RFM on Kamp in Court

[mormonstories]

A few quick things for the record:

1) Margi only made $1k per episode for a short time when she was doing the THRIVE Stories series. Margi was fully responsible for those episodes, was primary host, and it was the same amount we were paying John Larsen and Simon Southerton to produce their full episodes at the time. All three podcaster agreements were board approved. Margi’s was approved by the other two board members (without my vote). Margi’s payment was based on her successful history as a co-host (Gift of the Mormon Faith Crisis) and co-presenter with me in workshops and retreats. Donors highly value Margi’s contributions. That’s just a fact.

We ended the THRIVE Stories series in 2022. It wasn’t pulling the numbers to justify its continuance at the time.

2) Margi is now paid hourly for her co-hosting on the podcast. The same as Nemo, Mike, Rebecca, Julia, Gerardo, etc..

[drumdude]

3) Call me a “cheater” or whatever you want. But know….I’ve had sex with one woman my entire life - Margi. I’m not saying that’s good or bad. That’s just a fact.

Rosebud and I started to have feelings for each other….yes. Back in 2011….as Open Stories Foundation board members…before she started working for the Open Stories Foundation as an employee. I ended the relationship in 2012 when she propositioned me for sex (and I declined). Even Rosebud admits we never had sex. Those are her words. Yes it was horrible, terrible judgement on my/our part as fellow board members and as work colleagues. And super harmful to our families and to the Open Stories Foundation. I messed up and I take full responsibility for my part. But folks should know what you mean when you say “cheater.” I’m not sure it’s the traditional meaning of the word.

What Is Cheating?

Cheating in the context of relationships is “to have a secret sexual relationship with someone who is not your husband, wife, or usual sexual partner.”

So cheating is something you do behind your partner’s back, something you know you shouldn’t do and therefore keep a secret.

Although the definition of cheating is quite straightforward, some people bend the definition to suit their needs.

Some believe having one-night stands doesn’t constitute cheating, and some think it’s not cheating if you wear a condom. But if that’s the case, why not tell your partner about it?

Others feel cheated when their partner gives someone else too much attention. Thus, what you define as cheating also depends on your level of security.

In other words, if you see your partner talking to someone else at the bar and assume they’re cheating, does that reflect the truth or your insecurity?

According to the above and many people’s definition of cheating, it must involve a sexual component.

However, emotional cheating or “an affair of the heart” can be just as damaging and hurtful to the relationship and your partner.


What’s more is that the definition of cheating keeps expanding with the development of technology – for example, “sexting”, watching porn, and sending nudes are newer forms of cheating (although some people might not consider these cheating at all).

At the heart of cheating is engaging with another person behind your partner’s back, breaking their trust, and knowing that what you’re doing would cause your partner pain if they found out.

If you’re hiding your interactions with another person from your partner, you’re probably cheating or close to it.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/infide ... nship.html

[Violation of Universal Rule #7 deleted]

http://mormonrosebud.wikidot.com/

[Doctor Steuss]

How the crap does someone with a PhD in psychology have the self-awareness and social media filter of a high school kid?

It'd probably pay dividends to hire a consultant to review anything intended for public posting. Good gravy.

[Moksha]

If I was in a room with Rod Meldrum I'd be laughing in his face or saying "that's the dumbest crap I've ever heard. You're talking out your ass bro." But I guess Dehlin wants the content and access to continue fence sitting and he'll placate people who are clearly bat crap morons.

Dehlin could be striving to treat all of his guests with dignity and respect. Carah had a hard time containing her animosity and I think her desire to refute Rod Meldrum was too much so she quit.

[pistolero]

Carah had a hard time containing her animosity and I think her desire to refute Rod Meldrum was too much so she quit.

Yep, that's verbatim what Jenn Kamp's filings that were uploaded said happened.

How the crap does someone with a PhD in psychology have the self-awareness and social media filter of a high school kid?

It'd probably pay dividends to hire a consultant to review anything intended for public posting. Good gravy.

