Sexual harassment and tax problems for dehlin or not?

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think this is a prime motivator in trying to characterize Joseph Smith as an adulterer, as it would taint his morality and authority.

I think some people who leave the Church have simply switched out one set of leaders (the General Authorities) for another of their choosing (John Dehlin, Denver Snuffer, etc.).  I also think some of these people have developed a narrative for themselves that leaving the Church is progression.  An evolution above and beyond the absurd and stodgy ethics taught by the Church.  And then John Dehlin is revealed to be a long-term adulterer.  Tom Kimball's sexual abuse has also come to light.  Critics who have built an identity that involves elevating themselves above and beyond the puerile and insipid moral/ethical framework of the Church can run into some big-time cognitive dissonance in such circumstances.

As for the Latter-day Saints, we need to keep our own house in order.  We can't wink at or ignore serious misconduct, even when it involves a prominent member of the Church (particularly when, actually).  

Thanks,

-Smac

(emphasis added)

Joseph Smith "married" dozens of women, and denied it to the public, the membership of the church, and usually to his wife. He manipulated girls into "marrying" him saying it was her choice whether she "married" him, but that if she did so, it would guarantee her family's salvation and would prevent an angel with a flaming sword from killing him. But its her free will. No pressure. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

(emphasis added)

Joseph Smith "married" dozens of women, and denied it to the public, the membership of the church, and usually to his wife.

Broadly, yes.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

He manipulated girls into "marrying" him saying it was her choice whether she "married" him, but that if she did so, it would guarantee her family's salvation and would prevent an angel with a flaming sword from killing him. But its her free will. No pressure. 

Meh.  This is neither an accurate nor fair summary of what happened with Helen Mar Kimball.  For those interested in an accurate (and documented) summary of her relationship with Joseph Smith, see the Hales biography of her here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Broadly, yes.

Meh.  This is neither an accurate nor fair summary of what happened with Helen Mar Kimball.  For those interested in an accurate (and documented) summary of her relationship with Joseph Smith, see the Hales biography of her here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ummm, yeah...that doesn't help your case.  Not one bit.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

This sounds more like foreplay or petting and I again state that none of us really know what took place

Foreplay and petting are sexual acts are they not, therefore even if limited to those, it would be appropriate to describe their relationship as sexual. 
 

If you disagree...sexting does not include intercourse, as do not a number of other sexual practices I wouldn’t get graphic about except to say orgasm, what many see as one of the end results of a sexual relationship,  does not require intercourse.  Pregnancy does not even require it as some have found out to their dismay.  There are individuals who cannot participate in intercourse as well.  To say that a relationship is only sexual if there is intercourse is ignoring the reality of many sexual relationships. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Calm

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Foreplay and petting are sexual acts are they not, therefore even if limited to those, it would be appropriate to describe their relationship as sexual. 
 

If you disagree...sexting does not include intercourse, as do not a number of other sexual practices I wouldn’t get graphic about except to say orgasm, what many see as one of the end results of a sexual relationship,  does not require intercourse.  Pregnancy does not even require it as some have found out to their dismay.  There are individuals who cannot participate in intercourse as well.  To say that a relationship is only sexual if there is intercourse is ignoring the reality of many sexual relationships. 

Yep.  @Fair Dinkum, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.  There was plenty of 'sexual activity' even if they never took the final step to intercourse and it was definitely an affair.  There are plenty of hills to die on, but this isn't one of them.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Why the passive aggressive slight against Helfer?  

Huh?  What was the slight?  If the bold...”proxy” I was using that as to identify her special category of defender as she was not self appointed as happens with many on the Internet, but was there as a representative of John Dehlin, making her POV more relevant Imo to the discussion. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

think Calm's point is that Helfer-Parker is aligned with Dehlin

Not quite far enough...I understood it was agreed with Dehlin that she be one of those speaking for him and the board since he gave them emails and texts to present his defense against RB’s accusations. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Despite the fact that she has repeatedly put her real name out there on this over the years, she has also said asked that it not be used.  I realize that's in direct conflict with her own actions and more than a little crazy, but I choose to respect her request for preserving what little morsel of anonymity she might have left.

