Daniel Peterson Insults and Attacks Dr. Scratch and DrW

[_Runtu]

I for one, hope that this so-called enlightening will stop. This is absurd in the extreme. It is wrong.

Just stop.

Yep. Enough is enough.

[_Chap]

Daniel Peterson displaying his trademark Christlike, humble, tolerant and accepting behavior which is so common among Mopologists.

44Foxtrot (who now posts elsewhere as DrW) was an irritating and arrogant dogmatist, and his departure from this board represents no real loss.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/618 ... -progress/

And, while I'm at it, I might as well publicly contradict a related claim that has come repeatedly from the same circles (and that has been mentioned, yet again, in this connection): It's been claimed by my Malevolent Stalker that, for at least one year, I was paid $20,000 for my apologetic work with FARMS. This is flatly untrue. I was never paid, by the Church or anybody else, for doing apologetics. Furthermore, while I was paid a fee for serving as chairman of the FARMS board (which involved a great deal of extra work on top of my full-time job), that fee never totaled anything remotely like $20K. And, while I received an administrative bonus for serving as editor-in-chief/director of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, it also never totaled anything remotely like $20K. Nor did the two of them together (for the brief time that they overlapped) total anything remotely like $20K.

These folks could ask the MoreGood Foundation directly. But they probably won't. And, I suppose, there would be little point: In my case, at least, though I supplied clear and absolutely accurate explanations when the claims were first made, they insisted that I was lying. Which left them free to weave their fantastic tales, unencumbered by fact or reality. As, plainly, they're still doing.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/618 ... ney/page-2

No-one has to go on reading or contributing to this thread if they don't want to.

But looking back at the OP, I'd say that since Dr Scratch posted the publicly available 501c tax record of the organisation in question (which was not of course DCP's personal tax record), which included in one year the payment of $20,400 against the name of Daniel C. Peterson, we have had a very fair chance to discuss the issues raised in this OP on an informed basis, and those who wish to support DCP's position have been given free run of the board and given it their very best shots.

But frankly, they have not done a very good job of changing my view, which is that like other statements made from the quarter in question, the statements quoted in the OP are operative only in the somewhat limited Mopologetic sense.

What more is there to say?

[_Kishkumen]

But frankly, they have not done a very good job of changing my view, which is that like other statements made from the quarter in question, the statements quoted in the OP are operative only in the somewhat limited Mopologetic sense.

What more is there to say?

Hopefully nothing.

[_Chap]

Last one to say stop is the winner !!!!!!!!!

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Daniel Peterson will only communicate here through messenger, which is fine; however, it is obvious that he frequents this bb more often than probably any of us. Therefore, I'll go ahead and respond to his statement posted by Liz.

They are right to see it as scandalous, because I've denied having received any portion of my salary for doing apologetics and because, to their enormous delight, they think that they've caught me in a lie.

I've never said you "lied" about any of this -- but I think, at a minimum, you have been mistaken.

I was always careful to say, not that I had never received any money at all for apologetics, but that none of my salary came from apologetics -- and this was and is precisely right.

Perhaps you are playing word-games with the term "salary," I don't know, but according to the FARMS 1998 990 Form you were compensated $20,400 for your work as "Chair" of FARMS. Whether that was a direct payment to you, or reimbursement to BYU for salary paid which you did not earn, I don't know. But somehow, some way, you were compensated $20,400 for that work.

Whether I had ever written an apologetic line or not had no impact whatever on my salary, which came from other things. Still, I couldn't say that I had never been paid at all, since, in fact, I once, to my surprise, received $150 from the Ensign for an apologetic article that I had written, and since there may have been one or two other cases. (I vaguely recall receiving a $50 bookstore certificate for a talk to some group or other many years ago.) So I didn't say that. But what I did say was absolutely true, and remains absolutely true.

What "other things"? How was your work as "Chair" of FARMS, for which you were paid $20,400 in 1998, not related to apologetics, a (if not "the") primary focus of FARMS?

