Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Kishkumen]

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.

Damn the workplace turned out to be much more perilous and brutal than I could have ever imagined. We all take our hits but must persevere.

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.

It was an unhealthy infatuation between two people in a volatile place in their lives. I don't see much love in how both parties conducted themselves. Everything I have read about the psychology of love relationships indicates that these two were not being loving to each other. It went both ways.

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.

Agreed.

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.

That's an interesting hypothetical. I don't know how that works exactly, not that it is utterly impossible. Was her path wide open to an amazing career at Open Stories Foundation? I see a lot of impediments on those paths. If JD did a better job, he did so with a number of distinct advantages, and he still managed to be a pretty big screw up all along the way. Mind you, I don't know that I would have done better than either one of these people in the situation they found themselves, but then I have at least managed to avoid sleeping around and engaging in workplace affairs or anything inappropriate in that way.

I do believe, however, that had Rosebud firmly dumped JD and concentrated on her job at Open Stories Foundation, she might have made it OK. She could have done that. She could have put herself in the driver's seat and told him it was definitively over. Had she come to Joanna Brooks having dumped him and having returned to a focus on her work, Joanna Brooks and the board, I concur, would have backed her over an unprofessionally behaving and emotionally erratic JD. The interesting thing is that she did not do that, something that would have exhibited true moral fiber. Instead she sought to eject Joanna with JD's help. I don't see how that works or how that evinces any real professional or moral integrity. "We didn't do anything wrong. She is power hungry. Let's take her out." That's not really the kind of position that helps you keep a job.

[Analytics]

That's an interesting hypothetical. I don't know how that works exactly, not that it is utterly impossible. Was her path wide open to an amazing career at Open Stories Foundation? I see a lot of impediments on those paths. If JD did a better job, he did so with a number of distinct advantages, and he still managed to be a pretty big screw up all along the way.

I don't know much about Open Stories Foundation and am shooting from the hip here, but my impression is that Open Stories Foundation's success is due to two things. First, it was in the right place at the right time. Second, JD tirelessly and systematically put the content together in terms of recruiting people for interviews, putting together the events, recruiting speakers, building a community, and whatever else it is that Open Stories Foundation does. His consistent work and passion is what pushed it forward and what made him invaluable to the organization's success.

And yes, he was "a pretty big screw up all along the way."

That last point is what makes me think that the luck of being in the right place at the right time was such a big component in this. Rosebud was in the right place at the right time, too. If she would have taken the deal to get back on as a contractor the way JD did, and if she would have worked with the same focus and professionalism (such as it was) that JD subsequently demonstrated, the board would have had her back, and she would have been successful. If JD could pull it off, why couldn't Rosebud?

Perhaps I've read too many Horatio Alger books in my life, but I really believe that.

[Lem]

Lem,

I do think your rephrasing of what consig said did dial the rhetoric up to 11...

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. In my opinion, what consig said-- that if a subordinate had just 'backed off' when their boss and illicit romantic partner decided their affair should end, they could have kept their job-- as though the resulting problem was all the subordinate's doing because they didn't 'behave', had ALREADY dialed it up to eleven.

I was also deeply surprised that the person presenting the podcast would present such an opinion. I admit I don't watch his podcast, but I had always thought of it as presenting facts, or as close to facts as possible, and I read the transcript of this podcast, thinking that. I'm realizing now this was a defense of Dehlin and the Open Stories Foundation boards actions. That's fine, as a response to whatever Kwaku put online, it's just not what I was expecting.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm realizing now this was a defense of Dehlin and the Open Stories Foundation boards actions. That's fine, as a response to whatever Kwaku put online, it's just not what I was expecting.

I think we talked about it further back, in that JD definitely coordinated with MS [edit to fix to ML, Thanks Kish] to massage the narrative. I think, but I’m too lazy to look for it, Consig copped to it, which is totally his prerogative. As someone making comments from the peanut gallery, I have no problem with MS being a homer for JD since the other players vying for the post-Mormon market are willing and able to frame their hot takes any way they want. What I like about this place, and once again kudos to Dr. Shades, is we’re able to have disparate opinions on the matter without some mod with an agenda coming in and banning wrongthink and wrongposts.

