About My Interview
My 3.5-hour interview is not a “podcast” about my “story.” It is a specific type of forensic interview called a semi-structured cognitive interview. This kind of forensic interview is designed to help investigators determine witness credibility.
I am not interested in proving my own credibility while John seeks to attack it. I already know I am telling the truth. I am interested in moving on. I therefore offer the public my interview and invite anyone who is interested in proving my credibility to take it to experts for evaluation. It can be compared to the supporting documents and the Internet can be scoured for corroborative dates, mentions of people and events.
About the Charge
After listening to my forensic interview, I invite you to write your own legal “charge” and then to use the credibility established in my interview and any corroborative evidence you find on the Internet as well as the written evidence provided on this website to prove that charge.
As all attorneys know full well, a charge is regularly amended during litigation. The initial charge I made when I rushed to file with the Human Rights Commission in early 2013 (before the six-month statute of limitations expired) is not the charge that John needs to disprove in order to absolve himself of sexual harassment. If John had paid one of his podcasters just a few more dollars, the OSF would have been considered to have had six employees, and I would have been able to get a Human Rights Commission investigation. I would have then amended my charge to more comprehensively capture what actually occurred between us. John’s focus on that initial statute-of-limitations-holding charge in 2021 is a red herring.
That charge — John’s red herring — has nothing to do with it. Now that you have the information, write your own charge instead.
Chronology Regarding the Recording and Release of my Interview:
This chronology will continue to be updated as the matter progresses. It is my hope that this matter can be resolved sooner rather than later and that this chronological record can be finalized so that I no longer need to give this matter any further time or attention.
NOTE: All of this could have easily been prevented if the Open Stories Foundation had resolved this matter in 2012. I did not hold any desire to “destroy” or even harm John Dehlin. I certainly had no desire to harm the quality work the organization was doing in 2012 — I held a desire to protect it. And I held a desire to protect myself from John. If the organization had resolved this matter appropriately, this website would not exist and the last decade would have been different than it has been.
THE FOLLOWING OCCURRED IN THIS ORDER:
1. I volunteered for the Open Stories Foundation during 2010 and 2011. In January of 2012, I was hired as an employee.
2. During my service, I used my skills to lead the organization to success. John Dehlin was the sole founder and Executive Director of the organization. He held the power of his founding role, his podcast audience that tended to treat him like a celebrity, and his position of authority in the organization. I had the power of my intelligence, my Mormon experience, my creativity and my skills.
3. In late 2012, I reported sexual harassment, got fired, and witnessed everyone on the board, except Natasha Helfer, resign. (Dan Wotherspoon was added to the board after the other resignations took place.) John Dehlin simultaneously worked very hard to silence me so that I could not have any voice in the way I was presented to the public. John took substantial actions to erase all history of my valuable and successful work with the organization while seeking to publicly shame me sexually.
4. In early 2013, John Dehlin published a podcast called “Faith Reconstruction.” This was the first of many podcasts John used to weave a false narrative about his relationship with me for his hundreds of thousands of listeners. I simultaneously had no voice because of the efforts John had made to silence me. John’s efforts to silence me alongside his efforts to deceive the public and to publicly shame me had the effect of me experiencing suicidal ideation for the first and only time in my life. It was very frightening. I realized that my suicidal ideation was associated with my complete powerlessness in the situation. I realized that my suicidal ideation was a warning to me that I needed to do something to regain some semblance of power.
5. To regain some semblance of power and my personal mental health, I responded to John Dehlin’s “Faith Reconstruction” podcast by filing a charge of sexual harassment with the New Hampshire Human Rights Commission. Getting an attorney and filing the charge improved my mental health because I no longer felt completely powerless or voiceless. I consequently decided my best route forward was to work to create a record of what had occurred between me and John for use by future historians. In this way I felt I could combat John’s efforts to silence me while publicly shaming me. I reasoned that the Human Rights Commission charge would be part of that record.
6. John Dehlin filed a response to my charge that my attorney did not believe made much sense and that my attorney believed was an attempt by John to threaten me into silence because if John’s response were released, it would shame me publicly. John’s response attempting to publicly shame me occurred after I had intentionally filed what my attorney and I both believed to be too gentle of a charge and one that we would amend if the case moved forward.
In a nutshell: I filed a gentle charge to protect John Dehlin from public shaming and received a response by John meant to publicly shame me. This experience shifted my thinking about John and about my own decision to be gentle. I realized I needed to become stronger.
