John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

[_Rosebud]

Rosebud,

Does it undermine male privilege to grant instant credibility to any allegation whatsoever that is made by someone anonymously on the internet? No one has said that men's livelihood are sacrosanct, certainly not me, so you'll have to fight that fight with someone who has. You came onto this thread insinuating (and repeating) that MormonStories has broken the law and/or violated professional ethics, but you don't provide any evidence. And you have threatened to release a document detailing evidence of MormonStories's immoralities and/or crimes--unless he takes "one or two more chances to straighten himself out" (what exactly does that mean?). If you can't or won't reveal any details whatsoever about the situation or even who you are, why would you expect anyone to take it seriously? What's the point of making the insinuations?

To some of us who have had mostly positive encounters with MormonStories and haven't the slightest idea what your grievance is and don't instantly and unquestioningly grant credibility to the anonymous lurking on the internet, what you're attempting looks like blackmail.

And in any case, if you have evidence that some professional and/or legal boundary has been crossed, it seems to me the ethical thing to do would be to report it immediately rather wait until MormonStories has satisfied some arbitrary threshold of absolution that you have taken upon yourself alone (it seems) to determine. That would be too serious an issue, I should think, to bandy about anonymously on the internet like just another of internet Mormonism's many October Surprises.

Hmmmm..... you make some good points. Mormonstories does have an email of mine he likes to use to try to prove that I'm trying to blackmail him, but he quotes it out of context and misses the point of what I'm saying. I think his big argument is that I also mention money in the email, not that I'm threatening exposure, though. He likes to forget the fact that he was using several intimidation tactics on me when I wrote it and seems to be blissfully unaware that in the email I'm copying his tactics against me (using them back on him) to make a point. Mostly, he has used that email against me to try to intimidate me into silence. As you can imagine, there are a lot of messed up emails that have gone back and forth as resolution has been sought and there's a paper trail about 100 miles long.

My legal advice is that at this point I can say what I want publicly. I tried for some privacy restrictions, but after a while I felt like he was trying to make it look like I was the person who had something to hide rather than I was the person who was arguing for a (EDIT: removed the word "more") less harmful solution to the problem. I got fed up with the whole process because he wouldn't ever take any accountability for anything he did wrong.

I have talked to the licensing board. My instructions are to contact them again after he applies for his license when he's done with his schooling. Perhaps what's wrong here is any thought that I might not follow their instructions when the time comes. I may be legally obligated to contact them then. I'll call them again and ask if I have a legal choice. If I don't, then I guess the question is answered for me and all this thread does is serve me by giving me the opportunity to make it publicly clear to mormonstories that he can't intimidate me anymore.

[_Rosebud]

That isn't to say, though, that I want this to end in an ugly way. Mormonstories has a tendency to escalate quickly and in such a self-destructive manner that I admit that I'm a bit curious about what kind of drama this thread might cause.

Again, I'd advise you to just chill Mormonstories. Seriously, life can get better if you choose not to self-destruct.

[Guest]

-

[_Meister_Monkey]

Schreech

Jesus Christ, I'm sorry I offended the tender sensibilities of the JD haters here. Guess how many f$%#s I give about the whole history of this drama...0.

MS

Circling the Wagons was founded when I met with Joseph Broom and Doug Balls at Maddox restaurant and we decided to create the event together. Just ask Joseph Broom and Doug Balls...we originally referred to it as "Gay General Conference." Then I asked [real name deleted] (Rosebud) to help organize/run the event -- but it was an Open Stories Foundation project from start to finish -- and I was deeply and significantly involved from start to finish. [real name deleted] could never have made CTW happen without the Open Stories Foundation, and vice versa.

[real name deleted] did a great job organizing it (along with the help of many other people and volunteers) -- but it was a team effort. Did [real name deleted] do a good job organizing? Definitely. Was it a team effort? No question. To deny that is to deny reality.

Schreech

by the way, anyone who used the real name of a poster (or any member of a posters family) is a dick bag....a big, heavy, unwieldy bag of dicks....

Ironically, that puts you in the camp of official JD hater.

[_schreech]

Ironically, that puts you in the camp of official JD hater.

Meh, I don't know enough about him to hate the guy...his use of posters real names certainly earned him the dickbag badge though...

[_Equality]

Show me, in this thread, where MS made any threats close to those made by rosebud and i will happily compare him to crazy glenn close in fatal attraction.

Here ya go. Page 8:

You can only play this game until you decide to reveal whatever information you claim to have. Once you do, I will respond (with facts/evidence), and the chips will fall. Then I wonder what histrionics you will pull afterwards.

Funny how when Rosebud says she has facts/evidence that paint MS/JD in a bad light, she is a Glenn Close crazed woman exhibiting histrionics. But when MS/JD says he is going to use facts/evidence to "let the chips fall" it goes completely unnoticed. Interesting.

[_Equality]

Jesus Christ, I'm sorry I offended the tender sensibilities of the JD haters here. Guess how many f$%#s I give about the whole history of this drama...0. .

Also funny, the number of threads on which my give a bleep factor is 0 that I post on is also 0.

[Guest]

-

[_schreech]

Yes, saying the chips will fall as they may is exactly the same thing as saying:

"Unfortunately, I met a wolf along the way and he hurt me very much. I don't him to be able to hurt me further by trying to provoke me into destroying him."


