Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Dr Exiled]

I assume you are speaking for yourself, because I didn't read anything that leads me to believe that.

Is this the money quote:

1) I’m not saying I didn’t have the most power or influence. I’m only saying that Rosebud was a founding board member. And she did have more power and influence than a mere employee. And she was a board member before she became an employee. And she was a board member while she was an employee. So all I’m saying is that she had more power and responsibility than a simple employee.

They were both founding board members. That seems reasonably equal to me? Although I'm not actually sure what board rules are here. Please expand if you can Lem.

He doesn't admit to saying he has more power, he just says that he's not saying that he didn't have most power or influence. Which is basically very non committal and a bit cryptic.

I initially read it as "power" or "influence" as in he is John Dehlin, the most famous, high profile, prolific ex-Mormon, anti-Mormon podcasting anti-Christ of the noughties (we don't disagree on this right?) But I concede, the power and influence he may have been referring to may be his legal role within Open Stories Foundation?

I'm not clear actually?

What do you think about John Dehlin, rockstar, having Rosebud, the groupie, throwing herself at him and then Rosebud, being Rosebud, brings toxicity to the thing warranting her having to be let go? The ploy of releasing her and John from the board could have been a ploy to let her go without incurring too much damage. It would allow the appearance of equality while keeping the main person on.

[consiglieri]

So the only way J D can beat a sexual harassment rap is to award R B the entire company?

That seems a little extreme to me.

[Lem]

Okay, what about just leaving to let Open Stories Foundation sink into obscurity under Rosebud's ambitious leadership and you continue with the successful Mormon Stories on your own. You would have only needed a couple of friends for a 501C tax status.

But she was on the board too. We both were. At least that’s how we all saw it. We were equals in that way. So why destroy everything?

If you hate me or don’t care about Mormon Stories, this position makes sense.

If you value Mormon Stories, this makes little sense to me.

But I’m not interested in arguing.

That's a pretty manipulative way to phrase things, and it certainly doesn't help your case. One doesn't have to hate you or not care about MS in order to conclude that sexual harassment occurred. You seem to think that assessing this situation comes down to whether one finds value in your product, and that only haters will see you as having sexually harassed someone. That says more about your mindset than you may realize.

[pistolero]

Is this the money quote:



They were both founding board members. That seems reasonably equal to me? Although I'm not actually sure what board rules are here. Please expand if you can Lem.

He doesn't admit to saying he has more power, he just says that he's not saying that he didn't have most power or influence. Which is basically very non committal and a bit cryptic.

I initially read it as "power" or "influence" as in he is John Dehlin, the most famous, high profile, prolific ex-Mormon, anti-Mormon podcasting anti-Christ of the noughties (we don't disagree on this right?) But I concede, the power and influence he may have been referring to may be his legal role within Open Stories Foundation?

I'm not clear actually?

What do you think about John Dehlin, rockstar, having Rosebud, the groupie, throwing herself at him and then Rosebud, being Rosebud, brings toxicity to the thing warranting her having to be let go? The ploy of releasing her and John from the board could have been a ploy to let her go without incurring too much damage. It would allow the appearance of equality while keeping the main person on.

I wish I understood these things better.

Is this hypothetical scenario that you describe illegal and/or unethical?

[pistolero]

But she was on the board too. We both were. At least that’s how we all saw it. We were equals in that way. So why destroy everything?

If you hate me or don’t care about Mormon Stories, this position makes sense.

If you value Mormon Stories, this makes little sense to me.

But I’m not interested in arguing.

That's a pretty manipulative way to phrase things, and it certainly doesn't help your case. One doesn't have to hate you or not care about MS in order to conclude that sexual harassment occurred. You seem to think that assessing this situation comes down to whether one finds value in your product, and that only haters will see you as having sexually harassed someone. That says more about your mindset than you may realize.

I tend to agree with you on this that it sounds a bit manipulative. It's also a bit binary. Does JD not have a lawyer that can rein him in a bit?

