We Do Not Support John Dehlin

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
drumdude
God
Posts: 6418
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by drumdude »

pistolero wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 6:50 pm
drumdude wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 6:01 pm
The last accuser was very specific. The “abuse” was John raising his voice at her and standing up out of his chair.
That's not mentioned in her lawsuit.

It only mentions intentional harm, harassment (all sub-points sex-talk related), discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, unpaid hours, Lindbergh kidnapping, etc...
Weird that she didn’t mention any of these in her meeting with the board.
User avatar
Dwight
Elder
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 3:33 pm
Location: The North

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Dwight »

One nitpick Kishkumen, I’m fairly certain JD and Rosebud were fired and offered to continue their work as contractors. They were treated the same by the board. JD was fired and worked from some time as a contractor and Rosebud declined and so the board then rehired JD.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by dastardly stem »

Thanks Kishkumen for the comments.
Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 6:17 pm
dastardly stem wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 4:16 pm
John came here to defend himself and absolutely discredited himself. This is what he said he did:
So, you are saying that when John said he and Rosebud made an agreement--a completely stupid and inappropriate one--that Rosebud was not a party to that agreement. It would be good to know what your position is on that point.
He set up a power structure in a relationship in such a way that he had all the power.
He was in a de facto position of power, in that Open Stories Foundation really could not exist without its principal money-maker. I want you to be very clear about denying any agency to Rosebud in this whole thing. According to you, she had no choice but to have a sexual relationship with Dehlin, and she had no choice but to take a job with Open Stories Foundation when it was offered. She had no way of knowing that this was an inappropriate relationship and an inappropriate condition in which to be employed.
No. I have not suggested that she had no choice. I've said they both engaged in an affair. inappropriate and stupid on both sides, provided they didn't want to hurt spouses and all of that. That to me is beside the point. Going back to the facts. We have Dehlin claiming they made an agreement wherein he had the power in the relationship. We don't know that she agreed to it. Or if there was some misunderstanding on her part. We have his claim that in my mind condemns him. I honestly can't see a defense for him. She may or may not have agreed to it. In her mind she may not have agreed and he thought she did. But who knows? We don't, apparently. It may be she proposed it? Whatever the possibility of how it came about it is also unimportant to me. He clearly suggested and has maintained the relationship was engaged in with his understanding that she would go away if he so desired. Granted either party can end a relationship at any time, if they want. No big deal. he could have ended it and not asked her to leave the company or could not have forced her out.
But she did not agree with him on this, right? Either she did or she did not. You are saying she was incapable of doing anything but his will and that she had no choice but to take this job. He was some kind of Rasputin or Mesmer pulling all the strings and making her sleep with him, making her take a job as his lover. Then, when he wanted to step away from the relationship, it is not that she wanted to kick Joanna Brooks out of her position and have her and John take over Open Stories Foundation together; it is just that she refused to stick with the original corrupt bargain that she consciously and willingly entered into. Is that your view?
I really don't see where you are getting the idea that I'm suggesting she had no choice.

Also, odd, isn't it? If there's a woman whom Dehlin wants to discredit, it just so happens, according to him she wants or has wanted to get rid of another woman. I don't know how we take that convenient claim seriously here. It can't be considered fact. What does seem quite obvious though, John used Joanna to get rid of the woman whom he had a relationship with.
So, after he refused to go along with her planned coup against Joanna Brooks, and she refused to be fired and rehired, as John Dehlin was going to be, she realized that she had the Trump card of the original corrupt agreement to hold over him. And she did. I am crying crocodile tears here that these two had a disgusting affair that bit them both on the ass. It was grotesque at the outset, and it is grotesque today, and yet I am to choose sides here because why again? Because Rosebud has never lied? Because Dehlin has finally owned up to his mistakes?

