Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Res Ipsa]

That’s hard to say. A consensual relationship becomes harassment when one person says “it’s over” but the other keeps pursuing the relationship. With these two, it’s hard to say if or when that actually happened. Even if this situation occurred, the board had a duty to act only when it was informed of the situation. But Rosebud says she informed the board (not sure of what), was asked whether she wanted the board to investigate, and said no, she didn’t. But later, she castigates Brooks for not investigating.

Clear as mud.

I am commenting specifically on what motivated Joanna Brooks' ultimatum to the two lovebirds that they needed to resign or she would. It seems to me people habitually treat this ultimatum as having been motivated by a proximate harassment claim, when the texts really tell a very different story. Unless I see some textual evidence (electronic or otherwise) that Rosebud claimed John was sexually harassing her to Joanna before the end of August, I am going to go with the theory supported by the current evidence, which is that the resignation ultimatum was motivated by the fact that two employees and board members were carrying on a consensual affair that John Dehlin, Rosebud, and Joanna Brooks agreed needed to stop for both personal and professional reasons.

This distinction matters a lot. If people are going to continue to insist that Joanna Brooks mishandled a harassment claim, there must be evidence that there was a harassment claim to mishandle, I believe.

Yeah, without knowing precisely what Brooks was told and when, I’m in no position to judge her actions.

[Dwight]

Continuing from earlier…

[1:27:00] she wants her side of the business and John Dehlin can have the podcast. This is the solution Joanna offered as contractors and not employees. She will later reject this.

[1:33:30] she’s not going to tell what went on in Joanna’s head except that she just did.

Rosebud implies that Joanna had a duty to help her. Whatever her motivations and I believe Joanna has the best, she is a board member, this puts obligations on her. I believe that her intentions was to be equitable and fair to both John Dehlin and Rosebud. This is like thinking that HR is there for the employees and not the company.

[1:34:58] back to building this beautiful business that is getting all these donations. I think her projection of John only being interested in the money is projection, she clearly is thinking about the money first and the people second.

[1:43:46] one month on severance was offered or something small, which is apparently $5,000. I wonder if she knows about at-will employment and how severance is usually $0.

This leads into her being worried that only she is helping LGBT people cause she is doing conferences. This is a theme conferences take work and podcasting doesn’t, the conferences and groups help and the podcast doesn’t.

[1:47:49] She claims to know John Dehlin’s shady intentions about a fake apology podcast to try and reconcile with the church.

Does anyone know if she signed an NDA and then John or Open Stories Foundation blabbed that it would become unenforceable? It’s hard to find a concrete answer, but it feels like it would be possible since it would be unconscionable to sign an NDA so you couldn’t defend yourself.

[1:52:50] Rosebud feels she can’t go to anyone cause everyone protects John, “cause he is dangerous”. I can have empathy that she felt that, but she was a student and there are other legal aid services not connected to Open Stories Foundation or John. I am not saying she felt vulnerable and like she was drowning, but it’s like those videos you will see of kids screaming their heads off in water cause they are going to drown and then someone shows them if they stand up the water doesn’t even go to their waist. In a more kind and caring and compassionate world maybe someone would have shown her that she was in no danger of drowning, but she also talks about not wanting to talk about it so it may have not been possible for people to understand she needed help. It’s tragic, but I don’t know that it can be laid at John Dehlin and Open Stories Foundation as a miscarriage of justice.

Going to call it a night at 1:54:00.

[Dwight]

Also if this is a cognitive interview I don’t see the value in it. Maybe this comes later, but beyond the instructions and a question to clarify a date the interviewer hasn’t made a peep.

[Kishkumen]

Agreed on the mud part.

