Jason Bourne wrote:Odd that they don't have to publish and audited financial statement. Seems to me that their assets and revenues are at a level where at least in my state they would have to have a CPA Firm audit the statements.
Hi, Jason. Maybe I should clarify: by "publish," I meant that they had their information right out there in an easily accessible place--linked on their Web site or something like that. Of course, their Form 990 is a matter of public record, and it's accessible if you know where to look.
Doctor Scratch wrote:Another interesting piece of information from the form is that it appears to list the members of the FAIR Board--something that they've been hesitant to announce. Per this form (which, again, comes from fiscal year 2010), the members of the FAIR Board were:
--Scott Gordon (President)
--Dana Repouille (Secretary)
--John Lynch (Director)
--Allen Wyatt (Vice President)
--Juliann Reynolds (Director)
--Kevin Barney (Director)
--Daniel Peterson (Director)
This, to me, is remarkable. Juliann and Allen "The Slug" Wyatt have this much power? Out of this crew, Kevin Barney is the only halfway reasonable person. It should give anyone pause to think that this crew is running the helm at FAIR. How, for example, can someone like Wiki Wonka feel comfortable contributing to this? Does he think that the mere presence of Barney is enough to save the ship? (Also, I'm rather stunned that Allen Wyatt is ranked this high in the FAIR hierarchy.)
Scott Gordon seems like a reasonable fellow. Based on what I have read by Juliann at MDD I think she is mellowing. Kevin is terrific. I still like Dan P.
I would agree that Juliann seems to have mellowed over the course of the past seven years or so. As for Gordon, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I don't see how anyhow who heads up something as misguided and stupid as "The Mormon Defense League", a.k.a. "Mormon Voices" can in any way be labeled "reasonable." I think Gordon does a good job of
seeming reasonable, and of keeping his mouth shut at the right moments. But the very fact that he is a guiding force behind "Mormon Voices" is enough to convince me that there are serious problems with his leadership.
In any case, I've always been fascinated by Mopologetic finances. When I first began inquiring into this matter, Dr. Peterson went absolutely ballistic, which of course led me to believe that I was onto something important. The more we have dug into this issue, the more it has turned out that our worst suspicions were correct.
Can you spell out what those worse suspicions are that you think are correct?
Sure. The Mopologists' story has always basicaly been that they were a volunteer effort who were defending the Church solely because they believed it was the right thing to do. Louis Midgley, in one issue of the
Review, spent quite a while attacking EV ministries for being "Old Cash Nexuses" (or would that be "Nexi"?), claiming that they had beaucoup funds to criticize Mormonism full time. Now, we could have taken all this at face value. After all, Dan Peterson said many times that "not one dime of [his] salary comes from apologetics."
The cynic and/or the harsh skeptic would respond to this by saying that they are probably lying, or at the very least, they're downplaying what's really going on behind-the-scenes as far as the financing goes. That's what I mean by "worst suspicions": that "old-FARMS" apologetics was *highly* funded, and that people were, in effect, getting paid to write hit-pieces about Church critics.
Over the course of the past few years, I got a number of "tips" relating to the way that FARMS/FAIR Mopologetics have been funded, only to have Dan Peterson & Co.--and sometimes folks like you--insist that I was making it all up, or that my "informants" were telling me lies. It turns out that all--or most--of what I was told seems to have been true, based on DCP's own comments in the email that was leaked.
To put things more simply: my "worst suspicion" is that there is a cadre of powerful and wealthy Mormons who are willing to shell out a lot of cash for Dan and his friends to conduct smear campaigns, and to do it under BYU's and the Church's imprimatur. My "worst suspicion" is that these LDS are so vendetta-driven that they are willing to pool their money to finance things like "Text and Context," or "That Old Black Magic," or even "Metcalfe is Butthead."
Doctor Scratch wrote:I am guess that, in the wake of the "shake up" at the MI, we can expect either (a) the new IRS forms at FAIR to look very, very different, or (b) which I think is more likely, they will alter their tax-exempt status in such a way that they no longer have to make this information publicly available.
The only tax exempt entity that does not have to file a Form 990 that is open to the public is a Church. Unless FAIR drops their exempt status you should be able to see their tax filing.
Well, then, I suppose that's what I'm wondering--whether or not they will drop the tax-exempt status. I was under the (perhaps false) impression that Dan Peterson was effectively "handling" a donation stream that was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions). If this were to go to FAIR, would they want this kind of dollar amount to be visible to the public, especially given all the things the Mopologists have said about Church critics? My guess is, "No."
Doctor Scratch wrote:Kevin Graham is absolutely right: there is really no reason why FAIR would need "a million dollars." What do they imagine that they would do differently if they had that kind of money? I'm sure that some of the people on the Board would like to use it to pay themselves to do apologetics full time. But we'll see what happens.
Is there anything wrong with doing apologetics full time and getting paid for it if they have the funds to do so?
With "apologetics"? No. With
Mopologetics? I would say, "Yes." I don't think it's right for people who are supposedly adherents to the gospel of Jesus Christ to get paid to conduct smear campaigns and write hit-pieces. The money should be spent on something genuinely useful and charitable, and not on unscrupulous ways to satiate people's thirst for vengeance.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14