Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Kishkumen]

I'm assuming the control would by virtue of personal ownership of the foundation.

Perhaps I would have dissolved Open Stories Foundation, created an independent platform with better professional standards and required those who participate to agree to those standards.

How does a private person own a charitable foundation with a board of directors? I honestly don’t know. I have always thought that such entities could not be privately owned and privately controlled. Are you saying this was a Corporation of the First Presidency kind of thing?

[Kishkumen]

No. I'm saying Dehlin enjoyed a power differential and abused it.

That’s looking paper thin to me. A “power differential” is open to a lot of subjective interpretation here, as is the term “abuse.”

Where is the text that says, “John, I am furious with you for touching me inappropriately without my consent”?

Because this is what she is claiming he did. Her supporters, on the other hand, are fine allowing for the fact that the evidence points in the opposite direction (“Sleep with me now, John, I really need sex”) and hanging their hats on this “power differential.”

At the same time, we see Rosebud in late August reassuring John that there was nothing untoward in their relationship because they are both members of the board and he has no clear authority over her in the bylaws and pushing him to force Joanna Brooks to resign by joining her in refusing to resign. At that point, Rosebud and John appear to be acting as allies, with Rosebud urging John to help her force Joanna to make good on her ultimatum and resign.

That is the complicated conflict as I see it. It is only after John, having decided not to cooperate with Rosebud and having resigned himself, parts way with Rosebud in her attempted team coup, that Rosebud, having come out empty handed, then followed through on her premeditated threat to accuse John of sexual harassment.

I don’t see how this fairly banal point about him having an consensual affair with her while he bore the title of executive director and she employee and member of the board rises above grounds for firing Dehlin or forcing him to resign to a case for Dehlin being some sort of monster whom no one should have anything to do with (the Rosebud, Kelly, Kwaku, and Patterson view).

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

in order to clarify my view of the matter I'm going to present an analogy. It's probably a poor one, but it helps make my view of the matter clear.

This situation is kind of like that of a landlord and a renter. Yes, there is an inherent power differential in that the landlord owns the property and the renter is subjected to their decisions. What people often overlook with regard to landlords is just how affected they are by a renter's choices, too. If the renter decides to not pay the rent, or destroys the property that creates a host of problems for the landlord who may be existing on razor thins margins to make the enterprise feasible, then landlord is screwed. The power differential flips, and the landlord is held hostage to the renter until a resolution is found.

Let's say the landlord and renter enter into a relationship, and the renter begins to fantasize about squeezing out the spouses so the landlord and renter then can live together in the property. The landlord has regrets, and tries to extricate himself from the relationship, but the renter is like, "Oh, hell no. We're doing this, and if you don't I'm going to use any and all resources available to me to burn your world down, destroy your investment, and make sure you never get into the landlord game again." At that point the power differential switches, big time, and again the landlord is either held hostage to the renter or he can get a lawyer to figure out a way to get out of this mess without losing his property.

That's what John Dehlin did. Sure. The renter is eventually evicted, and the landlord still retains his property. But just because the landlord successfully retained the property doesn't mean the renter couldn't move the “F” on and rent somewhere else. The renter continuing to sue the landlord with nuisance lawsuits, badmouthing him, making themselves the victim (A STATED TACTIC THEY PUT INTO WRITING NO LESS!!), and acting like renting that one property prevents them from ever renting another property which is patently ridiculous.

Should the renter warn other renters of the landlord's choice to get into a personal relationship with them? Sure. Why not. But what gets really nefarious is that the renter omits their scheming, paints the picture that they were helpless and victimized by the landlord with regard to getting into a relationship, and basically prevents others from knowing what they, the renter, has done throughout this entire mess that created and perpetuated the bizarre and unethical situation.

The renter isn't a victim. The renter is a victimizer. The landlord isn't a victim, either. The landlord is a victimizer. There's no way to quantify just how much egregiousness one or the other is responsible for. It's an impossible task.

- Doc

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Meadowchik,

in order to understand your perspective better, if you had control of the situation, what would you have done?