I probably spent about an hour, distracted, trying to figure out what he was trying to achieve with his post, I will never understand the condescension of JD. He must know that of all the places on the internet, this is the last place he's likely to change anyone's mind on the matter. It's been hashed out over and over and conclusions, opinions, etc... have been reached long ago.

Then on top of that, edit down the original post (9 times as of now) to a few lines that says very little.

[drumdude]

I'd like everyone who either donates their money or their labor to John Dehlin to have informed consent. John hasn't taken full accountability for his actions, you can see him wrestling with how to frame it in those 9 edits.

John considers the entire Rosebud affair to be simply "fair gaming."

Friends,

In our role of challenging the Mormon church to do/be better, and in supporting transitioning Mormons, Mormon Stories and the Open Stories Foundation regularly experience two types of detractors:

Believing Mormons and apologists who attack us because we sometimes criticize the church. The Church of Scientology refers to this approach of attacking critics as being “Fair Gamed.”

And more commonly, other Ex-Mormons (often former friends or former employees) who attack us for whatever reason. Sometimes it’s personality differences. Sometimes it’s jealousy. Sometimes there is a need to terminate our working relationship with them for whatever reasons, and they are upset that things had to end. Sometimes it’s a way for them to get cheap attention once they start slipping into irrelevance and/or desire to build up their own brand. Sometimes they try to blackmail us for $$$ with threats of false allegations. Sometimes we have literally no clue.

Occasionally but reliably over the years (and oddly usually around the holidays), a coordinated group of attackers will try to damage our reputation on the Internet with lies and misinformation. It’s a somewhat sinister approach, really, since even if the multiple allegations prove to be individually baseless, a general sense of “where there’s smoke there must be fire” tends to accumulate for some/many.

But such is the Internet world in which we choose to engage. We choose to be in this space, so we can’t really expect much sympathy.

John, in particular, has been falsely accused of endless things, including harming women and children. breaking up families, intentionally monetizing people’s suffering, and not being financially transparent with the podcast.

NONE of these accusations are true. To date (February 2023), John has never harassed, assaulted, or abused a co-worker. Ever. Margi/John and the Open Stories Foundation are financially stable (gratefully) – though we are not wealthy. The Open Stories Foundation has ALWAYS been financially transparent (etc., etc.).

Being “Fair Gamed” or attacked with false allegations sucks, but we have come to accept this reality as part of the job. Critics of high demand religions are regularly smeared – both by the religiously devout, and by fellow ex-religionists. Just ask Leah Remini and Mike Rinder (ex-Scientologists). There’s literally no way to stop it.

We used to feel the urgency to respond publicly to the smears. Trust is an important component to what we do — but such responses are usually unwise, since public responses then help to advertise the smears, which literally never stop. If we were to respond to every smear it would become a full time job, it would drain us of all our emotional energy, and we would never create anything meaningful. Responses also reward those who lie/smear with the attention they crave. And of course, if/when anything becomes a legal matter (which also occasionally happens, especially with former employees), we are forbidden by attorneys (as are all employers) from discussing former employee details until the matter is resolved in court. In these scenarios, silence is brutal for us, because in every case the facts are vindicating, but we can’t share the evidence until the matters are fully resolved. Note: In cases like this we are forced to rely on our supporters’ love of evidence, and skepticism towards baseless truth claims. We never expect anyone to blindly believe our account of things, but we do hope that people will reserve judgment until evidence is provided.

Sometimes this scenario makes us feel briefly discouraged and powerless, but we’re not powerless. There are at least four things we CAN do in response to constant smears:

We can refuse to give the misinformation oxygen or visibility on our platforms (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, my blog).
We can block the smearing critics on social media, which we try to do regularly.
We can continue showing up – producing quality content that helps our viewers and listeners.
In the case of legal matters, we can hire an attorney, fight the false allegations with evidence/the truth, and release the evidence once attorneys give us the OK.
As flawed humans, we always welcome sincere criticisms, especially regarding the podcast or our YouTube channels. We sincerely love, love, love constructive feedback intended to help us be more effective at our objectives.

