The Rosebud MEGATHREAD

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Consig,

Please answer these two questions, I'm afire with curiosity:

https://www.discussmormonism.com/viewto ... 8#p2844548

As payment up front I offer this Thanos pic:

[drumdude]

You can see how easily Dehlin gets his name dragged through the mud with these slip ups.

There was even a website calling him a pedophile and rapist at one point.

Oh. You mean my slip ups.

. . .

Ok?

My dude, have we established the fact your tldr neglected to include the abuse of power and differentials of power and outcomes between the involved parties ? If so great. Moving on. You’re attention to detail is curiously very agentive where and when it wants to be heh.

Give me a legal definition of sexual harassment that fits the facts (not your memory) if you want to keep claiming my TLDR was inaccurate.

[Fifth Columnist]

The TLDR is John indeed had an emotional affair with Rosebud, as you can see in the text messages. But it wasn’t sexual harassment.

Drumdude is taking a lot of crap for this summary, but my recollection (it could be faulty so if it's wrong, then don't blame me because I'm acknowledging it in advance ) is that it is accurate in that John Dehlin and Rosebud: (a) had a consensual emotional affair and (b) it was not sexual harassment as that term is defined legally (everyone has their own opinion about what constitutes sexual harassment many of which are not based in the law; and the legal standard varies from place to place). My recollection is that Rosebud filed one or more complaints against John Dehlin with a government agency or court and those complaints were dismissed without John Dehlin being determined to have engaged in sexual harassment. Again, my recollection is hazy, but the TLDR drumdude posted matches my recollection.

I also think Ms Jack posted a good point that it seems screwed up that when the emotional affair was over Rosebud ended up losing her job. However, my recollection is that the Open Stories Foundation had some options to keep Rosebud employed but she wouldn't accept them. Anyway, this isn't a case of a Fortune 100 company where they can split the parties up, etc. Mormon Stories was a very small business that was largely synonymous with John Dehlin. The Open Stories Foundation Board gave its account in an interview with RFM so anyone can hear their side of the story.

[drumdude]

The TLDR is John indeed had an emotional affair with Rosebud, as you can see in the text messages. But it wasn’t sexual harassment.

Drumdude is taking a lot of crap for this summary, but my recollection (it could be faulty so if it's wrong, then don't blame me because I'm acknowledging it in advance ) is that it is accurate in that John Dehlin and Rosebud: (a) had a consensual emotional affair and (b) it was not sexual harassment as that term legally (everyone has their own opinion about what constitutes sexual harassment many of which are not based in the law; and the legal standard varies from place to place). My recollection is that Rosebud filed one or more complaints against John Dehlin with a government agency or court and those complaints were dismissed without John Dehlin being determined to have engaged in sexual harassment. Again, my recollection is hazy, but the TLDR drumdude posted matches my recollection.

I also think Ms Jack posted a good point that is seems screwed up that when the emotional affair was over Rosebud ended up losing her job. However, my recollection is that the Open Stories Foundation had some options to keep Rosebud employed but she wouldn't accept them. Anyway, this isn't a case of a Fortune 100 company where they can split the parties up, etc. Mormon Stories was a very small business that was largely synonymous with John Dehlin. The Open Stories Foundation Board gave its account in an interview with RFM so anyone can hear their side of the story.

Thank you.

The missing piece of the puzzle was Rosebud and John’s text messages to each other. Once Rosebud released those, the entire relationship was pretty much exposed for everyone to come to their own conclusions.

She claims she took down that evidence because it wasn’t redacted, in reality I think she realized it sunk her case beyond repair.

[toon]

Neither the target’s pursuit nor acceptance of such necessarily matters, . . .

It certainly matters in a legal sense.

[Marcus]

Whenever this discussion comes back up, about what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace, I am reminded of posts such as what Dehlin himself posted here:

2) Rosebud made multiple personal promises to me from the very start and throughout to “go away” if our relationship ever got to the point where it was hurting me or the Open Stories Foundation. This was a personal agreement we had made, which she agreed to prior to joining the board or coming on as an employee. I was only asking her to keep her promise. Frankly, I was stunned when she refused. I honestly thought I could trust her. But that was a personal plea.

My man. You just copped to a quid pro quo arrangement. You need to post some documentation that exonerates you contextually. Not a good look.

- Doc

And the outcome was that Rosebud lost her employment, and Dehlin's inappropriate, and in my opinion illegal behavior, was covered up by his board. This is what I define as sexual harassment. It's too late and too far gone to rectify anything financially or legally, but that doesn't mean it can't still be defined as what it is. Just because Dehlin got away with it doesn't mean we can't still define it as the despicable behavior that it is.

[Canadiandude2]

Neither the target’s pursuit nor acceptance of such necessarily matters, . . .

