Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Kishkumen]

Wait...what? Now we are saying John propositioned her by asking, "Hey toots, you wanna engage in an affair wherein I have all the power and control, and you get nothing but minimal access to beg me for periodic attention? "

"yessir. I can't wait. Do you wanna do it? " Her conniving mind on the side, "Maybe I can use him to build my ex-Mormon group resume...this is perfect."

Yes, we are all capable of writing silent movies with white hats and black hats. What does your scenario read like when you make it sound like a dime novel?

[jpatterson]

This is demonstrably untrue, as evidenced by public tax filings. Keeping digging that hole.

She is listed as a Director on the 2011 Form-990 (the first available year), pg. 12/13.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprof ... 0EZ_201112

Perhaps John can clarify this message, which was sent to Rosebud in April of 2011, then:

“Hey…just so we’re clear…the official board consists of
5 people:
1) Ryan Millecam (a lawyer)
2) Elisabeth Calvert Smith (also lawyer)
3) Jacque
4) Ashley Merback
5) Myself
So those 4 are the only people I answer to. As of now,
we are not really meeting or doing anything. They are
not supervising me, and part of me wants to keep it
that way for as long as possible.”

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sexual harassment exists independent of that kind of connotation - it can include a quid pro quo arrangement. I’m sure you know that, though.

edit: Quid pro quo also sets the table for your kind of environment now that I think about it. If the subordinate, knowing their job hinges on pleasing the superior, or not becoming a problem for the superior, they’re going to feel obligated to do things they otherwise wouldn’t do. Even if they agreed to the arrangement initially, this still puts them in a tough spot if on any given day they don’t feel like having a ‘naked sexual interaction’ in Des Moines during a conference. Can they ever really say ‘no’ without incurring the wrath of a superior? It gets tricky very quickly when the superior wants a blowie in the car under a security camera because it’s exciting, and the subordinate doesn’t want to do it.

What I know of the technical questions and the practical sense I have of whether Rosebud is a “victim” are two different things. She may be a victim by some definition, but I don’t consider her consensual entrance into the company of her lover on condition that she leave when he wanted her to victimhood.

That’s just one aspect, though. The moment she stops consenting to whatever he wants when he wants it it becomes a hostile work environment because she reneged on her quid pro quo agreement to be available to him on his terms:

viewtopic.php?p=23324#p23324

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 Open Stories Foundation.

<- Open Stories Foundation is still him, if we’re being honest.

She’s the one that was always on the razor’s edge with regard to her employment, not him. Remember, he’s “Oprah.” She’s just an intern that got lucky enough to ‘“F”’ Oprah and land a job out of it. Anyway, that comment up there makes a lot a of sense with regard to to him allegedly showing up in her room, or badgering her for Zoom masturbation meetings or sexy car-under-the-camera time.

Does this exculpate her scheming? Nope. Does this excuse her entrapment? Nope. Does this excuse her defamation campaign? No way.

BUT, at the end of the day there was a definite power differential, there was a quid pro quo arrangement, and John Dehlin got rid of her not for job-performance issues, but because she broke their quid pro quo arrangement. That’s on him.

- Doc

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

This is demonstrably untrue, as evidenced by public tax filings. Keeping digging that hole.

She is listed as a Director on the 2011 Form-990 (the first available year), pg. 12/13.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprof ... 0EZ_201112

Is Director equal to Executive Director?

- Doc

[jpatterson]

BUT, at the end of the day there was a definite power differential, there was a quid pro quo arrangement, and John Dehlin got rid of her not for job-performance issues, but because she broke their quid pro quo arrangement. That’s on him.

And we can extrapolate from this that John has not been fully truthful when he has repeatedly called these allegations "baseless."

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

BUT, at the end of the day there was a definite power differential, there was a quid pro quo arrangement, and John Dehlin got rid of her not for job-performance issues, but because she broke their quid pro quo arrangement. That’s on him.

And we can extrapolate from this that John has not been fully truthful when he has repeatedly called these allegations "baseless."

I gotta give ya that one. For sure.

- Doc

[The Stig]

She is listed as a Director on the 2011 Form-990 (the first available year), pg. 12/13.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprof ... 0EZ_201112

Perhaps John can clarify this message, which was sent to Rosebud in April of 2011, then:

“Hey…just so we’re clear…the official board consists of
5 people:
1) Ryan Millecam (a lawyer)
2) Elisabeth Calvert Smith (also lawyer)
3) Jacque
4) Ashley Merback
5) Myself
So those 4 are the only people I answer to. As of now,
we are not really meeting or doing anything. They are
not supervising me, and part of me wants to keep it
that way for as long as possible.”