Dr. Moore’s post was probably the best, most accurate professional take on the matter I read. Lemmie’s take is probably the most ‘moral bottom line’ observation from a purely power dynamic angle that’s hard to dismiss. Kish’s meta view of the matter does excellent work at the ‘take a step back and look at both sides’ take. All the other posters are making interesting, informative, and thought provoking takes on the subject.

This is why the board is hands down the best Mormon topics forum on the Internet. Everyone has a voice, and you better be prepared to defend your opinion because ain’t no mod here going to save you from yourself.

- Doc

[Lem]

... Was her path wide open to an amazing career at Open Stories Foundation? I see a lot of impediments on those paths. If JD did a better job, he did so with a number of distinct advantages, and he still managed to be a pretty big screw up all along the way. Mind you, I don't know that I would have done better than either one of these people in the situation they found themselves, but then I have at least managed to avoid sleeping around and engaging in workplace affairs or anything inappropriate in that way.

It's funny how the little rules seem to help, right?

I do believe, however, that had Rosebud firmly dumped JD and concentrated on her job at Open Stories Foundation, she might have made it OK. She could have done that. She could have put herself in the driver's seat and told him it was definitively over. Had she come to Joanna Brooks having dumped him and having returned to a focus on her work, Joanna Brooks and the board, I concur, would have backed her over an unprofessionally behaving and emotionally erratic JD. The interesting thing is that she did not do that, something that would have exhibited true moral fiber. Instead she sought to eject Joanna with JD's help. I don't see how that works or how that evinces any real professional or moral integrity. "We didn't do anything wrong. She is power hungry. Let's take her out." That's not really the kind of position that helps you keep a job.

i agree with this. That's why all along, I've tried to define the sexual harassment simply on the actions of a superior and a board that resulted in a subordinate losing their job after an inappropriate relationship with that superior.

Regarding whether Rosebud could have stayed on, I think you earlier mentioned something about how if she didn't lose her job over this, it would have been over something else. I hope I am not putting words in your mouth, but I firmly believe that. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but the course Rosebud has taken definitely does not show, to me at least, a long-term ability to work with such an enterprise. It's a sad and terrible thing to say, but in her interactions here (on the old board) there were definitely some signs of a lack of maturity, even years later. I really pushed to get her to take down her own linking of her professional career with her victimizing sob story, and she pushed back hard and angrily. Eventually, she did switch to making her non-doxxing request, so maybe something got through.

The main reason I am standing up for her, if that is what it seems, is that I really feel even the victims who behave badly, get everyone's goat, and show little moral integrity, don't deserve to be sexually harassed. In this case, pardon the levity, she should have been allowed to keep or lose the job based on her own character and abilities, not on an unfair system.

[Kishkumen]

I don't know much about Open Stories Foundation and am shooting from the hip here, but my impression is that Open Stories Foundation's success is due to two things. First, it was in the right place at the right time. Second, JD tirelessly and systematically put the content together in terms of recruiting people for interviews, putting together the events, recruiting speakers, building a community, and whatever else it is that Open Stories Foundation does. His consistent work and passion is what pushed it forward and what made him invaluable to the organization's success.

Agreed.

And yes, he was "a pretty big screw up all along the way."

In this case, I was specifically referring to this situation with Rosebud.

That last point is what makes me think that the luck of being in the right place at the right time was such a big component in this. Rosebud was in the right place at the right time, too. If she would have taken the deal to get back on as a contractor the way JD did, and if she would have worked with the same focus and professionalism (such as it was) that JD subsequently demonstrated, the board would have had her back, and she would have been successful. If JD could pull it off, why couldn't Rosebud?

Perhaps I've read too many Horatio Alger books in my life, but I really believe that.