It certainly matters in a legal sense.

If there is good chance that the person with power could threaten or advance the subordinate target’s career, or endanger their life, etc. then no, not necessarily.

Perhaps American Law has some catching up to do, but the problem here is that greater the power of the accused over the target, the more pressure they may feel to ‘just let it happen’ so as to not have their life screwed up even more than it already is with your boss, professor, military senior, etc. propositioning you.

In other contexts perhaps it matters less, but I think people should consider carefully, with a critical eye, any law that places blame upon the victims of sexual harassment, assault, etc. People with power should be expected to be circumspect and responsible in how they interact with people, particularly those under their authority.

[Canadiandude2]

Oh. You mean my slip ups.

. . .

Ok?

My dude, have we established the fact your tldr neglected to include the abuse of power and differentials of power and outcomes between the involved parties ? If so great. Moving on. You’re attention to detail is curiously very agentive where and when it wants to be heh.

Give me a legal definition of sexual harassment that fits the facts (not your memory) if you want to keep claiming my TLDR was inaccurate.

Again, I could, but the eye-roll suggests you lack good faith and nobody really “wins the internet”. You were the one who used the term and made the claim of there being no sexual harassment first. It’s up to you to define your own terms troll.

You already have had others on here who’ve worked in HR on here tell you that what Dehlin did would likely qualify.

There’s also the problem that as Canadian- any definition I bring to the table from my current understanding on the matter up here would be rejected by yourself on the basis that it’s in accordance to Canadian Law, and while I could just use Google to find the requisite information on federal or state laws on the matter- that same tool is also available to you, and you are the one who first used the term.

Upon thinking on the matter further, I believe what he did was in fact a form of sexual abuse, of which harassment is just one type. It was at the very least a sexual abuse of power in that he knowingly sexted and had an affair with a women whom he had power over, and whose continued employment in the organization he had influence over. When he tried to distance himself from the relationship he used his power over her employment in such a way that forcefully terminated her employment- with unequal outcomes for them both.

Rosebud also started to express discomfort with Dehlin’s advances in 2011 and 2012. She told him explicitly he should “go back to [his] wife.” He responded by saying that only makes him want to pursue her more. She said this proved to be an ongoing pattern with John.

She expressed discomfort. His advances became unwanted. She said no.

He later tried to roadblock a policy that could’ve advanced a policy on sexual harassment- again, an abuse of power.

That’s an abuse of power involving a man who chose to have a sexual relationship with a women of whom he had power over, and whose employment he threatened and terminated once he was done with it.

It’s also sounds like sexual harassment:

“ Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.
Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following:
The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex.
The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.
The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome.“

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/fact ... rimination

Yeah. I think what occurred qualifies as both sexual harassment and a sexual abuse of power. There’s no way to disentangle the fact that even where it appears consensual, it’s between a woman and man that has professional power over her. And the relationship did not remain consensual in that she eventually did indicate that his advances were no longer welcome. And when he wanted to avoid the consequences of the mess he got himself into- he got her fired.

[Moksha]

Rosebud also started to express discomfort with Dehlin’s advances in 2011 and 2012. She told him explicitly he should “go back to [his] wife.” He responded by saying that only makes him want to pursue her more. She said this proved to be an ongoing pattern with John.

This has been rehashed many times over the years. The last big blowout thread covered all the answers. Having the Rosebud claims continually resurface reminds me of the Trumpian claims that Black Lives Matter people stormed the Capitol on January 6th. No one picked up on the evidence the first time around or really wanted to pick up on it because they are simply against John Dehlin.

This is like Mormonism: Evidence does not matter since people will go on believing what they want one way or another.

[Canadiandude2]

Give me a legal definition of sexual harassment that fits the facts (not your memory) if you want to keep claiming my TLDR was inaccurate.

More passive aggressive eye-rolling. More denial and diminishing. You are the one who claimed it wasn’t sexual harassment. You substantiate your claim.

My argument that your TLDR was inaccurate doesn’t actually require that of me. You neglected to mention the abuse of power involved in the affair. You neglected to mention how that power helped enable the termination of her employment. That was my claim.

Said claim does not require the definition of sexual harassment, a definition you yourself neglected to share. Your TLDR neglected to mention Dehlin’s abuse of power, and because you continue to deploy as hominem attacks, minimization, and denials on that front- I’m no longer convinced you are arguing in good faith.

So I’ll stop arguing the good faith, just be aggressive, and let you be the passive coward of the two of us.

I have come to the conclusion that you are chauvinist pig unable to acknowledge where you are off or wrong and just trolling for the craps and giggles.

Regardless of how it affects those of us that actually give a crap.

So I’ll just move on and ignore ya from here on in. Your means and aims in making the church accountable ain’t trustworthy.