- Doc

I'm assuming the control would by virtue of personal ownership of the foundation.

Perhaps I would have dissolved Open Stories Foundation, created an independent platform with better professional standards and required those who participate to agree to those standards.

That seems like a reasonable action to take.

- Doc

[Lem]

I don’t see how this fairly banal point about him having an consensual affair with her while he bore the title of executive director and she employee and member of the board....

I can see this argument. And while this situation was going on, he texted he wanted her gone. Unfortunately, no matter how badly the victim acted, that is still the definition of sexual harassment. The victim was despicable, i agree. All the more reason to not violate common sense rules about having a relationship at work when there is a power differential.

hat’s looking paper thin to me. A “power differential” is open to a lot of subjective interpretation here, as is the term “abuse.”

Where is the text that says, “John, I am furious with you for touching me inappropriately against my consent”?

A victim has to behave rationally and clearly indicate responsibility, for sexual harassment to exist?

[Lem]

in order to clarify my view of the matter I'm going to present an analogy. It's probably a poor one, but it helps make my view of the matter clear.

This situation is kind of like that of a landlord and a renter. Yes, there is an inherent power differential in that the landlord owns the property and the renter is subjected to their decisions. What people often overlook with regard to landlords is just how affected they are by a renter's choices, too. If the renter decides to not pay the rent, or destroys the property that creates a host of problems for the landlord who may be existing on razor thins margins to make the enterprise feasible, then landlord is screwed. The power differential flips, and the landlord is held hostage to the renter until a resolution is found.

Let's say the landlord and renter enter into a relationship, and the renter begins to fantasize about squeezing out the spouses so the landlord and renter then can live together in the property. The landlord has regrets, and tries to extricate himself from the relationship, but the renter is like, "Oh, hell no. We're doing this, and if you don't I'm going to use any and all resources available to me to burn your world down, destroy your investment, and make sure you never get into the landlord game again." At that point the power differential switches, big time, and again the landlord is either held hostage to the renter or he can get a lawyer to figure out a way to get out of this mess without losing his property.

That's what John Dehlin did. Sure. The renter is eventually evicted, and the landlord still retains his property. But just because the landlord successfully retained the property doesn't mean the renter couldn't move the “F” on and rent somewhere else. The renter continuing to sue the landlord with nuisance lawsuits, badmouthing him, making themselves the victim (A STATED TACTIC THEY PUT INTO WRITING NO LESS!!), and acting like renting that one property prevents them from ever renting another property which is patently ridiculous.

Should the renter warn other renters of the landlord's choice to get into a personal relationship with them? Sure. Why not. But what gets really nefarious is that the renter omits their scheming, paints the picture that they were helpless and victimized by the landlord with regard to getting into a relationship, and basically prevents others from knowing what they, the renter, has done throughout this entire mess that created and perpetuated the bizarre and unethical situation.

The renter isn't a victim. The renter is a victimizer. The landlord isn't a victim, either. The landlord is a victimizer. There's no way to quantify just how much egregiousness one or the other is responsible for. It's an impossible task.

- Doc

Good points. I'm sure this is one of the reasons why the power differential described in your step 1 is considered inappropriate in most discussions on sexual harassment:

Let's say the landlord and renter enter into a relationship...

[Kishkumen]

If I were more certain in that mess that “Please go” was clearly “leave Open Stories Foundation now,” I would tilt a little more in the middle. If I could be confident they were not both in a mutual discussion about their futures at Open Stories Foundation in which she was saying things like, “I just can’t take working with you if we aren’t an actual couple,” I would tilt more in the other direction.

[Meadowchik]

I'm assuming the control would by virtue of personal ownership of the foundation.

Perhaps I would have dissolved Open Stories Foundation, created an independent platform with better professional standards and required those who participate to agree to those standards.

How does a private person own a charitable foundation with a board of directors? I honestly don’t know. I have always thought that such entities could not be privately owned and privately controlled. Are you saying this was a Corporation of the First Presidency kind of thing?