However, just based on Helfer's statement in the podcast, at least one person on the board did know Rosebud was making the claim before she was asked to resign and before she was fired in late august:

do you remember what the nature of her
09:43
allegation or complaint was
09:47
well i believe it was in the nature of
09:49
that she
09:50
was describing that in order to continue
09:53
with her job or her
09:56
responsibilities that she was getting
09:58
pressure from john to
10:00
either continue or begin some type of
10:03
sexual
10:04
relationship or emotional affair type of
10:07
relationship
10:08
okay and she did not want that well
10:10
that's what she claimed
10:12
all right so what did the board do with
10:14
that report

well so in my understanding um
10:20
there was one member of the board that
10:22
was approached
10:23
by ann first um and i believe that was
10:26
joanna brooks

Yeah, that's a complete dog's breakfast. First of all, the texts show exactly the opposite. She was the one demanding an amplification of their sexual relationship, and he was resisting her. Helfer does not know whether the affair was emotional or sexual. The texts in no way show that Rosebud was fending off demands from John Dehlin. Rather they show two people who have been in an affair that more or less agree it needs to stop, working with Joanna Brooks to find a solution. Rosebud is the one who is taking the lead in that discussion with Joanna Brooks, and she calls John in, full of reassurances that he has done nothing wrong. Almost nothing here looks accurate, except that Rosebud approached Joanna before John Dehlin did.

But what did Rosebud say when she approached Joanna? The texts contain no evidence that she was taking an adversarial posture toward John with the understanding that he did something wrong. Rather, they take an adversarial posture toward Joanna on the assumption that Joanna had no power to ask them to resign because John did nothing wrong (according to Rosebud)!

[Lem]

So, if it is unreasonable to assume that Rosebud and John Dehlin would be offered an equal contractor's deal on the basis of the employee importance and contributions, by definition the sexual relationship they had THEN, as superior and subordinate, should be considered, by the Open Stories Foundation policy NOW, sexual harassment. That brings me back to a disturbing point of the podcast, where both interviewees say they reviewed the materials years later and still saw no evidence of harassment.

Their policy was not in place then, but it is now, and presumably both know it, so it still feels very wrong for neither of them to admit that what happened was by definition harassment, even if legally they had no obligation THEN to do anything about it.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Going to call it a night at 1:54:00.

Thanks, Dwight. Your contributions to this thread have been outstanding.

- Doc

[Lem]

I don't consider many of Rosebud's words in her exchanges with Dehlin to be reliable, as I think victims may frequently say whatever they think needs to be said in the moment to protect themselves, and this goes for John Dehlin's words also. For that reason my opinions in this thread have been based on the podcast, on a comparison of texts between the two parties, and on the objective documents.

Hearing now that Helfer is not considered to have a reliable memory, and in fact may have actively said things in the podcast that are demonstrably not true really diminishes the value of the podcast for me. Calling it a refutation of allegations, when it seems to be agreed that the bulk of the testimony is given by an unreliable interviewee, is truly misleading. Did people know this before the podcast?

[consiglieri]

To document the history for future Mormon historians, I saw a document indicating the Open Stories Foundation offered a resolution in the NH case that included an agreement to keep all texts and emails confidential.

This offer was rejected by Rosebud through a letter from her lawyer.

She later withdrew the lawsuit.

If she had agreed to the Open Stories Foundation’s own proposal to keep confidential the texts and emails, Natasha and Nadine would likely not have agreed to discuss them.

And I would not have included them in the show.

[Lem]

To document the history for future Mormon historians, I saw a document indicating the Open Stories Foundation offered a resolution in the NH case that included an agreement to keep all texts and emails confidential.

This offer was rejected by Rosebud through a letter from her lawyer.

She later withdrew the lawsuit.

If she had agreed to the Open Stories Foundation’s own proposal to keep confidential the texts and emails, Natasha and Nadine would likely not have agreed to discuss them.

And I would not have included them in the show.

Could you show us this document, and verify who wrote it and who received it?

Not that I don't believe you, of course! But I'm starting to feel a little punch-drunk with all the ins and outs here.

[Meadowchik]

I don't consider many of Rosebud's words in her exchanges with Dehlin to be reliable, as I think victims may frequently say whatever they think needs to be said in the moment to protect themselves, and this goes for John Dehlin's words also. For that reason my opinions in this thread have been based on the podcast, on a comparison of texts between the two parties, and on the objective documents.

Hearing now that Helfer is not considered to have a reliable memory, and in fact may have actively said things in the podcast that are demonstrably not true really diminishes the value of the podcast for me. Calling it a refutation of allegations, when it seems to be agreed that the bulk of the testimony is given by an unreliable interviewee, is truly misleading. Did people know this before the podcast?

One wonders why they would invite Natasha as a witness if she cannot be relied upon?