Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[consiglieri]

Sure thing, Lem.

The problem I have in answering your question is it is framed in such a way as to bear only a superficial resemblance to the case under consideration.

You have a remarkable skill at framing issues in such a way as to tilt in your favor. And I mean that as a compliment.

But the way you get it to tilt in your favor is by removing what I find to be relevant facts from the equation.

Sort of like winning a tug-of-war by systematically removing the strongest pullers from the other side of the mud pit.

Anybody can win the game under these circumstances.

What I specifically object to in this regard is your phrasing the question in terms of JD being “finished with her as a sexual plaything.”

I see little to conclude JD viewed AP in such a singularly sinister light, nor that he treated her so simplistically and two-dimensionally as your language suggests.

I do, however, find it likely that had AP stopped pursuing JD sexually when he told her to stop, she would be with MS today.

But AP wouldn’t stop.

She wanted JD. She wanted MS.

She wanted the whole damn fish.

Wow. And to think I answered your question in good faith, only to get this in response. Let me try again, just using your words.

What I am more interested in, however, are your thoughts, so I will repeat my question: are you suggesting that if a woman would have just "ceased and desisted", and "just backed down when asked and cooled her jets," when a superior was finished with her as a sexual plaything, she could have kept her job?

You'll note that it is not MY language that suggests dehhlin "treated her so simplistically and two-dimensionally," it is what YOUR language suggests. My adding the sexual plaything part was just to indicate how inappropriate I thought your language was when you said Rosebud should have "just backed down." It was added to indicate what I think about your suggestion that if a woman doesn't "cease and desist" in response to what looks like sexual harassment, then it means she is being sexually harassing (i.e. the two way street you specified).

But thank you, I did get a very clear indication of your bias on this topic of your podcast.

And I yours.

[dastardly stem]

Lem,

I do think your rephrasing of what consig said did dial the rhetoric up to 11. There was back and forth between the two parties, asking to end the tryst, only to get sucked back in. JD expressed his ultimate desire to try and make it work with his wife, though it appears he got perilously close to losing his family. Rosebud, from what I can tell, had a tumultuous home life, the relationship with JD had more meaning for the long term. Read JD’s august 10th email to Rosebud. I don’t read it as “I’m done with you, I had my fun, now leave.” I read it as a plea for this to end before tragedy happens.

It is the perfect example of the debate about consent. Both parties are in then out at different times, but they couldn’t help themselves around each other.

My stance is, I agree with Lem, the firing is a form of harassment. Superior asked a subordinate to leave when a relationship ended. I don’t think it has legal standing, but it has some level of moral standing. That being said, he said no, she didn’t drop it kept pushing it in that conversation. That is also harassment. And this is where I agree with consig and some others. ITV of these arguments are built upon the sand, there are plenty of points to consider that weaken each argument.



It is a strange case, maybe a true crime podcast will take the mantle form our hole in the wall and really dig into it. Maybe they can define faux sexting for the rest of us.

I hardly even see disagreement. It seems everyone agrees there was bad behavior being done on both sides. Some seem intent to defend, excoriate, or whatever....I mean I struggle with Rosebud because she played this out so badly. I'm also less inclined to make it out as if there was an aggressor and a victim, as it doesn't quite appear anyone is going that far, aside from JPatterson. How we categorize it by naming things sexual harassment or not seems to matter to some. I don't know that it matters. The accusation is going nowhere. The only reason to make it is to point out there is a reasonable conclusion to draw here.

Why everyone isn't seeing it my way is a problem . It seems clear Dehlin started asking her to leave the foundation in July, perhaps even earlier. That of course, requires sacrificing her job. They both asked each other to stop their sexual pursuits and they both took the role of pursuing even after having been asked to stop, at different times.

John wrote up a note saying he had to change things, send her out of the foundation, because he loved her and it was too hard to continue to work with her and not hurt his family (more).

After Rosebud agreed, it seems, to resign, John locked her out of her work. Her complaints fell on deaf ears. She was eventually terminated, realizing, herself, she had no other course to take. Her work, as she saw it, was already taken from her when she was presented with the resign or be terminated proposition.

Some details explaining this better may be hidden. But it appears JD decided at some point she had to go. It appears she did not want to and hoped to continue her work. And the end result was, she was terminated and it seems all signs point to him working to make that happen.

Nearly everything else people are talking about are distracting from this issue, it seems to me.

[Kishkumen]

Read JD’s august 10th email to Rosebud. I don’t read it as “I’m done with you, I had my fun, now leave.” I read it as a plea for this to end before tragedy happens.

Yes, you don't read it that way because it wasn't intended that way and consiglieri most certainly did not read it that way either. No doubt Rosebud didn't as well. Some people are masters of a certain mixture of misprision and eisigesis. You have to be on your guard against such unskilled and uncharitable mind reading.

[Kishkumen]

Unfortunately for their relationship it appears that went both ways. She declined he insisted, showed up when unwelcomed at late hours, persisted when she said no. If you are saying she's guilty of sexual harassment because she kept requesting sex at the end of their relationship then it appears he too would be so guilty earlier in their relationship, given the claims validity. I do believe that is why she's interested in telling her whole story and not focusing in on the parts where it seems, at least to me, she was forced from her job due to the affair. But, I think it's a weak case to make since it appears they each played the pursuer after having been declined.

