Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[drumdude]

Now I'm getting kwaku vibes with the simp thrown out I do think Rosebud is a little too old to know that one.

Simp all the way, I get paid by Open Stories Foundation and then I throw the cash back at him in his livestream, $5 and he takes his shirt off for me in a private room.

You know how kinky John Dehlin gets.

Speaking of kinky (and blackmail), have you ever asked John Dehlin what he did to blackmail Rosebud?

John Dehlin is a gross creep and you should take a shower for defending him.

I have dozens of emails from him about it which I will post here when the time is right someday maybe when the stars align

[Meadowchik]

Hang on.

John's star witness, his ace in the hole...can't even get her facts straight?

Natasha's version of events is that Rosebud went to Joanna to report John for sexual harassment, then the board was informed and they said "Hey wait a minute, let's investigate!" She claims it was only AFTER the Option1/Option2 email was sent that the board so wisely decided to get lawyers involved.

Except there's a clear email thread amongst the board here:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uhgaMQ ... sp=sharing that shows Rosebud was fired by Johna and Joanna before the full board was even notified there was any sort of affair!

Natasha needs to get her story straight, because it doesn't match up with the evidence, which shows:

John told Rosebud to leave Open Stories Foundation because "I'm in love with you." Then he locked her out of Open Stories Foundation properties. Then he went to Joanna. The two of them then hired a lawyer to pressure Rosebud to resign. When she wouldn't, they fired her. THEN Joanna told the board "oh, by the way John and Rosebud aren't getting along anymore so she's gone and we're shutting down all of Rosebud's work." and the board freaked out because they had no idea what was going on, again AFTER Rosebud had already been fired.

If this is the best John this is just sad. Natasha, you need better memory pills.

These are compelling points. Thanks.

[drumdude]

James Patterson laid out his case on reddit that this seems like a coverup by Open Stories Foundation to avoid sexual harassment charges.
https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... _rosebuds/

Mr. Patterson wrote:

It is hard to tell without being able to examine correspondence between John and Joanna what transpired that resulted in the decision for John to keep his job and Rosebud to be fired. But it is clear that that's what happened. On the surface, this seems like a coverup to protect Open Stories Foundation from sexual harassment charges, but more information is needed to understand Joanna's mindset and approach.

What is the definition of sexual harassment and would charges even make sense in this situation?

Courts and employers generally use the definition of sexual harassment contained in the guidelines of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This language has also formed the basis for most state laws prohibiting sexual harassment. The guidelines state:

• submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
  
  submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
  
  such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

A key part of the definition is the use of the word unwelcome. Unwelcome or uninvited conduct or communication of a sexual nature is prohibited; welcome or invited actions or words are not unlawful. Sexual or romantic interaction between consenting people at work may be offensive to observers or may violate company policy, but it is not sexual harassment.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreediction ... harassment

This is the crux of the issue, and why Rosebud had to make up a fake story about John pressuring her for sex to keep her job. We now have the texts and the blackmail letter which completely absolve John of these fake accusations.

Rosebud's Story:
I told John I wouldn't continue any sexual relationship with him (August 9)

The actual text messages from August 9:

Anne: Yeah, we seem to need each other. Glad I've helped in some way. Am wondering where this crazy life will take us (or me at least).

John: Day by day is all we have.

Anne: Im just happy that someone I need needs me too

John: It's so crucial that we don't skype or be in the same city. I think we'd crack.

Anne: I guess that means I shouldn't tell you what I'm wearing....

Anne: Just kidding

Anne: (mean joke)

John: Yes Terrible Say Agreed. Walking. No Skype. Never in the same city unless chaperoned. Agreed. Agreed.

Anne: I just love you.

Anne: I would make some very very nice love to you.

Anne: It's hard not to seduce you. You should give me lots of credit here.

Anne: ooooo.... but what if I want you to seduce me?

Anne: I think I know what you need right now. Yup. I could do that so enjoyably.

Anne: We need each other. Plain and Simple.

John: I want to be clear about something. This isn't because you said something that hurt my feelings today. It is because I've believed for over a year that working together would hurt you, me, and our families. And it has.