To the present day I say they are both delusional to one extent or another, and I wash my hands of them.
I don't care about their delusional state. The question for me is simply, was John's behavior bad. I can't see a rational defense and saying she was bad too does not really give me much of anything. I don't care. If john gets to point out bad behavior of people in one organization, as part of his daily work, and yet he himself engages in bad behavior for the same types of reasons and he has set up an organization wherein any critic gets ignored and maligned, which he apparently opposes for the Church, then its worth noting, I'd think. As I see it this was different than some affair. it was even different from an affair between two co-workers. or a boss and his subordinate. this was an affair set up to get Dehlin his cake so he can eat it too, at the expense of another. That's more than some slimey affair where both parties are making a mistake and hurting people. its that, plus the male in the affair gets to control the whole basis of the relationship, at least in his mind, and can shed her of her job if he decides to be done with her.

Which is absolutely bonkers.
I'm glad we agree on that.
It really isn't, stem. The fact that Dehlin is delusional about his culpability in the Rosebud situation does not prove that he did something equally horrible, or anywhere close, to Kate Kelly or Jenn Kamp.
I didn't realize either of these two said John did something or anything simiilar to them. Maybe Kamp. But KK and others signed a letter stating John has mistreated people, including women. This case with Rosebud is a clear case of that claim being true, in my mind. I thought you wanted evidence. I see it as evidence. I don't care to investigate further. That was enough for me to agree...he should be avoided.

I say warn others of the facts. Stand by the facts for which we all have evidence. John Dehlin slept with Rosebud, knowingly had her hired at Open Stories Foundation when he was sleeping with her, and stayed with the company after she was fired for the affair. Denounce that for Pete's sake. Don't go into all of this other jazz that, as far as I have been able to see, lacks credibility and is unsubstantiated.
What other stuff that lacks substantiation. John is the one who claimed their affair was engaged in, with his understanding, at least, that he could send her packing once he was done with her. What's unsubstantiated are John's claims about the women.
Guess what? They don't have to be, and I don't have to agree with them all the same. The tactics they are using, no matter how noble their intentions may be, are toxic and are compromising the worthy cause of standing up to unprofessional bullies in the workplace.
I disagree with your characterization. I'd say the arrangement Dehlin said he had with her is exactly one taken on by an unprofessional bully in the work place. That's a pretty good way to put it.
What stuff? Look, don't give him money, stem. Problem solved. We can all talk about the many unworthy causes that people shell out money for. The political parties. The sketchy charities. The churches with ministers driving luxury cars and living in mansions. If you are upset about this, then you have a lot of bad stuff to keep you awake at night about.
I don't give the LDS Church money either, but I still have no problem offering a criticism whenever I see a need to. Organizations and people who head them have responsibilities. Among those is treating people and it's employees as something other than game pieces or garbage to be tossed aside.

Yeah, when you have something you feel you need to defend, you will defend it. He is not excited to have Kate Kelly, Jenn Kamp, and Rosebud destroy everything he has worked to build. That's not terribly surprising. Kate Kelly fatally compromised herself, in my view, when she went on Midnight Morons to attack Dehlin. Get outta here. I am comfortable with my conclusion that I don't trust Jenn Kamp's claims. Rosebud didn't just have an unwise affair. She set out on a personal vendetta, and it is not the only time she has stirred up controversy and drama of this kind.
I'll go back to the idea that the 19 women signed the statement for a reason. The evidence that John behaves poorly has been outlined in the Rosebud case. That's plenty enough for me to say their statement is useful.
So a pox on all their houses, I say. And yet, if Kate Kelly had a real great podcast, I would listen to it. When Dehlin interviews someone I want to hear from, I will listen to it. But I am not going to encourage all of this creepy circular firing squad nonsense to prove who is the best ally, whose time it is to represent the cause correctly, and all of the other narcissistic BS whereby people fight with each other to promote themselves on the back of a genuinely good cause.
I'm not as skeptical of the women, I guess. And it may be because I don't know them as well, or something. I've seen enough about the Rosebud case to feel a good deal of skepticism about Dehlin and his behavior. I don't need to see it repeated. I simply don't see why I'd care if these women wanted to unseat Dehlin. My issue is...people are accusing him of acting like a dumb ass, at the very least. He presumes influence over many people. Does he act like a dumb ass? yep. Answered. Everything else you brought up is nothing more than answers to other questions.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 7909
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Kishkumen »