I see what you are saying, but I think the tragic truth here is that the same thing that got in her way in the JD situation got in her way professionally. She behaves manipulatively toward JD, dissing his wife and kids, etc., because she does not believe in herself or her lovableness. She assumes that the contractor situation was a bogus offer that never could have turned into anything for much the same reason. She thinks she needs to finesse the situation because she does not trust anyone else. If you don't feel you are worthy of anything, then you will always be on your guard and suspicious when others claim they are looking to help you or offering you an opportunity or gift.

Of course, in this situation, the two had long ago abandoned any real trust, and so it was completely unsurprising when JD removed her online privileges with Open Stories Foundation. Both of them were suspicious and paranoid of the other. It was the moment that JD clearly signaled his break from their compact by resigning that she concluded she had to look out for herself. She gave JD a choice: go with Joanna or go with me. A similar choice to the one she had given him in their relationship: Go with your wife or go with me. It really burned to be rejected a second time. Now John was the enemy. Joanna was the enemy.

[Kishkumen]

I think we talked about it further back, in that JD definitely coordinated with ML to massage the narrative. I think, but I’m too lazy to look for it, Consig copped to it, which is totally his prerogative. As someone making comments from the peanut gallery, I have no problem with ML being a homer for JD since the other players vying for the post-Mormon market are willing and able to frame their hot takes any way they want. What I like about this place, and once again kudos to Dr. Shades, is we’re able to have disparate opinions on the matter without some mod with an agenda coming in and banning wrongthink and wrongposts.

Dr. Moore’s post was probably the best, most accurate professional take on the matter I read. Lemmie’s take is probably the most ‘moral bottom line’ observation from a purely power dynamic angle that’s hard to dismiss. Kish’s meta view of the matter does excellent work at the ‘take a step back and look at both sides’ take. All the other posters are making interesting, informative, and thought provoking takes on the subject.

This is why the board is hands down the best Mormon topics forum on the Internet. Everyone has a voice, and you better be prepared to defend your opinion because ain’t no mod here going to save you from yourself.

- Doc

I don't know what others want, but my understanding is that RFM did his level best to treat the issue in a professional way in accordance with the evidence he had access to. Until RFM came to this, all we had was the impassioned and self-interested views of the various parties, the bulk of which had an agenda to get JD. RFM did not represent JD. He distilled what he thought were the salient points that could be covered in a single-sitting video. RFM deserves a huge amount of gratitude and respect for his ability to do this the way he did. Had JD been running the show, it would have been a huge mess full of irrelevancies and it would have been a full day long at least.

All of us discussing this can do so on these terms because RFM blazed the trail. I am really thankful for his ability to make me look at the evidence in a new light. I could not have done it without his efforts.

We also need to realize that his use of primary documentary evidence is what pushed Rosebud to put together her document dump. He finally got her to release something. And what she released as very useful. Thanks, RFM, for the pressure you put on Rosebud to respond to your documents with hers.

Other than that, I think you are spot on in your assessment of the important contributions of Professors Moore and Lemmie. You have shown your fair share of faculty brilliance too, Dr. Cam. Cassius University is a diverse and rich environment that can sustain bracing disagreements in perspective.

[Kishkumen]

It's funny how the little rules seem to help, right?

Agreed. They are absolutely necessary. They should be in place and enforced consistently. I have seen too many times how fraternization and sexual harassment can spoil a good working environment. A pox be upon them.

i agree with this. That's why all along, I've tried to define the sexual harassment simply on the actions of a superior and a board that resulted in a subordinate losing their job after an inappropriate relationship with that superior.

Yes, I think we are not going to see eye to eye, but you have made your case very forcefully and adeptly. It has been a vital part of the discussion throughout, and I am still wrestling with your persuasive arguments.

Regarding whether Rosebud could have stayed on, I think you earlier mentioned something about how if she didn't lose her job over this, it would have been over something else. I hope I am not putting words in your mouth, but I firmly believe that. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but the course Rosebud has taken definitely does not show, to me at least, a long-term ability to work with such an enterprise. It's a sad and terrible thing to say, but in her interactions here (on the old board) there were definitely some signs of a lack of maturity, even years later. I really pushed to get her to take down her own linking of her professional career with her victimizing sob story, and she pushed back hard and angrily. Eventually, she did switch to making her non-doxxing request, so maybe something got through.

