It is my understanding that Rosebud has already made that attempt. I don't agree with the way the Board handled that episode at the time. Again, it may not have been fair, but she made her best effort, and she can't control the board beyond that. It's been a decade, and Rosebud's reputation has steadily been eroded by the way she posts here, regardless of what people think about Dehlin's involvement, so again I ask, what is to be gained from this?
If it's established that John has a history of sexual harassment, that would go a long way to discouraging other women working with him. It would also prevent him from presenting himself as a credible advocate for sexual abuse victims, of which he is not.
Let me ask you this: if you knew that a bishop or stake president got off on a sexual harassment charge against someone in their ward because of a technicality, would you still find it important to know who they were and that it happened in order to 1) Make sure they never hold a leadership position within their organization and 2) Make sure women know to steer clear?
Or would you be like, "oh well, it's in the past let's all move on"?
It is my understanding that Rosebud has already made that attempt. I don't agree with the way the Board handled that episode at the time. Again, it may not have been fair, but she made her best effort, and she can't control the board beyond that. It's been a decade, and Rosebud's reputation has steadily been eroded by the way she posts here, regardless of what people think about Dehlin's involvement, so again I ask, what is to be gained from this?
If it's established that John has a history of sexual harassment...
Just to be clear here, you have provided evidence of what you see as sexual harassment in one situation, right? I agree with you technically, in the way I mentioned before (sexual interaction in a power differential), but now you are stating there is "a history of sexual harassment." That goes well beyond what you are arguing, so before imagining the outcome of knowing about any such scenarios, can you clarify what you mean by that?
Last edited by Lem on Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is my understanding that Rosebud has already made that attempt. I don't agree with the way the Board handled that episode at the time. Again, it may not have been fair, but she made her best effort, and she can't control the board beyond that. It's been a decade, and Rosebud's reputation has steadily been eroded by the way she posts here, regardless of what people think about Dehlin's involvement, so again I ask, what is to be gained from this?
If it's established that John has a history of sexual harassment, that would go a long way to discouraging other women working with him. It would also prevent him from presenting himself as a credible advocate for sexual abuse victims, of which he is not.
Let me ask you this: if you knew that a bishop or stake president got off on a sexual harassment charge against someone in their ward because of a technicality, would you still find it important to know who they were and that it happened in order to 1) Make sure they never hold a leadership position within their organization and 2) Make sure women know to steer clear?
Or would you be like, "oh well, it's in the past let's all move on"?
Just to be clear here, you have provided evidence of what you see as sexual harassment in one situation, right? I agree with you technically, in the way I mentioned before (sexual interaction in a power differential), but now you are stating there is "a history of sexual harassment." That goes well beyond what you are arguing, so before imagining the outcome of any scenarios, can you clarify what you mean by that?
I have provided some evidence. Not all of it. This board is not a trial. I'm not trying to win you over like a jury, with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
But you continue to question why I keep pursuing this.
I'm telling you it's because of my desire to hold John accountable. I'm not asking you to believe me, I'm asking you to put yourself in my shoes for a moment.
If YOU had evidence in your possession that corroborated a charge of sexual harassment, and you knew that the abuser skated on the charge, would you not want to do what you could to protect people? Or would you throw your hands up and say it's just all in the past?
Other than the ‘power dynamic’ and completely ignoring Rosebud’s texts, what proof do you have of JD sexually harassing Rosebud?
- Doc
None that I'm prepared to show you. Proof exists, but I have zero reason to trust you with it.
That which be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
It's ironic you blame John for not being transparent when he actually provided the text messages and Rosebud has provided nothing.
If there was any shred of proof that John Dehlin had sexually harassed anyone, it would already have been posted by his enemies. All you have is allegations which are motivated by your falling out with John Dehlin over the Kristy Money affair and have nothing to do with sexual harassment.
We’ve seen this same MO from Rosebud for years, and it has only eroded her credibility. Why do you think more of the same from you will have different results?
If YOU had evidence in your possession that corroborated a charge of sexual harassment, and you knew that the abuser skated on the charge, would you not want to do what you could to protect people? Or would you throw your hands up and say it's just all in the past?
You're an absolute enabler if you have evidence of John sexually harassing people and aren't providing it to law enforcement to stop him.
You know the "evidence" you have is just of John being an asshole and no one who sees what you've seen will believe for a second that it's abuse.
It's time to grow up and stop playing games, you're an adult for "F"s sake. Act like one.
