Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Kishkumen]

So, was JD just playing around? Are people supposed to know that when a superior has a sexual relationship with a subordinate, the subordinate is supposed to know her place, and also know that the superior really didn't mean it, and when he says he is done, any continuation on her part after that will be considered "inappropriate" and "persistent"?

These posts attempting to justify Dehlin's behavior after an affair are the epitome of sexist rhetoric.

LOL! Oh my. These two have a consensual extra-marital sexual relationship before Rosebud is hired at Open Stories Foundation, but calling it an affair is sexist rhetoric because . . . . .

[master_dc]

That's what I don't get about that comment. Does he not understand that it is being suggested that the superior should have the right to say that to a subordinate, AFTER he has already had a relationship with the subordinate?

And, referring back to consig's comment, that he is suggesting that if the subordinate had just gone along with his request that the sexual relationship be ended on his terms, she would have kept her job.

So in other words, the superior should be able to tell her to shut up about the relationship or lose her job. Unreal.

Say, had you been in charge of solving this dilemma, what would you have done based on the information we now know?

- Doc

I think the everyone agrees on the core issues involved in this case but we are all talking over/through/around each other. My interpretation of where Lem is coming from, and please correct me if I am wrong, is the moment JD said “no” and asked Rosebud to leave Open Stories Foundation, he committed sexual harassment. Hard stop. If he would have gone to the board and told the the situation, he wanted out etc, and recused himself from the outcome, he may have been ok, but I am not sure. I don’t think Lem is saying JD didn’t have the right to say “no”, he just didn’t have the right to say “no” and “leave”.

That being said, my interpretation of the situation, JD didn’t approach Rosebud as a superior, he did as a lover. It was personal. And that got him in trouble with this.

[The Stig]

What I really hope is that I would not have allowed such blatant sexual harassment to continue, unpunished. (emphasis added)

Can you just, one more time, clarify what you mean by this phrase? Do you only mean JD encouraging Rosebud to leave after their affair ended, or do you mean the entirety of the relationship? I just want to make sure the record is clear here.

[dastardly stem]

JD and Rosebud engaged in a work place affair.

A month or so before Rosebud was terminated, JD requested Rosebud leave, as in leave the foundation--which obviously require she sacrifice her job.

They interacted for the next little bit wherein he asked her to stop pursuing and leave (again). (and to be fair it appears, this asking to stop and then continuing on happened before with each party requesting at some point and then the other pursuing. Pointed out because it seems to be the nature of their relationship, for good or bad).

JD didn't think Rosebud was listening to what he wanted/needed, so he went to one member of the board to disclose a relationship suggesting they can't work together because of it.

The board member (Joanna Brooks) interacted with Rosebud, on her own. The two of them seemingly came to an agreement to protect the foundation and avoid this type of thing from happening/getting out--Rosebud would resign and be brought back on as a contractor.

Rosebud tells JD that she had agreed to the terms discussed with the board member.

JD begins the process of fazing Rosebud out by locking her out of the communities hoping, apparently, her work would not be included in MS.

JD would not respond to RBs requests to gain back access and, it seemed, waited until it all played out.

Rosebud and JD were formally sent "resign or get terminated" documents, spelling out conditions of the new arrangement.

JD resigned, Rosebud did not, thinking, it seems, she would not be brought back (with good reason since she was already blocked) and seeing as part of the agreement JD was given more consideration.

Rosebud was terminated.

In the end, JD came out basically unscathed, Rosebud did not. I can agree the relationship was consensual. I can agree Rosebud made some really poor choices. I can agree that there was complications and problems from both sides. I can also agree what happened amounted to sexual harassment, whether JD felt he had ill-intent or not. I can also agree that there is nothing that can be done on this. If anyone wants to bring this up to suggest JD sexually harassed someone, I have no particularly issue with that conclusion anymore. It's not completely conclusive that that's what he did, but it feels fair to say it's a reasonable conclusion to draw based on the evidence. And I'm fairly certain both parties feel, at least, somewhat victimized by everything that has resulted from their relationship and want and really need people to sympathize with them. And in this thread there are people who will sympathize with both to some extent or another.

I want to say, "with that, I'm done" but I've been drawn back into it already a few times.

