Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Lem »

Dwight wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 7:58 am
... and I try and look at all the evidence and while I think John did bad, I am just unable to get to he is some super predator that corrupted pure innocent Rosebud and devastated her life and left it in ruins.
:roll: Good thing no one is proposing that hyperbolic interpretation, then.
...and yes volunteer and overseer is also problematic, but let’s not try and paint this as purely John Dehlin employed Rosebud to get her in a situation he could get sexual favors from her.
hmm..... Did you read the current Open Stories Foundation Policy I posted above? what you call "problematic" is defined as "sexual harassment."
The correction to the patriarchy is to not over correct, but hold both sides accountable for their own actions.
I would have to disagree. The 'correction' to patriarchy is to eliminate the problems of patriarchy.
User avatar
Dwight
Teacher
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 3:33 pm
Location: The North

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Dwight »

Lem wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 8:32 am
Dwight wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 7:58 am
... and I try and look at all the evidence and while I think John did bad, I am just unable to get to he is some super predator that corrupted pure innocent Rosebud and devastated her life and left it in ruins.
:roll: Good thing no one is proposing that hyperbolic interpretation, then.
Other than Rosebud, JP, KK, etc.?
Lem wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 8:32 am
...and yes volunteer and overseer is also problematic, but let’s not try and paint this as purely John Dehlin employed Rosebud to get her in a situation he could get sexual favors from her.
hmm..... Did you read the current Open Stories Foundation Policy I posted above? what you call "problematic" is defined as "sexual harassment."
The correction to the patriarchy is to not over correct, but hold both sides accountable for their own actions.
I would have to disagree. The 'correction' to patriarchy is to eliminate the problems of patriarchy.
Current Open Stories Foundation Policy. There is something my introduction to Business Law teacher loved to say that went something like this, "if you do something that should be illegal but isn't, be the first one to do it before they make it illegal." You can't make a law and then retroactively apply it to a situation. The situation with John Dehlin and Rosebud happened before the policy. So that they weren't clear about how applying the standard at the time, which I think they did, there wasn't anything, and that under current policy he would have, is something that has to be spelled out. You are grasping at straws to make them look bad cause they didn't acknowledge that if it occurred under the current policy that it would be different.

What is the problem of patriarchy in this case? Rosebud and JP and others say Joanna, Helfer, et. al. are protecting John for their own gain and cause they just love themselves the patriarchy. I can look at the evidence and see that Rosebud brought a nothing burger so what were they to act on and that Occam's razor they did what they did with what they had: no evidence, no investigation which Rosebud turned down, no real accusation until after her employment was terminated. I don't see that instead they knew all this stuff, but didn't cause of the patriarchy.
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Lem »

Dwight wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 8:48 am
Current Open Stories Foundation Policy. There is something my introduction to Business Law teacher loved to say that went something like this, "if you do something that should be illegal but isn't, be the first one to do it before they make it illegal." You can't make a law and then retroactively apply it to a situation. The situation with John Dehlin and Rosebud happened before the policy. So that they weren't clear about how applying the standard at the time, which I think they did, there wasn't anything, and that under current policy he would have, is something that has to be spelled out. You are grasping at straws to make them look bad cause they didn't acknowledge that if it occurred under the current policy that it would be different.
? Something tells me you didn't read what I already posted about that:
Lem wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 7:02 am
I am pretty sure this policy was instituted well after the incident under discussion. I find it incredibly disappointing that although the board member and the lawyer being interviewed know this is currently the policy, both of them said that when they recently reviewed the case documents, they "found no discrimination in Dehlin's past behavior."

They did NOT say, '...under our current policy, Dehlin's behavior would clearly be considered sexual harassment, but since we did not have those policies in place then, we cannot retroactively apply the policy in a fair way.'

No. They both unequivocally stated that their reviews NOW found no sexual harassment in his past behavior. This obvious inconsistency with their stated policy, made by both of them, unfortunately brings their motivations somewhat into question.
User avatar
Dwight
Teacher
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 3:33 pm
Location: The North

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Dwight »

and you didn't read my response, that I find it grasping at straws to fault them for that, they were evaluating it under the policy that existed when the situation occurred, which is the correct thing to do, and it's essentially moot that it would clearly be sexual harassment under the current policy. Could they have included that additional context? Sure, does it add a lot to the discussion? Not really to me. I understand that the policy came later and that it changes things, but one thing we can't know exactly is how John Dehlin would've acted differently if this policy was in place before he even knew Rosebud existed.
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Lem »

drumdude wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 7:13 am
...I love Matt Long, but his bias is towards sexual assault victims and he has already decided rosebud is credible. He sees the worst sexual crimes in the world as a prosecutor. His job is to defend victims at all costs, and not to see both sides objectively. The legal system is a battle where you always present your client (even if she's not technically his client) in the best possible light, which appears what he did at the beginning of the Rosebud 3 hour tape.

