Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[jpatterson]

Or, you replied before reading the whole post or you wouldn't have said I was still calling it a he said/he said after acknowledging you appeared to be right based on the Arizona articles of incorporation.

You didn't keep reading before replying.

You should really learn your lesson in telling me what I know and don't know and what I think and don't think. You've already been proven wrong once in the last 10 minutes. Bring it down a notch.

Your writing was unclear. Write better.

[honorentheos]

Or, you replied before reading the whole post or you wouldn't have said I was still calling it a he said/he said after acknowledging you appeared to be right based on the Arizona articles of incorporation.

You didn't keep reading before replying.

You should really learn your lesson in telling me what I know and don't know and what I think and don't think. You've already been proven wrong once in the last 10 minutes. Bring it down a notch.

Your writing was unclear. Write better.

Bring what down a notch? I said earlier the board membership was irrelevant to my point. It was. You lumped my statements in with John's. Seems like you have a reading comprehension problem, possibly difficulty in focusing since it appears you don't read threads to completion before replying. Unless your reading level is below that required to comprehend, "Based on the AZ filings you seem to be right that on incorporating she wasn't listed as a board member."

The difference here is apparently I can admit when I was wrong and you...can't.

[jpatterson]

The difference here is apparently I can admit when I was wrong

LOL..."I apologize for arguing against this."

[jpatterson]

I said earlier the board membership was irrelevant to my point. It was. You lumped my statements in with John's.

I couldn't care less what your argument. I really couldn't.

I care what John's argument is: that Rosebud was a founding board member.

Your argument is irrelevant.

[honorentheos]

The difference here is apparently I can admit when I was wrong

LOL..."I apologize for arguing against this."

Ok. What about this statement?

"Non-profits are organizations that are owned by a board of directors, not by any individual."

Stand by that or willing to admit you had it wrong?

[jpatterson]

LOL..."I apologize for arguing against this."

Ok. What about this statement?

"Non-profits are organizations that are owned by a board of directors, not by any individual."

Stand by that or willing to admit you had it wrong?

Had what wrong, exactly?

[honorentheos]

I care what John's argument is: that Rosebud was a founding board member.

Your argument is irrelevant.

For Pete's sake, JP, her membership on the board can't be relevant because it has no bearing on her actual work relationship with John. So it can't have bearing on if John's behavior towards her can be construed as sexual harassment based purely on position.

So if it has no bearing on the question of sexual harassment, what makes it relevant? It shows John is making things up? I don't know that would be true. Certainly not proven. He could be sincere but misremembering. He could be lying. He could be both. But that it is also of questionable relevance to the who Rosebud/John extra-marital affair issue.

You want some kind of justice? Justice for what? For Rosebud leaving Open Stories Foundation after the affair and John staying on? Then how does the question around board membership help make whatever case you feel needs to be made here in the public forum?

[jpatterson]

I care what John's argument is: that Rosebud was a founding board member.

Your argument is irrelevant.

For Pete's sake, JP, her membership on the board can't be relevant because it has no bearing on her actual work relationship with John. So it can't have bearing on if John's behavior towards her can be construed as sexual harassment based purely on position.

So if it has no bearing on the question of sexual harassment, what makes it relevant? It shows John is making things up? I don't know that would be true. Certainly not proven. He could be sincere but misremembering. He could be lying. He could be both. But that it is also of questionable relevance to the who Rosebud/John extra-marital affair issue.

You want some kind of justice? Justice for what? For Rosebud leaving Open Stories Foundation after the affair and John staying on? Then how does the question around board membership help make whatever case you feel needs to be made here in the public forum?

Hold on, let me wait 10 minutes before responding just so you know I read your whole post.

(looks at watch)

[honorentheos]

Ok. What about this statement?

"Non-profits are organizations that are owned by a board of directors, not by any individual."

Stand by that or willing to admit you had it wrong?

Had what wrong, exactly?

Boards don't own non-profits. Board membership doesn't define operational structure or if one holds a compensated position. Board membership is an oversite responsibility unless defined otherwise, and Rosebud's is always shown to have been an uncompensated, unobligated director position.

Frankly, I think the very notion of ownership when it comes to non-profits is misused language. But even when misused it doesn't apply when looking at Rosebud and Open Stories Foundation. Her job, her role in building the vision and executing it weren't tied to a position on the board, nor does her having or not having a position on the board provide insight on her relationship to John Dehlin within Open Stories Foundation as an operation. It only can tell us what her relationship was to the board and its other members in that capacity.

[jpatterson]

For Pete's sake, JP, her membership on the board can't be relevant because it has no bearing on her actual work relationship with John. So it can't have bearing on if John's behavior towards her can be construed as sexual harassment based purely on position.

LOL it's entirely relevant precisely because John uses her board membership as a defense against the "subordinate" charge.

You act as if I'm just making this stuff out of nowhere. I'm addressing John's own statements. Have you not been following?

So if it has no bearing on the question of sexual harassment, what makes it relevant?

Uh. Again, John bringing it up makes it relevant. Full stop.

It shows John is making things up? I don't know that would be true. Certainly not proven. He could be sincere but misremembering. He could be lying. He could be both.

Yeah, I dunno. I haven't said explicitly that he's lying. I'm asking the question. Only he knows what his intent was when he filled out the 990 form falsely/erroneously.

You want some kind of justice? Justice for what? For Rosebud leaving Open Stories Foundation after the affair and John staying on? Then how does the question around board membership help make whatever case you feel needs to be made here in the public forum?

Again (for the fifth time now), it is relevant as to John's defense in claiming Rosebud was not a subordinate. He made that claim (that she was a founding board member) here, repeatedly. That claim has now been proven false.

It's like you're watching a jury trial and you don't think its important or relevant that the defendant just perjured himself. Ho hum.