John: It's been beautiful, and harmful. And it's harming me now. And I believe it's harming you and our families now. And I really, sincerely want/need us to stop working together.

John: I hope you can understand. It's not because I'm ungrateful for all you've done.

John: It's because this is hurting me. And I believe it's hurting us. And definitely our families. Please, please go. Please don't make me keep asking. Please just go this time. For good. Please.

This is where Rosebud inserted the completely fabricated story that John threatened to fire her if she didn't have sex with him. Now she says this is where she ended the relationship with John. Neither is true.

The text messages:
https://mormonismlive.org/wp-content/up ... sponse.pdf

The blackmail letter:
https://mormonismlive.org/wp-content/up ... -Email.pdf

Anne's blackmail threat:

Anne plays victim

Anne proves sexual harassment to the public

John Spends hours of his time defending himself on message boards instead of taking care of his family

Anne makes a lot of money on book sales

[Moksha]

I'm sooo concerned about my reputation on Exmormon Reddit, you have no idea.

Even your clandestine LDS benefactors will not be lead astray forever.

[IHAQ]

Anne: Im just happy that someone I need needs me too

John: It's so crucial that we don't skype or be in the same city. I think we'd crack.

Anne: I guess that means I shouldn't tell you what I'm wearing....

Anne: Just kidding

Anne: (mean joke)

John: Yes Terrible Say Agreed. Walking. No Skype. Never in the same city unless chaperoned. Agreed. Agreed.

Anne: I just love you.

Anne: I would make some very very nice love to you.

Anne: It's hard not to seduce you. You should give me lots of credit here.

Anne: ooooo.... but what if I want you to seduce me?

Anne: I think I know what you need right now. Yup. I could do that so enjoyably.

Anne: We need each other. Plain and Simple.

Didn’t they make a film about this starring Michael Douglas and Glenn Close which didn’t end well for the bunny?

[Symmachus]

Whose story is more believable? The lady who went on a podcast and couldn't get her facts straight or the lady who swore under penalty of perjury that she was sexually harassed?

I assume this is a sincere question, jpatterson (if you're not Rosebud, fine, but it's confusing when you refer to Rosebud in the 3rd person when describing Natasha Helfer Parker's account but you use the 1st person "I" when referring to Rosebud's account).

Firstly, as long as she sincerely believed her statement made under oath, I wonder if that would be perjury, so that is an irrelevant point. The question is not whether she is sincere in beliefs about her experience but whether the evidence supports her sincerely held belief. Even if belief and sincerity were considered evidence initially, their weight is diminished to the extent that they contradict evidence external to the belief. They appear to contradict the evidence of the text messages from July 24 and August 9.

Let me explain this to you like you're a fourth grader:

Like Joseph Smith, I never got past the 3rd grade, so I might not be able to grasp the issues here, and my feelings are not hurt by insults to my limited ability to read, so feel free to hurl them. The upshot is that, despite my limited brain power and education, I'm not invested in John Dehlin in the slightest and I haven't followed the Rosebud saga; I have not even watched/listened to the interview yet. I am ready to accept that your position is the correct one. What interests me is how this fits into the phenomenon of Mormon apologetics, especially as it transitions from arguments about the substantive claims of Mormonism to contests over media personalities like Dehlin and Kwaku.

Rosebud's Story
I told John I wouldn't continue any sexual relationship with him (August 9)

Call this A.

John emailed me and told me I'd have to leave Open Stories Foundation (Aug 10)
John changed my passwords (Aug 11)
John informed Joanna Brooks he was in love with me and couldn't work with me (Aug 11)

Call this B

I reported to Joanna the details of our relationship (Aug 22)
John banned me from the online communities I had created (Aug 23)
Joanna asked us both to resign (Aug 25)
I told Joanna no (Aug 27)
I got a letter from a lawyer firing me (Aug 31)
Joanna tells the board in passing, in an email, that I'd been fired. Doesn't say why. Oh and by the way, John's being re-hired, please approve his application (Sep 4)
Natasha responds, saying (paraphrase) "I have no clue what's going on, serious decisions are being made without the board's approval" (Sep 6)

Call this C

The alleged misconduct on Dehlin's part, as I understand it from this, is that Dehlin wanted a sexual relationship (A) and then retaliated on being denied it (B). The misconduct (B) therefore is predicated on whether (A) occurred. The question is, did A occur? If not, then B is not misconduct, and the timeline of events C is not relevant. If A did occur, then B would be misconduct, and the timeline becomes relevant. Is that not the case?

