Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Moksha]

Proof that I have access to documents that bring John's integrity into question.

Do you also have his Church records?

[consiglieri]

I have nothing to say about John’s taxes.

I don’t feel the need to defend him.

But that rosebud is crazy as a shithouse rat, isn’t she?

[jpatterson]

Duly noted: when presented with hard evidence that John Dehlin has been cheating taxpayers out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, the MD folks find it has zero bearing on his integrity or trustworthiness in other matters.

It's almost as if...wait for it...the evidence doesn't really matter to you guys!

[Dr Moore]

Just for kicks and giggles, let's talk about John's flirtations with the United States tax code.

In 2010, John made a famous plea for donations so he could get his PhD. His promise was that he would make Mormon Stories a 501(c)3 so people could make tax-exempt donations he could then use to fund his degree.

Only problem with that? It's illegal.

So you’re obsessed with John’s relationship with the IRS too?

[jpatterson]

So you’re obsessed with John’s relationship with the IRS too?

Only as it relates to his penchant for lying.

[Dr Moore]

So you’re obsessed with John’s relationship with the IRS too?

Only as it relates to his penchant for lying.

Seems like whatever he did, he was pretty up front about it. You have the public-record quotes to prove it.

[Res Ipsa]

Duly noted: when presented with hard evidence that John Dehlin has been cheating taxpayers out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, the MD folks find it has zero bearing on his integrity or trustworthiness in other matters.

It's almost as if...wait for it...the evidence doesn't really matter to you guys!

Have you like, had a tax lawyer look at this?

[drumdude]

I really wish James was trolling. I would be less concerned if it was an un-identified pseudonymous poster like myself, but this is an actual real person defending Rosebud with 3rd grade logic.

Patterson, I'm giving you everything you want on a silver platter. John is a terrible person, a tax cheat, he had an affair. It absolutely makes it possible that he sexually harassed rosebud, in fact it makes it more probable that he did because he has proven to have the capacity to do awful immoral acts.

But Rosebud and her gang have been labeling John a pedophile, a rapist, a serial sexual abuser. These are extremely serious charges and even if he did cheat on his taxes that does not make him a pedophile. That does not make him a rapist. That does not make him a sexual abuser. That does not mean he sexually harassed rosebud.

Can you rub two braincells together and get that point through your head, or are you going to keep making yourself look like a fool?

[Lem]

While i still don't give much credence to rosebud's story, i keep coming back to to the text exchange documented here, where a superior (JD) told a subordinate (R) that he needed her to leave her job, because of the sexual and/or romantic interaction they had. This is based on actual texts Dehlin sent.

That is unequivocally sexual harassment, based on the context presented. It is irrelevant that she was an employee of only 8 months, as i've seen some mention. There is no definition of sexual harassment that says the rules don't kick in until you've been there long enough. It's also irrelevant what she said, as i am basing my conclusion only on what the superior said to the subordinate, "i want you gone."

The rules refer to, in this case, the behavior of the superior, who asked a subordinate to leave their job, because of a relationship between the two.

Although i doubt there is any remedy now, this cheering that Rosebud is a liar and Dehlin is vindicated is wrong. Dehlin clearly used his power in a sexual relationship to intimidate and drive his subordinate out of her job.

That is the definition of sexual harassment at my institute, and i venture to say, pretty much everywhere.

There may be nothing anyone can do about it now, but cheering on a person who used his power to harm the career of a subordinate because of a romantic relationship is a particularly empty victory.

[drumdude]

I have a different reading of the texts. It's a struggle between two people who fell in love with each other, started an emotional affair, and are dealing with the fallout. John clearly wants to leave before it gets physical, and Anne wants to move forward and make the relationship physical. Anne has publicly stated that her husband at the time was awful, while Margie was being extremely patient and loving with John. This clearly made it easier for John to leave, and harder for Anne to. Both realize and acknowledge to each other that working together after ending the affair will be extremely difficult. At the end, Anne reveals that she's been problem solving trying to figure out a place for herself within the company, just as John and Open Stories Foundation have been doing.


John says:

"Thus the continual, "Run away!" "

"I'm 100% sure that the best thing for you to do in your life is to never have anything to do with me again. And yet you won't leave, and I can't go. So you're choosing this."

This sounds to me like he's talking about breaking up their relationship, such that it is.

Then Anne tells John she loves him and needs him. John responds that they can't keep working together and avoid making the affair physical with sex.

As late as August 26 Anne is still using the term "us" to refer to her and John, as they figure out together how to move forward within the company after their breakup. She says she's in "problem solving mode" which implies to me that she, John, and Open Stories Foundation were for over a month searching for solutions to the same fundamental problem: how John and Anne can both still work together after mutually breaking up their mutual consented-to affair.