Dwight wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 7:33 pm
One nitpick Kishkumen, I’m fairly certain John Dehlin and Rosebud were fired and offered to continue their work as contractors. They were treated the same by the board. John Dehlin was fired and worked from some time as a contractor and Rosebud declined and so the board then rehired John Dehlin.
Yep. I know. But thanks for adding the more specific details.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 7909
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Kishkumen »

dastardly stem wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 8:04 pm
No. I have not suggested that she had no choice. I've said they both engaged in an affair. inappropriate and stupid on both sides, provided they didn't want to hurt spouses and all of that. That to me is beside the point. Going back to the facts. We have Dehlin claiming they made an agreement wherein he had the power in the relationship. We don't know that she agreed to it. Or if there was some misunderstanding on her part. We have his claim that in my mind condemns him. I honestly can't see a defense for him. She may or may not have agreed to it. In her mind she may not have agreed and he thought she did. But who knows? We don't, apparently. It may be she proposed it? Whatever the possibility of how it came about it is also unimportant to me. He clearly suggested and has maintained the relationship was engaged in with his understanding that she would go away if he so desired. Granted either party can end a relationship at any time, if they want. No big deal. he could have ended it and not asked her to leave the company or could not have forced her out.
Did she willingly engage in an affair with John Dehlin and then willingly take a job with Open Stories Foundation knowing how important John was to the operation? If so, bad choices, and those were her choices. No one forced her to do that stuff.
I really don't see where you are getting the idea that I'm suggesting she had no choice.
I think it is important to know exactly what you think. You say John has all of this power, and I want to know how far you think that power goes. Does it mean she was compelled to engage in an affair and compelled to take a job with Open Stories Foundation? If not, then she owns those bad decisions.
Also, odd, isn't it? If there's a woman whom Dehlin wants to discredit, it just so happens, according to him she wants or has wanted to get rid of another woman. I don't know how we take that convenient claim seriously here. It can't be considered fact. What does seem quite obvious though, John used Joanna to get rid of the woman whom he had a relationship with.
No, stem. That stuff about Joanna Brooks comes from the texts, not from Dehlin. Rosebud was telling Dehlin that they did not have to let Joanna push them around. The implication was pretty clear. Joanna would leave if they did not clean up their act. Rosebud's solution was to send Joanna packing. That was Rosebud's solution, and JD didn't bite.
I don't care about their delusional state. The question for me is simply, was John's behavior bad. I can't see a rational defense and saying she was bad too does not really give me much of anything. I don't care. If john gets to point out bad behavior of people in one organization, as part of his daily work, and yet he himself engages in bad behavior for the same types of reasons and he has set up an organization wherein any critic gets ignored and maligned, which he apparently opposes for the Church, then its worth noting, I'd think. As I see it this was different than some affair. it was even different from an affair between two co-workers. or a boss and his subordinate. this was an affair set up to get Dehlin his cake so he can eat it too, at the expense of another. That's more than some slimey affair where both parties are making a mistake and hurting people. its that, plus the male in the affair gets to control the whole basis of the relationship, at least in his mind, and can shed her of her job if he decides to be done with her.
Yeah, you have a pretty one-sided view of this. In your view, John gets to bear all the blame for an affair that started before they were coworkers and continued after they had become coworkers. This is why I keep asking you about Rosebud's ability to make decisions and consent to starting the affair and taking the job. You picture John as some sinister dude manipulating Rosebud into all of this or something. Honestly, I think the two of them were stupid, and I wouldn't want to work with either of them. Totally unprofessional.
What other stuff that lacks substantiation. John is the one who claimed their affair was engaged in, with his understanding, at least, that he could send her packing once he was done with her. What's unsubstantiated are John's claims about the women.
Your view of it. She was involved with him before she started to work there. That was inappropriate. She knew it, and she did it anyway. The other stuff is this claim that John is not "safe." I don't know whether you are aware of this, but this is the new code word for "give us what we want or else." You can tell it is because it begins and ends with the unsubstantiated claim that something is not "safe." It is BS, but it works surprisingly well on spineless fools.
I disagree with your characterization. I'd say the arrangement Dehlin said he had with her is exactly one taken on by an unprofessional bully in the work place. That's a pretty good way to put it.
Yep. You don't think she really consented to the affair or her employment. Somehow she was forced into it. And it would not be bullying for her to try to oust Joanna Brooks, I suppose? So, we will remain on different pages here.
I'll go back to the idea that the 19 women signed the statement for a reason. The evidence that John behaves poorly has been outlined in the Rosebud case. That's plenty enough for me to say their statement is useful.
Yeah, and I don't know what that reason is. I know Kate Kelly and Jenn Kamp are dodgy, and I suspect that they have their own self-serving or psychological reasons for going after Dehlin. If evidence appears showing otherwise, I will happily change my views.

