Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[jpatterson]

Maybe we should ask James Patterson to bring back her response?

Except we are still waiting on Mr. Patterson to inform us what Rosebud says John Dehlin can say or do to put this whole affair behind her...

This is an infantile argument and I grew tired of it pages ago.

Nowhere have I suggested that I speak for Rosebud. True, I have attempted to put myself in her shoes within the context of this discussion thread, but I have never presumed to know her every thought and desire, have never appointed myself her spokesperson and have never suggested that I act in any way as her mouthpiece. That's simply a nice trope you and your friends here have built up to tear down the many arguments I have brought here that have, over the course of almost 200 pages, now become adopted by those more eloquent than me.

For example, I was talking about the role consent plays in this controversy a hundred pages ago. I was making the point of power imbalances a week ago. I'm grateful that Lem and Esme and SatrudaysVoeyeur and others have been able to come and make my points in a more salient way than I have (I'll never be able to argue from a point of dispassion about this subject...unlike you I am able to admit as such).

Defending someone's position is not the same as speaking for them. The problem is that I know you know this. And I know that you know it's no one's job to tell John Dehlin what the right thing to do here is. I know that you're not arguing the above point in good faith.




Also, just an aside to say I very much appreciate SaturdaysVoyeur's contributions to the thread over the last few pages and have taken her/his words to heart, especially as it relates to my perceived role in further victimizing and/or taking advantage of Rosebud. I know my intent, and I know my actions and I will just say that there have been a lot of assumptions over the course of this thread (which I have neither the time or energy to rebut) that have now become accepted as fact. I know they are not fact, and my job is not to convince anyone that they are not.

[consiglieri]

Deflection

[drumdude]

I looked up the Schrodinger's rapist idea.


I think Rosebud is Schrodinger's victim. Forever in a superposition of victim and liar. None of us except Rosebud and JD know the truth, and all we can do is watch the quantum strangeness and eat our popcorn.

[jpatterson]

I looked up the Schrodinger's rapist idea.


I think Rosebud is Schrodinger's victim. Forever in a superposition of victim and liar. None of us except Rosebud and John Dehlin know the truth, and all we can do is watch the quantum strangeness and eat our popcorn.

This post is a microcosm of why this thread persists.

Because your takeaway after all these pages is that it's all about Rosebud being a victim/liar and nothing about JD being a victim/liar. You could make the very same argument above about JD, and yet you don't. I continue to wonder why that is.

[drumdude]

I looked up the Schrodinger's rapist idea.


I think Rosebud is Schrodinger's victim. Forever in a superposition of victim and liar. None of us except Rosebud and John Dehlin know the truth, and all we can do is watch the quantum strangeness and eat our popcorn.

This post is a microcosm of why this thread persists.

Because your takeaway after all these pages is that it's all about Rosebud being a victim/liar and nothing about John Dehlin being a victim/liar. You could make the very same argument above about John Dehlin, and yet you don't. I continue to wonder why that is.

I agree with you, he's a victim of the false sexual harrasment quid-pro-quo claims Rosebud made, and also a liar about his taxes and not violating the fraternization policy Open Stories Foundation has now.

in my opinion the false quid-pro-quo claims are the more serious offense, akin to false rape allegations. That's, after all, what these rosebud threads have been all about for the last 8 years.

[consiglieri]

While you’re wondering, J. Patterson, would you please tell us what JD can do to put this whole affair to bed?

Thanks in advance.

[jpatterson]

While you’re wondering, J. Patterson, would you please tell us what John Dehlin can do to put this whole affair to bed?

Thanks in advance.

This is an infantile argument and I grew tired of it pages ago.

Nowhere have I suggested that I speak for Rosebud. True, I have attempted to put myself in her shoes within the context of this discussion thread, but I have never presumed to know her every thought and desire, have never appointed myself her spokesperson and have never suggested that I act in any way as her mouthpiece. That's simply a nice trope you and your friends here have built up to tear down the many arguments I have brought here that have, over the course of almost 200 pages, now become adopted by those more eloquent than me.

Defending someone's position is not the same as speaking for them. The problem is that I know you know this. And I know that you know it's no one's job to tell John Dehlin what the right thing to do here is. I know that you're not arguing the above point in good faith.

[jpatterson]

in my opinion the false quid-pro-quo claims are the more serious offense, akin to false rape allegations. That's, after all, what these rosebud threads have been all about for the last 8 years.

The existence of false quid-pro-quo claims are your opinion as well.

[drumdude]

I told John I wouldn't continue any sexual relationship with him (August 9)
John emailed me and told me I'd have to leave Open Stories Foundation (Aug 10)
John changed my passwords (Aug 11)
John informed Joanna Brooks he was in love with me and couldn't work with me (Aug 11)
I reported to Joanna the details of our relationship (Aug 22)
John banned me from the online communities I had created (Aug 23)
Joanna asked us both to resign (Aug 25)
I told Joanna no (Aug 27)
I got a letter from a lawyer firing me (Aug 31)
Joanna tells the board in passing, in an email, that I'd been fired. Doesn't say why. Oh and by the way, John's being re-hired, please approve his application (Sep 4)
Natasha responds, saying (paraphrase) "I have no clue what's going on, serious decisions are being made without the board's approval" (Sep 6)

You copied and pasted verbatim what she sent you (it's still in her first person voice) so she's quite capable of telling us, through you, what John needs to say to end this.

[drumdude]

in my opinion the false quid-pro-quo claims are the more serious offense, akin to false rape allegations. That's, after all, what these rosebud threads have been all about for the last 8 years.

The existence of false quid-pro-quo claims are your opinion as well.

It's there in black and white.

"I repeatedly told him that I wanted to discontinue the sexual aspect of our relationship" (Aug 9, the day she said she wanted to have sex). "He attempted to continue a sexual relationship" (Lie, he refused sex with her). "The next day he emailed me that I would have to leave the organization."

That's why she withdrew the complaint when he showed proof there was no quid-pro-quo.