I wish all of the Infants on Thrones members the best, I don't blame any of them. I'm just incredibly sad that Rosebud's BS may have caused my favorite podcast to break up.
i apologize for a dumb question, but I didn't listen to the recording. Was there more than one person speaking on Rosebud's 3 hour tape?
drumdude
God
Posts: 5611
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by drumdude »

Matt Long, an attorney and former ex-Mormon podcaster from Infants on Thrones, gave the 5 minute introduction. He's prosecutes sexual abuse crimes and raises awareness about sexual abuse. I don't know who the woman is who is asking Anne the questions.

It's really hard to listen to a single speaker speak continuously for such a long time, but I tried to sum up some salient remarks here for those who can't invest 3 hours.
2010 or so - Anne emails John Dehlin to say she supports him during a time of public criticism of John.

Early 2011 - Anne and her family meet John Dehlin.

March 2011 - Anne and her husband go to a conference with Dehlin. Dehlin shows lots of attention to Anne and hugs her for an unusually long time.

March 2011 - Actually, before that conference John had already sent her flirting texts. And eying her before the conference. Giving her privilaged invites to select discussions.

March 2011 - John apologizes for being creepy. John and her start creating Facebook groups.

March - June 2011 - John is definitely hitting on Anne, they're talking about sex probably. She has Facebook messages. They are becoming closer friends.

June 2011 - John and Anne agree to share a hotel and agree not to do anything sexual. She believes she agreed to it before hand. They hugged and it was a good experience. Anne is troubled by John's hypocrisy.

August 2011 - John invites Anne to introduce the guest at the next conference, she believes only to seduce her. She asks John not to stay at her hotel. John sees her anyway she consents to let him in and they had a naked sexual interaction.

August 2011 - Anne is troubled by John's hypocrisy. Anne is worried John will sabotage her project.

October 2011 - It's consentual and she's enjoying it. He's putting his hands down her pants in the car and getting off on the chance of getting caught.

August 2011 - Actually here he asked her to go find a room in the church to fool around. She thinks it's crazy and again she is troubled by John's hypocrisy. Also she is scared of John getting off on the idea of getting caught.

August 2011 - Anne made John promise not to seduce her and he broke his promise.

October 2011 - Anne can't find any emails about their plans they made to meet each other. John somehow planned for this so only he would have the documents.

November 2011 - Anne can't remember if she told John not to come into her room, she hedges and says John might have texts that say she wanted it. She was good with the sexual interaction they had.

November 2011 - John is excited about the wad of cash they made. He asked if he could come to her hotel and she definitely asked him not to seduce her. John changes "no" to "yes" and she says yes. John says "you know you are consenting" and "you know this is not quid-pro-quo". John and Anne had less amazing sexual experience.

November 2011 - Anne sees a pattern of John changing "no" into "yes" and she tries to reiterate it's messed up and she doesn't want to do this. Her memory of her motivations is unclear.

Late 2011 - The board notices that Anne is doing most of the work and they put her on payroll. Anne reiterates to John that she needs the relationship to end now that she's hired.

Late 2011 - At the next conference at a host's house John agrees not to come into her room. He comes into her room and puts his hands under the sheets and she consented. John is acting erratically trying to get caught. Anne is terrified and remembers hiding under a bed and bawling. Anne has a memory of being sexually confused by a man she loved who is being awful to her. It wasn't like it was before.

Late 2011 - Before this conference Anne figured out she is being manipulated and can't tell when John is lying or not. She begins to focus on John's hypocrisy again and resents how he wants an honorable excommunication and has to repent of her.

February 2012 - Phoenix conference. Anne tells John she doesn't trust him. She doesn't trust herself to say no when John sneaks into her room. Anne hides her location from John but actually when she was staying at another location during this conference she awoke to John kneeling at the foot of her bed. She got up and left and... that's what happened in Phoenix. She's not ok as a human being. Anne is wrestling with her love for John and wanted to protect him from being exposed, damaging the movement she values. She feels burdened. Anne worries about the ethics and her self image of being a very honest person. Anne fears about what will happen if she says anything.

