Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Kishkumen]

Thank you for that thoughtful and enlightening analysis, SaturdaysVoyeur. Your contributions to this thread are very valuable and help me understand the relationship in a new way.

[consiglieri]

The whole idea of retroactively revoking consent is highly problematic from a legal standpoint.

For instance, a suspect may consent to search of her residence by police if police do not have a warrant. And even if police have insufficient evidence to obtain a search warrant.

But should the suspect not like the fact police found incriminating evidence in the course of the search, it is unavailing to argue for a retroactive withdrawal of consent so as to make the search unlawful.

How could police function in a landscape where consent can be revoked after the fact?

How could society function, based as it is so much on contracts and agreements?

And more to the point, how can anyone rely on consent to have sexual contact with another when that consent can be retroactively revoked after the act itself is completed?

Is this really the kind of world we want to live in?

Where civil and criminal liability can attach, not on what was reasonably related at the time of the event, but whether a consenting party has second thoughts thereafter?

[drumdude]

I'll play devil's advocate on this one - I don't think Rosebud has said she retroactively pulled consent. Instead, since they were in a semi-on semi-off relationship, there were windows of consent. Just because they had sex one night does not give John the right to walk into her room against her wishes and grope her the next.

The window opened when she was receptive, and they had whatever sexual interactions they had, and then it closed again IF she expressed what she says she did - that she didn't want John to come into her room.

That's a big IF. I don't think anywhere in all the documents does Rosebud ever tell John to stop coming into her room at night. She only has that hotel receipt as an attempt at evidence. So we just have to take her word for it that John groped her without consent, and given that she's lied in the past it's very hard to believe her.

[consiglieri]

I agree that such consent for sexual egress may be subsequent revoked, but it must be revoked prior to the act complained of.

And because consent had been given previously, I think it reasonable to place upon the complaining party the burden of proving the revocation of consent.

[Kishkumen]

That's a pretty compelling argument, consiglieri, although I will note that these days most are understandably inclined to take a woman's word when she has claimed that she revoked consent at some point. The damning thing here is that we have no evidence (that I recall) of her revoking consent during their relationship, and the first hint about revoked consent comes in a communication in which she threatens a premeditatedly fabricated charge of sexual harassment against Dehlin. This is the first real indication that she was going to say that she revoked consent, and unfortunately it is clear that she is threatening to lie about having done so.

I welcome correction from those who know the case better than I do.

[dastardly stem]

So is she saying the relationship was not consensual? I thought she said it was--didn't even think that was part of the issue.

When John said their relationship was an agreement that he gets what he wants and she has to leave her work if ever he feels unfulfilled (or as he put it, the relationship harms my family or the foundation) the issue was settled to me. I'm not really sure what we're talking about anymore...but I haven't followed it for a good 20 pages...I also can't recall what was being alleged in the video that Kwaku and friends put out. I thought it was sexual harassment. And it seems there was something of the sort, if not actual sexual harassment. Granted as posters have complained about how she's been at this 10 years and that she has no credibility, I'm tuned out. I mean i agree, I hope she just moves on and leaves this event from a decade ago in the past, for her sake. That she doesn't seem intent on doing that, is troubling and only explains her problems more. But going back to the allegations it looks like there's something there. And I say that without any desire to hurt Dehlin or his work. I mean, it was alleged, I looked at the pertinent information, and it looks like there is some grounds to justify the complaints (Whether Rosebud or her partners ever fully articulated what the problem was doesn't really matter at this point).

[Kishkumen]

Hey, stem. I don’t think it is at all clear how that promise came about. John’s clumsy way of putting it made it seem like he was the originator of this promise, but other evidence suggested she may have made spontaneous and voluntary promises not to be a cause of harm to John or Open Stories Foundation. I note that a lot of their communication looks like cooperation between lovers and then soon-to-be-amicably-former lovers up to the point that John chose to resign.

In the past sexual harassment implied lack of consent or an inability to consent based on a power differential. Rosebud used to lean on the lack of consent but now thanks to our discussion may lean on the inability to consent as argued by Lem. I don’t think the board has reached a consensus on her ability to consent, partly because she consented from the time before she joined Open Stories Foundation as an employee and apparently continued to consent as the affair was dissolving, only starting to claim she did not consent some time after her initial departure from Open Stories Foundation.

[Kishkumen]

To be fair to the other side of the argument, one might claim that employment under the terms she entered Open Stories Foundation constitutes a structural inability to consent, but she did consent to enter employment on those terms. This seems to me to be a real catch-22.

[pistolero]

I'm not really sure what we're talking about anymore... I'm tuned out.

Don't give up now, we're less than 12 pages away from reaching the goal.

[pistolero]

I'm not really sure what we're talking about anymore...

It would really help if someone here could lay the evidence out chronologically and commentate on all aspects so that I can figure out what is going.

Can someone create a wiki with all of the documents, then people are free to comment and contextualise all evidence.

I know it sounds lazy, but nobody that has posted here for the previous 188 pages can claim they haven't got enough free time.

Did anyone back up RBs document dump?