Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[honorentheos]

Perhaps of some small use when trying to reduce motivations into convenient self-satisfying options:

So if passionate love is a drug—literally a drug—it has to wear off eventually. Nobody can stay high forever (although if you find passionate love in a long-distance relationship, it’s like taking cocaine once a month; the drug can retain its potency because of your suffering between doses). If passionate love is allowed to run its joyous course, there must come a day when it weakens.

One of the lovers usually feels the change first. It’s like waking up from a shared dream to see your sleeping partner drooling. In those moments of returning sanity, the lover may see flaws and defects to which she was blind before. The beloved falls off the pedestal, and then, because our minds are so sensitive to changes, her change in feeling can take on exaggerated importance. “Oh, my God,” she thinks, “the magic has worn off—I’m not in love with him anymore.” If she subscribes to the myth of true love, she might even consider breaking up with him. After all, if the magic ended, it can’t be true love. But if she does end the relationship, she might be making a mistake.

Passionate love does not turn into companionate love.

Passionate love and companionate love are two separate processes, and they have different time courses. Their diverging paths produce two danger points, two places where many people make grave mistakes. In figure 6.1, I’ve drawn out how the intensity of passionate and companionate love might vary in one person’s relationship over the course of six months. Passionate love ignites, it burns, and it can reach its maximum temperature within days.

During its weeks or months of madness, lovers can’t help but think about marriage, and often they talk about it, too. Sometimes they even accept Hephaestus’s offer and commit to marriage. This is often a mistake. Nobody can think straight when high on passionate love. The rider is as besotted as the elephant. People are not allowed to sign contracts when they are drunk, and I sometimes wish we could prevent people from proposing marriage when they are high on passionate love because once a marriage proposal is accepted, families are notified, and a date is set, it’s very hard to stop the train. The drug is likely to wear off at some point during the stressful wedding planning phase, and many of these couples will walk down the aisle with doubt in their hearts and divorce in their future.

The other danger point is the day the drug weakens its grip. Passionate love doesn’t end on that day, but the crazy and obsessional high period
does. The rider regains his senses and can, for the first time, assess where the elephant has taken them. Breakups often happen at this point,and for many couples that’s a good thing. Cupid is usually portrayed as an impish fellow because he’s so fond of joining together the most inappropriate couples. But sometimes breaking up is premature, because if the lovers had stuck it out, if they had given companionate love a chance to grow, they might have found true love.

True love exists, I believe, but it is not—cannot be—passion that lasts forever. True love, the love that undergirds strong marriages, is simply strong companionate love, with some added passion, between two people who are firmly committed to each other.

https://www.happinesshypothesis.com/hap ... is-ch6.pdf

[Moksha]

The only true winners here seem to be cringe entertainment, and the fremdschämen market.

Between you and Kishkumen, I've needed to look up three words within 24 hours. Keep them coming!

[Lem]

Yes, that's not a good sign if an employee refuses to listen to the boss. Is she the employee and he the boss in this situation? Because I thought all of that was muddled.

Unfortunately, that's been a shifting element throughout much of this discussion. When it is pointed out that a sexual relationship between a superior and a subordinate in which the subordinate lost their job is sexual harassment, a common argument is they were equals, and therefore there was not an imbalance that was being taken advantage of. Evidence for this is given as the victim making some statements where they (incorrectly, in my opinion) interpret the relationship as one between equals. In my opinion, the delusions of a victim are not a reliable representation. The objective evidence clearly shows they were not considered equals by those making the decisions.

However, in a recent description of the interactions, it has been suggested that Rosebud should have stopped when John Dehlin told her to stop, even though he didn't stop when she asked him to. Or, in other words, as in the comment above, an employee should have listened to their boss. In that interpretation, as a result of a superior having an improper relationship with said subordinate that did not end the way the superior wanted it to, the subordinate lost their job. If the argument continues that they were equals, then John Dehlin's unwillingness to stop when Rosebud asked him to should be considered as strongly as her not stopping when he asked her to. However, it is not. Many here admit John Dehlin was wrong, but in general, the burden of stopping, leaving, backing down, or not continuing this sexual relationship has been imposed on the subordinate who lost her employment over the situation. The victim is not blameless, but they do not bear responsibility for the sexual harassment imposed upon them. That responsibility belongs to her superior and to the board.

