Skip to content

Mormonism LIVE!: 021: Sexual Allegation Against John Dehlin Goes Down In Flames

This Week RFM and Bill Reel takes a deeper look at the an old allegation that has been dragged out once again by critics against John Dehlin. And specifically the facts and documentation surrounding the case. And what do they find…… but that the claims the alleged victim seems to contain two major discrepancies. One is her motivation which seems riddled with blackmail and manipulation and the other seems to strike at the heart of her claims, namely her allegations countered by her very own text messages.

Exhibit A Blackmail Email –

Exhibit B New Hampshire Complaint –

Exhibit C Dehlin Statement –

Exhibit D Anne’s Withdrawal –

Exhibit E OSF Response –

First aired 6:20 PM Mountain Time April 28th 2021


6 thoughts on “Mormonism LIVE!: 021: Sexual Allegation Against John Dehlin Goes Down In Flames”

    1. Agreed, but, is there an implication that people don’t get hurt in monogamous relationships?

      What if monogamy and polyamory are both just complicated sets of stories about how relationships ought to be that don’t readily admit of their blind spots?

  1. It would be funny that you guys think this is a smoking gun against Rosebud if it wasn’t so sad to watch a woman try to further silence a sexual harassment victim.

    Natasha’s recollection of the timeline and circumstances of how John/Anne’s affair was reported and dealt with is…I don’t even know what to say. I’m not sure if she was lying or smoking something or what.

    But there is clear documentation in the form of emails that show someone (John? Joanna?) hired a lawyer and fired Anne behind the board’s back (including Natasha).

    That’s backed up by indisputable evidence. Natasha’s only evidence is an emotionally charged but facetious email from Anne in which she’s clearly saying “If you want to go to war, we’ll go to war, but I’ll win because I have the truth.”

    Don’t forget that Natasha is paid by OSF. Was she given a bonus to appear on the podcast? Did you ask her?

    1. 1. Did her claim about who had what motives on August 9th match her text messages on august 9th?

      2. Was there any admittance of a willingness to manipulate emotions to draw people to side with her in her letter laying out two paths?

      3. Which person from the data we have seemed to be pursuing the other more strongly?

      4. You seem to want the possibility that Joanna terminated Anne without the board’s knowledge as the smoking gun. Can a head of a board terminate an employee in extreme cases without the boards knowledge? Would the board have taken the same path? Are other points more important to the argument?

      And is it illegal for the head of the board to terminate someone in the spot?

      You seem stuck on a point that has little to do with the claims made by Anne.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.