Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Lem]

I agree, that's why I put little reliance on her words interpreting things, but have instead leaned toward what I consider a more objective interpretation of actual events.

A superior and a subordinate had an inappropriate sexual affair, which ended in the superior and the Open Stories Foundation board arranging for the subordinate to lose their employment. in my opinion, their actions constitute sexual harassment.

The one who was the subordinate has exhibited very poor behavior since then. The one who was the superior has insisted repeatedly that he has NEVER sexually harassed anyone. Never. Both of those approaches are dishonest and inappropriate, and neither deserves respect.

While I will support any person who claims to be a victim of such behaviour, the perpetrator can ultimately claim innocence until proven otherwise. The onus is on Rosebud to prove JD's guilt, otherwise JD is well within his rights to claim that he has never harassed anyone. There is evidence out there, but I still think we are looking through a glass, darkly.

I understand. And I disagree. The victim doesn't have to prove anything in order to objectively see that a superior had a subordinate fired as a result of an inappropriate sexual relationship. The superior can claim anything he wants, but the events say otherwise.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

While I will support any person who claims to be a victim of such behaviour, the perpetrator can ultimately claim innocence until proven otherwise.

Okaaaaaay. That’s usually how these things go.

The onus is on Rosebud to prove JD's guilt ....

Oof. Big oof.

The only thing Rosebud had to prove was that JD was in a sexual relationship with and that she was employed by Open Stories Foundation. She did both. As Lemmie has pointed out many times that’s kind of a full stop. Open Stories Foundation instituting a sexual harassment policy is a sort of ex post facto tacit admission crap wasn't right.

Rosebud is loopy as crap. She’s a stalker. She demonstrates poor judgement. She’s delusional. She herself is a harasser. She’s a schemer. None of that changes the fact that John Dehlin demonstrated incredibly poor judgement on multiple fronts, and was her superior while both were “employees” of the Open Stories Foundation. Period. He literally sexually harassed a subordinate. There was no equality there, and there never was despite Rosebud’s delusions. He also deliberately released a very selective amount of information via ML to do as much damage to Rosebud’s persona and claims as possible. While successful in its aims, it’s just a smokescreen for what really happen:

He screwed around with a subordinate.

Period.

Full stop.

- Doc

[pistolero]

The only thing Rosebud had to prove was that John Dehlin was in a sexual relationship with and that she was employed by Open Stories Foundation. She did both. As Lemmie has pointed out many times that’s kind of a full stop.

A selective document dump (from both sides), while extremely convincing is most definitely not a full stop. The full stop that you mention requires due process, otherwise JD is most definitely allowed to claim, however outrageous, that he is innocent of the allegations.

Again, I fully recognise the high likelihood that something did happen has you outline, but surely the internet cannot be allowed to be judge, jury and executioner until a due process has been followed, and instead of JD hiding behind whomever, he is given the chance to respond directly to the allegations. If there is not formal accusation and no specific rebuttal, then of course we are free to bandy around innuendo, under pseudonyms, all we like. But he can still make his outrageous claims. That's all I'm saying.

Open Stories Foundation instituting a sexual harassment policy is a sort of ex post facto tacit admission Crap wasn't right.

Still doesn't make JD automatically guilty.


If you want to libel or slander JD and say he is X, Y and Z, then that's fine, as KK reminds us, truth is a defence. With these two, I am unable to arrive at that point with any large degree of certainty.


One unrelated question, does anybody know if JD is on this board? Is there a possibility that he's participating in this very topic?

[mormonstories]

He screwed around with a subordinate.

Period.

Full stop.

- Doc

Doc and Lem,

This is John.

How is it “that simple” if we were both board members from the beginning? Of course it was terrible judgement on both our parts. And of course I had more influence, as I had been doing Mormon Stories for 6 years previous. And of course extramarital affairs are bad. And of course co-workers should not get romantically involved.

But we were both board members from the beginning, and the only two employees. Rosebud even acknowledged this. She wasn’t my subordinate. We both worked for the board. And Rosebud worked directly with Joanna.

Messy? Yes. Dumb? Absolutely.

But a “simple” boss/subordinate role? That’s just not accurate.

We were both founding board members. And Rosebud was a FOUNDING board member BEFORE she came to work part time.

That has to be factored in to the equation.

None of this makes it all less dumb. But it does make it less simple. At least to those who were there.

And once I reported the relationship to Joanna, we were both asked to step down from the board. And Joanna and Natasha and the board handled it independently from there. I was as cut off from the board as Rosebud was. That also has to be factored in. I did not want to resign. But I did it because the board asked me to. And once I did, I was 100% subjected to the power and decisions of the board, which was independent of me in the same way it was independent of Rosebud by that point.