This is how I feel about it, so if it is not necessary, I prefer it not be used in the thread. However, if you (speaking generally) need to use as documentation something that gives her name, please feel free to link to it. If you can’t link (I can’t figure out how to link to many FB comments) and need to use a screenshot...I have no clue how to redact something like that, but maybe others do and can instruct anyone who needs to post one.  If you can’t figure it out, I will leave it to the poster’s judgment whether or not the contribution outweighs the need to help RB keep a little anonymity in this thread.  
 

Using her alias is probably more a gesture of compassionate understanding than protection given how much her names are out there. 
 

Since she herself has used her name in many places and has posted stuff just recently where redaction was half and half (she removed it after a day or so to do a better job), I am not going to report anyone who chooses to use her name, but I hope posters will choose not to when possible. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Calm

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Ummm, yeah...that doesn't help your case.  Not one bit.

I am acknowledging the historical record, based on the best evidence we have.

Candor is generally a good idea.  As an attorney, I need to be both a zealous advocate of my client's position while also being an officer of the court, the responsibilities of which "candor toward the tribunal" as set forth in Rule 3.3 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct.

I generally try to be similarlly candid in acknowledging the flaws and mistakes of the leaders of the Church.  Context is often very important, something we didn't get in Analytics' drive-by potshot.  FAIR's treatment of this topic is pretty good.  See also this article on the Hales' website: “Thou Shalt not Lie” and Denials of Polygamy

An excerpt:

Quote

Denying polygamy on a technicality may not satisfy some observers. Fawn Brodie affirmed: “The denials of polygamy uttered by the Mormon leaders between 1835 and 1852, when it was finally admitted, are a remarkable series of evasions and circumlocutions involving all sorts of verbal gymnastics.” In this, she is not incorrect. However, Joseph knew from his experience in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1836 that plural marriage would not be easily accepted by even staunch believers and members of his own family. To divulge more details than absolutely required might risk provoking violent reactions. Apparently, that was not a risk he was willing to take. 

"In this, she is not incorrect."  Yep.

Some years ago I attended a CLE at which several judges from the Utah Supreme Court and Utah Court of Appeals participated in a panel discussion, followed by a Q&A.  One of the questions asked was something like "What is the most common shortcoming you find in attorneys who appear before you, either in their written briefs or their oral arguments?"  Virtually every judge wanted to respond, all saying the same thing: "Answer our questions.  Don't be evasive.  Don't equivocate.  Don't side-step.  Don't make stuff up.  You don't do yourselves any favors by avoiding addressing weaknesses or gaps in your case."

I think the Church is becoming increasingly candid about its history.  I don't think it will ever follow the critics down the trails leading to relentless faultfinding and evil-speaking of long-dead prominent figures like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but I think we are becoming more willing to acknowledge mistakes and errors.

Such increasing candor will not, I think, placate critics who are bent on using the flaws and mistakes of long-dead people to vilify the Church, to weaponize every such error as an ostensible
"smoking gun" that falsifies the truth claims of the Church.  We can't really help that.  But for those who are willing to be a bit open-minded, to grant some measure of grace and forgiveness to long-dead people, I think - I hope, anyway - that such increasing candor will remove some of the stumblingblocks that litter the ground around us.  

I can affirm that the Ten Commandments came from God, even though Moses killed an Egyptian and hid the body.  I can affirm Paul's exhortations regarding Jesus Christ, even though he held the robes of those who stoned Stephen to death.  I can affirm Alma's prophetic counsel even though he led many people astray.  And I can affirm Joseph Smith's prophetic calling despite his weaknesses and shortcomings, which tend to loom larger since he is so close to us in time, and because his life is, comparatively speaking, far better documented.

The Lord works through flawed men and women.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

She really is not worth the time to argue about.

No matter the ‘quality’ of the victim, sexual harassment is worth talking about imo, even if only to figure out where the lines are that must not be crossed.  
 

Plus clothing, choice of companions, later behaviour, etc does not remove the responsibility of others to refrain from harassment. A miniskirt is not an invitation to grope on a subway, neither is emotional exposure.  Instability should be, imo, more a reason to protect than attack or ignore. The vulnerable are more likely to be aggressed against, in part because they are more likely to be dismissed as victims by others.  
 

It is, however, the legal implications of Dehlin’s actions—both the sexual harassment claim of him instigating her termination due to the ending of their affair and the alleged tax inurement—I am wanting the thread to be primarily focused on, so you have no need to argue about RB while still being able to contribute substantively to the thread if you do desire. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is how I feel about it, so if it is not necessary, I prefer it not be used in the thread. However, if you need to use as documentation something that gives her name, please feel free to link to it. If you can’t link (I can’t figure out how to link to many FB comments) and need to use a screenshot...I have no clue how to redact something like that, but maybe others do and can instruct anyone who needs to post one. 
 

