Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[consiglieri]

Lem.

Rosebud has never disputed the accuracy of her 8-9-12 text messages to JD.

In nine years!

That’s because they are accurate.

And she knows it.

When she alleged in her NH complaint that on 8-9-12 JD was pressuring her to make their relationship sexual against her will, that was a lie.

As proven by the text messages she herself sent JD on that very same day showing the exact opposite of what she alleged.

She made her NH complaint under penalty of perjury.

Which means she is not just a liar, she perjured herself and committed a fraud upon the court.

Rosebud has given us every reason to doubt what she says.

[Lem]

Lem.

Rosebud has never disputed the accuracy of her 8-9-12 text messages to JD.

In nine years!

That’s because they are accurate.

And she knows it.

When she alleged in her NH complaint that on 8-9-12 JD was pressuring her to make their relationship sexual against her will, that was a lie.

As proven by the text messages she herself sent JD on that very same day showing the exact opposite of what she alleged.

She made her NH complaint under penalty of perjury.

Which means she is not just a liar, she perjured herself and committed a fraud upon the court.

Rosebud has given us every reason to doubt what she says.

I don't think you read my last post, or even the one before it you responded to. I don't believe Rosebud, and I also don't believe JD. And I was disappointed to find that the text messages that seemed to be presented as evidence in the podcast were transcribed by JD, with no independent verification. They could not be counted on to give a complete portrayal of the messages between the two parties.

This is why, every time, I go back to the objective information. As a result of a sexual relationship between a superior and a subordinate, the subordinate lost their employment. in my opinion, that is sexual harassment.

[honorentheos]

As noted up thread, the question is how applicable it is to describe an organization of two as subordinate/superior in a way that isn't effectively acknowledging of the pair, one had a stronger claim to the venture they were attempting to build compared to the other.

Without dispute, a superior who enters into a relationship with a subordinate cannot avoid sexually harassing the subordinate due to every company-based request or refusal now having implied repercussions on their relationship. And every request/refusal within the relationship having repercussions on their business relationship.

But this wasn't a company of people. It's two people in a venture where interpersonal dynamics are inherent and affect the venture, period. When they organized including the creation of the board, the venture evolved but the interpersonal dynamic between the two actual people constituting the company's leadership as well as work force hadn't advanced beyond that startup stage.

It's not objectively true that a subordinate lost their job. One of the two founding members of the start up was pushed out when the dynamic changed and the board exerted it's oversight role, apparently for the first time. Rosebud appears to have attempted to claim she was the more critical of the two partners, asserting she had the greater claim so John ought to go if he didn't feel he could work with her. It got her fired.

[Dr Moore]

Rosebud and JD were partners. That’s how startups like this are. She had no “job” to lose, only ongoing partnership with her partner.

[Lem]

It's interesting how the thread has evolved.

This thread started with the position that JD had the right to have the Board of his Open Stories Foundation fire Rosebud, because he was the one with a six year history of podcasting and he was unequivocally the face of MormonStories, while she was only an 8 month volunteer recently turned employee. The Open Stories Foundation belonged to him and he wanted her gone. She should have stopped when he told her to stop, as the podcaster stated.

Somewhere in the middle of the thread it was noted that a superior having a relationship with a subordinate which results in a loss of employment for the subordinate can be described as a form of sexual harassment, as well as many other problematic issues regarding imbalance of power, the definition of harassment as harm, and the potential for harm when a superior has a relationship, even a consensual one, with a subordinate.

180 pages later, it is now asserted that JD and Rosebud were equal partners in a start-up in which there was technically no employment. In other words, no superior, no subordinate, no loss of employment, no harm, no foul. Just an inappropriate sexual relationship with no imbalance of power. Therefore, no sexual harassment. I'm sure Rosebud, at least, will appreciate that she and JD are considered equals.

[drumdude]

Both sides have been quickly moving the goalposts in response to all this evidence. We've had 8 years with zero evidence, only a few weeks to look at it now. A started by claiming she suffered human rights abuse when John pressured her for sex to keep her job. Now she has James talking about John's taxes instead.