That said, I appreciate the transparency. To be appaulded, if nothing else.

[Lem]

That said, I appreciate the transparency. To be appaulded, if nothing else.

I think the good and bad angels of your auto-correct decided to call it a tie between "applauded" and "appalled."

[Dr Exiled]

So the only way J D can beat a sexual harassment rap is to award R B the entire company?

That seems a little extreme to me.

That's not my position. I've been involved with cases like this and usually the result is to do what Open Stories Foundation did and offer the supposed victim a severance package along with a non-disclosure agreement. John Dehlin is Open Stories Foundation and always was regardless of whether or not he stepped over the line. The solution is to protect the company while giving Rosebud some compensation to "go away," especially after she acted the way she did.

[Kukulkan]

Okay, what about just leaving to let Open Stories Foundation sink into obscurity under Rosebud's ambitious leadership and you continue with the successful Mormon Stories on your own. You would have only needed a couple of friends for a 501C tax status.

But she was on the board too. We both were. At least that’s how we all saw it. We were equals in that way. So why destroy it?

If you hate me or don’t care about Mormon Stories, this position makes sense.

If you value Mormon Stories, this makes little sense to me.

But I’m not interested in arguing.

As someone who has enjoyed MS over the years and has used it as a place to feel validated I would have to offer you some pushback on this sentiment. Your behaviors and actions back in 2012 were idiotic as you self admitted. I understand that MS was and is your prized possession, which is merited. But that said, you did a crappy thing and handled it shittingly (new word?). Yes, maybe on paper you were equals but I think it is fairly obvious that in the eyes of everyone else, your efforts were and were going to be more impactful and lucrative for the organization. MS and Open Stories Foundation without you would be a very different place then and now.

I understand you made a mistake, and have taken steps to rectify that mistake. Not everyone is going to agree with you and how you handled it. There will be some that will disagree with how you handled it but continue to watch and listen to MS. You will gain supporters from this and you will lose some. It is inevitable. In my honest opinion, you have set your case and she has set hers. As you said you aren't interested in arguing and you shouldn't be. It is no longer in your hands. Let this fall into obscurity and let people decide where they want to stand on the issue.

[pistolero]

That said, I appreciate the transparency. To be appaulded, if nothing else.

I think the good and bad angels of your auto-correct decided to call it a tie between "applauded" and "appalled."

You'd like to think it was innocent autocorrect, but it's not even turned on (bilingual speaker and is back and forwards between languages and nobody has invented something to switch autocorrect language without extra key strokes.)

So clearly I'm exposing my subconscious with this portmanteau.

[Dr Exiled]

What do you think about John Dehlin, rockstar, having Rosebud, the groupie, throwing herself at him and then Rosebud, being Rosebud, brings toxicity to the thing warranting her having to be let go? The ploy of releasing her and John from the board could have been a ploy to let her go without incurring too much damage. It would allow the appearance of equality while keeping the main person on.

I wish I understood these things better.

Is this hypothetical scenario that you describe illegal and/or unethical?

It comes from a lawyer who is trying to dig down on what happened. John Dehlin just said that Rosebud promised that she would "go away" if things got to where it harmed him or mormonstories. That seems to be an admission that he had the power in the relationship, regardless of whether or not Rosebud welcomed the attention. Relationships are not always on equal footing. Sometimes one dominates over the other and perhaps in this case, Rosebud threw herself at JD and JD relented with the condition of her "going away" if she pressured him too much. Extracting an agreement like that is something a semi-famous person could do with a groupie. Then, from there, Rosebud got toxic and something had to be done.

As far as it being legal. Yes it was from the evidence I have seen. It is not per se illegal for managers to have relationships with employees or board members to have relationships with other board members. Post break-up, perhaps a case can be made that a firing was because of the break-up and that may rise to the level of a wrongful termination under Utah Law. For this reason, a wise HR person would just offer a severance package with a non-disclosure agreement and have the problem go away.

Unethical, yes, as far as getting into the relationship in the first place. JD shouldn't have done it and he admits as much.