"John knows I have evidence. John knows I am good at written debates. John knows that I am better at message board debates than he is. John knows that I could destroy his life."

"What I'm hoping for from him (although at this point the hope for anything from John seems fairly pointless) is that he will start trying to put his life together rather than continuing down the road of provoking people who have power of him until someone hurts him."

Oh, and here is her 3 step plan to make good on the above threats:

"1) I am creating a brief document.
2) I have no intention of making that document public right now.
3) John will have more information about the document by early October. That information will not come to him through public channels or email."

"And don't try to get me publicly malign you by sharing details with everyone in order to get you to stop claiming a resume item that isn't yours."

Yea, those statements are exactly the same...

[_hank rearden]

Look up histrionics in Wikipedia. Any mental-health professional will know the problematic history of it vis a vis gender - it's inextricably linked.

The history of Histrionic Personality Disorder stems from the word hysteria.[28] Hysteria can be described as an exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion that people, especially in groups, experience.[29] Beliefs about hysteria have varied throughout time. Take for example, female hysteria. It wasn’t until Sigmund Freud who studied histrionic personality disorder in a psychological manner.[28] “The roots of histrionic personality can be traced to cases of hysterical neurosis described by Freud.” [12] He developed the psychoanalytic theory in the late 19th century and the results from his development led to split concepts of hysteria. One concept labeled as hysterical neurosis (also known as conversion disorder) [30] and the other concept labeled as hysterical character (currently known as histrionic personality disorder).[28] These two concepts must not be confused with each other, as they are two separate and different ideas.[12]

Histrionic Personality Disorder is also known as hysterical personality. Hysterical personality has evolved in the past 400 years [31] and it first appeared in the DSM II (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 2nd edition) under the name hysterical personality disorder. The name we know today as histrionic personality disorder is due to the name change in DSM III, 3rd edition. Renaming hysterical personality to histrionic personality disorder is believed to be because of possible negative connotations to the roots of hysteria, such as intense sexual expressions, demon possessions, etc.[32]

Histrionic Personality Disorder has gone through many changes. From hysteria, to hysterical character, to the development of hysterical personality, to what it is listed as in the most current DSM, DSM-V, the 5th edition. "Hysteria is one of the oldest documented medical disorders.” [28] Hysteria dates back to both ancient Greek and Egyptian writings.[28] Most of the writings related hysteria and women together, similar to today where the epidemiology of histrionic personality disorder is generally more prevalent in women and also frequently diagnosed in women.[21]

Ancient age
Ancient Egypt – first description of the mental disorder, hysteria, dates back to 1900 BC in Ancient Egypt. Biological issues, such as the uterus movement in the female body, were seen as the cause of hysteria. Traditional symptoms and descriptions of hysteria can be found in the Ebers Papyrus, the oldest medical document.[33]
Ancient Greece – Similar to ancient Egyptians, the ancient Greeks saw hysteria being related to the uterus of a female. Hippocrates (5th century BC) is the first to use the term hysteria. Hippocrates believed hysteria was a disease that lies in the movement of uterus (“hysteron”). Hippocrates’s theory was that since a woman’s body is cold and wet compared to a man’s body whose body is warm and dry, the uterus is prone to illness, especially if deprived from sex. He saw sex as the cleansing of the body so the causes of being overly emotional were due to sex deprivation.[33]
Middle Ages
Works from Trotula de Ruggiero (11th century) display women’s diseases and disorders during this time period, disorders including hysteria. Her teachings resonated with those of Hippocrates and she is considered the first female doctor in Christian Europe.[33]
Renaissance
The uterus was still the explanation of hysteria, the concept of women being inferior to men was still present, and hysteria was still the symbol for femininity.[33]
Modern age
Thomas Willis (17th century) introduces a new concept of hysteria. Thomas Willis believed that the causes of hysteria was not linked to the uterus of the female, but to the brain and nervous system.[33]
Hysteria was consequence of social conflicts during the Salem witch trials.[33]
Witchcraft and sorcery was later considered absurd during the Age of Enlightenment in the late 17th century and 18th century. Hysteria starts to form in a more scientific way, especially neurologically. New ideas formed during this time and one of them was that if hysteria is connected to the brain, men could possess it too, not just women.[33]
Franz Mesmer (18th century) treated patients suffering from hysteria with his method called mesmerism, or animal magnetism.[33]
Jean-Martin Charcot (19th century) studied effects of hypnosis in hysteria. Charcot states that hysteria is a neurological disorder and that it is actually very common in men.[33]
Contemporary age
Sigmund Freud's work, Studies on Hysteria, with Josef Breuer contributes to a psychoanalytic theory of hysteria. Freud believed that hysteria was caused by a lack of libidinal evolution.[33]
Social implications
The prevalence of Histrionic Personality Disorder in women is apparent and urges a re-evaluation of culturally constructed ideas around what is considered normal emotional behaviour. The diagnostic approach classifies Histrionic Personality Disorder behaviour as “excessive”, considering it in reference to a social understanding of normal emotionality.[34]

Whilst regarding former associations between femininity and hysteria, one must question whether this influences the ease in which female 'sufferers' are diagnosed more readily than males, and whether a subjective cultural stigma that aligns intense emotionality with female behaviour is prevalent.[35] This further enables us to question Histrionic Personality Disorder as a psychiatric disorder, or whether it can be seen as a “cultural disorder” where those diagnosed are the victims of a society that interprets such behaviour as excessive.[36]