If Rosebud had signed back up as a podcaster, she would have been able to start a podcast back in 2012, and could have become wildly successful. But she chose not to. That was how the board tried to make it all equal. She declined. So she got Circling the Wagons as the settlement. Again, that was the board’s decision. I did not want to give CTW away.

What would a fair resolution have been, stopping short of terminating Mormon Stories Podcast, that also would keep Rosebud and I from working together any more, as that would have been unworkable for our respective families?

I’d love to hear.

I think Joanna and the board did the best they could to make it all equal and fair. Without ending Mormon Stories of course.

[dastardly stem]

He screwed around with a subordinate.

Period.

Full stop.

- Doc

Doc,

This is John.

How is it “that simple” if we were both board members from the beginning? Of course it was terrible judgement on both our parts. And of course I had more influence, as I had been doing Mormon Stories for 6 years previous. And of course extramarital affairs are bad. And of course co-workers should get romantically involved.

But we were both board members from the beginning, and the only two employees. Rosebud even acknowledged this. She wasn’t my subordinate. We both worked for the board.

Messy? Yes. Dumb? Absolutely.

But a “simple” boss/subordinate role? That’s just not accurate.

We were both founding board members. And Rosebud was a FOUNDING board member BEFORE she came to work part time.

That has to be factored in to the equation.

Absolutely a ton of respect for chiming in here, John.

Not to pile on or make this a federal case, as they say, because this was nearly a decade ago. So acknowledging that...

1. It seemed to me the relationship was in development when she was a volunteer and she was brought on as an employee, I'm supposing, due to her work/accomplishments as a volunteer. You were already running things before the board was compiled and all of that. I can't see how this does not suggest you were in the lead role.

2. If you were on equal footing why was it you had asked her to leave the foundation?

3. If you were on equal footing how did you lock her out, or so it seemed, in August before the termination? It seems she was locked out of the arena that was her side of the work sometime before the "resign or be terminated" time had been reached. Or is this a mistaken conclusion based on trying to piece this together with what has been made available?

No doubt, you know what happened far more than any of us, and we're drawing conclusions based on the snippets of texts, emails, etc. And it seems clear, by the time this came to a head, it wasn't going to end well.

[Physics Guy]

I have nothing to say about this particular case, which I haven't been following. I only check in on this thread now and then because I have friends and family with military connections, and this kind of stuff in the military is on the front burner right now.

As a technical question, is it really harassment, strictly speaking, for a superior to have an intimate relationship with a subordinate which is eagerly welcomed?

I'm not asking whether that would be okay. I'd definitely still call it sexual misconduct. I can imagine scenarios in which it would be more damaging both to the subordinate and to the organisation than having, say, a cat-calling janitor in the building who makes flagrant lewd suggestions all the time. A guy like that would be a harasser and no-one should have to put up with him, but at least he could be ignored as a powerless old loon. The boss couldn't be. For the boss to be intimately involved with a subordinate creates all kinds of immediate and potential problems, contrary to the boss's responsibilities to subordinates and to the organisation as a whole.

I also realise that a lot of things can very well constitute harassment even though they might somehow be "nice", like giving roses. I'm still wondering whether "harassment" is really accurately expressing what's wrong with a fully consensual relationship. If it's not, then it might be better to be more precise about the nature of misconduct at issue.

I admit I'm not sure what else to call it, if it isn't quite "harassment". "Misconduct" sounds vague and maybe not serious enough, though perhaps the very vagueness could be ominous. "Fraternization" sounds really old-fashioned, and more like having a beer with the workers. In military cases vague charges like "conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline" can carry substantial punishments, so finding a pithy name isn't so crucial, but in civilian contexts an appropriate term might be good to have.

Maybe the modern meaning of "harassment" is broad enough to cover even completely consensual relationships. I just want to ask to be sure: is it really?

[mormonstories]

Doc,

This is John.

How is it “that simple” if we were both board members from the beginning? Of course it was terrible judgement on both our parts. And of course I had more influence, as I had been doing Mormon Stories for 6 years previous. And of course extramarital affairs are bad. And of course co-workers should get romantically involved.

But we were both board members from the beginning, and the only two employees. Rosebud even acknowledged this. She wasn’t my subordinate. We both worked for the board.

Messy? Yes. Dumb? Absolutely.

But a “simple” boss/subordinate role? That’s just not accurate.

