We Do Not Support John Dehlin

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Dwight
2nd Counselor
Posts: 401
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 3:33 pm
Location: The North

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Dwight »

Physics Guy wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2023 12:21 pm
I only had a late and peripheral interest in the great thread, but I took away a point from Marcus that was new to me. The worst part of Dehlin's behavior from a professional point of view was something that one could easily overlook (at least I did) because it doesn't fit the trope of the leering boss pressuring an underling for intimacy. He got someone fired because it made him uncomfortable to be around them, because of his (at that point) former romantic relationship with them.

In one way, that's the opposite of firing someone because you can't have sex with them: it's firing them so that you can't have sex with them. If the only moral issue you're noticing is the boss's chastity, then you give this boss high marks for being a paladin of virtue. This is the part of the story where Dehlin was repenting, the lingering Mormon judgement might say; this is the part where he finally started doing the right thing. No, wrong.

What Marcus pointed out is that firing someone to remove their temptation from your life is still hurting someone in order to make your sex life more to your own liking. The fact that what you're wanting is marital fidelity is completely irrelevant to the issue of sexual harassment. People can have all kinds of sexual preferences; as far as the harassment issue is concerned, a preference for not being tempted to adultery is no different from a foot fetish.

As long as the employee is actually behaving professionally, a boss can't cause them professional hardship just because of the boss's own romantic or sexual feelings about them—regardless of the precise nature of those feelings. Sexual harassment is a separate issue from the boss's sexual virtue, and sexual harassment can be just as wrong, professionally, even if the perpetrator is a paragon of chastity. To clarify this point by showing it in an extreme case, consider a violent dictator who maintains their marriage vows by having every tempting underling executed. The commitment to marriage does not mitigate the mass murder one bit.
My take was that the board, not JD, took direct control and fired both, there is documentary evidence of such. They offered to let them work at least temporarily as 1099 employees while they investigated and figured out what to do. Maybe JD machinated this in the background, but there has been no evidence or speculation that he was pulling the strings. Indeed given who was on the board I doubt they would have let him. The board was going to keep them separate and let them both fulfill the parts of the mission of Open Stories Foundation that they were doing. Rosebud for good and for bad rejected it and still wanted JD to oust the board instead so they could take the reins. She also felt that her in-person conferences were of more impact than the podcast, so between the two she better fulfilled the purpose of Open Stories Foundation. Even though financially and actual raw numbers the podcast was having the bigger impact and attracting sustainable donations. You can cherry-pick where Rosebud was cold and JD was hot, but to the best of my recollections there were times that the roles were switched and JD was cold and Rosebud was hot.

At the end of the day, there was a power differential and so ultimately JD falls under sexual harassing a subordinate, but legally Open Stories Foundation was too small for it to be legally actionable just based on boss/employee roles. JD has certainly suffered, and you or I may not think it was enough, certainly KK and others do not. Ironically just to refresh, Rosebud was complaining about JD and RFM doxxing her, but it was KK and the midnight Mormons, the questionable allies she got in bed with, that doxxed her. JD and RFM were both abiding by leaving it alone and only referring to her as Rosebud until MM and KK kicked up the hornets nest last time.

TL;DR Rosebud's "allies" outed her, she refused the temporary arrangements that were meted out on both her and JD while they conducted their investigation and came to a decision, she quit Open Stories Foundation when JD wouldn't join in a coup against the board, and when she was no longer involved in Open Stories Foundation the board no longer had a situation to resolve between employees/contractors and rehired JD. There is no evidence that JD got Rosebud fired other than he participated in an emotional affair with her and when he ended it she took it badly.
Marcus
God
Posts: 6767
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Marcus »

Yes, your take, Dwight. Not everyone's. And your opinion is not documented, in my opinion.
...At the end of the day, there was a power differential and so ultimately JD falls under sexual harassing a subordinate, but legally Open Stories Foundation was too small for it to be legally actionable...
How lucky for Dehlin and Open Stories Foundation that they avoided being legally liable for sexual harassment, due to a head count technicality.
Fifth Columnist
Nursery
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:50 pm

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Fifth Columnist »

Canadiandude2 wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:50 am
Honestly I’m still frustrated and confused as to how to even follow along. Yes I have Rosebud’s claims on the Mormon wiki but I suspect that’s actually not all, as again, I distinctly remember Dehlin freaking out at Benjamin Park and I would very much like to know where Park got his information, and what did he do to earn Dehlin’s enmity. I’m not saying Park could never be in the wrong, but there admittedly are some scholars who- when and where I do disagree with them- I kinda feel inclined to go back and double check 2, 3, 4 times to make sure I’m confident as to why I think that.
Here is some additional material you should review. https://radiofreemormon.org/2021/04/mor ... in-flames/

Read the section titled "Evidence, Investigation and Retaliations" in Rosebud's request to withdraw the complaint (Exhibit D on the Mormonism Live page) she filed with the NH Human Right Commission and ask yourself if you would accept a similar explanation from a Mopologist about Mormon truth claims.
User avatar
Dwight
2nd Counselor
Posts: 401
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 3:33 pm
Location: The North

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Dwight »

Marcus wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2023 3:08 pm
Yes, your take, Dwight. Not everyone's. And your opinion is not documented, in my opinion.
...At the end of the day, there was a power differential and so ultimately John Dehlin falls under sexual harassing a subordinate, but legally Open Stories Foundation was too small for it to be legally actionable...
How lucky for Dehlin and Open Stories Foundation that they avoided being legally liable for sexual harassment, due to a head count technicality.
Okay receipt time.