There's nothing shameful in receiving a salary for doing apologetics, but, as a matter of fact, I didn't. As I've said since Scratch first leveled this accusation fully five years ago. I didn't lie. I told the truth.

I agree -- I have no problem with someone being paid to do apologetics. And I've never said you "lied," only that perhaps you were mistaken. You said yourself you hate tax forms, and when we first had this discussion 5 years ago you refused to even look at the Form 990 in question.

I edited the FARMS Review long before I came over from Asian and Near Eastern Languages to join the Maxwell Institute, and, in the last few years of my involvement with that much maligned journal, I was paid a relatively small per-issue fee for editing it -- that is, for soliciting and editing articles and for seeing them through peer review to publication.

Makes sense, but in 1998 you were compensated $20,400 for you work as "Chair" of FARMS, which I'm sure included significant work (including editing) related to apologetics.

The FARMS Review was only partially apologetic in nature and, anyway, I was never paid a dime for writing anything for it. Whether I wrote something in it or not, I received the same fee for editing it. That I was paid a supplemental fee to edit the Review reflects the fact that my work on the Review was above and beyond my normal employment.

This doesn't make sense, particularly in light of last year's purge of classic-FARMS from the MI. At that time, the primary beef of you and your colleagues, as well as your many fans, was MI's apparent decision to retreat from apologetics. How many times did I hear you and your ilk invoke Neal Maxwell's charge of "no more uncontested slam dunks" in decrying MI's actions? Now you're trying to downplay the apologetic nature of the FARMS Review (and, presumably, classic-FARMS in general).

I only came over to the Maxwell Institute when I was asked to head up the Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts (CPART), which was and is within the Institute and which, during my tenure there, digitized documents such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Herculaneum papyri, and certain Syriac texts from the Vatican Apostolic Library, and to be able to devote more time to the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative (METI).

But you still were heavily involved in editing FARMS Review and other aspects of classic-FARMS; hence, the reference on the 1998 990 Form to you as "Chair" of FARMS.

Neither at that nor at any other time, though, did my salary increase by $20,000.

I'm still getting the feeling you are playing games with the word "salary." I've never said that your "salary" increased by $20+K; what I've said is that in 1998 you were compensated $20,400 relating to your work as "Chair" of FARMS, which I'm certain included a significant portion relating to apologia.

... I did receive a small director's fee, akin to the supplemental fee paid to department chairs and deans at BYU, for my service as director of CPART and METI, because, once again, directing them was work on top of the normal demands of university employment.

Then it appears that your time as director of CPART and METI were not part of the $20,400 compensation in 1998, which leads me to conclude that most of that money was related to your work in apologetics.

Whether "Jason Bourne" correctly worked out the accounting arrangements or not, I honestly don't know. (I'm told that he's a professional accountant.) The mere thought of tax documents is enough to send me into a coma. What I do know, though, is quite sufficient: I never, ever, received a $20,000 salary increase for apologetics, nor even for the non-apologetic work that I did with the Maxwell Institute. Nor anything even close.

Perhaps not a "salary increase," but certainly compensation in the amount of $20,400.

What in the world are those people on your board doing, pawing through tax documents and my finances and speculating about my employment duties and contracts and branding me a liar? What on earth leads them to consider this appropriate or acceptable?

Actually, Dan, you caused this to become an issue by declaring you received no renumeration (or nearly none) for doing apologetics. This claim was easily confirmable by looking at publicly-filed tax documents of FARMS, a non-profit organization. In fact, one reason these kind of forms are available to the public is so we can see where the money is going. There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking at a public tax document to confirm something said or claimed.

I deeply resent the way my integrity is being publicly assaulted on your board. It's unjust, it's potentially damaging, and I don't deserve it.

Your integrity is not being publicly assaulted. Comments here are based on a tax form accessible by the public. Moreover, I have never said you "lied"; I'm willing to go with your simply being mistaken (which can easily occur 15 years after the fact).