From where I sit it looks like Rosebud engaged in an extramarital affair, took a job in the same company with the guy she was having the affair with, and then did not want to accept the consequences when the two of them were caught but instead tried to flip the situation on Joanna Brooks so that Rosebud and John could take over Open Stories Foundation. I am happy to have anyone convince me I am wrong on this by providing a more compelling interpretation of the evidence provided or more evidence.

If that is what you mean by John is not safe, then I will add the rejoinder, "Neither is Rosebud." With what I have seen of the evidence of what Rosebud did at the time, there is no way I would want to work with her, and so her signature on that document is farcical, in my opinion.
I'm not as skeptical of the women, I guess. And it may be because I don't know them as well, or something. I've seen enough about the Rosebud case to feel a good deal of skepticism about Dehlin and his behavior. I don't need to see it repeated. I simply don't see why I'd care if these women wanted to unseat Dehlin. My issue is...people are accusing him of acting like a dumb ass, at the very least. He presumes influence over many people. Does he act like a dumb ass? yep. Answered. Everything else you brought up is nothing more than answers to other questions.
That's pretty slimy of you, stem. Here is what I think: believe the evidence. Believe women when they produce evidence. Believe men when they produce evidence. That is the sum total of my alleged "skepticism." I do have a problem with the use of denunciations using vague language regarding safety. We all should because this toxic nonsense can be turned to just about any underhanded purpose you can imagine. I think the whole thing has gotten out of hand. We should be believed when we provide evidence, not because we occupy a certain body or mindset--I don't care who you are.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5905
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Marcus »

I hope you don't mind, DS, I pulled out a couple of comments of yours that I really agree with:
dastardly stem wrote:
Fri Feb 24, 2023 8:04 pm
... I've said they both engaged in an affair. inappropriate and stupid on both sides, provided they didn't want to hurt spouses and all of that. That to me is beside the point. Going back to the facts. We have Dehlin claiming they made an agreement wherein he had the power in the relationship.

...I don't care about their delusional state. The question for me is simply, was John's behavior bad. I can't see a rational defense and saying she was bad too does not really give me much of anything. I don't care. If john gets to point out bad behavior of people in one organization, as part of his daily work, and yet he himself engages in bad behavior for the same types of reasons and he has set up an organization wherein any critic gets ignored and maligned, which he apparently opposes for the Church, then its worth noting, I'd think.