It's just not possible to have it both ways. If it is argued that John Dehlin was more important and should have been the one to keep his job, then it is implicit that there was a power differential, and the one with the least power lost their job as a result of the relationship. In other words, there was sexual harassment.

This continued argument after the fact that Rosebud was indeed the subordinate who not only was not an equal but also had inferior rights to programs, while John Dehlin was truly the face of the business and was indeed the one who should have prevailed, simply reinforces the sexual harassment conclusion.

Again, I don't see any way to correct this now, other than to acknowledge that John Dehlin very definitely sexually harassed someone. His repeated claims that he has NEVER sexually harassed anyone are simply not true. He may believe it himself, and he may believe that because the penalties for sexual harassment were not yet spelled out specifically he can argue he therefore didn't sexually harass anyone, but in my opinion an objective analysis of the situation suggests he is wrong. The principle of sexual harassment was violated. The existence of Open Stories Foundation policy that seems written exactly to stop any situation where he treats someone the way he treated Rosebud is just additional support for this conclusion.

[Moksha]

I think Rosebud's refusal to stop pestering him for sex was a sort of final straw in what had already become an obviously untenable business partnership.

Well, that seems kind of unequivocal, unless her pestering him for sex was done with spiritual eyes only.

[Lem]

Were this a more clear cut case (more than 15 employees, superior and subordinate more clearly defined), I don't think the superior gets to push out the subordinate in order to fix his life and prevent his business from blowing up.

And I get it's a small company, etc. etc.

Sadly, yes. And John Dehlin seems to have concluded that since there was no legal definition of sexual harassment in place that dictated a consequence, then he did not sexually harass anyone.

That is incorrect. It just means he and the Open Stories Foundation board got away with it. It doesn't change the principle. Too bad John Dehlin didn't not only have the character to not engage in an extra-marital affair, he didn't have the business acumen to realize the damage hiring his paramour to work for him could do. (Rosebud's deficiencies in character have already been listed multiple times, so I won't repeat them here, other than to say that I agree that both parties behaved very badly.)

[Kishkumen]

Harsh, but I can see your point of view.

Were this a more clear cut case (more than 15 employees, superior and subordinate more clearly defined), I don't think the superior gets to push out the subordinate in order to fix his life and prevent his business from blowing up.

And I get it's a small company, etc. etc.

I think if there had been an Open Stories Foundation policy against sexual harassment at the time, John Dehlin would have been breaking it. If there 15 or more employees at Open Stories Foundation, he and Open Stories Foundation would have been in legal trouble.

On the other hand, if there had been no affair, Rosebud would probably have either been let go or kept on in a much-reduced position.

It’s all harsh. Honestly I don’t see how Rosebud would have come out of her time at Open Stories Foundation with much more than the salary she had earned and the experience. Her business vision didn’t look very profitable or sustainable.

[Kishkumen]

Yes, that's not a good sign if an employee refuses to listen to the boss. Is she the employee and he the boss in this situation? Because I thought all of that was muddled.

I have been uncertain about this because of the funny configuration with a board and two employees. When John Dehlin spells out his business decisions and how they shape Rosebud’s options, he is speaking effectively as a boss. He ceased being a boss in the same way when he resigned, but when he was reasoning her into leaving he pretty clearly did what in other circumstances would be identified as sexual harassment. It would be at Open Stories Foundation today. It would have been in a larger company.

[pistolero]

Were this a more clear cut case (more than 15 employees, superior and subordinate more clearly defined), I don't think the superior gets to push out the subordinate in order to fix his life and prevent his business from blowing up.

And I get it's a small company, etc. etc.

Sadly, yes. And John Dehlin seems to have concluded that since there was no legal definition of sexual harassment in place that dictated a consequence, then he did not sexually harass anyone.

That is incorrect. It just means he and the Open Stories Foundation board got away with it. It doesn't change the principle. Too bad John Dehlin didn't not only have the character to not engage in an extra-marital affair, he didn't have the business acumen to realize the damage hiring his paramour to work for him could do. (Rosebud's deficiencies in character have already been listed multiple times, so I won't repeat them here, other than to say that I agree that both parties behaved very badly.)