Since she herself has used her name in many places and has posted stuff just recently where redaction was half and half (she removed it after a day or so to do a better job), I am not going to report anyone who chooses to use her name, but I hope posters will choose not to when possible. 

I would prefer we not use her name. What was I thinking, in even broaching it. She doesn't need hundreds more to maybe misjudge her. I believe she was very vulnerable. I know she and her husband were on the outs. But that isn't to excuse her.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Tacenda

[juliann]

2 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

I do know that Rosebud has attacked Dehlin, Lindsay Hansen Park, and others when she gets questioned as to the correctness and propriety of her own roles or to her attacks on others and their roles.

She really is not worth the time to argue about.

ps: My take, otoh, is that yes it was an affair and not an improper advance by JD.

One more time. She could be Godzilla and it makes utterly no difference whatsoever to whether there was sexual harrassment, which is what this is about. The current MS policy defines what happened as sexual harrassment. Unless you want to make the ridiculous case that it only became sexual harrassment when the current policy was approved, it was sexual harrassment. 

So keep the blame the victim smears out of it, please. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not quite far enough...I understood it was agreed with Dehlin that she be one of those speaking for him and the board since he gave them emails and texts to present his defense against RB’s accusations. 

Huh.  You're right.  If Dehlin tasked Helfer-Parker with "speaking for him," and if she is calling what he did an "affair," that that's significant.  Respondeat superior and all that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

both the sexual harassment claim of him instigating her termination due to the ending of their affair and the alleged tax inurement

The original harassment claim was that once rosebud refused John Dehlin’s sexual advances, she was fired. It’s my understanding that rosebud submitted this claim under penalty of perjury. Her claim was shown to be untrue by selected direct messages released by John Delhin. It was her that continued to peruse a sexual relationship and John that sought to end it. These messages are not denied by rosebud. 
 

So the initial claim was a straight open and shut sexual harassment claim. This modified version that you claim here is not codified in us law especially at small start-up operations that typically leverage the relationships of the founder to get things off the ground. 
 

You may be aware of all this, but wanted to state that her initial claim of harassment was shown to be a straight up lie. 
 

https://mormonismlive.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Exhibit-B-New-Hampshire-Complaint-redacted.pdf

[JamesBYoung]

Oh, this is all too nonsensical. I think what we do know is that RB is not telling the truth.  As for JD, I don't know.

Edited May 19, 2021 by JamesBYoung

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Helfer-Parker

She is divorced and goes simply by Helfer. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

You may be aware of all this, but wanted to state that her initial claim of harassment was shown to be a straight up lie. 

I had read about it, but hadn’t seen the documentation...kept meaning to look for it and then got distracted, so thank you for posting it.  It appears to be pretty straightforward when combined with her own texts pushing him to have sex.

It is pages 5 and 6 for those not wanting to go though the legal paperwork. 
 

Combined with her own texts, she did herself no favours by painting it as a black and white situation. Her credibility takes a big dive. Any commentary she adds without documentation should be considered problematic, imo.  The kindest reading is her interpretation is inconsistent which renders all her interpretations as less trustworthy.  Hard though not to see it as an outright lie. 
 

Whether or not she outright lied or misremembered for whatever reason, any of her recreation of what happened becomes questionable based on her inaccuracies in her sworn testimony.
 

Out of curiosity, has she defended her testimony in any way? I am guessing it might take the direction of she hadn’t reviewed her own texts at the time to refresh her memory, which at that point had been altered due to her reevaluating what Dehlin has done to her and once she realized all the grooming and manipulation that had taken place [her expressed POV that I have seen], she saw what had happened in a different way, causing confusion over her own actions as well.

I would like to hear from a non involved specialist if such behaviour (pushing for sex when the other is stepping back) is likely to be a result of grooming, etc.  Is her behaviour as seen in the texts consistent with a victim of sexual harassment or abuse or is it evidence of her emotional responsibility for her own participation?
 