I think we can be hopeful, although I agree that she does not seem to have been in a place in 2011/12 where she could have flourished at Open Stories Foundation. I think that she is a highly intelligent and capable person who could be very successful. The real person behind Rosebud is so much more than what we have been shown in this sad set of circumstances. I am pretty pissed off at JD for pursuing this lady. She was in a very vulnerable place as someone who was struggling in a marriage to a neuroatypical person. I have seen those marriages and they can be both difficult and draining. If you want to see something absolutely heartbreaking, go watch her videos on YouTube in which she discusses, for the benefit of others, the challenges of that kind of relationship. Then imagine how tempting it would have been for her to experience what appeared on the surface to be a more typical kind of relationship.

The main reason I am standing up for her, if that is what it seems, is that I really feel even the victims who behave badly, get everyone's goat, and show little moral integrity, don't deserve to be sexually harassed. In this case, pardon the levity, she should have been allowed to keep or lose the job based on her own character and abilities, not on an unfair system.

I can agree with her being allowed to keep or lose her job based on her own character and abilities. That said, if my preferred policies had been in place and followed: 1) she might not have been hired, or 2) she and John would have been fired for engaging in a relationship. When I look at the evidence, I see grounds for terminating both parties under my preferred policy regime.

[consiglieri]

Lem,

I do think your rephrasing of what consig said did dial the rhetoric up to 11...

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. In my opinion, what consig said-- that if a subordinate had just 'backed off' when their boss and illicit romantic partner decided their affair should end, they could have kept their job-- as though the resulting problem was all the subordinate's doing because they didn't 'behave', had ALREADY dialed it up to eleven.

I was also deeply surprised that the person presenting the podcast would present such an opinion. I admit I don't watch his podcast, but I had always thought of it as presenting facts, or as close to facts as possible, and I read the transcript of this podcast, thinking that. I'm realizing now this was a defense of Dehlin and the Open Stories Foundation boards actions. That's fine, as a response to whatever Kwaku put online, it's just not what I was expecting.

I have opinions about lots of things.

I try to base those opinions on evidence and reasonable deductions from that evidence.

I don’t always get it right and make no claims to infallibility.

My goal in this podcast was to not insinuate my opinions into the presentation.

In other words, the evidence I presented is the evidence, regardless of what my opinion is of the evidence.

All in all, I think I did a pretty good job.

I don’t think my having an (undisclosed) opinion about the evidence prohibits me from presenting the evidence.

Nor does my having an opinion about the evidence change the nature of the evidence itself.

You, and others, were able to come to a different opinion based on the same evidence.

That is because reasonable minds can differ. And that is all to the good I think.

[Kishkumen]

I have opinions about lots of things.

I try to base those opinions on evidence and reasonable deductions from that evidence.

I don’t always get it right and make no claims to infallibility.

My goal in this podcast was to not insinuate my opinions into the presentation.

In other words, the evidence I presented is the evidence, regardless of what my opinion is of the evidence.

All in all, I think I did a pretty good job.

I don’t think my having an (undisclosed) opinion about the evidence prohibits me from presenting the evidence.

Nor does my having an opinion about the evidence change the nature of the evidence itself.

You, and others, were able to come to a different opinion based on the same evidence.

That is because reasonable minds can differ. And that is all to the good I think.

We all owe you a debt of gratitude, consiglieri. I am repeatedly struck by the difficulty that non-attorneys have understanding the methods and ethics of being a good attorney. You represent the best of legal methods and ethics in the way you present the evidence in your ML video with Bill Reel. Even the most brilliant people sometimes do not understand how that works. It is challenging for non-attorneys to get it. I know I have to be reminded regularly by my legal scholar spouse, who is both far more intelligent and more rational than I am. I must be continually reminded that the law and lawyers do not work in the way I often wrongly assume.