https://www.youtube.com/live/-3oBYGohXB ... start=1010 if the start time doesn’t work go to 16:50. Natasha Helfer a board member at the time states clearly the board asked them both to resign.

and yeah, I am not a fan of JD, and I went looking for the fire in the smoke. There was some fire, but not the conflagration advertised. The headcount thing is a recognition of how difficult it can be in smaller orgs from what I understand. But listen more to that episode of Mormonism Live, look at it, Rosebud was consensually involved, they both, documented by texts and emails, pursued it when the other tried to end it.
Marcus
God
Posts: 6767
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Marcus »

Dwight wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:28 pm
Marcus wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2023 3:08 pm
Yes, your take, Dwight. Not everyone's. And your opinion is not documented, in my opinion.

How lucky for Dehlin and Open Stories Foundation that they avoided being legally liable for sexual harassment, due to a head count technicality.
Okay receipt time.

https://www.youtube.com/live/-3oBYGohXB ... start=1010 if the start time doesn’t work go to 16:50. Natasha Helfer a board member at the time states clearly the board asked them both to resign.
not a receipt, that doesn't support your argument, as was already discussed extensively in the other thread.
... But listen more to that episode of Mormonism Live, look at it, Rosebud was consensually involved, they both, documented by texts and emails, pursued it when the other tried to end it.
Again, that doesn't support your argument that the employee did not lose their employment because a sexual relationship with someone in a position of power over them.
yellowstone123
First Presidency
Posts: 815
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2023 1:55 am
Location: Milky Way Galaxy

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by yellowstone123 »

John D, is a good guy.

we are not perfect.

Bringing in John Larsen was genius.

A program where a top quorum of the seventy was kicking his daughter while she was on the kitchen floor for seeing the film Jesus Christ Superstar was something I would not of heard of if not for John D. “ I don’t know how to love him” which is in the film is to me, one of the most beautiful songs ever written.
I support the right to keep and arm bears.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5470
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Philo Sofee »

yellowstone123 wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2023 10:04 pm
John D, is a good guy.

we are not perfect.

Bringing in John Larsen was genius.

A program where a top quorum of the seventy was kicking his daughter while she was on the kitchen floor for seeing the film Jesus Christ Superstar was something I would not of heard of if not for John D. “ I don’t know how to love him” which is in the film is to me, one of the most beautiful songs ever written.
The reason Mormons are so angry about that movie is the Mormon Tabernacle Choir wasn't the music behind the show. They wanted to sing "Jesus Wants Me For a Sunbeam" as a more spiritual alternative. The rock guitar also didn't sit well with the prophet who had only ever heard an organ play and was unaware fo what instrument was being used. The drums also goofed up his rhythm and that really upset him.
yellowstone123
First Presidency
Posts: 815
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2023 1:55 am
Location: Milky Way Galaxy

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by yellowstone123 »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2023 11:36 pm
yellowstone123 wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2023 10:04 pm
John D, is a good guy.

we are not perfect.

Bringing in John Larsen was genius.

A program where a top quorum of the seventy was kicking his daughter while she was on the kitchen floor for seeing the film Jesus Christ Superstar was something I would not of heard of if not for John D. “ I don’t know how to love him” which is in the film is to me, one of the most beautiful songs ever written.
The reason Mormons are so angry about that movie is the Mormon Tabernacle Choir wasn't the music behind the show. They wanted to sing "Jesus Wants Me For a Sunbeam" as a more spiritual alternative. The rock guitar also didn't sit well with the prophet who had only ever heard an organ play and was unaware fo what instrument was being used. The drums also goofed up his rhythm and that really upset him.
Yea, I was on a board with my dream girl and her pastor. The pastor received a standing ovation after his last sermon. Thinking about it was so foreign to me. My dream girl and the pastor were superstars. I was still trying to understand ‘Craig’s Laws.”
I support the right to keep and arm bears.
Marcus
God
Posts: 6767
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by Marcus »

yellowstone123 wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2023 10:04 pm
John D, is a good guy.

we are not perfect.

Bringing in John Larsen was genius.

A program where a top quorum of the seventy was kicking his daughter while she was on the kitchen floor for seeing the film Jesus Christ Superstar was something I would not of heard of if not for John D. “ I don’t know how to love him” which is in the film is to me, one of the most beautiful songs ever written.
No one is perfect. People can do good things and have amazing accomplishments, but that does not justify generalizing their "good guy" status, if they have also engaged in behavior that does NOT qualify as "good guy" behavior. I'm obviously not talking about ubiquitious and minor imperfections of the human state that everyone experiences, but this discussion isn't about things like that.

Granting behavioral indulgences isn't a logical or helpful position, about any of the parties involved.


"One particularly well-known Catholic method of exploitation in the Middle Ages was the practice of selling indulgences, a monetary payment of penalty which, supposedly, absolved one of past sins..."

Wiki

People can appreciate the good Dehlin does, without justifying the bad.
yellowstone123
First Presidency
Posts: 815
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2023 1:55 am
Location: Milky Way Galaxy

Re: We Do Not Support John Dehlin

Post by yellowstone123 »

I guess you have information that I don’t have. I believe you. Just like I have hand-on experience with people Trump pardon that is to some people, incomprehensible.
I support the right to keep and arm bears.
Post Reply