Well, you stated the falsity of the statement was provable via the tax filings; that appears to be false, itself. The filing, which was signed by the preparer on March 30, 2012, shows the following board members:

- John Dehlin

- Joanna Brooks

- Elizabeth Calvert Smith

- Brian Johnston

- Ann Peffer

- Tyson Jacobson

- Ashley Merback

- Natasha Parker

- Robert Scott Holley

- Jeffrey T. Green

As to the message you quoted, Mr. Dehlin will have to speak for himself. I have no interest in defending him. But I suggest you make sure you have your facts straight before you make your accusations. You're not helping your own credibility.

[Analytics]

In other words she eagerly accepted his invitation to be sexually harassed and expected to benefit from that somehow.

Sexual harassment exists independent of that kind of connotation - it can include a quid pro quo arrangement. I’m sure you know that, though.

edit: Quid pro quo also sets the table for your kind of environment now that I think about it. If the subordinate, knowing their job hinges on pleasing the superior, or not becoming a problem for the superior, they’re going to feel obligated to do things they otherwise wouldn’t do. Even if they agreed to the arrangement initially, this still puts them in a tough spot if on any given day they don’t feel like having a ‘naked sexual interaction’ in Des Moines during a conference. Can they ever really say ‘no’ without incurring the wrath of a superior? It gets tricky very quickly when the superior wants a blowie in the car under a security camera because it’s exciting, and the subordinate doesn’t want to do it.

- Doc

This reminds me of that classic Seinfeld episode when Jerry and Elaine are alone one evening and a little bored and a little horney, and Elaine notices Jerry giving her "that look." They agree that having sex would harm their friendship and they shouldn't do it, but then they wonder why that should be? They mutually decide that occasional benefits shouldn't harm their friendship, and agree to some ground rules to protect their friendship from the complications that could arise by indulging in benefits:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFturNf5_A

If it turns out that one of them is more emotionally suited to happily living by the terms of their agreement and thereby is more powerful, does that make him or her a villain and the other a victim?

I know that is a different situation because work isn't involved. My point is simply that I don't like casually throwing around terms "sexual harassment" and "victim" to describe two people agreeing to do something, even if one is nominally more powerful than the other. If two people agree to do something and there is no coercion going on, I have a hard time calling one a villain and the other a victim, even if there is an imbalance in power.

BUT, at the end of the day there was a definite power differential, there was a quid pro quo arrangement, and John Dehlin got rid of her not for job-performance issues, but because she broke their quid pro quo arrangement. That’s on him.

At the same time, that's the deal she willingly agreed to. That's on her.

[The Stig]

She is listed as a Director on the 2011 Form-990 (the first available year), pg. 12/13.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprof ... 0EZ_201112

Is Director equal to Executive Director?

- Doc

Looks like different roles: https://cullinanelaw.com/nonprofit-boar ... -director/

[Dr Exiled]

In other words she eagerly accepted his invitation to be sexually harassed and expected to benefit from that somehow.

Wait...what? Now we are saying John propositioned her by asking, "Hey toots, you wanna engage in an affair wherein I have all the power and control, and you get nothing but minimal access to beg me for periodic attention? "

"yessir. I can't wait. Do you wanna do it? " Her conniving mind on the side, "Maybe I can use him to build my ex-Mormon group resume...this is perfect."

I think we need more information, but, I would definitely want to ask John Dehlin and Rosebud about the "go away" agreement. John Dehlin said or intimated that it was made early in the arrangement. Here is the dialogue I might use on the upcoming fictional play I'm writing.

The working title is "Rosebud, where are my pants?"

Scene One (at the conference post mingle):

Rosebud: "I'm a big fan John Dehlin. Your much taller than I realized."
John Dehlin: "Thanks" as he eyes her up and down, "What's your name?"
Rosebud: "Redacted, and you better not dox me mother idiot or else."
John Dehlin: not paying attention as he eyes some other ladies at the conference ...."wait, what?"
Rosebud: "Nothing, so, I have some ideas about Facebook ......"

Scene Two (in a semi private area outside of earshot of John Dehlin's wife who has a Madonna like light shining on her at all times):

John Dehlin: "Listen, I'll mess around with you, but if you “F” up my crap, then adios bitch!"
Rosebud: "Ok, just being close to you is enough for me. What do you think of putting together Facebook pages? Let me do that (as Rosebud puts her hand in a certain secret place) and I get the feeling some of the board members are sabotaging you."
John Dehlin: "Yeah, whatever you want. Keep going ....."

Some months later .....

Rosebud: "Let's fire the board and rule ex-mormonville forever ....."
John Dehlin: "Fire the board? What kind of crap is that? Babe, it was over like two weeks ago. You can't get the hint. I told you if you “F” up my crap here you need to get the “F” out ....."
Rosebud: I won't be ignored here ..... I'm gonna tell your wife ..... where is your daughter's rabbit?