7. In 2014, at the same time John Dehlin was promoting his excommunication alongside Kate Kelly, I learned that I couldn’t get a Human Rights Commission investigation because the Open Stories Foundation did not have the six employees requisite for a charge according to New Hampshire law. John had not told the Open Stories Foundation donors that they were covering his attorney fees and refused to cover my attorney fees. I responded by refused to settle and sign an NDA, filing a document with the Human Rights Commission explaining my decision to withdraw due to the number of OSF employees, and began the long process of making a quiet but public record of my experiences with John on the Mormon Discussions message board.
8. John Dehlin immediately doxxed me on Mormon Discussions and called me “histrionic” in writing. (This is far from John’s only abusive behavior towards me, but is incontrovertible evidence that John is abusive.)
9. Over the next four or five years, I continued to make my record on Mormon Discussions. My decision to make the record s coincided with my conclusion that my empowerment and mental health were associated with creating documentation that would be necessary to prevent John from successfully silencing me and erasing me from Mormon history while using his podcast and, later, his workshops, to repetitively promote a false narrative about what occurred between us (see number 4 above).
At the time, Mormon Discussions was the only place I was allowed to make my record because John successfully controlled all other relevant media. I also used Mormon Discussions because I knew John read that board. I knew John was posting about me in places he had banned me from so that I could not read what he wrote. In contrast to John, I wanted to be more transparent and forthright, so I posted in a place I knew John could see. I also used Mormon Discussions because I wanted to create a dated record that others could not later claim had been falsified.
I saw the situation as one of opposites. John Dehlin had complete power to control media and the narrative and he worked to ensure I was as voiceless as possible. I had no power aside from the power to use a message board that would not ban me or delete my posts like all the other relevant groups and media repetitively did. John was repetitively praised and rewarded in his position of power. I was repetitively ridiculed. I felt strong enough to handle the ridicule I received on Mormon Discussions and worked to treat those who ridiculed me with as much respect as possible considering they lacked all the information. I observed John appearing very weak at the threat of any criticism as manifested by his retaliatory actions towards anyone who found courage to publicly oppose him. I became more and more aware of the major differences between myself and John. I became progressively more concerned for the many vulnerable people he was deceiving as they transitioned out of Mormonism.
Criticism and ridicule did not deter me from making my record on Mormon Discussions because I knew that my record was accurate, because I knew that making that record was my path to not being silenced by John Dehlin, and because I was concerned about the vulnerability of the people John was deceiving.
10. In 2018, another mass employee and board exodus from the Open Stories Foundation occurred.
11. On October 25, 2018, an individual or a group of people using the pseudonym Markus Smith published Open Letter: Questions for John Dehlin and OSF Board from a concerned donoron Medium.
13. Glenn Ostlund contacted me to get my permission to publish the podcast because I had come up as a topic of conversation.
14. I responded by making it clear that I did not want to be mentioned by my real name and wanted Infants to use “Rosebud” instead. Over the years it had become clear to me that John Dehlin was seeking to associate my real name with his name on the Internet in a way that would shame me because I had so little SEO power in comparison to his. My children and I had already paid dire financial consequences due to John’s 2014 doxxing (see number 8 above).
16. I contacted Matt Long because I considered Matt a good friend. Matt had acted as a leader of the Arizona region of the Mormon Stories Support Community I had founded in 2011.
17. Matt Long asked me to sit for a semi-structured cognitive interview about John Dehlin. I agreed.
18. I submitted to the forensic interview on November 8, 2018. This is the forensic interview now available via Soundcloud above, but it was not published until May 3rd, 2021 in response to the Open Stories Foundation publicly defaming me on “Mormonism Live” (see numbers 29 and 30 below).
19. My forensic interview was privately distributed to a few key ex-Mormon “leaders,” including but not limited to Glenn Ostlund.
20. According to Glenn Ostlund (in June of 2021), in 2019, an exceptionally wealthy Open Stories Foundation donor whose company is located in Park City, Utah contacted Glenn about the Infants podcast that mentioned me (see number 15 above and number 34 below).
21. In 2019, Glenn Ostlund took down the Infants podcast that mentioned me (see numbers 15 and 21 above and number and 35 through 38 below). The audio is now available here.
