Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[honorentheos]

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?

Yes. In this not applicable situation, the middle manager engages in sexual harassment as soon as he directs his subordinate in any way at work because once there is a relationship that can be affected the relationship becomes a point of leverage and a consideration in her workplace actions. When she's up for promotion, her coworkers will wonder if she gets promoted for merit or because she's sleeping with her manager. If she doesn't get promoted is it to protect his position? When she disagrees with him outside of work, any task she is given at work could be questioned as retaliatory.

But John and Anne weren't in a manager/employee role. They were working together to combine the podcasting and ex-mo organizing into a sustainable NFP model. They engaged in an affair, which by itself was destructive. Either it exploded their families or their own relationship imploded, likely both.

You can't overlay their situation of two onto a corporate org chart and try to figure things out.

[Kishkumen]

180 pages later, it is now asserted that John Dehlin 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 John Dehlin are considered equals.

Yeah. Someone with a lot of business experience examined their business and provided insight into it. This started with me asking Dr. Moore why there was a 15-employee threshold. He looked into it and got back to us. What he said made a lot of sense, particularly given the factors involved here, which included fundamental questions in play about the power and function of the board and the services the company would provide. Both things JD and Rosebud strongly disagreed on.

[Kishkumen]

I have stated all along that I think both John Dehlin'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.

It looks to me like Joanna acted as though both parties had violated a (then non-existent) policy against fraternization. Both parties are asked to resign. Both are terminated. One reapplies for employment as an independent contractor. The other refuses to cooperate in any way.

[pistolero]

It's interesting how the thread has evolved.

This thread started with the position that John Dehlin 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 John Dehlin 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 John Dehlin are considered equals.

Not wanting to put words into your mouth, but so I understand why you think the above: Do you believe that the changing perception is due to the forensic analysis and judgement of this board arriving at these conclusions given the changing evidence? Or is it motivated by a need of some to prove JD's innocence and hence the narrative is continuously moved along to a new topic when his guilt is established on a specific point?

[drumdude]

Under both of your scenarios, the subordinate is still being sexually harassed by one or more people in the company.

So let's assume it was Joanna doing the firing then. It just seems so odd to call her actions sexual harassment. To lump her in with the same men who force women to have sex with them for promotions.

I think part of the problem here is we lump in such a huge spectrum of actions under the same umbrella. Everything from wrongful termination to rape is forced into one box labeled "sexual harassment."

[Kishkumen]

Speaking for myself, I came into this looking to find some evidence that would completely change my original opinion, which was formed by dealing with Rosebud on the old board. After finding that the relationship started before she ever started working at Open Stories Foundation, finding that she perjured herself, and that there actually is a good reason why tiny startups don’t have the same employment protections as middle to large companies, I understood why Rosebud relies on vague accusations instead of evidence. Anything else mostly works against her.

[pistolero]

Speaking for myself, I came into this looking to find some evidence that would completely change my original opinion, which was formed by dealing with Rosebud on the old board. After finding that the relationship started before she ever started working at Open Stories Foundation, finding that she perjured herself, and that there actually is a good reason why tiny startups don’t have the same employment protections as middle to large companies, I understood why Rosebud relies on vague accusations instead of evidence. Anything else mostly works against her.

I think I feel roughly the same way. I wasn't on any previous message board. I'd heard about the JD allegations and just assumed, like with many powerful men, that he was likely guilty.

RFM's podcast made me seriously question that assumption which caused me to use google to dig deeper.

I then found this message board and started to read opinions and then the additional details that were posted and then came to the conclusion that Rosebud was extremely unreliable at least.

I'm sure it's because I don't have a vagina, but with Rosebud chaotically shooting in all directions with allegations and little or contrived or confused evidence, I just can't get behind her claims, although at the same time recognising that she could have very well been subject to sexual harassment.

It shouldn't be the case that someone clearly alterated by her experiences, should be automatically disregarded when making a claim such as this, but I feel like my opinion has no where else to go now, unless there is some kind of serious investigation with full cooperation from all parties.

[Lem]

..I'm sure it's because I don't have a vagina, but with Rosebud chaotically shooting in all directions with allegations and little or contrived or confused evidence, I just can't get behind her claims, although at the same time recognising that she could have very well been subject to sexual harassment.

Funny, it wasn't my vagina I used, but rather my brain when I determined that Rosebud's story telling was unreliable and that I would base my decision on objective information.

..I'm sure it's because I don't have a vagina, but...

Do you have any damned idea how damned offensive that statement is? Any at all? Any at ALL????????

What the damned hell. This makes me sick. How can a person be so ridiculously thoughtless.

“F” THE HELL OFF until you can learn to write and think less offensively, asshole. Just “F” the hell off. What the hell.

[Lem]

It's interesting how the thread has evolved.

This thread started with the position that John Dehlin 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 John Dehlin 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 John Dehlin are considered equals.

Not wanting to put words into your mouth, but so I understand why you think the above: Do you believe that the changing perception is due to the forensic analysis and judgement of this board arriving at these conclusions given the changing evidence? Or is it motivated by a need of some to prove JD's innocence and hence the narrative is continuously moved along to a new topic when his guilt is established on a specific point?

Neither. And your second reason is nonsensical.

I'll be happy to discuss it further when you learn to speak to people without making such offensive statements as

..I'm sure it's because I don't have a vagina, but....

[Kishkumen]

Yeah, I would have to disagree with gender being the deciding factor here. If it were, what could we say about DocCam, who (no offense, my dear colleagues) presents as a pretty robustly masculine character? DocCam aligns pretty closely with Lem on the question of JD’s culpability in regards to sexual harassment. I would not assign any gender to Lem’s reasoning without DocCam’s involvement. If anything, most of us disagree on details and have different ideas about how John should act in the present, aside from those times when he is clumsily shooting himself in the foot.

Not seeing a lot of gender in this difference of opinion.