Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[The Stig]

As to the message you quoted, Mr. Dehlin will have to speak for himself. I have no interest in defending him. But I suggest you make sure you have your facts straight before you make your accusations. You're not helping your own credibility.

If you want to get snippy and technical, be my guest. I misspoke when I said "tax" documents, I meant public documents.

Technically, John founded Open Stories Foundation by himself, because he intentionally incorporated it in Arizona, a state that requires only one director to incorporate. This is confirmed by the Open Stories Foundation articles of incorporation, filed in February of 2010. Again, John is listed as the only officer/director.

Later, Open Stories Foundation submitted articles of amendment which expanded the board to the following individuals:

John Dehlin
Jacqueline McArther
Ashley Merback
Elizabeth Calvert Smith
Ryan Millecam

You can either point to just John, or the five listed above as the "founding board."

Bottom line, no matter what hairs you split, Rosebud was absolutely not a founding board member and John knows this.

I appreciate the clarification of the situation.

For the record, it was not about being snippy, it was about being accurate.

[Analytics]

I believe the President oversees and leads the Board, as a body. The Executive Director oversees the day-to-day operations of the entity. The Executive Director answers to the Board.

Yes, but this seems confusing as to who supervises staff ultimately, unless I don't understand the different between staff and a staff member? Which I don't.

Executive Director in a Nonprofit:

• Direct and supervise staff members

President in a Nonprofit:

• Directs and monitors staff

Also, it seems clear that John Dehlin should have been paying Joanna a whole lot more cash than he was.

I haven't read the document you linked but from my experience, the board of a non-profit has the ultimate authority of the organization, just like the board of a publicly traded company. The president of the organization is a position on the board, analogous to the Chairman of the Board of a company. The board, including the president, are volunteers. They might have a weekly conference call and a few all-day meetings once a quarter. The members of the board serve for limited terms, often of three years. There are typically rules that say any given individual can only serve up to two terms on the board.

In contrast, the Executive Director is a professional employee; she is like the CEO of a corporation. The Board sets general strategy and policy, and hires the Executive Director. The Executive Director then has the full-time, professional role of executing the the Board's strategies and policies. Choosing the right Executive Director is arguably the most important decision the Board makes. The Executive Director's role includes hiring and supervising the organization's professional staff. It is considered improper for a board member to meddle with how the full-time staff handles their day-to-day jobs. If a board member has any concerns about how the organization is being run, it should go through the board to the Executive Director.

[pistolero]

As to the message you quoted, Mr. Dehlin will have to speak for himself. I have no interest in defending him. But I suggest you make sure you have your facts straight before you make your accusations. You're not helping your own credibility.

If you want to get snippy and technical, be my guest. I misspoke when I said "tax" documents, I meant public documents.

Technically, John founded Open Stories Foundation by himself, because he intentionally incorporated it in Arizona, a state that requires only one director to incorporate. This is confirmed by the Open Stories Foundation articles of incorporation, filed in February of 2010. Again, John is listed as the only officer/director.

Later, Open Stories Foundation submitted articles of amendment which expanded the board to the following individuals:

John Dehlin
Jacqueline McArther
Ashley Merback
Elizabeth Calvert Smith
Ryan Millecam

You can either point to just John, or the five listed above as the "founding board."

Bottom line, no matter what hairs you split, Rosebud was absolutely not a founding board member and John knows this.

Due to all the secrecy and excellent document redaction, nobody knows what Rosebud's real name is? I mean how do I know it's not Jacqueline or Elizabeth? Unless of course, to support your assertion, you can tell us her real name?

[drumdude]

Her name rhymes with A.

[Dr Moore]

I have no desire to play these games that you and John are using to escape accountability.

JP - all you've done is play games.

Please state, specifically, what will achieve this "accountability."

Be specific, or let it go.

[jpatterson]

The organization was a non-profit controlled by a board of directors. It was not John's sole-proprietorship.

