Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[dastardly stem]

Hey all, listened to her recording. She goes back to the start of their relationship. She uses a lot of words like manipulation, control, and shame throughout. It feels to some degree anyway that she misuses those words. The lady interviewing finally gets to questions at the end and asks a couple of good ones but leaves all the best ones out. When asked how John was manipulative, Rosebud doesn't have much to say...again.

I do think, after listening, John intended to kick her out, or phase her out. I do think, after listening, John was likely the pursuer at first. But, as she's said, it was all rather consensual. The main part that doesn't seem to be clarified well is that era in August 2012.

According to the recording, it didn't play out much like the text trails suggest. Her story is that at that time she was the most broken and sent some really bad texts that John used. He had already indicated in June that he wanted her to leave and he had started locking her out. She says John talked to Joanna telling her that he was in love with Rosebud and therefore couldn't work with her. Then after that, she talked to Joanna, and she was shocked by the things Rosebud was telling her. But, much to Rosebud's dismay, after their conversation Joanna was already making moves to support John and not her. She was terrified and scared during that time. Felt unsupported. She knew that if she resigned she would lose all rights to follow through with a sexual harassment claim and she hinted that she told Joanna that she was sexually harassed. The board was just very disorganized and not very functional, as she saw it, and John, she thought, wanted it that way. he'd had preferred there was no board and he just ran and owned it. But Rosebud looked into it and did all the work to make sure it was set up properly.


Some of the dirty stuff:
She touched his privates...he lost it on her, while they were naked. Another time when they were agreed to consummate, he couldn't perform....apparently. So according to her there was no intercourse. A few naked excursions and some touching and kissing.

I don't think her story adds up very well, nor clearly. It is too bad, because I'm feeling a bit more convinced that she was in a lesser power position, he likely did maneuver it so she was excluded and there may be something there. I do think there remains plenty of questions, like what was she thinking in her texts circa 2012 wherein it's apparent she thought she could get Dehlin to not resign and then together they'd hold all the power (I think the temple movie was playing in her heard). That's pretty undercutting. Her threatening letter doesn't really fit in with her story either.

She did give Mormondiscussions some mention. She said she was very smart. She used it to talk to John to make him realize she was not afraid. If so, she failed badly, of course. Who knows if he really read it? She only lost credibility in her evasive and arrogant tactics as I recall. If he did see her posts here, he could likely have been like, "oh fewf! she's making herself look nutty and that means I have less to worry about."

Oh additionally, that move by John to out the communities as druggies and sex fiends which we all witnessed and thought was weird, also took the stage. He used that little narrative to further push her away since she was all about the community and setting up conferences. That all coincided with her fake repentance story which she suggests was part of his effort to make sure he was excommunicated as a hero rather than for infidelity. There's plenty more. I see Dwight did some note taking.

[dastardly stem]

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

This really made no sense. it seems Natasha didn't know what was going on, was only clued in afterward, and likely couldn't verify whether John mistreated Rosebud or not.

[dastardly stem]

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?

I'ts a fair point about Rosebud's words. She indicated in the recording that she was at a very low point at that point...But then John used her texts, which she felt was unfair. It could be that she's saying that afterward...or it could be she was in a difficult place and was being really erratic.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

@50:20 claims in November 2011 that she’s telling John Dehlin they need to stop. Ok. I’m sure she won’t do anything like hide under a bed, in, say, someone’s else’s bedroom in someone else’s house while damned around with John Dehlin. Because that’d completely undermine her claim she was setting boundaries, no?

@51:40 straight up claims “I’m doing the work” while being dismissive of John Dehlin’s podcasting. In other words, she positions herself as an equal and she’s running Open Stories Foundation. claims in January 2012 they offer her a job, but came clean to them (she leaves it ambiguous who she’s referencing) and that they have to have a strictly professional relationship if she’s an employee. I guess being an adulteress is cool as long as you’re volunteering.

@52:58 *John Dehlin apparates in her room (in a host’s home in Houston) and apparently *apparates his hands under her sheets and she *apparates consent because “F” it j/k lol@ being professional

@53:29 she hides under the bed

@53:55 claims John Dehlin was being awful to her in one breath, and then mentions her married home life was awful in another. Yeah. When you’re having ‘naked sexual interactions’ with a married wizard who can apparate his hands under your sheets and you’re hiding under your bed and your moral center shifts more than an episode of Top Gear your pain, it rings hollow, doctor.

* I think Rosebud believes speaking in the passive voice is effective at centering herself as the victim. Not working, lady.

- Doc

[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.

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.

I located the document, a two-page letter and worked it so I could take screen shots of both pages.

But I am stuck as to how to reproduce the images here. Sorry about that.

It is a letter dated June 5, 2014 from Jon Meyer of Backus, Meyer & Branch located in Manchester, NH, and addressed to Jason M. Yancey at his office in Layton, Utah.