22. Matt Long stopped podcasting with Infants on Thrones.
23. In late 2020, Kwaku, Brad Whitbeck, and Cardon Ellis began publicly attacking John on YouTube through their Midnight Mormons and Stone XVI podcast. They invited Kate Kelly to come on Midnight Mormons. Kate agreed and recorded with them. They also invited me, via Kate Kelly, to come on their show. I declined. I had moved on. I had found peace and had no desire to stir up trouble without understanding how some better good might come from any efforts.
24. John somehow came in contact with Leah Remini and used Kwaku, Brad Whitbeck, Cardon Ellis’ and Kate Kelly’s attacks to claim he was a victim of the Mormon church “fair gaming” him the way the Scientologists “fair game” ex-Scientologists.
25. In early 2021, Kwaku, Brad Whitbeck, and Cardon Ellis published their interview with Kate Kelly mentioning me.
26. On April 20, 2021, Leah Remini published her podcast featuring John Dehlin , including John’s claims that he was being “fair gamed” by the church and people he had never met.
27. Kwaku published YouTube videos about “The Death of John Dehlin,” and “The End of John Dehlin” using text I had written on the Mormon Discussions message board.
28. I felt that Leah Remini’s addition to the situation was an indication that John’s deceptions had become even more extreme and that he was gaining the power to do even more harm to more people who were vulnerable like I was vulnerable between 2010 and 2012. I felt Leah Remini needed to be contacted and given better information. I posted on Facebook about my intention to contact her.
29. On April 29, 2021, John responded to this new wave of criticism by having Bill Reel, Natasha Helfer, and Nadine Hansen McComb appear on “Mormonism Live,” use my real name, and present what I consider to be a theatrical version of the Open Stories Foundation’s legal defense against my accusations of sexual harassment, emphasizing what they claimed was a situation in which John and I had equal power and were having an “affair.” I only considered what happened between me and John to be an “affair” while I was still under the influence of his manipulations. I have grown up a lot since then. The power imbalance between us was very real and very extreme, as manifested by what I have endured over the last decade.
30. On May 3rd, 2021, I responded to the Open Stories Foundation’s defamation of me on “Mormonism Live” by releasing the forensic interview I had submitted to on November 8, 2018. Matt Long recorded a brief introduction on the day of release.
31. I agreed to release documents associated with the matter on this website.
32. On May 8th, 2021, I released documents on this website.
33. On May 11th, 2021, it came to my attention that the volunteer redactors had left in names of innocent parties, including John’s wife, who could be hurt by the document release. As it was not my intention to harm innocent parties, I reverted the document page to draft format to await a better redaction. I have not looked over or redacted the documents myself because I have no desire to ever read them again.
34. Glenn Ostlund contacted me to tell me that I had inaccurate information in this chronology. He asked me to make some changes to this chronology, and to specifically to remove the assertion I had made that Glenn was in direct contact with John Dehlin regarding Glenn’s decision to take down the October 2018 Infants podcast that mentioned me (see numbers 15 and 21 above). It was not lost on me that the change Glenn wanted was for me to remove any assertion of direct influence from John in his decision to take down the podcast. Other Infants are not in agreement that Glenn was not in direct contact with John regarding his decision to take down the podcast.
35. In response to Glenn Ostlund’s assertions, I edited this chronology to state, as Glenn claimed, that Glenn was contacted by a wealthy donor whose company is located in Park City, Utah at the time Glenn chose to take down the podcast.. I edited this chronology according to Glenn’s wishes because I do not have personal direct knowledge or written evidence regarding Glenn’s reasoning for Glenn’s decision. That said, Glenn’s reported version of events differs from others’ reported version of events. I obviously was not there.
36. On June 4, 2021, I asked Glenn Ostlund to republish the October 2018 Infants podcast mentioning me (see number 15 above) that he took down (see number 21 above). I wrote, “I would like you to republish the podcast in its entirety. If you would like to record an intro sharing your side of your decision to take it down, that would be great.”
37. Glenn Ostlund refused to use the Infants podcast feed to republish the October 2018 podcast he made a unilateral decision to take down (see numbers 15 and 21 above).
38. On June 7, 2021, the 2018 Infants podcast that discusses the Markus Smith Open Letter and that Glenn Oustland unpublished in 2019 (see numbers 15 and 21 above) was uploaded to Soundcloud instead of the Infants on Thrones podcast feed. The person who uploaded the file received the file from me. You may listen here.