The problem is y’all begging someone who desires to be part of the cult of personality. That crap skeezes me out. Mike Norton. John Dehlin. Kate Kelly (I mean, just look at the sheer narcissism of that picture above). Sam Young.* <- I’m sure there’s a few more all getting their 15 hours of fame, and a bit of money in some cases, but I couldn’t list them all off because they’re uninteresting to me. Anyway, She knows if she shows all her cards people will lose interest in her. If she keeps teasing this out in perpetuity she gets her attention-fix and feels relevant. She saw an avenue through John Dehlin to get that dream, the Ex-Mormon Osteenian power couple dream, and he robbed her of it. So this is Plan B, as outlined in Option 2, but poorly executed.
* It’s not to say they don’t all have worthy causes, but celebrity is what it is, and goddamn they love their dopamine fixes.
- Doc
That's kind of why when I was out driving I decided to delete my post when I got home. My post wasn't begging but I think it could have been considered prodding or even a dare.
Most of these people and their psychologies are effed up. They don't need me to validate their over inflated sense of self importance by engaging their sh!t and certainly not directly as I did in the post I just deleted.
Let them circle their own wagons and parade their dysfunction around for each other. It is of no consequence and holds no meaning to me.
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF
I think there is an orchestrated attack on anything perceived as anti Mormon from the church. I think the internet has forced them into a rabid frenzy similar to what gay marriage did and their pox.
I certainly wouldn't exclude the possibility. What is the evidence supporting this, however? The Kwaku video was pretty emphatic about the fact that Kwaku was taking sole responsibility for it. I guess we have KK going on the Kwaku/Cardon show a couple of times, but that is pretty weak evidence for direct church support, no?
Again, it is not that I would discount the possibility, but I want to see the evidence set out.
The only evidence is the number of excommunications due to social media posts. And granted that is limited due to sample bias.
The only evidence is the number of excommunications due to social media posts. And granted that is limited due to sample bias.
So this part of a larger push by the LDS Church to suppress rebellion and sources of dissatisfaction.
I have to say that the influence of these folks (online influencers) is pretty remarkable considering how mediocre most of them are. That doesn’t speak very well of the job the Church is doing with regards to education and spiritual fulfillment.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
James Patterson has been pretty quiet since he was officially designated to be Rosebud's hype man!
Yeah, well, his spree posting didn’t go very well. Maybe the crew is regrouping to confer on what their next move will be. R really needs to start releasing different texts if she is going to change the narrative at all.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
I just read the transcript generated with Mormonism Live's podcast. It was disappointing and more than a little disturbing.
Dehlin was described as the person who had worked for many, many years on the Open Stories Foundation product, crucial to the functioning of the enterprise. Rosebud was described as a very hard working volunteer of less than a year. It is admitted that there was clearly some type of relationship going on between these two people, both married, and that various Board members were aware of it. One interviewee referenced the "flirtatiousness" between the two that was and had been clearly observable at public events, apparently for some time. It was noted in passing that both were married. One spouse is discussed as being very private, and the interviewee discloses her friendship with that spouse and Dehlin.
Then, it is noted that both Dehlin and Rosebud were asked to resign as a result of Board members being made aware of additional details about this relationship, details apparently reported by both participants, although their individual takes on the situation clearly differed. This resignation was explained as an option so they both could be hired back as contractors. The implied reason was so the Board would not have responsibility in resolving this difficult situation.
Apparently, the long-standing employee whom the Board considered essential, willingly did so, while the shorter term volunteer, obviously not considered as essential, was fearful to do so, apparently worrying that she wouldn't be treated fairly. One of the interviewees states pretty matter of factly something like, of course they would not have given her back the positions she had held and the attendant influence they carried if she had reapplied.
Then both interviewees state that texts and letters, etc., between the more powerful paid board member and the less powerful volunteer board member were reviewed, including some very distasteful comments from both of a sexual and or emotional nature, and they both conclude that no evidence was found that indicated sexual harassment, in spite of their own acknowledgements in this interview of the obvious power differential.
The shorter term volunteer reacts very, very badly, and both interviewees think her behavior is vastly inappropriate. Very little mention is made of the wildly inappropriate behavior of the more powerful paid board member, documented in his own words as his own text message responses to also very inappropriate texts from the less powerful participant. Much effort is then spent dissecting how inappropriately the victim (I don't use the word lightly) acts in response to this situation. Regarding the other party, it is noted that taking Dehlin's words out of context puts his behavior in a more negative light.
This could have been a case study from one of the training modules my University requires of all employees and faculty. The correct response to the question,
"Did the inappropriate behavior and or relationship between the two employees with an extreme power differential, which resulted in the weaker party losing their employment, constitute sexual harassment?
is unequivocal. Yes.
Follow-up question:
Did those in authority handle the sexual harassment situation appropriately, by effectively dismissing the weaker employee, in favor of retaining the employee who they agreed was more useful to them?
Answer: No.
And one last question:
"Does the extremely inappropriate behavior, responses, and continuing mental instability justify allowing the victim to have been sexually harassed in her workplace?
Do I even need to answer that one?
There is no question Rosebud has and continues to behave irrationally and inappropriately. But since this podcast asked us to consider the allegations against Dehlin, in my opinion they have quite clearly shown there was sexual harassment by both Dehlin and the Open Stories Foundation board, in that an inappropriate relationship resulted in the Open Stories Foundation Board ending her employment while explicitly favoring the more powerful person in that relationship. This conclusion doesn't depend upon how either side presented texts, documents, etc., but just on the verified parts of the story told in the podcast.
