Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[jpatterson]

Of course you're frustrated because you don't have the whole picture. I would be too. But I'm not at liberty to release more information than I have released, out of respect for Rosebud. There's a LOT. Stuff that makes both of them look bad, but that lays out a clear case for sexual harassment and abuse, in my opinion.

But what I can do is testify publicly to the overall essence of what I have read and seen and conversations I have had with people associated with what happened. Which leads me to:

Here's the one question I believe John really really doesn't want to answer, and the question I would really like him to answer publicly.

I'll give him a chance to answer here:





John, did you ever do anything of a sexual nature to Rosebud without her consent, including anything that would also possibly be considered illegal in the state Rosebud was residing at the time?

[Lem]

This is fair, and well taken.

Several times over the past several years I've wanted to make a big deal out of this but have restrained myself (mostly because I know the fawning army of Dehlinites that John has at his disposal he can and will use as human body shields, Bill Reel being the latest example) but then John pops off about how innocent he is and I can't help myself.

I wish I'd never crossed paths with John. As I'm sure he does me. And now that John's dam has started to crack, maybe it's better for my mental health if I just let the crack widen on its own.

I believe you are a separate person, but damn if your posts don't read exactly like Rosebud!

[Dr Exiled]

Of course you're frustrated because you don't have the whole picture. I would be too. But I'm not at liberty to release more information than I have released, out of respect for Rosebud. There's a LOT. Stuff that makes both of them look bad, but that lays out a clear case for sexual harassment and abuse, in my opinion.

But what I can do is testify publicly to the overall essence of what I have read and seen and conversations I have had with people associated with what happened. Which leads me to:

Here's the one question I believe John really really doesn't want to answer, and the question I would really like him to answer publicly.

I'll give him a chance to answer here:





John, did you ever do anything of a sexual nature without Rosebud's consent, including anything that would also possibly be considered illegal in the state Rosebud was residing at the time?

I think he did a lot of sexual things with his wife Margie that Rosebud didn't like or consent to. That is what this is about after all.

[jpatterson]

I believe you are a separate person, but damn if your posts don't read exactly like Rosebud!

Well, I'm also a victim of sexual assault. I know what it's like to not be believed. It can drive you a bit crazy.

[dastardly stem]

So many of us here have had doubts about Rosebud's vague allusions to events, and the incessant sock puppet use on multiple forums really doesn't help. Reading the text messages between her and Dehlin just makes her stories told here even less believable. She never shared with us all of the advances she made.

The best you have here is that John manipulated the situation to get her canned, and then moved on without her, while she was eager to further their relationship. It may be mean or heartless or whatever, but it's not a criminal offense.

Agreed, maybe not criminal, but the link to their text messages does seemingly document that someone in power asked their subordinate to leave their job, in order to end or avoid an affair, if I am reading that exchange correctly. At my university, that statement alone would violate our policy against sexual harassment. Rosebud has acted very badly herself, and her actions would likewise violate much, but none of that would mitigate Dehlin's violation, especially since he was apparently the one in power.

Good point. That is a problem that hardly seems worth missing or skipping over. It does appear that all of her contributions just built him up...he took that and had her tossed. If she was fired, it's odd she continued to try and get files and access. She apparently was hoping he'd allow the foundation to be broken up to give her some of it, after she was fired? It was all pretty weird sounding, and there was likely more to the text messages that might spell that out a bit.

This was nearly a decade ago, now, though. It's hard to make a case of it. It also might suggest the board members were agreed that she just plain loses on all fronts. Hopefully her severance was something.

[Lem]

Of course you're frustrated because you don't have the whole picture. I would be too. But I'm not at liberty to release more information than I have released, out of respect for Rosebud. There's a LOT. Stuff that makes both of them look bad, but that lays out a clear case for sexual harassment and abuse, in my opinion.

But what I can do is testify publicly to the overall essence of what I have read and seen and conversations I have had with people associated with what happened. Which leads me to:

Here's the one question I believe John really really doesn't want to answer, and the question I would really like him to answer publicly.

I'll give him a chance to answer here:

John, did you ever do anything of a sexual nature without Rosebud's consent, including anything that would also possibly be considered illegal in the state Rosebud was residing at the time?

Why is this considered the place to ask or answer that question?

I've already stated that I think a comment made by Dehlin years ago would qualify now as sexual harassment within my institution. However, this is years later, apparently legal avenues have been exhausted, and continuing to pursue this here only damages the victim further. It's not fair, but what is to be gained from this?

[Lem]

I believe you are a separate person, but damn if your posts don't read exactly like Rosebud!

Well, I'm also a victim of sexual assault. I know what it's like to not be believed. It can drive you a bit crazy.

I should be more specific, then. I am not referring to anything victims may have in common. I am speaking specifically of the identical phrases you use, your sentence structure, the repeated asking questions of Dehlin, in the first person and using his first name, when this is clearly not an appropriate venue, the teasing out of bits of information, etc.

[Kishkumen]

Great explanation and spot on. If JD needs to take legal action against the scorned, this is the narrative his counsel should push. Not only is it true but it is a common story that plays out time and time again, easily understandable to a jury. I can think of a few possible claims such as defamation or putting JD into a false light. I don't know what damages there are at this point as rosebud's and Jbro's incessant pushing of this nonsense is probably making JD more popular in some respects. It lets him play the victim and gets his name out there a little more.

She has built up a long track record of making grandiose and threatening statements. The fact that she was pursuing John up to August 9, and the fact that she sent that threatening email in October, wherein she laid out the basic roadmap she has followed since--both things have cooked her goose.

She recognized that the law at the time gave her no legal recourse to go after John and Open Stories Foundation, and that is why she went to the mattresses with this defamation campaign.

[Kishkumen]

John, did you ever do anything of a sexual nature to Rosebud without her consent, including anything that would also possibly be considered illegal in the state Rosebud was residing at the time?

Oh, and John, be a dove and tell us whether you were in the state Rosebud resided when you did said alleged act which was illegal in her state of residence. Inquiring minds and all that.

[dastardly stem]

Well, I'm also a victim of sexual assault. I know what it's like to not be believed. It can drive you a bit crazy.

I should be more specific, then. I am not referring to anything victims may have in common. I am speaking specifically of the identical phrases you use, your sentence structure, the repeated asking questions of Dehlin, in the first person and using his first name, when this is clearly not an appropriate venue, the teasing out of bits of information, etc.

Agreed. It's uncanny.