We were both founding board members. And Rosebud was a FOUNDING board member BEFORE she came to work part time.

That has to be factored in to the equation.

Absolutely a ton of respect for chiming in here, John.

Not to pile on or make this a federal case, as they say, because this was nearly a decade ago. So acknowledging that...

1. It seemed to me the relationship was in development when she was a volunteer and she was brought on as an employee, I'm supposing, due to her work/accomplishments as a volunteer. You were already running things before the board was compiled and all of that. I can't see how this does not suggest you were in the lead role.

2. If you were on equal footing why was it you had asked her to leave the foundation?

3. If you were on equal footing how did you lock her out, or so it seemed, in August before the termination? It seems she was locked out of the arena that was her side of the work sometime before the "resign or be terminated" time had been reached. Or is this a mistaken conclusion based on trying to piece this together with what has been made available?

No doubt, you know what happened far more than any of us, and we're drawing conclusions based on the snippets of texts, emails, etc. And it seems clear, by the time this came to a head, it wasn't going to end well.

1) I’m not saying I didn’t have the most power or influence. I’m only saying that Rosebud was a founding board member. And she did have more power and influence than a mere employee. And she was a board member before she became an employee. And she was a board member while she was an employee. So all I’m saying is that she had more power and responsibility than a simple employee.

2) Rosebud made multiple personal promises to me from the very start and throughout to “go away” if our relationship ever got to the point where it was hurting me or the Open Stories Foundation. This was a personal agreement we had made, which she agreed to prior to joining the board or coming on as an employee. I was only asking her to keep her promise. Frankly, I was stunned when she refused. I honestly thought I could trust her. But that was a personal plea.

After Rosebud propositioned me for sex, but before I brought this up to Joanna, I tried to split things up with Rosebud where she would take the events and community, and I would take the podcast. And we would no longer work together. In the Open Stories Foundation response to the NH complain an email is provided that shows this. Rosebud refused this option because she wanted to keep working with me. She actually wanted me to have sex with her and leave Margi. But I did not want that, and I made this clear to her from the beginning. But I didn’t want to leave her with nothing. So this was the best solution I could come up with. But she declined because she didn’t want to let me go.

3) I only locked Rosebud out of the groups after she kept making unwanted sexual advances toward me and then turned and claimed that I was sexually harassing her. That’s when I knew she was lying to me and the board and could wreak havoc in the communities. I would never have done this if Rosebud hadn’t made false and reckless claims of sexual harassment when she was the one at the end who was sexually harassing me, after I asked her to stop.

I don’t blame her for getting upset. And I take responsibility for my part in the relationship. But her claiming that I was harassing her when she was clearly harassing me was the moment I had to cut all ties.

Her New Hampshire claim makes it super clear. She lied in reckless ways, and accused me of harassing her when she was the aggressor.

Don’t believe me. Just look at the evidence.

As I valued Mormon Stories Podcast, and as she promised me from the start to leave if it ever got messy, I didn’t know what else to do to prevent her from ruining everything.

[Moksha]

It just means he and the Open Stories Foundation board got away with it.

One of the things that frustrates me most about this megatopic[1] is that I feel like I'm defending John Dehlin a lot more than I really want to.

Stick around if Discuss Mormonism need to be defended against any defamation charges by Open Stories Foundation.

[Kukulkan]

One of the things that frustrates me most about this megatopic[1] is that I feel like I'm defending John Dehlin a lot more than I really want to.

Stick around if Discuss Mormonism need to be defended against any defamation charges by Open Stories Foundation.

[pistolero]

Absolutely a ton of respect for chiming in here, John.

Seconded.

The epicness of this topic is about to reach new levels of epicness. I suspect you will now be getting a deluge of cross examinations.

One unrelated question, does anybody know if John Dehlin is on this board? Is there a possibility that he's participating in this very topic?

I'm claiming all the glory for JD's arrival. Hi5s all around.

But we were both board members from the beginning, and the only two employees. Rosebud even acknowledged this. She wasn’t my subordinate. We both worked for the board. And Rosebud worked directly with Joanna.

JD, thanks for this new light and knowledge. Well at least it is new to me. Like I've maintained the whole time, there are details here that have been assumed by many. I appreciate you providing this new information that can be considered.

JD, one final note, no matter what criticisms that people make, well done with the podcast, you've made it a fantastic success. I'm not really a listener, the odd episode, but I enjoy RFM more, but kudos for bigging him up in your episodes, I'd have never have found him otherwise - I appreciate the abundance mentality that you have in the post-mo podcasting space.