One could agree with Dr Moore's take and still conclude there was sexual harassment involved. His take seems to focus on why she's doing what she's doing now. I haven't really felt too concerned about that since she's behaved erratically before.

Yes, I agree one could. I don't think one is obliged to do so. In fact, I don't think so. I don't think either person harassed the other. I think they had a messy romantic encounter. There. I said it. I don't look at a messy romantic encounter as mutually sexually harassing. It was a bad relationship. It was immoral to begin with, and it was an extremely stupid choice for both parties. They have both paid a big price for their stupidity and selfishness.

They were stupid to mix their ill-conceived sexual relationship with Open Stories Foundation. Both of them were. Both of them did. From the beginning. The difference between them, in my view, is that one of them founded and was the core of Open Stories Foundation, while the other recently joined and contributed some dubiously successful things to the business before the combined problem of the sexual relationship and the differing business visions threatened the business and it was time to resolve the situation. Take the sex out and the disagreement about business matters would have led to a parting of the ways in any case.

In that regard, I think that both Dr. Moore and I disagree with consiglieri when he opines that Rosebud might still be working at Open Stories Foundation today if she had only not harassed John sexually. To the contrary, Rosebud would have never joined Open Stories Foundation without the two consensually becoming an item. But say she had been hired at Open Stories Foundation for some reason and there had been no romantic aspect at all. She would have insisted that the company be run in a certain way, a way that did not work and was not profitable, and yet she would have continued to insist that it be run the way she saw fit. She would have been fired, and we would not be talking about it today. No one would know Rosebud, and no one would care.

In this way the messy romantic relationship is completely superfluous. Legally it is completely irrelevant. Morally it is just as bad for both parties. The only way it becomes much worse for JD, in my view, is if you completely ignore or severely downplay the many dumb decisions that Rosebud made in becoming JD's romantic partner, taking a job at Open Stories Foundation as his romantic partner, and then insisting on intercourse and her own vision for the business. We can all agree that John was stupid in becoming Rosebud's romantic partner. That he was potentially stupid in allowing his romantic partner to become an Open Stories Foundation employee, to the extent that he played any role in that (and I am not denying he did). That he was stupid in conducting his side of the communication regarding the end of the relationship in any way that touched on her status at Open Stories Foundation.

That she was sent packing from the business was, however, the best thing for Open Stories Foundation. It is Rosebud, JP, KK, ML, and Kwaku who want you to see this only at the precise angle that makes JD look like a bad person, a predator, and unfit to do what he does, and Rosebud as an innocent victim swept up by the machinations of a mustachio-twirling monster who preys on women, as a genius who would be running a powerhouse Open Stories Foundation today had her vision of the business been properly appreciated. Remember, JD is to blame for all of Rosebud's subsequent failures in Rosebud's bizarrely distorted view of things.

[Moksha]

It was immoral, to begin with...

Does immorality in this instance require two consenting adults and a religious third party to make that judgment?

[honorentheos]

It was immoral, to begin with...

Does immorality in this instance require two consenting adults and a religious third party to make that judgment?

More like it included two non-consenting spouses.

[Kishkumen]

More like it included two non-consenting spouses.

Bingo.

[Moksha]

More like it included two non-consenting spouses.

Yeah, that is the sad part. I had a neighbor whose wife left him because he and some other lady were talking naughty together in a chat room. While that may have seemed over the top to some, since they did not actually smooch behind the water cooler, she was genuinely hurt by it.

[Analytics]

This thread somehow reminds me of a few lines from Synchronicity II:

Another industrial ugly morning
The factory belches filth into the sky
He walks unhindered through the picket lines today
He doesn't think to wonder why

The secretaries pout and preen like cheap tarts in a red-light street
But all he ever thinks to do is watch
And every single meeting with his so-called superior
Is a humiliating kick in the crotch

The point is that almost always, the workplace is a tough, uncomfortable, humiliating, unfair place. We all have the responsibility to navigate this trap the best we can. We shouldn’t roll over and play the victim.

I don’t think Rosebud or JD were good to each other or treated each other in a decent way. If they really loved each other, they would have respected each other’s career and family and kept it professional.

I’m sure a few readers will interpret what I just said as “blaming the victim.” I adamantly disagree with that interpretation of these events. The perpetrator vs. victim construct implies that the perpetrator has the power and is the one actively doing things, while the victim is a powerless passive pushover. That’s not what happened here.

The fact of the matter is that Rosebud had wide-open paths to an amazing career at Open Stories Foundation. In an alternative universe where JD was acting intolerably inappropriate and Rosebud was acting professionally, then Joanna Brooks and the rest of the board would have backed up Rosebud. But in this universe, JD ended up on top because he did a better job of getting his sh!t together, acting professional, and adding value to the cause. Rosebud could have gotten her sh!t together, acted professional, and added value to the cause. She didn’t, and its her own damn fault.

[Moksha]

In the movie Fatal Attraction, if Michael Douglas had been designated enemy #1 of a large religious business enterprise, should Glenn Close have gotten a lucrative book deal with the enterprise's main book publication arm? What about a free condo in St. George and speaking invitations at its university? Free tuition, room, and board to the Enterprises' top university for the kids? Could she at least assume control of one of the foundations (FAIR?) based on eight months of volunteer experience performed several years back? This should all be included in Glenn's general option package as well as a plate of finger sandwiches.