RFM on Kamp in Court

[Res Ipsa]

The details are out there, so in my opinion the 'informed consent' part is done. Which is why I was so surprised to see Dehlin post such details as earlier in this thread. This 2019 board statement was sufficient, in my opinion:

....Over the past few years we have noticed that every 6 months or so a few members of the community will launch baseless attacks on either individual podcasters or on the Open Stories Foundation – usually with the intent to smear reputations or undermine confidence in Open Stories Foundation operations. When this happens, we are always caught between: 1) not wanting to give attention to false allegations, and 2) wanting to defend ourselves. We have consistently found that trying to decide how to respond to these baseless allegations often consumes an incredible amount of time and energy in ways that do not contribute to the mission of the Open Stories Foundation, and that lead to staff and board burnout. Consequently, going forward it will be our policy to not respond to baseless allegations. Instead, this letter will be provided in response to such attacks.

As always, if active donors have any concerns, we welcome your questions, feedback, etc. at openstoriesboard@gmail.com.

Sincerely,

The Open Stories Foundation Board of Directors
https://www.openstoriesfoundation.org/o ... cusations/

Good point. That should have been the end of it. I get that it’s hard to see yourself attacked and not to defend yourself. But sometimes that’s the better choice.

[Kishkumen]

And the Mormon church is not obliged to tell church members in Africa that it excluded black people from temple ordinances and the priesthood, yet John Dehlin keeps arguing that they should.

“Informed consent,” whatever that is, is a core John Dehlin value that he has built a podcast empire on and then refuses to apply to himself.

I think the difference here is between divulging accusations that remain unproven versus divulging well established history. You might think a little bit harder about that difference.

[drumdude]

And the Mormon church is not obliged to tell church members in Africa that it excluded black people from temple ordinances and the priesthood, yet John Dehlin keeps arguing that they should.

“Informed consent,” whatever that is, is a core John Dehlin value that he has built a podcast empire on and then refuses to apply to himself.

I think the difference here is between divulging accusations that remain unproven versus divulging well established history. You might think a little bit harder about that difference.

It's proven that Dehlin had an emotional affair with a subordinate, and it's proven she lost her job because of it. Those are both important facts for a woman about to be hired by Dehlin to know, in my opinion. And neither of those facts are anywhere on John Dehlin's website.

[Moksha]

And neither of those facts are anywhere on John Dehlin's website.

That would be like Discuss Mormonism telling people we like to kvetch or SeN telling people they like to be deceptive.

[drumdude]

And neither of those facts are anywhere on John Dehlin's website.

That would be like Discuss Mormonism telling people we like to kvetch or SeN telling people they like to be deceptive.

I totally agree it’s never going to happen, I just think it’s worth pointing out that John’s ranting about “informed consent” is equally ridiculous. Unless he had the fortitude to live up to his principles.

In the end I don’t see much difference from a wealthy Mormon family enriching themselves and Dehlin. It’s all about self interest, with both sides pretending it isn’t. Hell John could pay Margie $5,000 an episode to sit there and eat pizza, it’s his company.

[Moksha]

It must be remembered that Mormon Stories is not selling tickets to heaven.

[Res Ipsa]

I think the difference here is between divulging accusations that remain unproven versus divulging well established history. You might think a little bit harder about that difference.

It's proven that Dehlin had an emotional affair with a subordinate, and it's proven she lost her job because of it. Those are both important facts for a woman about to be hired by Dehlin to know, in my opinion. And neither of those facts are anywhere on John Dehlin's website.

Perhaps we should burn an EA onto his forehead so no prospective employee will ever be fooled again.

You're trying to apply "informed consent" to a situation in which it makes no sense.

[drumdude]

It's proven that Dehlin had an emotional affair with a subordinate, and it's proven she lost her job because of it. Those are both important facts for a woman about to be hired by Dehlin to know, in my opinion. And neither of those facts are anywhere on John Dehlin's website.

Perhaps we should burn an EA onto his forehead so no prospective employee will ever be fooled again.

You're trying to apply "informed consent" to a situation in which it makes no sense.

To be clear, I'm applying John's standard of informed consent to himself. John who criticized the church for hiding the essays on an obscure corner of the website instead of putting them in 100pt font on the homepage of LDS.org.

This is not my standard of informed consent that I'm talking about, it's John's.

[Res Ipsa]

Perhaps we should burn an EA onto his forehead so no prospective employee will ever be fooled again.

You're trying to apply "informed consent" to a situation in which it makes no sense.

To be clear, I'm applying John's standard of informed consent to himself. John who criticized the church for hiding the essays on an obscure corner of the website instead of putting them in 100pt font on the homepage of LDS.org.

This is not my standard of informed consent that I'm talking about, it's John's.

You're treating two very different cases as being alike. John is not charging 10% of people's income in exchange for promises in the next life. eternal life. He's paying people to perform work for OS. Informed consent is a good concept in certain circumstances. Personally, when it comes to religion, I'm more of a caveat emptor guy. But I haven't paid any attention to whatever Dehlin has said about informed consent in relation to the CLOJCOLDS.

[drumdude]

To be clear, I'm applying John's standard of informed consent to himself. John who criticized the church for hiding the essays on an obscure corner of the website instead of putting them in 100pt font on the homepage of LDS.org.

This is not my standard of informed consent that I'm talking about, it's John's.

You're treating two very different cases as being alike. John is not charging 10% of people's income in exchange for promises in the next life. eternal life. He's paying people to perform work for OS. Informed consent is a good concept in certain circumstances. Personally, when it comes to religion, I'm more of a caveat emptor guy. But I haven't paid any attention to whatever Dehlin has said about informed consent in relation to the CLOJCOLDS.

That's the thing about principles, to me at least. They apply to situations regardless of the severity or magnitude. Stealing a candy bar or stealing a gold bar are both stealing. I'm not claiming that John is running an organization of the same scale as the LDS church, I'm just saying if he wants to be consistent he should practice what he preaches.

ChatGPT says these are quotes from Dehlin (it's very hard to search for quotes from thousands of podcasts any other way)

"Members deserve to know the full history of the church, including its problematic aspects, so they can make informed decisions about their faith and membership."

"When people find out later in life that they were not given the full story, it can cause significant psychological harm."

"Discovering unsettling information about the church later in life can lead to significant emotional distress and feelings of betrayal. It is crucial for members to be fully informed from the beginning."

Why shouldn't John tell his full history regarding the Open Stories Foundation, including problematic aspects, give us the whole story, tell the unsettling information? He's soliciting donations and making a living off of them just as church leaders are. Why not apply the same standards of truth and transparency?