If someone has concerns about the non-profit, and if they are donors or sincere prospective donors, they are welcome to email John (staff@openstoriesfoundation.org) or our amazing board (openstoriesboard@gmail.com). To date, John and Margi enjoy the full support of the Open Stories Foundation Board.

Finally, if someone wants to use our platform to spread baseless misinformation or even lies about me or us, they are not welcome in our world. We will continue to avoid responding to the misinformation, to avoid giving the critics what they most crave: more attention. They will have to find a more constructive way to get attention. We suggest they consider finding a way to do good in the world.

If you encounter damaging allegations on the Internet and consider yourself a friend to us and/or the podcast, please screen capture or audio/video record the comments and share with us, as we might be able to use the evidence as part of a defamation lawsuit.

If you have questions for me or the Open Stories Foundation Board about anything (including allegations of misbehavior), feel free to message me or the Open Stories Foundation Board directly. We will respond when we can, but please remember, there’s no way to prove a baseless lie false. That’s why baseless lies are so effective.

In fact, that’s how many religions get their start — with baseless, yet undisprovable lies. That’s why we value evidence.

Sincere love and gratitude to you all.

John & Margi Dehlin & the Open Stories Foundation Board

P.S. For a fair and thorough treatment of the “Rosebud” allegations, see here.

John never once uses the term "emotional affair." John never mentions that the employee he had an emotional affair with lost her job over it.

Yes, John has been accused of an insane amount of false charges. There was even a disgusting website calling him a pedophile. But just because those accusations are false doesn't mean he should be able to completely sweep everything under the rug.

I think it would be reasonable for John to have a podcast dedicated to the Rosebud affair. John has no problem doing 1,000 episodes on LDS misconduct, but he can't bring himself to do a single episode on himself.

Would Jenn Kamp have worked for Dehlin if she had seen the text messages between him and Rosebud? Did she have informed consent? How many of John's donors are even aware that these screenshots exist for them to review before donating? The LDS church put the essays on their website acknowledging and owning up to some hard truths. Why can't John do the same?

[bill4long]

John never once uses the term "emotional affair." John never mentions that the employee he had an emotional affair with lost her job over it.

I read the texts. Are you saying that Rosebud was not an eager participant in their relationship?

I think it would be reasonable for John to have a podcast dedicated to the Rosebud affair. John has no problem doing 1,000 episodes on LDS misconduct, but he can't bring himself to do a single episode on himself.

What would be the point of that in light of cost/benefit? Why don't you do an episode on the matter if you're so concerned about it?

Would Jenn Kamp have worked for Dehlin if she had seen the text messages between him and Rosebud?

How do you know she didn't see the texts? And if she did, so what? Is it reasonble to assume that Jenn would believe that she and John would have ended up in the same sort of relation that John and Rosebud did? (It isn't reasonable for at least a few reasons I can think of. In fact, it's laughable.)

How many of John's donors are even aware that these screenshots exist for them to review before donating? The LDS church put the essays on their website acknowledging and owning up to some hard truths. Why can't John do the same?

Probably cost/benefit.

(I have no interest in this issue except for purely academic interest.)

[Res Ipsa]

I'd like everyone who either donates their money or their labor to John Dehlin to have informed consent. John hasn't taken full accountability for his actions, you can see him wrestling with how to frame it in those 9 edits.

John considers the entire Rosebud affair to be simply "fair gaming."

Friends,

In our role of challenging the Mormon church to do/be better, and in supporting transitioning Mormons, Mormon Stories and the Open Stories Foundation regularly experience two types of detractors:

Believing Mormons and apologists who attack us because we sometimes criticize the church. The Church of Scientology refers to this approach of attacking critics as being “Fair Gamed.”

And more commonly, other Ex-Mormons (often former friends or former employees) who attack us for whatever reason. Sometimes it’s personality differences. Sometimes it’s jealousy. Sometimes there is a need to terminate our working relationship with them for whatever reasons, and they are upset that things had to end. Sometimes it’s a way for them to get cheap attention once they start slipping into irrelevance and/or desire to build up their own brand. Sometimes they try to blackmail us for $$$ with threats of false allegations. Sometimes we have literally no clue.