[Kishkumen]

Now, John *should* have chosen to keep it all professional, but didn't. Rosebud *should* have resisted his flirtatious advances, but didn't. I don't see any clear evidence, from the statements provided, that Rosebud ever feared for her job if she resisted those advances. Maybe she did later, or maybe she told herself a story, but this doesn't mean John's experience was anything more than responding to reciprocal flirtation. The point is, who knows how it started. It was consensual. She said as much at the time. Rosebud also said, on numerous occasions, that her marriage was awful, and John filled a real need. Fair enough -- they both made a dumb decision by mixing business with pleasure at a startup.

She also entered into the relationship before she was hired as an employee. What can we say of her voluntary decision to join the company that was founded by her lover as the second employee? Stupid? Immoral? Risky?

I don't get it. The evidence we have, the facts we have, show that she and Dehlin entered into the relationship before she started working at Open Stories Foundation, but for some reason we are only to consider the bare fact that at the end of this all she lost any and all employment at Open Stories Foundation until they gave her a job again for a short time but wait, she still ended up not working at Open Stories Foundation anymore, ergo sexual harassment. It is exhausting. All you need to do is pare away all of the pesky facts down to superior, subordinate, victim, lost job, sexual harassment, and voila!

Startups all come with immense risks, chief among them interpersonal dynamics. The wrong partner early on is death. I feel bad this startup had an affair mixed in with startup people dynamics, and I will reiterate that John was an idiot in those early days. But at stages along the way, John also seems to have realized that not only was Rosebud not right for him romantically, but that she was becoming a liability to the venture. She wanted to lead, to own, and she wanted John to leave his family and get with her. She wanted it all, but her vision on both counts -- relationship and business -- was fundamentally divergent from John's. She wanted to lead localized affinity groups, but John saw a single global platform. He was right to point out that she needed to go or the business was doomed.

I have been hoping for your input because I figured you would have something to say about the dynamics and risks of small startup operations. So, you would say that there is a practical reason for the 15-employee bar?

[Lem]

Say, had you been in charge of solving this dilemma, what would you have done based on the information we now know?

- Doc

...If he would have gone to the board and told the the situation, he wanted out etc, and recused himself from the outcome, he may have been ok, but I am not sure. I don’t think Len is saying JD didn’t have the right to say “no”, he just didn’t have the right to say “no” and “leave”....

That's a pretty decent assessment, m_dc, I appreciate that.

[pistolero]

...If he would have gone to the board and told the the situation, he wanted out etc, and recused himself from the outcome, he may have been ok, but I am not sure. I don’t think Len is saying JD didn’t have the right to say “no”, he just didn’t have the right to say “no” and “leave”....

That's a pretty decent assessment, m_dc, I appreciate that.

Agreed that "no" and "leave" would be naughty of JD.

What I read is that JD was saying "no", "no", "no", "no", ......... for some time and then "leave". The "leave" is precipitated by Rosebud not responding to "no", multiple times.

[pistolero]

This is all very messy, but one place where I have a lot of empathy with JD is when a colleague becomes attached in an inappropriate and very persistent way....

So, was JD just playing around? Are people supposed to know that when a superior has a sexual relationship with a subordinate, the subordinate is supposed to know her place, and also know that the superior really didn't mean it, and when he says he is done, any continuation on her part after that will be considered "inappropriate" and "persistent"?

These posts attempting to justify Dehlin's behavior after an affair are the epitome of sexist rhetoric.

Why make this about him/her and sexist rhetoric? It's a general point irrespective of gender, orientation or whatever. If you want to make the point that women are probably sexually harassed more than men, that's fine, I agree with you, but that's not what I'm getting at.

My point first stated a colleague rather than subordinate/superior and I was lamenting when one party insists on a relationship and the other party does not, these are complicated situations.

I tried to remove it from this situation to make it more as a neutral point. But these things seem to light touch papers for many.

It makes discussing these emotive topics even more challenging.

[master_dc]

That's a pretty decent assessment, m_dc, I appreciate that.

Agreed that "no" and "leave" would be naughty of JD.

What I read is that JD was saying "no", "no", "no", "no", ......... for some time and then "leave". The "leave" is precipitated by Rosebud not responding to "no", multiple times.

I don’t disagree, but the moment he mixed the two…

[pistolero]

Agreed that "no" and "leave" would be naughty of JD.

What I read is that JD was saying "no", "no", "no", "no", ......... for some time and then "leave". The "leave" is precipitated by Rosebud not responding to "no", multiple times.

I don’t disagree, but the moment he mixed the two…

Can you entertain the possibility that her behaviour might also be considered sexual harassment before it gets to "leave"?

Likewise, I don't disagree with your assertion about mixing the two... (assuming amongst other things that there was an unequal relationship).