Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Kishkumen]

That may be what Rosebud believes (she certainly believed it at the time) but it's absolutely not what I believe. I have no idea what would have happened if Open Stories Foundation had, say, split in two with Rosebud developing communities and John taking MSP. I don't really care to take that on as a mental exercise.

What I do know, based on evidence and my own experience, is that John is a crappy, crappy manager. He just sucks at managing things and people. And Rosebud was always really good at those things. They actually made quite a good team except for all the toxic sexual stuff.

I think John's lack of organizational skills and temperament are probably what have prevented him from scaling Open Stories Foundation the way he has wanted to over the years, and that's one of the great ironies of the whole situation.

I don't know about Rosebud as a manager, except I will note that sleeping with coworkers is not the hallmark of a good one. Other than that, I sense that there is some truth to what you say about Rosebud having many of the qualities that would make a fine manager. On the other hand, your view of John Dehlin's lack of managerial skills is obviously right. I would imagine he is an utter disaster as a manager, and I have more or less said so many times on these boards.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Have you any ‘evidence’ that you examined that hasn’t been posted here or published somewhere else?

Absolutely.

John has evidence that is directly linked to (comes directly before and after) what he presented on ML that he intentionally left out.

Oh. Ok. If you say so.

- Doc

[jpatterson]

Other than that, I sense that there is some truth to what you say about Rosebud having many of the qualities that would make a fine manager.

John's a big idea guy. Rosebud was really good at taking those ideas and putting them down on paper and articulating his vision plus her insights and then rallying people to take up a specific action plan.

She received very high praise from fellow board members along those lines.

[Kishkumen]

John's a big idea guy. Rosebud was really good at taking those ideas and putting them down on paper and articulating his vision plus her insights and then rallying people to take up a specific action plan.

She received very high praise from fellow board members along those lines.

Well, I hope they both find situations in which they can make the most of their talents and benefit others thereby.

[consiglieri]

I’ll take that as a compliment.

But, all things considered, it lessens the credibility of the episode, as does your personal connection with him. You don't seem to be a disinterested party here.

How much of a bump did you get after appearing on MS? What happens to your audience trajectory if MS becomes less popular?

Given these factors, I would think you would feel ethically obliged to be all the more circumspect about the production of the episode. To insure witnesses are well qualified and people who would be critical have a chance to weigh in if you are going to invite callers.

I hear you.

It was precisely because of these concerns that I did not take a position on what did or did not happen, but sought to restrict the show to evidence and testimony of witnesses to the procedural history of these allegations.

[Res Ipsa]

It’s not enough to just cry “straw man.” You need to explain why. You appear obsessed to me. Your goal is to knock out of Open Stories Foundation through shaming him about a10-year old incident that he was shamed over to begin with. You’re pushing information that is hurtful to his wife and Kids. You’re falsely accusing him of crimes because you don’t know “F” about tax laws. You’re talking at face value things that a troubled person who can’t let go, continuing to keep her from healing. So, explain to me why my description is a straw man.

It's not enough for you to just make stupid comparisons that no one has ever made, but there you go.

What comparison?

In terms of being obsessed, a cursory glance of this board, to me, suggests "you all" are obsessed with Dan Peterson and his ilk for example. That was my point. We all have our obsessions. You just don't like my obsession. And so now your new obsession is how much you don't like my obsession. You should move on.

Must have been pretty cursory, or you'd have noticed that I very rarely post anything about Dan Peterson.

I'm not taking anything about Rosebud's situation at "face value." I've been pretty clear I've examined a ton of evidence which is how I've arrived at my conclusion. I also have a personal history with John.Your problem is that you examine my involvement as some random message board poster just because I'm posting on some random message board. John lied to me, and to a lot of people and has never ever EVER taken public accountability for his actions. Quite the opposite, actually. You may be in the business of not caring when public figures prop themselves up as something they're not, but personally it really bugs me.

Well, you keep asserting facts that have Rosebud as their original source. You don't demonstrate any degree of skepticism. And, no, I take your involvement exactly as you have been describing it. You have a grudge against Dehlin. He lied to you. Welcome to real life. The problem is, you can't control the behavior of other people. I've seen lots of crusaders in my lifetime who have dedicated themselves to holding some other person to account. And they all present as unhappy people, even when they get what they think they want.

We lived with Rosebud's popping in and out of the old message board for years. She presents as a deeply troubled person who is having difficult moving on from a bad experience. And you show up and rip off the old scabs, resurrect an old experience, and try to leverage someone else's grievance for your own cause. All public figures are humans with feet of clay. They all present as something they are not. Are you going to dedicate your life to bringing them all down?

