fair game. I don't recall where the line was drawn or if a line was drawn at all.

I think Shades needs to clarify whether or not that old ruling still stands and to what extent.

[_Jersey Girl]

Rosebud, how do you know he is earning $250,000 a year? Is this public knowledge that you can document?

I still have you on ignore. I had to logout before I saw this.

I feel like I have repeated the following 1000 times and you have a long history of being very rude to me. But here it is again: I don’t come here to share documentation. This is just a message board. (Why would I do that? What would be my incentive to share it here?) Rather, I come here to create dated documentation.

Five seconds ago you claimed that you come here to put pressure on John. Your opening post and follow on comments aren't dated documentation.

The information isn’t public because John isn’t transparent and is late. That is the point.

Your opening post and follow on comments (absent publicly accessible documentation) are libel.

[_Kishkumen]

I think you are missing something that you may have forgotten. A very long time ago a decision was made on this board that public figures were basically fair game. I don't recall where the line was drawn or if a line was drawn at all.

I think Shades needs to clarify whether or not that old ruling still stands and to what extent.

I was not aware that private information of public figures not published elsewhere is allowed to be published here. If it is so, then any creep can post private information about a “public figure.”

[_Dr. Shades]

This would normally be considered "in real life" information, but any income from Mormon Stories may be speculated about or otherwise discussed because the source (Mormon Stories) is a 501(c)3--a.k.a. a non-profit--corporation.

[_Kishkumen]

This would normally be considered "in real life" information, but any income from Mormon Stories may be speculated about or otherwise discussed because the source (Mormon Stories) is a 501(c)3--a.k.a. a non-profit--corporation.

No, the income of Mormon Stories is that of a non-profit corporation. John’s income is personal income drawn from the corporation. And what “Rosebud” is insinuating, I believe, is that John is drawing yet other income from sources that are not his to-be-reported income from Mormon Stories itself. So, this is not just about publicly available information about a non-profit. Nor is it speculation about the same.

[_Kishkumen]

I should add to this thread that Rosebud is being very selective and misleading in her characterization of the Scientology podcast she refers to. Let me straighten a few items out:

1. John spends a lot of time focusing on the relative poverty of his guest, Chris Shelton, whose main gig is being an ex-Scientology activist. He seems to be surprised and concerned that Chris cannot even afford health insurance.

2. This leads John to offer to give Chris advice on how to make a liveable wage doing what he is doing. Whether one agrees with John or not, John believes that those pouring their lives into helping people in their transition out of a demanding religious community deserve to make a living wage. Chris is clearly living on the edge.

3. John therefore solicits financial support for activists during the podcast. He encourages people to donate to their organizations to support them. He goes so far as to ask his listeners to donate $10 a month for the next year to Chris Shelton, his guest. He does, in typical John fashion, get carried away and ask people to donate 5% or less of their incomes to support these efforts, not just MoSto in particular, but I would personally attribute this to his general lack of circumspection and tendency to indulge his enthusiasm.

4. John does boost the Thrive, LLC, which is a for-profit organization. Their first event will be held at the Salt Palace and tickets are $15. John refers to the fact that the event is underwritten by wealthy donors and is being held at a significant financial loss. There is a marketing relationship between Thrive and Open Stories, which appears to consist of Thrive donating to OS to receive boosting on MoSto.

Rosebud’s selective and distorted account of all of this, which opens with a big money figure completely unsupported by documentation, is repugnant. I can only conclude that her campaign is motivated ultimately by malice. People who operate fairly and with integrity do not post threads such as this one. We don’t have to like, agree with, or support John Dehlin to see what the thrust of this thread is about: making John Dehlin look really bad by leveling insinuations and accusations, and by cherry-picking information in an attempt to misrepresent what John is doing.

I understand and am broadly sympathetic with distaste for ex-Mo celebrity culture. I am not a big fan of everything Dehlin does. I do enjoy the podcast, although I agree that John is not a trained journalist or a polished interviewer. Still, his long-form interviews are unique, interesting, and valuable, especially in contrast with our sound-bite culture.

I find crusades against individuals highly distasteful at this point, and Rosebud can be fairly criticized for the shameful way she, bearing all kinds of animus against John for obviously personal reasons, smears and libels him periodically on this board. What is even more vile is the cloak of virtue she throws over this smear campaign. She gives a very bad name to those who truly seek to help victims and yet maintain the highest integrity. I am reminded of the Joseph Bishop debacle. John hypothetically could be guilty of bad things, but Rosebud’s methods threaten to undermine any future attempt to bring those problems to light.

[_Lemmie]

Personally, I agree with Kishkumen on this, but if the moderator decision is that discussions of the details provided in this thread are fair game, then my questions, unanswered by rosebud, are fair game also.

My first question:

Rosebud, how do you know he is earning $250,000 a year? Is this public knowledge that you can document?

....I don’t come here to share documentation. This is just a message board. (Why would I do that? What would be my incentive to share it here?) Rather, I come here to create dated documentation.

The information isn’t public because John isn’t transparent and is late. That is the point.

Ok, so no documentation of his income, just a misunderstanding of the term “dated documentation.”

My second question:

....But he’s incorporated in Arizona and he’s siphoning tax-deductible donations to himself. That’s inurement....

Is this public knowledge? Can you please provide documentation?

No response has been made to this, so I will assume just more “dated documentation” of a rumor.

Unless Rosebud would like to respond?


I appreciated your review of the podcast, thanks, Kishkumen, that was very helpful. I agree with your comment here:

Rosebud’s selective and distorted account of all of this, which opens with a big money figure completely unsupported by documentation, is repugnant. I can only conclude that her campaign is motivated ultimately by malice....

[_fetchface]

Documenting rumors by posting to a discussion board and then avoiding discussion is seriously weird behavior.

If you just want to document something for later, make a random anonymous blog and create a post, but don't make posts on a discussion board and then refuse to answer the most basic questions about your post like, where the hell is this information coming from? It's just lame.

Don't be like MG. Answer the basic straightforward questions. Avoiding them makes you look weird as hell.

[_Rosebud]

Documenting rumors by posting to a discussion board and then avoiding discussion is seriously weird behavior.

If you just want to document something for later, make a random anonymous blog and create a post, but don't make posts on a discussion board and then refuse to answer the most basic questions about your post like, where the hell is this information coming from? It's just lame.

Don't be like MG. Answer the basic straightforward questions. Avoiding them makes you look weird as hell.

Have you been around here long? I’m really really weird. “Super” weird. ;)

Today is dressed up like a monkey. That was weird, too.

I am under no obligation to answer questions or even to read the thread. Too long.

For what it’s worth...... I also stated that I was posting to put pressure on John. He knows how much he makes. He knows his finances are late. He knows he’s lying when he says he’s transparent. He knows I post here to put pressure on him. It’s not all about you.

MG is a troll. Don’t take him so seriously. Don’t take me seriously if you don’t want to. If I bother you, ignore me. I ignore a lot on here. If I took the posters here seriously, I’d probably cry myself to sleep at night. But this is a friggin’ message board. Why would I take you all seriously?

I’m weird. Weird people do things their own way. :p

[_Lemmie]

I am under no obligation to answer questions or even to read the thread. Too long...

I also stated that I was posting to put pressure...

...But this is a friggin’ message board. Why would I take you all seriously?

I think you called it, fetchface. It’s mg, right down to the desire to use this board for their own reasons while distaining board interactions in general.