One of the things that frustrates me most about this megatopic[1] is that I feel like I'm defending John Dehlin a lot more than I really want to. John Dehlin and Rosebud deserve each other, the pair of them are just ... you fill in the blanks ... the whole sordid, shoddy little affair is just ...

I've tried to glean as much from the available evidence as I can, but still have to recognise that there are gaps in it and I don't have all the facts. John Dehlin seems to release evidence that supports his case and Rosebud seems to think she's releasing evidence that supports her case, although at the same time admitting that there is more evidence out there.

So when John Dehlin makes the assertion that he hasn't sexually harassed anyone, the default position is surely he is innocent until someone proves otherwise and provides the evidence to show as much. There are still a few things in the air for me to conclude definitively whether John Dehlin sexually harassed Rosebud. It seems extremely feasible that he did, but this case could really do with some professional eyes on it to determine what is what and to get the evidence that is required. Consig did this with what was available to him and questioned credible witnesses. Instead of a document dump, Rosebud could really do with joining some dots and rebutting what was said in the ML interview. Meanwhile, the court of public opinion is just a free-for-all with opinions of all type.

If I'd heard about this story back in 2012 and I had the information that I had now, I'll be honest, I would be very much leaning more towards the Rosebud side of things. However, this orchestrated smear campaign has undermined her case. She is showing herself to be unreliable and disingenuous which makes me call into question much of the evidence that she has provided. This is a sad admission on my part, because I'm also all too well that being a survivor of these type of events can cause a person to experience all types of emotional stress, which can then lead to anywhere, if not properly treated.


Footnotes:
[1] On the other hand, who doesn't love a scandal played out in public?

[Lem]

If I'd heard about this story back in 2012 and I had the information that I had now, I'll be honest, I would be very much leaning more towards the Rosebud side of things. However, this orchestrated smear campaign has undermined her case. She is showing herself to be unreliable and disingenuous which makes me call into question much of the evidence that she has provided. This is a sad admission on my part, because I'm also all too well that being a survivor of these type of events can cause a person to experience all types of emotional stress, which can then lead to anywhere, if not properly treated.

I agree, that's why I put little reliance on her words interpreting things, but have instead leaned toward what I consider a more objective interpretation of actual events.

A superior and a subordinate had an inappropriate sexual affair, which ended in the superior and the Open Stories Foundation board arranging for the subordinate to lose their employment. in my opinion, their actions constitute sexual harassment.

The one who was the subordinate has exhibited extremely poor behavior since then. The one who was the superior has insisted repeatedly that he has NEVER sexually harassed anyone, and recently arranged to have someone else release selective texts that he hand-picked, making it seem as though the information was unbiased, similar to the subordinate's selective release of information. The information that he hand-picked the text messages to have someone else release, as well as the unreliable memory of one of the people interviewed both undermined this version of events, in my opinion. Although many documents were presented that are helpful, from both sides, and many people have acted on behalf of both sides, in my opinion neither of the two parties, the superior and the subordinate, have acted with integrity.

[pistolero]

If I'd heard about this story back in 2012 and I had the information that I had now, I'll be honest, I would be very much leaning more towards the Rosebud side of things. However, this orchestrated smear campaign has undermined her case. She is showing herself to be unreliable and disingenuous which makes me call into question much of the evidence that she has provided. This is a sad admission on my part, because I'm also all too well that being a survivor of these type of events can cause a person to experience all types of emotional stress, which can then lead to anywhere, if not properly treated.

I agree, that's why I put little reliance on her words interpreting things, but have instead leaned toward what I consider a more objective interpretation of actual events.

A superior and a subordinate had an inappropriate sexual affair, which ended in the superior and the Open Stories Foundation board arranging for the subordinate to lose their employment. in my opinion, their actions constitute sexual harassment.

The one who was the subordinate has exhibited very poor behavior since then. The one who was the superior has insisted repeatedly that he has NEVER sexually harassed anyone. Never. Both of those approaches are dishonest and inappropriate, and neither deserves respect.

While I will support any person who claims to be a victim of such behaviour, the perpetrator can ultimately claim innocence until proven otherwise. The onus is on Rosebud to prove John Dehlin's guilt, otherwise John Dehlin is well within his rights to claim that he has never harassed anyone. There is evidence out there, but I still think we are looking through a glass, darkly.