John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

[Guest]

I missed the Glenn Close comment. I'll take it as a compliment. Thank you to whomever.

oh my hell, too damn funny

Rose ... not having any clue what hurt (EDIT: mormonstories ;) ) inflicted upon you, with your mention of his resume, I assume you had a bad case of sour grapes based more on business/recognition types of issues. But as you kept posting up the weird threats it became pretty clear there are some very personal issues at hand here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY2L0GUoYU0

Oh, most definitely. Very. Only they don't feel very personal to me anymore. I feel very calm and over it all. I am very concerned about progressive Mormons at this point. Not to mention that this whole drama got way out of hand and that because of John's media stunts, the church is involved, informed and watching.

And yes, they were not veiled threats. EDIT: mormonstories ;) knows exactly where they're coming from and he's had enough warnings that they're warranted. I am saying less instead of more to give him one or two more chances to straighten himself out, but I have very few hopes in him at this point. Maybe realizing that he can't threaten me and intimidate me anymore will help him understand that this really is the end of the line. Perhaps this thread will help him in that way. I do think it would be nice if he turned himself around because I don't feel any personal need to destroy him.

So yes, he may lose his career. He may need to for the protection of the vulnerable population he says he wants to serve. Plus, it would be very unjust if he could make so many attacks at me and my career and then expect to have me protect his career from his own self-destructive behaviors, don't you think? He set me over a year back, maybe more, and I have documents to prove it. I'm not the one destroying him. He's destroying himself.

I have been exceptionally patient with him; he has had 2 years of warnings. That's what I'd call too patient and, frankly, self-destructive on my part. That's phase is over now.

[_cwald]

oh my hell, too damn funny

Rose ... not having any clue what hurt John inflicted upon you, with your mention of his resume, I assume you had a bad case of sour grapes based more on business/recognition types of issues. But as you kept posting up the weird threats it became pretty clear there are some very personal issues at hand here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY2L0GUoYU0

Oh, most definitely. Very. Only they don't feel very personal to me anymore. I feel very calm and over it all. I am very concerned about progressive Mormons at this point. Not to mention that this whole drama got way out of hand and that because of John's media stunts, the church is involved, informed and watching.

And yes, they were not veiled threats. John knows exactly where they're coming from and he's had enough warnings that they're warranted. I am saying less instead of more to give him one or two more chances to straighten himself out, but I have very few hopes in him at this point. Maybe realizing that he can't threaten me and intimidate me anymore will help him understand that this really is the end of the line. Perhaps this thread will help him in that way. I do think it would be nice if he turned himself around because I don't feel any personal need to destroy him.

So yes, he may lose his career. He may need to for the protection of the vulnerable population he says he wants to serve. Plus, it would be very unjust if he could make so many attacks at me and my career and then expect to have me protect his career from his own self-destructive behaviors, don't you think? He set me over a year back, maybe more, and I have documents to prove it. I'm not the one destroying him. He's destroying himself.

I have been exceptionally patient with him; he has had 2 years of warnings. That's what I'd call too patient and, frankly, self-destructive on my part. That's phase is over now.

I anxiously await the document. Until then, please don't take it to personal that I don't just take your word for it.

[_Rosebud]

I anxiously await the document. Until then, please don't take it to personal that I don't just take your word for it.

Definitely not. I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. And, for mormonstories' sake, I hope the document stays tucked away in the government organization that will be privately holding it away from the public. For my sake, idk... I didn't want this to get out and I still don't because I do have a life to live. I've discovered such a beautiful and happy world and I'm excited to continue on my journey. If the story gets too much traction and gets smeared all over the Internet, then every time someone googles me, I'll have to talk about it. I'd prefer to avoid that.

So, I do hope mormonstories makes some good choices. I've been hoping that for a loooooooooonggggg time, though.

And no worries... no footnotes and I'll keep it as concise as possible. ;) Also, a lot of it right now is about Mormonism and environment. Mormonstories and what he has done are sort of the inspiration for a bigger treatise because, frankly, mormonstories is not the most interesting subject (sorry MS, but we've all already discussed you too much). What's more interesting is what his actions say about our culture and this moment. So, it will discuss him, provide proof and then, hopefully say more. It still isn't something he'll want people to see, though, and it's very possible for me to say more without airing dirty laundry. I hope that is something that is attainable. But, it's really to Mr. Bigwig himself at this point. He's got the power to make or break his own life.

[_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.

[_RockSlider]

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.

[_Equality]

Yes, it sucks when more people join a discussion on a discussion board, doesn't it? Maybe we should have a rule here that only people who have already posted 1000 times can ever post. Would you like that, Rock?

Heaven's no ... this just keeps getting better and better. I can not wait to see the upcoming "document" that will justify all of this craziness.

This could reasonably be seen as a defense of MS/JD. And I only had to scroll up half a page to find it.

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?

[_Symmachus]

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."

[_Rosebud]

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.

[Guest]

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."

Why is it that men's livelihoods are sacrosanct? Is there ever a justifiable reason to interfere with someone's livelihood? What would that justification be? How bad would his actions need to be to justify it? Would you want anyone to be able to have a psychology license? What kind of person would you prefer not have that power?

Would I be interfering with it or would I be informing the licensing board and allowing the licensing board to make a decision? If the licensing board interferes with it then I would assume they had a good reason to do so. If they are informed and do not interfere, then I would assume that they would feel mormonstories should continue with his practice.

Why am I the villain if I inform the agency that is set in place to protect the public? What if I don't inform them when I have information they need (which I have put in writing here that I may not do)? Am I then responsible for the harm that may come to someone else because the licensing board isn't informed.

It's not black and white and I am not the perpetrator. I didn't force mormonstories to act against me in the many ways he did. He has made his own choices.

EDIT: Also, I will go back through and edit out MXXXX's name from all the posts. However, it is not me who has put MXXXX and mormonstories' children at risk. It is mormonstories. I will not take the blame for hurting them. That rests at mormonstories' feet, too.

[_Ceeboo]

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