In terms of your tax law quip, I've spoken with several tax attorneys who confirm that what John has done does violate tax code, but at a level that is so low that the chances of anything ever being done about it are close to zero. If you know how to read between the lines of Open Stories Foundation's financial statements, balance sheets and 990s, you can easily see that somewhere in 2016/2017 someone finally convinced John he needed to get Open Stories Foundation's finances above board by FINALLY instituting an independent compensation committee to decide his salary. Because he was just winging it before.

Well, that's not how you started out presenting the issue:

Just for kicks and giggles, let's talk about John's flirtations with the United States tax code.

In 2010, John made a famous plea for donations so he could get his PhD. His promise was that he would make Mormon Stories a 501(c)3 so people could make tax-exempt donations he could then use to fund his degree.

Only problem with that? It's illegal.

Honest mistake, right? John sometimes gets ahead of himself.

Except he was advised in a series of emails in 2010 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nhhDk4 ... sp=sharing) that what he was suggesting -- both publicly to listeners and privately to financial and other advisors -- was illegal and that he probably shouldn't do that.

From a friend who was advising him on non-profit matters:
Mon Jun 21 2010 at 9:10 pm “In other words, you can’t use Mormon Stories as a pass-through entity to fund your schooling and pay your expenses. You may become an employee of Mormon Stories and draw a salary, but you can’t use these funds for your personal use as a director of a non-profit organization.”
She's referring to the private inurement prohibition of IRS tax code.

Except, of course, inurement refers to passing through the net profits on a nonprofit to an insider. The inurement prohibition doesn't prevent paying salaries to insiders. And that's exactly what Dehlin did -- take a salary. Now, if the salary was excessive, the IRS could withdraw the 501(c)(3) status. And the IRS advises nonprofits to have an independent committee to set salaraies. But it's not required.

So, was it excessive? Let's look at his salary history as stated by you:

John's Open Stories Foundation pay:

2010: $27,429
2011: $40,000
2012: $56,200
2013: $89,573
2014: $98,813
2015: $91,308
2016: $96,250
2017: $109,500
2018: $201,982
2019: $236,021

So, what did this independent advisory committee do when it started setting John's salary in 2017. Was it shocked and dismayed at the amount he had been paid? Hell, no. It doubled his salary. You've presented no evidence that John was overpaid for the work he performed.

So please tell me more about tax law.

I think you now know enough that you should stop falsely accusing Dehlin of being a tax cheat.

What area of law are you in, anyway? You seem to get very defensive any time anyone without a law degree dare demonstrate any sort of understanding of the law. I'm curious why that is. Do you have some sort of feelings of inadequacy you've gotten a law degree to help cover up?

LOL. Nope, I understand the impulse to lash out with a red herring, but not going to play that silly game. I learn parts of the law from non-lawyers all the time. No lawyer knows everything about every area of law -- there's too much to master. But I do know how to find the answers to questions and have some access to resources that most folks don't. So, when I see something that sounds wrong, I check it out. I don't like to see people here misled by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Another example, you repeated Rosebud's claim that if she had resigned in response to the Board's request, she would have given up her harassment claims. That's also just wrong. When she was asked to resign, it was tantamount to a constructive discharge. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... esign.html. No employee is required to stay on the job in the face of hostile work conditions as a condition of recovering on a hostile work environment claim.

[jpatterson]

It was precisely because of these concerns that I did not take a position on what did or did not happen, but sought to restrict the show to evidence and testimony of witnesses to the procedural history of these allegations.

Interesting title of the show, given the above. Maybe you should have titled it "John Dehlin presents new evidence in the Rosebud saga."

But that doesn't generate clicks.

[jpatterson]

What comparison?

because obsessively trying destroy a person’s life over a 10-year old incident involving someone else is exactly like chatting on a message board

Framing something someone never said as their core argument is the definition of a strawman.

[consiglieri]

It was precisely because of these concerns that I did not take a position on what did or did not happen, but sought to restrict the show to evidence and testimony of witnesses to the procedural history of these allegations.

Interesting title of the show, given the above.

I could have called it “An Apology to John Dehlin,”
but that one was taken.

[jpatterson]

I could have called it “An Apology to John Dehlin,”
but that one was taken.

Alternative titles:

"Lead on, river. Lead on. An ode to the Rosebud/Dehlin saga."

"() vs. )( which one happened last?"

"Let's Not Mention the Fact Rosebud Told John to Go Back to His Wife in 2011"

"Please. Let. Go. I love you. Thank you. Please go now. Not later. Now. Please."