The texts on August 9 appear to show that John Dehlin ended things. From the materials of July 24 and August 9 in the document linked and quoted above, it does not appear that A ever took place. They do not appear to show that Rosebud ended anything or even attempted to; they appear to show the pressure to enter into a sexual relationship coming from Rosebud, in fact, not Dehlin, up to and including August 9. That would mean A did not happen, so B cannot be considered misconduct, which means C is irrelevant and that the credibility of Natasha Helfer Parker's memory is a moot point. Now, perhaps there was a misconduct B of a different nature (for example, perhaps not retaliation for non-existent A, but maybe Open Stories Foundation did not follow some necessary procedure or other in firing Rosebud), but that would be a totally different claim requiring a more fact pattern focused on that claim.

In light of the Kwaku video and the Dehlin apology to Kwaku, the timing of this looks pretty strategic. That's not damning at all, because Dehlin has every right to defend himself and his interests, but in terms of my interest in apologetics and my curiosity about Kwaku and the new-media style of Mormon apologia, I consider it a key moment. My theory has been that Kwaku's video will be much more impactful in combating the progressivism anti-Churchism of Dehlin than anything the old FARMS people could do. I would say that it was almost a watershed in Mormon apologetics on par with No Ma'am That's Not History: substantively pretty hollow but strategically brilliant, both in terms of Kwaku's own position and in terms of advancing the cause. Dehlin, however, once again shows himself to be a master of the media landscape.

[Kishkumen]

Mr. Patterson wrote:

It is hard to tell without being able to examine correspondence between John and Joanna what transpired that resulted in the decision for John to keep his job and Rosebud to be fired. But it is clear that that's what happened. On the surface, this seems like a coverup to protect Open Stories Foundation from sexual harassment charges, but more information is needed to understand Joanna's mindset and approach.

If we stop right here there are a few problems with these claims. The decision was to have both resign and be rehired as private contractors. Rosebud did not like the terms of her new contract, so she refused to resign, and it was then decided that she should be fired. At that point, Dehlin was already only a privately contracted employee of Open Stories Foundation, not a member of the board.

If Open Stories Foundation had been engaged in an attempt to cover up actual sexual harassment, instead of trying to solve an internal employee relationship problem, they would not likely have come up with the solution they did, which was to invite both parties to resign and be rehired as private contractors.

A key part of the definition is the use of the word unwelcome. Unwelcome or uninvited conduct or communication of a sexual nature is prohibited; welcome or invited actions or words are not unlawful. Sexual or romantic interaction between consenting people at work may be offensive to observers or may violate company policy, but it is not sexual harassment.

Bingo. This is the root problem of Rosebud's claim. On August 9th she is trying to seduce John into consummating what had been up to that point an affair without intercourse. (So Mormon, my friends, and for that reason completely believable.) It appears that it was John who refused Rosebud, and now she is retaliating by making the premeditated false claim that he was an aggressor and she a victim. Option 2 of the "Options" email shows that she had planned her revenge down to the real bizarre self-aggrandizing details of her having a best-selling book and going on the Ellen show. Whatever little snafus have occurred in the way a rinky-dink non-profit operating way above its institutional expertise handled the situation, Rosebud has cooked her own goose by confessing voluntarily in an email that she planned to blackmail everyone.

Case closed.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Symmachus makes a really good point. It’s incredibly good timing *cough* that John Dehlin released his ‘Kawaku apology video’ virtually at the same time this episode aired where Consig managed to get ahold of some docs (finally we see something approaching proof of anything) and additionally got ahold of not one, but two (!) Open Stories Foundation board members to come on the show. by the way, that second guest, I forget her name, was just delightful.