As I see it this was different than some affair. it was even different from an affair between two co-workers. or a boss and his subordinate. this was an affair set up to get Dehlin his cake so he can eat it too, at the expense of another. That's more than some slimey affair where both parties are making a mistake and hurting people. its that, plus the male in the affair gets to control the whole basis of the relationship, at least in his mind, and can shed her of her job if he decides to be done with her.
This to me epitomizes what happened. And the below from JD was a stunning admission.
mormonstories wrote:
Thu May 13, 2021 2:00 pm
...Rosebud made multiple personal promises to me from the very start and throughout to “go away” if our relationship ever got to the point where it was hurting me or the Open Stories Foundation. This was a personal agreement we had made, which she agreed to prior to joining the board or coming on as an employee. I was only asking her to keep her promise. Frankly, I was stunned when she refused. I honestly thought I could trust her. But that was a personal plea.

...As I valued Mormon Stories Podcast, and as she promised me from the start to leave if it ever got messy, I didn’t know what else to do to prevent her from ruining everything.
I read back some of that thread to refresh my memory. in my opinion, doc's comment here sums it up pretty solidly.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Thu May 13, 2021 7:48 pm
... The bottom line was there was a quid pro quo agreement in place. She didn’t offer John a paid position. She didn’t have the power to do that. She clearly couldn’t get anyone fired. John could. She couldn’t.

edit: Just to be clear I have zero sympathy for Rosebud. I’ll also say that until JD copped to having a quid pro quo arrangement with Rosebud he came off a little more sympathetic. Not now. He’s way more conniving than I believed him to be before.

- Doc
As much as I disagree with how Rosebud handled things, the admission above from JD above Doc's comment, in my opinion, makes this statement on Open Stories Foundation completely unbelievable:
To date (February 2023), John has never harassed, assaulted, or abused a co-worker. Ever.
https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/o ... D1b-5cbVUU
This ongoing lack of believability, in the face of his own words that he seems to think justify his approach but to me just show his culpability, adds credence to the statement from the 19.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 6901
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Moksha »

Kate Kelly should take the list to the Relief Society handlers and have them obtain the signatures of an additional 10,000 Relief Society Sisters.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by dastardly stem »

Hey kish. I enjoy the summary left by Marcus as a nice closing to my points. I don’t like leaving things hanging but it feels like we’ve hit some places of unresolvable disagreement. I’m happy to agree to disagree. I really want to move off the topic. It’s a sad and difficult on.

It appears we agree they both made bad choices. It seems obvious and I think they both agree that they did.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 7909
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Kishkumen »

Hey, stem. No problem.
jpatterson
Regional Representative
Posts: 643
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:17 am

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by jpatterson »

mormonstories wrote:
Wed Feb 22, 2023 3:32 am

- Rosebud. This relationship was a huge lapse of horrid judgement on my part and is the single biggest mistake of my life. Bosses should never become romantically involved with people under them in the power structure - full stop - and married people should never betray the trust of their partners and family.

See link below to an episode that lays out the full story.
https://radiofreemormon.org/2021/04/mor ... in-flames/
There you have it, folks. John admits that he engaged in an affair with a subordinate, something that is defined as sexual harassment by his own foundation. And yet he claims he's never harassed anyone.

From Open Stories Foundation's current harassment policy:
Open Stories Foundation considers sexual or romantic advances or innuendos by persons in a supervisory or authoritative role toward subordinates within the same department or chain of command, or by persons having authority over staffing or salary decisions, to be harassment for which disciplinary action will be taken. 
So John had the gall to release a sexual harassment policy that was clearly the direct result of him harassing a subordinate, and then claimed the policy was put into place because of Open Stories Foundation's commitment to #MeToo.

So how, John, can you claim to never have harassed someone when your own policy outlines what harassment is and you admit you did exactly what the policy says is harassment? Why did you claim to me several years ago that she wasn't a subordinate? Is that a story you were just telling yourself to absolve yourself of the guilt?

You'll notice also how John will never respond to direct accusations, he just falls back on RFM's complete obfuscation and cherry-picking of evidence.

John, since you're here commenting, did you ever record Rosebud masturbating over Skype without her consent, possibly violating federal law? Did you ever enter Rosebud's rooms at conferences without her consent? Did you ever touch her sexually after she explicitly asked you not to?

These are the allegations you have never, and will never, addressed. And we know why.
Post Reply