If she is ignoring it, another red flag. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Calm

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The original harassment claim was that once rosebud refused John Dehlin’s sexual advances, she was fired. It’s my understanding that rosebud submitted this claim under penalty of perjury. Her claim was shown to be untrue by selected direct messages released by John Delhin. It was her that continued to peruse a sexual relationship and John that sought to end it. These messages are not denied by rosebud. 
 

So the initial claim was a straight open and shut sexual harassment claim. This modified version that you claim here is not codified in us law especially at small start-up operations that typically leverage the relationships of the founder to get things off the ground. 
 

You may be aware of all this, but wanted to state that her initial claim of harassment was shown to be a straight up lie. 
 

https://mormonismlive.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Exhibit-B-New-Hampshire-Complaint-redacted.pdf

Apparently Dehlin didn't produce a screenshot of the actual texts, he conveniently retyped it. Himself. So boo on whatever he submitted unless it is a copy of the actual texts, including her responses. Which brings up the logical questions of why in the world he didn't want to produce a copy. 

Also, what she did prior to being fired is irrelevant if she was fired because of a sexual liason. Which even Dehlin has admitted. I don't get why this is so difficult. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Oh, stop the wailing. I am not blaming the victim, because I don't know who was the victim.  They were both adults. No one has been able to prove sexual harassment either toward RB or toward JD.

The idea that Rosebud (a grown adult who is smart enough to get a Harvard education) is a victim is hard for me to swallow. She engaged in an extramarital affair and then decided to start working with her lover at his small startup company as its second employee. They had a messy breakup. She got fired. Does that suck? Yes. Is there a lesson about nepotism, cronyism, mixing business and pleasure? Absolutely! Sexual harassment? That seems to strain the words in a way beyond recognition to me. Obviously others see it differently. 

[juliann]

10 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Oh, stop the wailing. I am not blaming the victim, because I don't know who was the victim.   

wwwaaahhhhhhh!

Do you not realize you can victim blame without knowing the victim? We don't have to use names. A woman was fired because of a sexual liason with a superior. 

Quote

No one has been able to prove sexual harassment either toward RB or toward JD.

It's not like the superior didn't put it in writing that he fired his subordinate because he couldn't work with her anymore because of love affair....nope, not a shred of proof anywhere!

[juliann]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The idea that Rosebud (a grown adult who is smart enough to get a Harvard education) is a victim is hard for me to swallow. She engaged in an extramarital affair and then decided to start working with her lover at his small startup company as its second employee. They had a messy breakup. She got fired. Does that suck? Yes. Is there a lesson about nepotism, cronyism, mixing business and pleasure? Absolutely! Sexual harassment? That seems to strain the words in a way beyond recognition to me. Obviously others see it differently. 

The OSF calls it sexual harrassment so we might be stuck with it. I prefer sexual abuse, actually. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

Also, what she did prior to being fired is irrelevant if she was fired because of a sexual liason. Which even Dehlin has admitted. I don't get why this is so difficult. 

Is this codified in law somewhere? If someone is subjected to unwanted sexual advances, that’s harassment. If someone is fired for refusing sexual advances that’s harassment. Ending a consensual relationship? Nope. 
 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/frawleypollock/2019/10/22/the-right-way-to-hire-and-fire-your-ex-spouse/?sh=fa372df14eff

 

If it’s by definition harassment to fire someone because your sexual relationship ended why does Forbes advise you to do it here?

[Analytics]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

wwwaaahhhhhhh!

Do you not realize you can victim blame without knowing the victim? We don't have to use names. A woman was fired because of a sexual liason with a superior. 

It's not like the superior didn't put it in writing that he fired his subordinate because he couldn't work with her anymore because of love affair....nope, not a shred of proof anywhere!

It would seem that when Dehlin found God, decided to end the affair, and endeavored to save his marriage, he had the following options:

1. Fire Rosebud
2. Quit OSF
3. Try to keep working with Rosebud professionally

Option #2 would have resulted in the dissolvement of OSF, with Rosebud losing her job anyway.

In all likelihood, option #3 would have resulted in the ending both of their marriages.

So which option would have been best?

Since Rosebud voluntarily entered into the affair to begin with, it is hard for me to label her the victim. 

[Calm]

Seeking, do you have a link to any other documentation from the podcast?  I may have missed others since I was relying on citations in various discussions I was skimming. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The idea that Rosebud (a grown adult who is smart enough to get a Harvard education) is a victim is hard for me to swallow.

Vulnerability comes in all shapes and sizes.