I don't think it's been settled yet, the exact business relationship between A and John. None of the board members appear to have been pressured by John to fire A, it seems they were inclined to make that decision completely on their own. So James and A have to make arguments like "If a reapplied, she would have been denied." or "It's obvious John was the defacto leader pulling the strings on the board" or "a didn't do X because she assumed the board would do Y."

There's a ton of assumptions about motivations and potential actions that A made, but those are nothing more than assertions without hard evidence.

[Lem]

Both sides have been quickly moving the goalposts in response to all this evidence. We've had 8 years with zero evidence, only a few weeks to look at it now. Anne started by claiming she suffered human rights abuse when John pressured her for sex to keep her job. Now she has James talking about John's taxes instead.

I don't think it's been settled yet, the exact business relationship between Anne and John. None of the board members appear to have been pressured by John to fire Anne, it seems they were inclined to make that decision completely on their own. So James and Anne have to make arguments like "If anne reapplied, she would have been denied." or "It's obvious John was the defacto leader pulling the strings on the board" or "anne didn't do X because she assumed the board would do Y."

There's a ton of assumptions about motivations and potential actions that Anne made, but those are nothing more than assertions without hard evidence.

I agree many assumptions are being made. The hard evidence is that a superior had a sexual relationship with a subordinate, with the result that the subordinate lost their employment, as facilitated by the Board of Open Stories Foundation, and in line with the superior's wishes. Once the assumptions are removed, it's clear what is left.

[drumdude]

Both sides have been quickly moving the goalposts in response to all this evidence. We've had 8 years with zero evidence, only a few weeks to look at it now. A started by claiming she suffered human rights abuse when John pressured her for sex to keep her job. Now she has James talking about John's taxes instead.

I don't think it's been settled yet, the exact business relationship between A and John. None of the board members appear to have been pressured by John to fire A, it seems they were inclined to make that decision completely on their own. So James and A have to make arguments like "If a reapplied, she would have been denied." or "It's obvious John was the defacto leader pulling the strings on the board" or "a didn't do X because she assumed the board would do Y."

There's a ton of assumptions about motivations and potential actions that A made, but those are nothing more than assertions without hard evidence.

I agree many assumptions are being made. The hard evidence is that a superior had a sexual relationship with a subordinate, with the result that the subordinate lost their employment, as facilitated by the Board of Open Stories Foundation, and in line with the superior's wishes. Once the assumptions are removed, it's clear what is left.

in my opinion there needs to be evidence that John's actions directly affected the Board's decision to fire her.

Let's use an example where John is the middle manager. John enters into a relationship with his subordinate, but John is a middle manager and does not have the power to fire her. There are two scenarios if A is fired: John persuaded his boss to fire her, or John did not persuade his boss to fire her. The boss is the one who fired A.

Are you saying that in both cases, even if John did not persuade his boss to fire her, it is sexual harassment?

[honorentheos]

180 pages later, it is now asserted that JD and Rosebud were equal partners in a start-up in which there was technically no employment.

No, it's not that they were equals. It's that a company of two isn't a situation where superior/subordinate can apply in the sense it does in a company with multiple employees. All it can mean in this case is one member has a stronger claim to the property than the other. Rosebud attempted to make the case she had the stronger claim, arguing the in-person community services she organized were the essential service. Turned out when push came to shove, she was wrong about that.

[Lem]

I agree many assumptions are being made. The hard evidence is that a superior had a sexual relationship with a subordinate, with the result that the subordinate lost their employment, as facilitated by the Board of Open Stories Foundation, and in line with the superior's wishes. Once the assumptions are removed, it's clear what is left.

in my opinion there needs to be evidence that John's actions directly affected the Board's decision to fire her.

Let's use an example where John is the middle manager. John enters into a relationship with his subordinate, but John is a middle manager and does not have the power to fire her. There are two scenarios if Anne is fired: John persuaded his boss to fire her, or John did not persuade his boss to fire her. The boss is the one who fired Anne.

Are you saying that in both cases, even if John did not persuade his boss to fire her, it is sexual harassment?

I have stated all along that I think both JD's and the board's behavior constituted sexual harassment. Under both of your scenarios, the subordinate is still being sexually harassed by one or more people in the company.