Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[jpatterson]

Mayan Elephant's in real life name was exposed by patterson?

ME's in real life name was exposed by ME pages ago if you'll recall. But I still redacted it in the doc I posted, because it was the right thing to do.

[Jersey Girl]

So let your conscience be your guide, Pinocchio.

LOL, touché.

See. You like me now, right? It always helps to be a person like me who doesn't really give a damn about anyone involved in these kinds of threads.

[Jersey Girl]

I'll happily comply with whatever ruling Dr. Shades arrives at.

My ruling is this: In the spirit and letter of Universal Rule #7, please delete anything that contains any real-life information regarding any poster at this site, especially his or her real name or any part or portion thereof.

Fabulous.

[Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR NOTE: jpatterson, you did the right thing. Thank you. Sometimes it's best to simply ask yourself what the right thing to do is, then do it, even if one doesn't understand why (you know, sort of like when you tell your kids to not do something, but they question you about it). "Because it upsets multiple people" is a perfectly legitimate reason to not do something, because we all must live in this world together.

Thranduil and Mayan Elephant: IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR YOU TO LEAVE THE BOARD. Leaving the board should / must NEVER be a term of ANY negotiation. EVERYONE is welcome, as is EVERY opinion.]

[Mayan Elephant]

[MODERATOR NOTE: jpatterson, you did the right thing. Thank you. Sometimes it's best to simply ask yourself what the right thing to do is, then do it, even if one doesn't understand why (you know, sort of like when you tell your kids to not do something, but they question you about it). "Because it upsets multiple people" is a perfectly legitimate reason to not do something, because we all must live in this world together.

Thranduil and Mayan Elephant: IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR YOU TO LEAVE THE BOARD. Leaving the board should / must NEVER be a term of ANY negotiation. EVERYONE is welcome, as is EVERY opinion.]

Thank you. I understand and appreciate your comment.


Please delete my account permanently. A deal is a deal. I am a man of my word. I am out. Thanks again for the good times. See you soon.

[drumdude]

The amount of high school drama going on here is just off the charts.

[Jersey Girl]

[MODERATOR NOTE: jpatterson, you did the right thing. Thank you. Sometimes it's best to simply ask yourself what the right thing to do is, then do it, even if one doesn't understand why (you know, sort of like when you tell your kids to not do something, but they question you about it). "Because it upsets multiple people" is a perfectly legitimate reason to not do something, because we all must live in this world together.

Thranduil and Mayan Elephant: IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR YOU TO LEAVE THE BOARD. Leaving the board should / must NEVER be a term of ANY negotiation. EVERYONE is welcome, as is EVERY opinion.]

Thank you. I understand and appreciate your comment.


Please delete my account permanently. A deal is a deal. I am a man of my word. I am out. Thanks again for the good times. See you soon.

Goodbye, ME. for what it's worth I think you are a pain in the ass. But we need people like you to keep things interesting around here.


I hope you will reconsider and return. I mean that sincerely.

[Tavares Standfield]

Tavares, I am sorry to hear about this traumatic experience. I hope Tiktok was okay after that.

Ah. Mayan Elephant, my old nemesis. I see you have risen from the depths to continue your crusade against John Dehlin.

Good to see/read you again. Is it true, that you spent the pandemic running a charter young men/young women group on zoom just for kids that were coping with separation from their young men/young women group and wanted out but still wanted to be considered members of their young men/young women group and call themselves young men/young women without being called young men/young women by other people? I heard you had to hire extra volunteer staff just to block the kids that were in, then were out, but wanted to talk sh*t, so they had to be blocked. All that is true, right?

You have described my pandemic experience well. Moderating today's young mind is as challenging as it is elusive. I can only hope that our focus on preferred pronouns and the toxicity of white feminism will resonate with these young people in future.

[Dwight]

This is a continued pattern of Dehlin defenders here. When you can no longer defend the documented evidence, attack the accuser. Throw cold water by questioning motives, make all sorts of assumptions about what they are doing and not doing outside of this board.

You're not very clever here, Thranduil. Nor original in your criticisms. This is like the third time someone's tried the above. It gets old.

I am comfortable letting the record of your posts speak for itself

Translation: I'm really struggling to come up with an example.

, but here is one example in which you claimed inside knowledge. One example of evidence you have never offered in support is evidence that Dehlin "had been lying to me . . . about his complicity for years." Maybe there is no such evidence (emails, text messages, etc.), or maybe this is a false statement made to encourage readers to not donate to or listen to Dehlin. We will never know.

Ah! There you go. Seems pretty benign, but okay. Most of that communication took place over the phone. You'll remember that John and I had a professional relationship for six months or so in which we communicated daily via text message and phone. We also kept in touch via Facebook and text message after my employment with Open Stories Foundation ended.

I have one Facebook message from him in which he calls Rosebud a "crazy psycho stalker," clearly insinuating that the accusations were baseless. Would you like me to find that and screen shot it?

You accused me of insinuating that I have inside knowledge without backing it up with evidence.

You came up with one benign example, which I refuted. Now you're playing a game of semantics because you're actually the one who can't back up your accusations.

Your schtick is really tired.

Are you really so oblivious? I bet more people are tired of your schtick. This is your pattern, you insinuate that you have insiders knowledge or a better perspective and when asked to put up or shut up you fail to deliver on either. Benign example or not in your opinion it certainly felt like you were implying something stronger, and now confronted you back away from it. You keep pointing at smoke on the horizon and when anyone goes and looks there is no fire. You and Rosebud just going around kicking up dust. No one is saying JD didn't do what he did, he doesn't have a favorable opinion here. At the same time no one is willing to pick up torches and join the mob you want to rile up. To touch on another discussion this is like some Democratic Party purity test, someone who is aligned 80% isn't good enough, they need to hate JD with a passion like you, you can't settle for less. Personally I think JD is less problematic after all you and Rosebud have laid out and I have looked at it (I reserve the right to change if this magic smoking gun evidence ever appears if the redactions could be done to make it okay to release). I think there is definitely a fire that happened, but it wasn't a blazing inferno that you want me to pretend that it was.

You are upset that JD keeps popping up about this. We pointed out that this is all in reaction to Kwaku and Kate Kelly. You keep brushing that off. Speaking from experience if someone is toxic to you at some point you have to let them go. They may still intrude into your world, but that doesn't mean you have to invite them in to take center stage in your mind. JD is problematic, he did bad things, no one here has any more ability to cancel him than you have. I know this feels terribly unjust and unfair, and that you want him to be held to account for violating a policy that wasn't in effect until after the fact, and yeah he certainly skirts with the truth to outright lies that he never violated the policy (but can you violate a policy that isn't in effect after the fact?)

[Equality]

Mayan Elephant's in real life name was exposed by patterson?

ME's in real life name was exposed by ME pages ago if you'll recall. But I still redacted it in the doc I posted, because it was the right thing to do.

So was mine. And my wife's. I don't really care, but I do appreciate jpatterson redacting it. I haven't cared about keeping my "in real life" identity and "Equality" online handle separate since about 2007. Anyone who gave half a sh*t (which has to be a vanishingly small number) and was even the least bit adept at the Google could figure it out.

Am I surprised that JD would dox me, my wife, and Mayan Elephant to someone in texts? Not even a little bit.