There's a broader context you're missing here, which is that the board was almost completely inactive (John later writes that they not only hadn't met in 9 months or so, but people were being brought onto the board without even being officially voted on. It was a complete mess.

Rosebud's version of events is that she had been trying to empower and strengthen the board, only to be met with resistance from John, who is on the record saying multiple times he wanted a dis-empowered board as much as possible.

So while on paper it may have been a non-profit "controlled" by a board of directors, John had created an atmosphere in which Open Stories Foundation operated in every practical sense of the word as a sole-proprietorship.

[pistolero]

As to the message you quoted, Mr. Dehlin will have to speak for himself. I have no interest in defending him. But I suggest you make sure you have your facts straight before you make your accusations. You're not helping your own credibility.

If you want to get snippy and technical, be my guest. I misspoke when I said "tax" documents, I meant public documents.

Technically, John founded Open Stories Foundation by himself, because he intentionally incorporated it in Arizona, a state that requires only one director to incorporate. This is confirmed by the Open Stories Foundation articles of incorporation, filed in February of 2010. Again, John is listed as the only officer/director.

Later, Open Stories Foundation submitted articles of amendment which expanded the board to the following individuals:

John Dehlin
Jacqueline McArther
Ashley Merback
Elizabeth Calvert Smith
Ryan Millecam

You can either point to just John, or the five listed above as the "founding board."

Bottom line, no matter what hairs you split, Rosebud was absolutely not a founding board member and John knows this.

Is there any chance that she was a founding board member of Open Stories Foundation in UT? No idea if that is being technical.

I have no idea here, I'm just speculating as to why John Dehlin is intentionally lying or perhaps misspoke, as you did above.

[pistolero]

The organization was a non-profit controlled by a board of directors. It was not John's sole-proprietorship.

There's a broader context you're missing here, which is that the board was almost completely inactive (John later writes that they not only hadn't met in 9 months or so, but people were being brought onto the board without even being officially voted on. It was a complete mess.

Rosebud's version of events is that she had been trying to empower and strengthen the board, only to be met with resistance from John, who is on the record saying multiple times he wanted a dis-empowered board as much as possible.

So while on paper it may have been a non-profit "controlled" by a board of directors, John had created an atmosphere in which Open Stories Foundation operated in every practical sense of the word as a sole-proprietorship.

So what you are saying is, technically, the organization was a non-profit controlled by a board of directors. It was not John's sole-proprietorship.

[drumdude]

There's no testimony from any of the board members that John forced them to fire A.

[jpatterson]

JP - all you've done is play games.

Please state, specifically, what will achieve this "accountability."

Be specific, or let it go.

Here's a post from just a few weeks ago in which John frames allegations about him that were brought up most recently by Kwaku as a "smear campaign."

Now what's interesting, is that I read that post just a few days ago, and John used this line in it: "That's why baseless lies are so effective. In fact, that's how many religions get their start — with baseless, yet undisprovable lies."

Check out the first result of this Google search for the word "baseless" within MSP's webpage. Unfortunately, the Way Back Machine didn't cache that page since it went live. Google's cache will have to do.

You'll see that sentence about "baseless" lies come up, but when you click on the link, it appears at least as if John has taken that line out there.

Why would he do that?

My argument has been for some time now that John has been framing allegations against him as "baseless" and blaming the church for executing a "smear campaign" against him when it's very clear that the allegations are absolutely based in fact, but that there are many conclusions one can draw based upon those facts (as present company makes very clear). John has created a smoke screen for his bad behavior (it's a baseless smear campaign!!), and he's hiding behind it. Which is, ironically, something he's long criticized the Church for.

So, to me, accountability would be John using the exact same platform he has for years used (his podcast) to make blanket denials, and come out and take public accountability for the fact that he has made serious errors in judgement, not only in his professional behavior with Open Stories Foundation, but in seeking to cover up that behavior and blame the Church for trying to smear him.

In other words, tell the truth, since he calls himself a "truth teller."