Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[The Stig]

After years and years of defending John Dehlin here and on other boards I have finally be vindicated!

Rosebud has been exposed as the COB shill that she is. Her entire narrative has crumbled and her lies have been exposed.

The great accomplishments of John Dehlin in taking down the Kingpin of Mopologetics and causing the self-implosion of the Maxwell Institute will be long remembered.

Rosebud's lies will rightfully go into the trash heap of history as disingenuous histrionics funded by the COB.

What the hell is this nonsense?

[Lem]

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.

Was Dehlin her superior in a business relationship?

[drumdude]

Was Dehlin her superior in a business relationship?

I actually don't know the answer to this, was the board in control of Open Stories Foundation at this point? She says she was on the board, equal to Joanna. Is there an organizational chart that exists from that time period?

[Res Ipsa]

On the taxes. Is John talking about a salary? Was he paid as an employee? Because if he's talking about how he spent his salary, somebody really needs to do some homework.

[Dr Exiled]

After years and years of defending John Dehlin here and on other boards I have finally be vindicated!

Rosebud has been exposed as the COB shill that she is. Her entire narrative has crumbled and her lies have been exposed.

The great accomplishments of John Dehlin in taking down the Kingpin of Mopologetics and causing the self-implosion of the Maxwell Institute will be long remembered.

Rosebud's lies will rightfully go into the trash heap of history as disingenuous histrionics funded by the COB.

Thank you for the unsupported speculation.

[drumdude]

It seems to me the most reasonable claim Rosebud could have made was wrongful termination, instead of sexual harassment. The Board sneaked in an offer to transfer her to a lesser role in the company, instead of outright firing her. I imagine that's a common tactic to get around the wrongful termination charges, and it definitely doesn't look great for the board. At the same time, such a small company had no choice but to hire John back if they wanted to continue to exist. Maybe some sort of fine or drop in salary would have been at least an attempt at punishing John for the unethical behavior.

[Lem]

It seems to me the most reasonable claim Rosebud could have made was wrongful termination, instead of sexual harassment. The Board sneaked in an offer to transfer her to a lesser role in the company, instead of outright firing her. I imagine that's a common tactic to get around the wrongful termination charges, and it definitely doesn't look great for the board. At the same time, such a small company had no choice but to hire John back if they wanted to continue to exist. Maybe some sort of fine or drop in salary would have been at least an attempt at punishing John for the unethical behavior.

I disagree. Everything points to Dehlin being her superior. If he told her he wanted her 'gone', i.e. to leave her job because of their sexual and or romantic relationship, that is sexual harassment.

[Res Ipsa]

It seems to me the most reasonable claim Rosebud could have made was wrongful termination, instead of sexual harassment. The Board sneaked in an offer to transfer her to a lesser role in the company, instead of outright firing her. I imagine that's a common tactic to get around the wrongful termination charges, and it definitely doesn't look great for the board. At the same time, such a small company had no choice but to hire John back if they wanted to continue to exist. Maybe some sort of fine or drop in salary would have been at least an attempt at punishing John for the unethical behavior.

I think Utah is an at will employment state, so, generally, an employee can be fired for any reason except as prohibited by law. Because there were fewer than 15 employees, the federal and state employment statutes don't apply. If they had more employees, I think she would have had a legitimate sexual harassment claim under retaliation provisions. I don't think the employer can take any adverse action based solely on the fact that the employee had an affair. Maybe if there was a clear policy it would fly. I don't think offering a lesser position and pressuring her to resign would have helped. And if she had told the board that John sexually harassed her and the board then took an adverse employment action, I think they'd be in deep weeds. If the Foundation had had more employees, we'd have a much different story.

[Moksha]

I think she would have had a legitimate sexual harassment claim under retaliation provisions.

Is one of those provisions needing to accept the unwelcome advances of the employee? I suspect the arbitrator would look at the phone transcripts and find the claim to be very illegitimate. The arbitrator might even refer back to proposed option number two by the accuser and find that she had established a pattern of harassment against the accused and the Open Stories Foundation.

This might be another chance for Consiglieri to face off against Kirton McConkie.

[Res Ipsa]

I think she would have had a legitimate sexual harassment claim under retaliation provisions.

Is one of those provisions needing to accept the unwelcome advances of the employee? I suspect the arbitrator would look at the phone transcripts and find the claim to be very illegitimate. The arbitrator might even refer back to proposed option number two by the accuser and find that she had established a pattern of harassment against the accused and the Open Stories Foundation.

This might be another chance for Consiglieri to face off against Kirton McConkie.

Now that's a face-off I'd love to see.

No, the claim she might have had isn't harassment, as the affair was consensual. The problem is the firing after she wouldn't take a reduced position, especially if she had told the board she'd been harassed. That's a no no.