Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[jpatterson]

Boards don't own non-profits.

Let's throw out the word "own" because it's not entirely relevant in the interest of talking about non-profits.

Here's your bone...ready? I WAS WRONG TO USE THE WORD "OWN" IN REFERENCE TO NON-PROFITS. I sincerely apologize for this obvious oversight. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.

Frankly, I think the very notion of ownership when it comes to non-profits is misused language. But even when misused it doesn't apply when looking at Rosebud and Open Stories Foundation. Her job, her role in building the vision and executing it weren't tied to a position on the board, nor does her having or not having a position on the board provide insight on her relationship to John Dehlin within Open Stories Foundation as an operation. It only can tell us what her relationship was to the board and its other members in that capacity.

I don't know how many different ways I can say this: I don't care. This is not a trial. We're having a discussion about moral, ethical and legal lines. My entire point in bringing up the board relationship was in the context of John bringing it up.

You seem to want to take keep taking me on this side adventure that's not relevant and that I'm not interested in.

[honorentheos]

If it's about her being a subordinate or not, the board position is irrelevant. It sounds like John is making a bad argument, too, if he is citing that her being on the board has any bearing on the relationship outside of the board. Inside the board organization, she was an uncompensated director both years she was listed.

So the argument to John Dehlin would be it's irrelevant if she was on the board.

[jpatterson]

It sounds like John is making a bad argument, too, if he is citing that her being on the board has any bearing on the relationship outside of the board. Inside the board organization, she was an uncompensated director both years she was listed.

So the argument to John Dehlin would be it's irrelevant if she was on the board.

Man, you're so close. You've got the first half of it down, finally. John is making a bad argument. Bingo!

However, nowhere will you find me making an argument that her board participation is relevant to her being a subordinate. So, you can delete the "too" in your above post--which I read in full before posting this.

[jpatterson]

Maybe you should spend less time arguing with me and direct your comments to John wherein he makes a very impassioned (yet entirely false) argument for Rosebud being his equal because she was a "founding board member" here (emphasis mine):

How is it “that simple” if we were both board members from the beginning? Of course it was terrible judgement on both our parts. And of course I had more influence, as I had been doing Mormon Stories for 6 years previous. And of course extramarital affairs are bad. And of course co-workers should not get romantically involved.

But we were both board members from the beginning, and the only two employees. Rosebud even acknowledged this. She wasn’t my subordinate. We both worked for the board. And Rosebud worked directly with Joanna.

Messy? Yes. Dumb? Absolutely.

But a “simple” boss/subordinate role? That’s just not accurate.

We were both founding board members. And Rosebud was a FOUNDING board member BEFORE she came to work part time.

That has to be factored in to the equation.

I'll ask again: is John's memory just fuzzy? Or is he lying? Was his memory just fuzzy when he filled out the 990 form for 2010? Or was he lying then too?

[honorentheos]

Boards don't own non-profits.

Let's throw out the word "own" because it's not entirely relevant in the interest of talking about non-profits.

Here's your bone...ready? I WAS WRONG TO USE THE WORD "OWN" IN REFERENCE TO NON-PROFITS. I sincerely apologize for this obvious oversight. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.

Frankly, I think the very notion of ownership when it comes to non-profits is misused language. But even when misused it doesn't apply when looking at Rosebud and Open Stories Foundation. Her job, her role in building the vision and executing it weren't tied to a position on the board, nor does her having or not having a position on the board provide insight on her relationship to John Dehlin within Open Stories Foundation as an operation. It only can tell us what her relationship was to the board and its other members in that capacity.

I don't know how many different ways I can say this: I don't care. This is not a trial. We're having a discussion about moral, ethical and legal lines. My entire point in bringing up the board relationship was in the context of John bringing it up.

You seem to want to take keep taking me on this side adventure that's not relevant and that I'm not interested in.

Hey, you're the one who quoted a post and named me in the reply. I pointed out you had my argument wrong and lumped me in by name because you think John Dehlin is wrong. This is you pulling me in and then making it an argument. I said upfront I wasn't engaging the argument about if she was a founding board member or not, only that she and John shared intellectual ownership what Open Stories Foundation was building where he had the majority stake. Once it fell apart, it was only going to ever go one way, and frankly it shouldn't have gone otherwise. Justice for Rosebud doesn't look like the destruction of Open Stories Foundation. It wouldn't have been justice had she taken it over and John been pushed out. It isn't FAIR that she ended up being pushed out. But they had an affair, JP. If it's about morality and ethics, two married persons engaged in an affair of passion that fell apart, blew up one relationship and damaged the other. The outcomes after two adults engage in that behavior aren't going to be pretty. What's justice here? John and Maggie rebuilt their marriage. I don't know if that was easy or hard. I expect it hurts Maggie every time it comes up. It will probably be a wound that never fully closes for them. Rosebud is having problems rebuilding her life and sees that as the point when it all fell apart. Is trying to tear the world down to get back to that point and reclaim what she thinks was stolen from her ETHICAL? Jesus Christ.

This isn't about morality or ethics, justice or law. It's about the fallout that just keeps on falling out. And now you're part of that.

Maybe if you are legitimately interested in morality and ethics, you should figure out what it is you are doing and why here. Otherwise, your involvement might not be moral, ethical, or facilitating justice.

[jpatterson]

Thanks for the lecture. What would I do without you as my moral compass?























Also, who is Maggie??

[Moksha]

Also, who is Maggie??

She is Rosebud's rival for the hand of John.

[honorentheos]

https://circlingthewagons.org/anne-peffer/

Anne McMullin Peffer is the founder of the Circling the Wagons Conferences the founder and president of the Mormon Community Cooperative 501(c)3. She was the founder of the Mormon Stories conferences and communities and served as the Operations Director of Mormon Stories until September of 2012. She was a member of the Mormons Building Bridges Steering Committee until the fall of 2014 and is the visionary behind the Circling the Wagons Coalition.

[honorentheos]

Also, who is Maggie??

She is Rosebud's rival for the hand of John.

It's Margi, not Maggie. My bad. He's picking up whatever pennies he can.

[jpatterson]

Question: in the absence of formal org charts, etc, what kinds of attributes or relationship qualities denote that someone is in a position of authority or that someone is subordinate to someone else?