Here is how it runs:

Dear Jason:

After the various proposals and counter-proposals between us, I have been authorized by my client to make a final settlement demand which can be reduced to two points:

1. As part of the settlement, we want to include a provision that regarding the local Facebook communities established by my client that are no longer controlled by the Open Stories Foundation, that my client be allowed to participate and will not be banned by Mr. Dehlin or anybody acting on his behalf. Also, that in all communities where he is still an admin, that he reinstate my client's admin authority, and that neither he nor anyone operating on his behalf remove that authority in the future.

In regards to the main podcast community, and other public "closed Facebook" communities established by Mr. Dehlin that are controlled by Open Stories Foundation, that my client and any intereted members of her family be allowed to participate, and that she not be banned by him or anyone operating on his behalf now or in the future.

2. That in lieu of attorney's fees reimbursement, my client is prepared to settle for severance in the amount of two months minus severance already received.

My client wishes to withdraw the confidentiality of private emails provision.

It is our hope that this proposal will bring this matter to resolution.

Yours truly,

Jon Meyer



This is the only document relating to negotiations I have seen. I have not seen any documents relating to the final resolution, but it is my understanding that the parties were unable to reach a resolution and Rosebud withdrew her lawsuit in New Hampshire three months after the writing of the above letter.

[Doctor Steuss]

She used [MormonDiscussions] to talk to John to make him realize she was not afraid.

Yabut, she acknowledged to us (in thread... after thread... after thread...) that she knew John wasn't a participant on this board, and she was just posting for the future historians. In fact, her repeated insistence that it was only for historians became a bit of a running joke here.

One of the cool things about being truthful, is you don't have to devote the same type of resources to recalling what you've already claimed.

[consiglieri]

I will add that John Dehlin had absolutely no control over the content of the show, except for the redaction of the phone numbers.

1)Why didn't the podcast announce the theme beforehand? By making the topic a surprised, it reduced the opportunity for interested listeners to listen live and call in.

2) Can you confirm, who prepared the texts between Dehlin and Rosebud? Did you have eyes on the source (phone, etc...) or did Dehlin prepare them for you?

Hi, Meadowchik! I hope you are doing well. Good questions both.

1. It was my decision to not announce the content of the podcast beforehand to avoid a coordinated real-time response of any sort from winged monkeys. I didn't know what they might try, but that is the problem with winged monkeys. They are hard to predict. Best to avoid them altogether if you can.

2. I can confirm that it was John Dehlin who prepared the transcripts of the texts between him and Rosebud. They are taken from a statement sworn to by John Dehlin under penalty of perjury and included as an attachment to the Open Stories Foundation response to Rosebud's NH complaint in 2013. Natasha Helfer said she had confirmed at the time the statement was being prepared that John Dehlin had accurately transcribed the texts from his cell phone.

I hope that answers your questions.

Take care!

[Lem]

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.

I located the document, a two-page letter and worked it so I could take screen shots of both pages.

But I am stuck as to how to reproduce the images here. Sorry about that.

It is a letter dated June 5, 2014 from Jon Meyer of Backus, Meyer & Branch located in Manchester, NH, and addressed to Jason M. Yancey at his office in Layton, Utah.

Here is how it runs:

Dear Jason:

After the various proposals and counter-proposals between us, I have been authorized by my client to make a final settlement demand which can be reduced to two points:

1. As part of the settlement, we want to include a provision that regarding the local Facebook communities established by my client that are no longer controlled by the Open Stories Foundation, that my client be allowed to participate and will not be banned by Mr. Dehlin or anybody acting on his behalf. Also, that in all communities where he is still an admin, that he reinstate my client's admin authority, and that neither he nor anyone operating on his behalf remove that authority in the future.

In regards to the main podcast community, and other public "closed Facebook" communities established by Mr. Dehlin that are controlled by Open Stories Foundation, that my client and any intereted members of her family be allowed to participate, and that she not be banned by him or anyone operating on his behalf now or in the future.

2. That in lieu of attorney's fees reimbursement, my client is prepared to settle for severance in the amount of two months minus severance already received.

My client wishes to withdraw the confidentiality of private emails provision.

It is our hope that this proposal will bring this matter to resolution.

Yours truly,

Jon Meyer



This is the only document relating to negotiations I have seen. I have not seen any documents relating to the final resolution, but it is my understanding that the parties were unable to reach a resolution and Rosebud withdrew her lawsuit in New Hampshire three months after the writing of the above letter.

Thank you! I appreciate the clarification. When you posted this below, I thought you were talking the actual Open Stories Foundation offer, since you referred separately to "a letter from her lawyer" as a response.

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.

It wasn't clear that what you had was only the response letter. Any chance anyone might be able to locate the original Open Stories Foundation letter with the offer?

[Res Ipsa]

So, Consig, if I read that settlement offer correctly, she wanted access to John through multiple Facebook accounts, another 2k over her 3k attorneys fees, and the ability to hold stuff over his head permanently. Close?

[Kishkumen]

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?

Interesting. I say that she is not reliable in a very specific way (her memory vs. contemporary documents for August 2012) and suddenly she’s being accused of being wholly unreliable. Guess I should have expected that.