This does have the appearance of a coordinated effort by John Dehlin and the Open Stories Foundation board at perception management. The viewer comes away with the impression that John Dehlin made a bad choice (like Michael Douglas - another good analogy), but tried to ethically and gently extricate himself from Rosebud the psycho, which was an impossible task because of her blackmail plans.

Look. I ain’t knowin’ who jpatterson is, but it’s clear from the reddit link they’re willing to also engage in sock puppetry, bending the narrative by omitting details, and they go into repeater mode - read into that what you will. I have to wonder if Rosebud or an enabler reached out to Kwaku and fed him whatever information they felt would be most damaging to John Dehlin; she did state she’d do something to that effect. Good Lord. When a woman’s monkey branching doesn’t pay off ...

- Doc

[Dr Exiled]

Rosebud, it's over. Your continued pursuit of this will only make your nemesis, John Dehlin, stronger as he becomes more of a sympathetic victim. You never had a case and were probably turned down by countless lawyers that you consulted. Time to listen to what they undoubtedly told you. Time to let it go.

[jpatterson]

Look. I ain’t knowin’ who jpatterson is, but it’s clear from the reddit link they’re willing to also engage in sock puppetry, bending the narrative by omitting details, and they go into repeater mode - read into that what you will.

I'm a former employee of Open Stories Foundation and a former friend of John's. Up until a few years ago, I bought his narrative that Rosebud was just some random stalker lady when it would come up in our conversations (this was back in 2014).

Then, when the Kristy Money stuff happened, I decided to look more into the Rosebud allegations. I went down the rabbit hole of her posts here. That lead me to the Open Stories Foundation 1099s, where I found Rosebud's real name. Through some Google research, I found what appeared to be a valid email address. I reached out and told her I wanted to get her side of the story, after having heard John's. She told me the whole story over the phone, then sent me a trove of documents which I pored through over several weeks.

After doing so, I was convinced that, while an incredibly complicated story, John had at the very least violated Open Stories Foundation's current sexual harassment policy, acted incredibly inappropriately with a subordinate and had been lying to me and other people about his complicity for years.

That pissed me off. But Rosebud asked me not to say or do anything about what I had read. So I pursued looking into Open Stories Foundation's finances. Because I am also under an NDA from when I worked from John, the only thing I could do is point to public records that show that John has repeatedly violated federal tax code in personally benefiting from pass-through tax-deductible donations to himself to fund his PhD and pay for his personal expenses.

When Kwaku's video came out, I knew John was going to issue one of his BS blanket denials. Just realize how John keeps moving the goalposts on his story. First was that she was just crazy and there was no merit to the accusations. He calls the allegations "baseless" when it's clearly not a cut-and-dry story.

Now it's that they had an affair and he was in love with her, but he tried to break it off. From all the stuff I've read, John engaged in some of the creepiest behavior I could imagine from a guy with his platform and audience. Someday I really hope Rosebud decides to report what he did to NH law enforcement, especially before the statue of limitations expires.

Rosebud relented and gave me permission to release select documents -- less salacious ones that would be minimally embarassing to both parties. At every step over the last week, I have been the one to release information at my own desire. Rosebud has not asked me to do anything.

I have literally nothing to gain by standing up for Rosebud. I left Mormonism in 2017. I left exmormonism shortly after because I realized that the community does a really crappy job of moving on from the bad habits and mindsets that are engrained in them by the LDS Church. John is a perfect example of that. He claims to be enlightened about sexual violence, yet he and his employees like Natasha continues to victimize Rosebud.

The idea that I'm being secretly paid or backed by the church is a hilarious lie that John's supporters are using to discredit me. It's a sad attempt at character assasination of someone who has zero motivation other than a pursuit of the truth. If I have been selective in my release of information, it's only because Rosebud has asked me to, in order to keep the more salacious parts out of the public record. I respect that.

John has no place being a voice for anyone or anything in the exmormon community. He should resign and apologize.