Of course, this is hindsight. Having been on several Boards where in some cases policy was in place and in others, we were tasked with writing it all ourselves, it's hard to anticipate every possible eventuality. One very easy rule, however, is don't have an emotional and or sexual affair with subordinates. There is no excuse for Dehlin having violated this rule, and his responsibility in all this cannot be overlooked. I have my own opinions about Rosebud, but the instability of the victim before, during, and after the fact doesn't retroactively make any of Dehlin's behavior excusable.
That doesn’t speak very well of the job the Church is doing with regards to education and spiritual fulfillment.
The Church Education Committee is separate from the Church Covert Ops Committee which would handle the Dehlin matter. Not sure if there is a Spiritual Fulfillment Committee, I doubt the Correlations deals with that sort of thing.
Maybe the crew is regrouping to confer on what their next move will be. R really needs to start releasing different texts if she is going to change the narrative at all.
Covert Ops might have Kwaku do a follow-up or perhaps they will put him on other assignments. Rosebud and friends will not rest until Dehlin is disposed of and the deal with Deseret Books comes through.
Interesting, Lem. I agree that Natasha did not really do them any favors by speaking on Joanna’s behalf for the actions taken in late August. The emails Patterson shared show unequivocally that Joanna acted without the knowledge of the rest of the board when she gave R and John Dehlin the ultimatum to resign or she would, and then had R fired when John Dehlin resigned and R refused to. Natasha in her own words expresses surprise in early September, proving she knew nothing before that. Yet she goes on ML throwing around the word “we” as though she had been in on the decision-making process. NH contradicts herself in this way periodically during the show.
What really changed my view of the situation was reading the final two exchanges of texts in August, and I don’t think that ML went over those in any detail. In those texts R at first appears as a willing partner of Joanna and then John in what she sees as a transition (wherein she leaves Open Stories Foundation to run her own business) that is inevitable. The question is not when there will be a transition but how and when it will occur. She soon came to a conclusion different from Joanna and decided to persuade John to force Joanna’s hand by mutually refusing to resign. She claims to plan to leave Open Stories Foundation after that anyway.
In short, R tells John he doesn’t need to leave Open Stories Foundation at all because he didn’t do anything wrong.
All of that complicates the picture.
But does it fundamentally change the answers to those questions? Arguably, no. My understanding of such questions and this kind of training is that they function to 1) educate employees on what to do and not do; with) educate employees on incidents that require reporting and how to report them.
From there an investigation is done. It would be interesting to see how an investigation of this at a university would pan out. Often, these things go poorly.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
A: Unwelcome sexual advances
B: Requests for sexual favors
OR
C: Verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when:
(1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment
(2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
(3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
Note that there's nothing about fraternization or power differential in the federal laws. There may a different more broad definition in various company policies, but Open Stories Foundation had no sexual harassment policy at the time.
A doesn't apply, because John and Rosebud were in a mutual relationship.
B doesn't apply, because John wanted to end the relationship. Rosebud requested favors from John. Note: Rosebud initially claimed John requested sexual favors as a term for employment. The texts plainly show this was a lie.
C1 doesn't apply, for the same reasons as B.
C2 again is the scenario where the victim's refusal to engage in sexual conduct directly results in employment decisions, and doesn't apply here.
C3 doesn't apply here, this would be something like John making her life miserable at work because she refused to have sex with him.
Rosebud clearly looked up the definition of sexual harassment and realized, "He was my boss and our breakup led to my firing" wasn't a covered scenario. That's why she had to make up the claim that John pushed her to have sex or she would be fired. There's no legal sexual harassment without it. That's also why she goes on a rant in the blackmail letter about how she's going to get the law changed so that what John Dehlin did to her would be considered illegal sexual harassment.
The easiest solution to all of this is to have a strong sexual harassment policy, that goes above and beyond the federal definition. And to also have a no fraternization policy, which unbelievably Open Stories Foundation still does not have!
A: Unwelcome sexual advances
B: Requests for sexual favors
OR
C: Verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when:
(1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
(3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
****
C2 again is the scenario where the victim's refusal to engage in sexual conduct directly results in employment decisions, and doesn't apply here.
****
Rosebud clearly looked up the definition of sexual harassment and realized, "He was my boss and our breakup led to my firing" wasn't a covered scenario. That's why she had to make up the claim that John pushed her to have sex or she would be fired. There's no legal sexual harassment without it. That's also why she goes on a rant in the blackmail letter about how she's going to get the law changed so that what John Dehlin did to her would be considered illegal sexual harassment.
The easiest solution to all of this is to have a strong sexual harassment policy, that goes above and beyond the federal definition. And to also have a no fraternization policy, which unbelievably Open Stories Foundation still does not have!
I think #2 is perhaps applicable, since the relationship did result in the termination of R's employment. I admit that it is a tricky situation, and I could be wrong. It looks like one place where an argument could be made. Now, I am fairly confident, based on what we have sitting in front of us by way of evidence, that one can only conclude that R added the stuff about non-consensual touching because her claim was otherwise so lacking. If she provides clear evidence that John Dehlin did touch her inappropriately without her consent, however, that changes things for me.
To return to #2, conceivably "submission to such conduct" was "used as the basis for employment decisions affecting" R.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
