Kishkumen wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:18 pm
Here is my question: Do you think JD has sufficient introspection to confront this possibility? Maybe he does. I sometimes feel like I underestimate him, but I usually tend to think he is not approaching life with that kind of reflective nature.
John absolutely has the skills, but I believe at the moment his head is too clouded with paranoia about the path he has chosen and its sustainability. John made an intentional decision many many years ago to make a living off agitating the church. At some point along the way I believe (based on personal conversations with him) that the prospect of doing that for the rest of his life seemed exhausting. I think getting his PhD was a way to create a stream of income quasi-related to his agitation where he could counsel people through faith crisis and provide the kind of resources he wishes he had when he was going through his own faith transition.
Along the way, he began to see how lucrative the agitating could be. Regardless of what you think about his scruples, he has managed to pull down over a half million dollars in personal income over the last 10 years through Mormon Stories. That's nothing to shake a stick at. I don't have any information on this, but I would venture to say his "coaching" business has not taken off like he hoped it would. His website currently says he's "on sabbatical" from coaching.
I think John is now worried that the only way to make it through retirement and help put his kids through college is by continuing to agitate the church in a way that drives clicks to his website and dollars to his foundation. He feels stuck and exhausted.
So I think all of that clouds any opportunity he might have for introspection.
Kishkumen wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:18 pm
I often wonder about this "faith in transition" community, if there is such a thing. People can get stuck in this transition, never actually moving on, and it could be that all of the materials JD produces have a tendency to keep people there while providing him a decent living wage. But do you think that he is the sort of diabolical philosopher type who would really get that? Or is he like most people who land on something, like, say, selling junk on the internet to people who have too much junk, and don't really work through the further ramifications of their actions?
I have long thought the latter, but I could be wrong.
There are many business models that are successful but ultimately harmful. One might argue that our entire civilization right now stands at the top of the entire mountain of such misbegotten and deleterious methods destroying people and the world in the name of wealth, diversion, foolishness, ignorance, and pleasure. I like this kind of argument. It is interesting and worthwhile. By all means let's work out what might be wrong with Dehlin's business model.
First, I appreciate your attempt to introduce nuance into this discussion. I admit it's something I have lacked over the last week.
On a whole, if I allow myself to go down the road of moral relativism you're traveling in your last paragraph, nothing ever gets done and existence has little meaning. So I'm not really interested in that.
So let's focus on your first paragraph.
Again, all credit to John. He identified a market (disaffected Mormons), identified a highly effective method of communication (podcasts before podcasts were cool) and then aligned it with a long-term business strategy (faith crisis coaching).
I know for a fact John mentioned to me many times that he is sick of spending time on his podcast arguing the truth claims of the church and arguing about apologists, etc etc and would really like to move the podcast on to topics entirely devoted to helping people move on in healthy ways from religion. I think, personally, that he wishes he could transition MSP into more of a catch-all resource for disaffected religious people.
But he has not been able to successfully make that transition. Every time he tries, his numbers plummet. He is hyper aware of what type of content drives donations, and he adjust his content decisions based on that. I know that he knows that controversial topics that generate lots of chatter result in more money in his pocket. And so he's stuck between doing what he thinks is most helpful for people and doing what will drive the most clicks. It's very similar to the dilemma the journalism industry has been facing since transitioning to digital platforms.
Do I think that is "diabolical"? I dunno, that seems like a loaded term that won't get us anywhere. I just believe that John ultimately is
not doing what he knows is in the best interest of those in the midst of a faith crisis--help them move on.
I feel better when I don't come here and obsess over JD. But I have a hard time moving on. People generally feel better when they're not constantly sucked into post-Mormon drama. But John's content keeps them there. I don't think that's necessarily evil, but I'm not sure it's ethical, either.