Occasionally but reliably over the years (and oddly usually around the holidays), a coordinated group of attackers will try to damage our reputation on the Internet with lies and misinformation. It’s a somewhat sinister approach, really, since even if the multiple allegations prove to be individually baseless, a general sense of “where there’s smoke there must be fire” tends to accumulate for some/many.

But such is the Internet world in which we choose to engage. We choose to be in this space, so we can’t really expect much sympathy.

John, in particular, has been falsely accused of endless things, including harming women and children. breaking up families, intentionally monetizing people’s suffering, and not being financially transparent with the podcast.

NONE of these accusations are true. To date (February 2023), John has never harassed, assaulted, or abused a co-worker. Ever. Margi/John and the Open Stories Foundation are financially stable (gratefully) – though we are not wealthy. The Open Stories Foundation has ALWAYS been financially transparent (etc., etc.).

Being “Fair Gamed” or attacked with false allegations sucks, but we have come to accept this reality as part of the job. Critics of high demand religions are regularly smeared – both by the religiously devout, and by fellow ex-religionists. Just ask Leah Remini and Mike Rinder (ex-Scientologists). There’s literally no way to stop it.

We used to feel the urgency to respond publicly to the smears. Trust is an important component to what we do — but such responses are usually unwise, since public responses then help to advertise the smears, which literally never stop. If we were to respond to every smear it would become a full time job, it would drain us of all our emotional energy, and we would never create anything meaningful. Responses also reward those who lie/smear with the attention they crave. And of course, if/when anything becomes a legal matter (which also occasionally happens, especially with former employees), we are forbidden by attorneys (as are all employers) from discussing former employee details until the matter is resolved in court. In these scenarios, silence is brutal for us, because in every case the facts are vindicating, but we can’t share the evidence until the matters are fully resolved. Note: In cases like this we are forced to rely on our supporters’ love of evidence, and skepticism towards baseless truth claims. We never expect anyone to blindly believe our account of things, but we do hope that people will reserve judgment until evidence is provided.

Sometimes this scenario makes us feel briefly discouraged and powerless, but we’re not powerless. There are at least four things we CAN do in response to constant smears:

We can refuse to give the misinformation oxygen or visibility on our platforms (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, my blog).
We can block the smearing critics on social media, which we try to do regularly.
We can continue showing up – producing quality content that helps our viewers and listeners.
In the case of legal matters, we can hire an attorney, fight the false allegations with evidence/the truth, and release the evidence once attorneys give us the OK.
As flawed humans, we always welcome sincere criticisms, especially regarding the podcast or our YouTube channels. We sincerely love, love, love constructive feedback intended to help us be more effective at our objectives.

If someone has concerns about the non-profit, and if they are donors or sincere prospective donors, they are welcome to email John (staff@openstoriesfoundation.org) or our amazing board (openstoriesboard@gmail.com). To date, John and Margi enjoy the full support of the Open Stories Foundation Board.

Finally, if someone wants to use our platform to spread baseless misinformation or even lies about me or us, they are not welcome in our world. We will continue to avoid responding to the misinformation, to avoid giving the critics what they most crave: more attention. They will have to find a more constructive way to get attention. We suggest they consider finding a way to do good in the world.

If you encounter damaging allegations on the Internet and consider yourself a friend to us and/or the podcast, please screen capture or audio/video record the comments and share with us, as we might be able to use the evidence as part of a defamation lawsuit.

If you have questions for me or the Open Stories Foundation Board about anything (including allegations of misbehavior), feel free to message me or the Open Stories Foundation Board directly. We will respond when we can, but please remember, there’s no way to prove a baseless lie false. That’s why baseless lies are so effective.

In fact, that’s how many religions get their start — with baseless, yet undisprovable lies. That’s why we value evidence.

Sincere love and gratitude to you all.

John & Margi Dehlin & the Open Stories Foundation Board

P.S. For a fair and thorough treatment of the “Rosebud” allegations, see here.

John never once uses the term "emotional affair." John never mentions that the employee he had an emotional affair with lost her job over it.