It should stop. It's been going on for year after year after year -- roughly seven or eight now, by my count -- and I'm heartily tired of it. It should definitely stop.

I've said my piece.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Also, can we document how much of Dan's work at FARMS was apologetic in nature, or are we just going off the assumption that any and all work there is unilaterally apologetic in nature?

I think maklelan makes a good point here, one I sheepishly admit I'd overlooked until now.

DCP's compensation by FARMS probably encompasses his duties for ISPART and METI, and we know those aren't apologetic in nature. So it's entirely possible that any apologetic pursuits were done "off the clock" and none of the FARMS money was spent on that.

ERGO, assuming Jason Bourne is correct (and I see no reason to think he's not), perhaps DCP really wasn't paid for apologetics after all, regardless of the dollar amount that FARMS's tax return shows.

Does anyone disagree?

I do. In his press release (via Liz) DCP said he received essentially nothing for his work on CPART and METI (he characterized them as an "extra"). I don't know if the entire $20,400 related to apologetics, but I'm certain a significant portion of it did because that is what FARMS is known for. This became painfully clear after the MI purge last summer. The one refrain I heard over and over by DCP and his ousted colleagues, as well as by their fans, was how Bradford's actions contradicted the charge of Neal Maxwell that there be "no uncontested slam dunks." Apologetics is what classic-FARMS focused on, and Dan was the editor of FARMS Review, the most apologetic journal of them all. We can't know for certain how that $20,400 is broken down by assignment, but I think it would be unreasonable to assume that most (if not all) did not relate to apologetics.

[_Yoda]

Your integrity is not being publicly assaulted. Comments here are based on a tax form accessible by the public. Moreover, I have never said you "lied"; I'm willing to go with your simply being mistaken (which can easily occur 15 years after the fact).

Don't you find it the least bit creepy that Scratch gets his jollies off of researching tax documents from 15 years ago just to try to catch DCP in a lie? Obsessive much?

[_Kishkumen]

I await the scholarly history of FARMS, which will doubtless be published as a result of the careful research into these tax documents. Actually, I wish such a thing would be published. Some enterprising young Mormon Studies scholars should undertake such a project. Good luck to her or him in getting the needed documentation and cooperation in order to write a worthwhile publication on a very intriguing topic.

[_Chap]

Your integrity is not being publicly assaulted. Comments here are based on a tax form accessible by the public. Moreover, I have never said you "lied"; I'm willing to go with your simply being mistaken (which can easily occur 15 years after the fact).

Don't you find it the least bit creepy that Scratch gets his jollies off of researching tax documents from 15 years ago just to try to catch DCP in a lie? Obsessive much?

To be honest, what kind of emotionally toned adjectives can be hung on some posts is not a question that worries me. Not even the question of what kind of emotionally toned adjectives can be hung on the post quoted above.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Your integrity is not being publicly assaulted. Comments here are based on a tax form accessible by the public. Moreover, I have never said you "lied"; I'm willing to go with your simply being mistaken (which can easily occur 15 years after the fact).

Don't you find it the least bit creepy that Scratch gets his jollies off of researching tax documents from 15 years ago just to try to catch DCP in a lie? Obsessive much?

There's a reason organizations like FARMS had to file tax forms that are accessible by the public: transparency. And the reason Dr. Scratch went back so far was because FARMS/MI stopped filing such forms once it joined BYU (I'm sure all of us would have liked to have sees more recent forms, but they are not accessible to the public). DCP made an absolute statement that Dr. Scratch believed to be untrue ... and the latter turned out to be right (at least for 1998).

I'll tell you what -- what Dr. Scratch did was a helluva lot less 'creepy' than DCP's recent request to his bishop buddy to improperly access confidential LDS documents to try and uncover the in real life identity of Everybody Wang Chung. At least what Dr. Scratch did was perfectly appropriate and authorized.