March 2012 - After wrestling with the ethical dilemma Anne decides the best course of action is to ask John to have actual intercourse with her. John doesn't want to and Anne wonders why. Anne is troubled by the hypocrisy that John can't be excommunicated for their fooling around. She feels afraid.

March 2012 - Anne tells John he will come to see her and they will have intercourse. John can't get an erection. Anne believes the game of John turning "no" into "yes" is what John gets off on. Anne gets more suspicious that John is playing games with her and manipulating her. Anne is again troubled by John's hypocrisy and resents his fame.

March 2012 - Night 2. Anne says don't come in her room. Anne is in a children's bed and John comes in the room and gropes her. Anne pushes John off and says go away. Anne says she didn't consent. She's not here to talk about what the definition of assault is or not, these are the nuances, she says.

February - April 2012 - No idea when it was but it was a crime. John asks Anne to masturbate on skype, Anne points her camera away and John listens. Anne asks her not to record, John does anyway. John confesses he recorded her shortly after and she asks him to delete it. Anne feels messed with.

April 2012 - Boston conference. John comes to Anne's town. They go dancing. John asks Anne to go somewhere and she says no and goes home. Anne says not much else to say about that.

June 2012 - Anne's projects are successful. Apologists are going to release the Dehlin hit-piece. Anne is again worried about Dehlin's hypocrisy and also worried she might be exposed. The board decides to make Anne's pay equal to John's, $5000 a month. The board considers making her executive director. (note how these aren't John's decisions, is he really her boss?). John starts being mean to Anne. Anne feels like her being sexual with John was so that John would be nice to her again.

June 2012 - Another conference. John is chasing her around in front of people. He has his hand on her breast. She is consenting. She also touched his penis earlier at some point, consensually. She's feels like she's not ok.

June 2012 - Anne is maybe offered the executive position. Anne doesn't sign the contract, John is telling her back and forth to take or not take it. Anne blames her naiveté and messed up work environment. A donor apparently tells Anne that Open Stories Foundation would fall apart without Anne, she is that important. Anne again is troubled by John's hypocritical desire for an honorable ex-communciation. Anne feels exploited for her work and feels trapped. Anne thinks the best way out is to end the relationship and split Open Stories Foundation so John runs the podcast, and Anne runs the conferences.


Undated mid 2012 - John tells Anne she's leaving. John says he loves her (he said this the whole time). John calls Joanna Brooks to confess the affair and that he can't work with Anne anymore. John blocks Anne out of all the Facebook groups. Anne breaks down crying. Anne again is troubled by the hypocrisy of John wanting an honorable excommunication. Anne feels unsafe. Joanna tells Anne they can't work together because of their affair.

Anne envisions John repenting and moving on, and nothing good happening to Anne. Anne texts Joanna about her side. Joanna is shocked about John's hypocrisy. Joanna doesn't protect Anne and instead works to cover it up to protect John. Anne and Joanna feel the need to protect John to protect the ex-Mormon movement.

Joanna gets Open Stories Foundation an attorney. Open Stories Foundation asks both John and Anne to resign. John asks for 100% of the donations. Anne feels exploited because the donations are from all the work she did for Open Stories Foundation. John is obsessed with money and wants Anne gone.

Anne felt that if she resigned and reapplied she would not be rehired. Anne refuses to resign so she doesn't lose her legal rights. She is terminated. The board apart from Joanna doesn't know any of this. Anne feels unsafe. Anne again is troubled by the hypocrisy of John's honorable ex-communciation.

Open Stories Foundation begins to erase Anne from everything. John reapplied and got rehired. Anne feels the need to tell the board what really happened. Anne is terrified. She wants some protection from the board. Joanna sends the email with the coverup, Anne calls the board members. Anne claims sexual harassment but doesn't want to talk about details, simply instead saying "there's a lot more going on".

Open Stories Foundation board reverses Anne's termination, and drop both John and Anne from the board. Open Stories Foundation lets slip the first attorney they hired said their response was unethical. They're keeping information from Anne. Anne wants to remain a part of the ex-Mormon community and convinces the board to allow her to keep Circling the Wagons project. Anne thinks John is directing Open Stories Foundation to keep Anne from any ex-Mormon projects, silencing her.

Open Stories Foundation asks Anne if she wants a sexual harassment investigation. Anne says no. She was terrified and doesn't want to talk about it.

Anne mentions the texts John provided to the board where Anne messed up, showing it was consentual. Anne and John were both calling it an affair. Anne didn't have the insight then that she does not about how messed up it was. It was initially an affair at the beginning but became messed up. John was taking advantage of it, Anne was trying to be quiet and safe.