Yes, John has been accused of an insane amount of false charges. There was even a disgusting website calling him a pedophile. But just because those accusations are false doesn't mean he should be able to completely sweep everything under the rug.

I think it would be reasonable for John to have a podcast dedicated to the Rosebud affair. John has no problem doing 1,000 episodes on LDS misconduct, but he can't bring himself to do a single episode on himself.

Would Jenn Kamp have worked for Dehlin if she had seen the text messages between him and Rosebud? Did she have informed consent? How many of John's donors are even aware that these screenshots exist for them to review before donating? The LDS church put the essays on their website acknowledging and owning up to some hard truths. Why can't John do the same?

Unless Rosebud is now an LDS apologist, John did not say her criticisms of him were “fair game.”

The post is general — it doesn’t describe the specifics of any claim against him. Why are you criticizing him for not using specific words to describe specifics about Rosebud?

Look, how long ago was the “emotional affair?” Why should he be talking about now? Whatever words you want to use to describe what happened, it’s got to be embarrassing to him and hurtful to Margi.

The notion that John can’t criticize the Mormon church because he hasn’t done a show on Rosebud or used the words you want him to use makes no sense. Criticisms of the Mormon Church are valid or not based on their merits, not on whether the critic is “without sin.”

John is a flawed human being. If that’s some kind of newsflash to former Mormons, maybe they aren’t as former as they think they are.

And John, your wordiness and desire to explain yourself is hurting you. That post should have been a paragraph, maybe two. Don’t publicly defend yourself in the notice informing folks that you’re not going to publicly defend yourself.

Find yourself a savvy, brutal editor.

[drumdude]

The post is general — it doesn’t describe the specifics of any claim against him. Why are you criticizing him for not using specific words to describe specifics about Rosebud?

Look, how long ago was the “emotional affair?” Why should he be talking about now? Whatever words you want to use to describe what happened, it’s got to be embarrassing to him and hurtful to Margi.

The notion that John can’t criticize the Mormon church because he hasn’t done a show on Rosebud

The specific claim is that John had an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate and she lost her job because of it. The specific evidence is linked in my post. Some on this forum have gone as far as to suggest that those facts alone constitute a valid claim that Rosebud was sexually harassed.

While I don't know if it reaches that bar, I do think that those two important facts should be known to potential donors and employees of John moving forward. Especially now that a second woman in a similar role working for Dehlin has a similar story with similar complaints of John acting improperly around her.

Two women are making similar claims, at great personal cost to themselves, and the common factor is John Dehlin's behavior. Are those two women over exaggerating the facts? I still think so. Is there something potentially wrong that John is doing, and needs to fix? I think so. Is it worth talking about? I think so.

I am not suggesting that John can't criticize the Mormon church. John is allowed to be a hypocrite. So are Mormon church leaders. What I am suggesting is that John apply the same standards of transparency and informed consent that he seeks from the Mormon church, to his donors and staff. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Why should a special exception be made for Dehlin to shield him from criticism? Because it's embarrassing for him and hurtful to Margi? It's surely been embarrassing for Rosebud and Kamp...

[huckelberry]

Two women are making similar claims, at great personal cost to themselves, and the common factor is John Dehlin's behavior. Are those two women over exaggerating the facts? I still think so. Is there something potentially wrong that John is doing, and needs to fix? I think so. Is it worth talking about? I think so.

I am not suggesting that John can't criticize the Mormon church. John is allowed to be a hypocrite. So are Mormon church leaders. What I am suggesting is that John apply the same standards of transparency and informed consent that he seeks from the Mormon church, to his donors and staff. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Why should a special exception be made for Dehlin to shield him from criticism? Because it's embarrassing for him and hurtful to Margi? It's surely been embarrassing for Rosebud and Kamp...

drumdude, I am unable to not think the difference between John Dehlin and the LDS leaders is important. One claims to speak for God and to demand extensive real life obedience from you. The other, John, does not. I think the demand or need for transparency are entirely different. I have no need to understand John's poor choices or sins like I do not need to know your sins.