Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Lem]

So okay, maybe the consensual relationship itself would have been a form of sexual misconduct different from harassment, but the pushing somebody out of a job because of sexual entanglements could legitimately be considered a form of sexual harassment, even if in some ways it wasn't the paradigmatic form of sexual harassment. I don't want to broaden the umbrella too wide but it has to have some width, because few real situations are ever going to conform to an ideal model.

Good point. To me the term in this thread just means harm in the specific sense of involuntary loss of employment (harassment), stemming from an inappropriate sexual encounter, but I shouldn't have been surprised at how triggering the term can be for some. Reading people's responses was very helpful as a way to see how the actions may be mostly decried, but describing it with a term which also includes far worse examples continually requires a more careful delineation of the issue.

Maybe this case is indeed one that not only could be classified as sexual harassment, but should be—as you say, not for the relationship itself (although that was wrong, too) but for the way it was ended.

that's always been my position, but it has been instructive to read Doc's and others explanation of the military approach. The descriptions there seem to focus on the potential for harm, stemming from an imbalance of power. In one sense this position may seem harsh, but to me it is also completely fair in that it assumes nothing about any specific person, if I am reading it correctly, but rather just acknowledges beforehand that the potential entanglements seem almost impossible to fairly adjudicate once the harm occurs. Making the hard and fast rule beforehand seems pretty efficient.

I still find it interesting that the Open Stories Foundation seems to have adapted the far stricter position of simply defining a sexual relationship with a subordinate as harassment, apparently even if consensual, with the superior automatically subject to discipline.

[Dr Exiled]

I still find it interesting that the Open Stories Foundation seems to have adapted the far stricter position of simply defining a sexual relationship with a subordinate as harassment, apparently even if consensual, with the superior automatically subject to discipline.

This might be Dehlin's wife's input? Gotta feel for her. She has gone through a lot here and still keeps on truckin' in the relationship.

[Dr Exiled]

But the really sickening part (beyond the effect this must keep having on, y'know, their actual families) is that the people who claim to care so much about Rosebud seem to be using her to further their agenda of hating J-D, rather than getting her some qualified mental health care.

This pretty much describes Lem. Pretend to care about women while exploiting them.

Take a deep breath, bud. Your hero will survive this. And you have Lem all wrong. She pushed back when everyone was focusing on Rosebud's erratic behavior.

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

In other words, J-D wasn't Rosebud's boss. Rosebud was his boss.

Where did you get this? John Dehlin is on the board too.

The CEO of a non-profit isn't the head of the organization. The CEO is employed by and answers to the board, and (with some limitations if the organization has a contract with the CEO) the board has the power to give directions to and to fire the CEO. The CEO can't fire a board member.

It's pretty meaningless whether they were both on the board. It's normal for the CEO to have a seat on the board, but they would rarely have a voting seat. In large part, because the board is the CEO's boss. Your boss might invite you to a meeting of your superiors because you have important information to present to them, but that doesn't mean you're now on equal footing with those superiors. Same idea.

I really don't think it's a major point one way or the other, but there's a long (and compelling) thread on here to the effect that whether or not sexual harassment occurred is dependent on who was subordinate to whom. If Rosebud was on the board, then, yeah, she had the higher position, and J-D was subordinate to her in terms of the organizational chart.

[consiglieri]

It does appear there are some Rosebud supporters who are taking it to personal-vendetta-against-JD arena. Jpatterson comes to mind. That's not Lem.

Yes lets please not lump Lem in with the idiots like Jpatterson. I disagree with her but Lem actually has thoughtful comments which should be seriously considered.

Could not agree more!!!

[consiglieri]

Where did you get this? John Dehlin is on the board too.

The CEO of a non-profit isn't the head of the organization. The CEO is employed by and answers to the board, and (with some limitations if the organization has a contract with the CEO) the board has the power to give directions to and to fire the CEO. The CEO can't fire a board member.

It's pretty meaningless whether they were both on the board. It's normal for the CEO to have a seat on the board, but they would rarely have a voting seat. In large part, because the board is the CEO's boss. Your boss might invite you to a meeting of your superiors because you have important information to present to them, but that doesn't mean you're now on equal footing with those superiors. Same idea.

I really don't think it's a major point one way or the other, but there's a long (and compelling) thread on here to the effect that whether or not sexual harassment occurred is dependent on who was subordinate to whom. If Rosebud was on the board, then, yeah, she had the higher position, and J-D was subordinate to her in terms of the organizational chart.

I think this helps explain how it was the Open Stories Foundation board required JD to transfer his ownership of Circle the Wagons to Rosebud as part of their attempt to treat Rosebud fairly as she was leaving the Open Stories Foundation.

[pistolero]

But the really sickening part (beyond the effect this must keep having on, y'know, their actual families) is that the people who claim to care so much about Rosebud seem to be using her to further their agenda of hating J-D, rather than getting her some qualified mental health care.

This pretty much describes Lem. Pretend to care about women while exploiting them.

On my venn diagram with Lem on this topic, there isn't a particularly large intersection. Some of her posts frustated me, particularly when I felt things were insinuated that were definately not my intent. But your claim above is simply outrageous. Absolutely outrageous. I actually get the vibe that she genuinely does care, in so far as that is possible online. Therefore, repent my friend, you err.

There are others that more closely match your description.

[Dr Moore]

So, to me, accountability would be John using the exact same platform he has for years used (his podcast) to make blanket denials, and come out and take public accountability for the fact that he has made serious errors in judgement, not only in his professional behavior with Open Stories Foundation, but in seeking to cover up that behavior and blame the Church for trying to smear him.

JPatterson: what specific language do you and Rosebud want to hear from John in order to drop this public shaming exercise?

[consiglieri]

Yes! Mustn’t allow Patterson off so easily!

What does JD need to do to finally lay Rosebud’s grievances to rest?

Specifically!

[MsJack]

So let me get this straight:

(1) John Dehlin had a consensual e̶m̶o̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶ physical non-PiV affair with Rosebud, who was at that time an Open Stories Foundation board member. (B̶y̶ ̶"̶e̶m̶o̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶ ̶a̶f̶f̶a̶i̶r̶"̶ ̶I̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶f̶e̶s̶s̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶l̶o̶v̶e̶,̶ ̶a̶f̶f̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶d̶e̶s̶i̶r̶e̶s̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶s̶e̶x̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶a̶p̶p̶r̶o̶p̶r̶i̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶b̶e̶t̶w̶e̶e̶n̶ ̶m̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶-̶w̶o̶r̶k̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶/̶ ̶f̶r̶i̶e̶n̶d̶s̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶a̶p̶p̶a̶r̶e̶n̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶n̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶c̶r̶o̶s̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶o̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶a̶f̶f̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶/̶ ̶s̶e̶x̶.̶) Both parties were married to other people at the time. They both suck.

(2) R̶o̶s̶e̶b̶u̶d̶ ̶s̶u̶g̶g̶e̶s̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶m̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶p̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶w̶h̶e̶r̶e̶u̶p̶o̶n̶ Dehlin eventually broke things off with her and apparently machinated her termination from Open Stories Foundation. Dehlin sucks.

(3) Rosebud then made delusional, insane threats against Dehlin and Open Stories Foundation and has spent the last decade or so on our forums ineptly carrying out those threats, painting her consensual e̶m̶o̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶ affair with Dehlin as sexual harassment and conveniently neglecting to mention the parts where she actively pursued Dehlin. Rosebud sucks.

Is this an accurate TL;DR?