Anne has a successful Circling the Wagons conference in November 2012. Anne tries to be resilient. They ask Anne to resign a second time, Anne agrees with one month of severance pay. Open Stories Foundation asks Anne to sign an NDA, but don't say if John is signing one. Anne AGAIN is troubled by the hypocrisy of John's honorable excommunication. Anne refuses to sign the NDA.

Anne claims she wanted to be professional, wanted to go on with her life, but couldn't sign the NDA not knowing if John also had to sign it. She feels tricked.

Anne is troubled by the embarrassment of losing her Facebook groups. She sees it as retaliation from John. She was mortified, humiliated, suicidal.

John releases a podcast apologizing for being anti-Mormon and Anne takes this personally. She can't let go of how hypocritical John is and that he's getting away with everything.
I haven't finished it, 3 hours is a long time. I made it through about 2 hours. But what shines through to me is the number of times Anne says she is troubled by John's hypocrisy and two-faced behavior. How the public views him as a saint but she knows the real John Dehlin. The sexual harassment part is really secondary to her outrage that it's not fair that he has all the power, it's not fair that he comes out ahead, and it's not fair that the world doesn't know what a hypocrite he is.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 6140
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Moksha »

jpatterson wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 3:30 am
"I was like no, don't come in my room. I was sleeping in this children's bedroom in a twin size bed and the lights are off. And again, his hands are under my blankets groping me. And this time I just push him off and I say 'Go away.'"
At that point, you woke up and realized the devastation the Captain Tripps virus had caused, but the compelling visions remained. Follow the elderly Mother Marianne Williamson from Hemingford Home to the Boulder free-zone, or travel to Las Vegas to be with Kate Kelly and her second in command Rosebud. What will you do, Harold?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6413
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Kishkumen »

Thanks for posting that summary. I may slog through that mess, but I had a difficult time starting with Matt Long’s self-important Sheriff Puddy routine. If your summary is at all accurate it looks like more of the same nonsense from Rosebud. I don’t see anything here that raises her credibility one iota. Sheriff Puddy’s bit about the interviewing technique was supposed to impress, but he undermined it with his venom and disdain for “ex-Mormonism,” thereby revealing his bias and some of his motivation.
"Great power connected with ambition, luxury and flattery, will as readily produce a Caesar, Caligula, Nero and Domitian in America, as the same causes did in the Roman Empire." ~Cato, New York Journal
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6413
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Kishkumen »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 3:31 am
@138 minutes - Rosebud states she’s owes John Dehlin and the Open Stories Foundation $350,000 (at least back in 2018). o-O

- Doc
Conveniently, she lost that very amount in a franchise scheme. Hmmm . . . .
"Great power connected with ambition, luxury and flattery, will as readily produce a Caesar, Caligula, Nero and Domitian in America, as the same causes did in the Roman Empire." ~Cato, New York Journal
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6413
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

Post by Kishkumen »

I trust Joanna more than John Dehlin or Rosebud that her intentions were sincere. I also have sympathy that she noped out of the drama and left the board. I don’t buy the narrative that the Open Stories Foundation board has acted unilaterally to protect John Dehlin and shut Rosebud out. We have now that Rosebud didn’t provide evidence and in her own words didn’t ask for an investigation when offered to have one. John Dehlin is unreliable and Rosebud is unreliable and JP you are unreliable. So I will make time to listen to the recording, and I try and look at all the evidence and while I think John did bad, I am just unable to get to he is some super predator that corrupted pure innocent Rosebud and devastated her life and left it in ruins. She seems to have been a willing accomplice. The relationship seems to have started before the employee/employer thing, and yes volunteer and overseer is also problematic, but let’s not try and paint this as purely John Dehlin employed Rosebud to get her in a situation he could get sexual favors from her. The correction to the patriarchy is to not over correct, but hold both sides accountable for their own actions.
One of Rosebud’s big miscalculations here is throwing Joanna Brooks under the bus by claiming she conspired with John Dehlin to get rid of Rosebud and protect John Dehlin. Joanna Brooks is one of the most professional, credible, and passionate fighters for progressive causes out there. JP’s argument above that Joanna really had no intention to hire Rosebud back is just Rosebud’s paranoia speaking, and JP *should* know better than to take Rosebud’s mind-reading of Joanna Brooks seriously.
"Great power connected with ambition, luxury and flattery, will as readily produce a Caesar, Caligula, Nero and Domitian in America, as the same causes did in the Roman Empire." ~Cato, New York Journal
Post Reply