No I was just answering the question which explicitly stated I had control of the situation. I thought it necessary to be clear on how I interpreted "control of the situation."

[Lem]

How does a private person own a charitable foundation with a board of directors? I honestly don’t know. I have always thought that such entities could not be privately owned and privately controlled. Are you saying this was a Corporation of the First Presidency kind of thing?

No I was just answering the question which explicitly stated I had control of the situation. I thought it necessary to be clear on how I interpreted "control of the situation."

Clearly though, Dehlin exercised a huge amount of control over Open Stories Foundation initially. If I recall correctly, it was only after the fiasco currently being discussed that proper rules about board management were implemented.

[Meadowchik]

in order to clarify my view of the matter I'm going to present an analogy. It's probably a poor one, but it helps make my view of the matter clear.

This situation is kind of like that of a landlord and a renter. Yes, there is an inherent power differential in that the landlord owns the property and the renter is subjected to their decisions. What people often overlook with regard to landlords is just how affected they are by a renter's choices, too. If the renter decides to not pay the rent, or destroys the property that creates a host of problems for the landlord who may be existing on razor thins margins to make the enterprise feasible, then landlord is screwed. The power differential flips, and the landlord is held hostage to the renter until a resolution is found.

Let's say the landlord and renter enter into a relationship, and the renter begins to fantasize about squeezing out the spouses so the landlord and renter then can live together in the property. The landlord has regrets, and tries to extricate himself from the relationship, but the renter is like, "Oh, hell no. We're doing this, and if you don't I'm going to use any and all resources available to me to burn your world down, destroy your investment, and make sure you never get into the landlord game again." At that point the power differential switches, big time, and again the landlord is either held hostage to the renter or he can get a lawyer to figure out a way to get out of this mess without losing his property.

That's what John Dehlin did. Sure. The renter is eventually evicted, and the landlord still retains his property. But just because the landlord successfully retained the property doesn't mean the renter couldn't move the “F” on and rent somewhere else. The renter continuing to sue the landlord with nuisance lawsuits, badmouthing him, making themselves the victim (A STATED TACTIC THEY PUT INTO WRITING NO LESS!!), and acting like renting that one property prevents them from ever renting another property which is patently ridiculous.

Should the renter warn other renters of the landlord's choice to get into a personal relationship with them? Sure. Why not. But what gets really nefarious is that the renter omits their scheming, paints the picture that they were helpless and victimized by the landlord with regard to getting into a relationship, and basically prevents others from knowing what they, the renter, has done throughout this entire mess that created and perpetuated the bizarre and unethical situation.

The renter isn't a victim. The renter is a victimizer. The landlord isn't a victim, either. The landlord is a victimizer. There's no way to quantify just how much egregiousness one or the other is responsible for. It's an impossible task.

- Doc

LOL is this example tailored to me? We were landlords with abusive tenants. We entered into a friendship as families hoping to make each others lives better. It eventually resulted in the tenants becoming violent and engaging in fraud and death threats. One of our mutual friends who was also a landlord suggested we just take an opportunity when they were out of town to empty the property, put their belongings in storage, change the locks, and leave them a key to the storage unit in an envelope, taped to the property door.

We didn't do that. Rather we researched the law, educated ourselves about their and our rights and responsibilities, and tried to scrupulosity comply with the law. We reported the death threats. We reported the assault. We filed a lawsuit for unpaid bills. We managed our own terror by calculating the unlikelihood that he would attempt homicide since he was stable enough (most of the time) to know not get thrown into jail. And that he didn't have a gun in the event he had a psychotic break (he was on meds that, when withdrawn could cause such side effects.) We dealt with their presence and thankfully they eventually left of their own free will, thank goodness.

But we focused on abiding by our moral and legal obligations while also refusing to accept or abide their abusive behavior.

PS The laws in France are very protective of tenant rights, so I don't think the legal power differential compares to that in other countries. However, we did have an economic advantage. We had the ability to throw them out on the street they could have taken us to court and perhaps we could have dragged it out a long time or even absorbed the predictable costs.