Mormon Stories finances vs. LDS finances

[jpatterson]

If, given the same platform and resources that John has been given, Lindsey Hansen Park would be even bigger than John is now. Without a doubt. She's smarter, savvier, and most of all has way more integrity.

John wasn’t “given” anything.

You’re a moron.

No offense.

I'm never offended by anything you say, mostly because I feel sad for you. Little lap dog begging for his scraps. Good boy. Very good boy.

[jpatterson]

Here's an apples-to-apples comparison for you.

On Being is a non-profit dedicated to content "FOR PERSONAL REFLECTION AND DISCERNMENT, FOR TEACHING, FOR COMMUNAL NOURISHMENT AND CONVERSATION, AND FOR SOCIAL CONNECTION AND REPAIR."

On Being is based around a podcast that was started by its CEO, Krista Tippets. She literally is the show, in the same way John is Mormon Stories.

On Being as an organization brings in $6.8 million in revenue each year. They pay their rock star, their podcast host, their foundation a little over $400,000.

So John has a wildly less successful podcast, brings in less than a !tenth! of the revenue that Krista does, even though Krista is doing the same type of work as both the head of the NP and the podcast host, yet he's paying himself a much higher percentage of revenue than she is (6 percent to John's 50-something percent).

Some balls.

[Marcus]

Why do you think he is being compensated at over 200k for his ceo position?

His accountant has devised a very clever scheme to make sure he milks as much compensation from the non-profit as possible.

I'm not sure why this is surprising to anyone here. John has stated on multiple occasions, publicly, that this is his goal. He sees the non-profit as his personal breadbasket.

You specifically asked me to restate the issue and I did, and yet you bypassed it again.

You said the average ceo salary for nonprofits his size is 72,000, and I quoted the 990 showing his ceo salary is 75,000. You were wrong when you implied his ceo salary was over 200k, and you still haven’t commented on the actual way the compensation is set up.

But, I suspect you know this already, which is why you tried to move the goalposts by arguing your ceo “also wears several hats” and her salary is a small percentage of (an apparently huge) revenue.

You are really not helping your argument with this.

[Dr Moore]

Again, wrong audience. If you aren’t willing to take your evidence to the IRS, then you’re just trolling. If you have taken it to the IRS, what was the outcome? Probably you are just looking at things too narrowly because vendetta and can’t stand seeing John Dehlin do reasonably well with his niche platform.

[jpatterson]

His accountant has devised a very clever scheme to make sure he milks as much compensation from the non-profit as possible.

I'm not sure why this is surprising to anyone here. John has stated on multiple occasions, publicly, that this is his goal. He sees the non-profit as his personal breadbasket.

You specifically asked me to restate the issue and I did, and yet you bypassed it again.

You said the average ceo salary for nonprofits his size is 72,000, and I quoted the 990 showing his ceo salary is 75,000. You were wrong when you implied his ceo salary was over 200k, and you still haven’t commented on the actual way the compensation is set up.

But, I suspect you know this already, which is why you tried to move the goalposts by arguing your ceo “also wears several hats” and her salary is a small percentage of (an apparently huge) revenue.

You are really not helping your argument with this.

No, you're moving the goalposts by playing the game John's accountant wants you to play.

No one cares what the "salary" vs "other compensation" is. You report to the IRS the CEO's overall compensation.

I frankly don't care about the labels John's accountant uses to describe his compensation. Ultimately, it goes into the compensation line on the IRS filing. The rest is sophistry.

[jpatterson]

Again, wrong audience. If you aren’t willing to take your evidence to the IRS, then you’re just trolling. If you have taken it to the IRS, what was the outcome? Probably you are just looking at things too narrowly because vendetta and can’t stand seeing John Dehlin do reasonably well with his niche platform.

Ah, confronted with facts, Dr. Moore now shifts his argument to "improper venue."

It's funny that you think that I think John is doing "reasonably well." He's a laughably bad non-profit CEO and, considering the fact that I make more than he does I'm not sure how/why I would be jealous.

[Dr Moore]

Again, wrong audience. If you aren’t willing to take your evidence to the IRS, then you’re just trolling. If you have taken it to the IRS, what was the outcome? Probably you are just looking at things too narrowly because vendetta and can’t stand seeing John Dehlin do reasonably well with his niche platform.

Ah, confronted with facts, Dr. Moore now shifts his argument to "improper venue."

It's funny that you think that I think John is doing "reasonably well." He's a laughably bad non-profit CEO and, considering the fact that I make more than he does I'm not sure how/why I would be jealous.

No, I made that point upthread.

You’re twisting words. I said nothing about John Dehlin’s effectiveness as a CEO - that is entirely subjective anyway.

John Dehlin is doing well financially and I think that burns you up. Let it go man. Let it go.

[jpatterson]

You are really not helping your argument with this.

You're actually reinforcing my argument without realizing it.

The only reason you would put that narrative in a 990 is if you're worried about IRS scrutiny of how much you're compensating your CEO.

It's clear John's accountant made a point of creating a narrative that would justify how much they are paying John since they're required to list on Part VII of the 990. I've literally never heard of a NP CEO being paid extra to attend events on behalf of the NP. That's...uh...part of the job. It's also highly unusual to agree to a literal pass-through of any percentage of NP donations to any employee, let alone someone who is on the BoD.

[jpatterson]

You’re twisting words. I said nothing about John Dehlin’s effectiveness as a CEO - that is entirely subjective anyway.

LOL twisting words. You're literally putting words in my mouth and then getting bent out of shape when I tell you that's not what I'm thinking.

You're really losing your edge, my man. When your argument is completely devoid of any facts or evidence, and all you have to rely on is "neener neener you hate John" you know you've lost. Sit this one out.

[Dr Moore]

You are really not helping your argument with this.

You're actually reinforcing my argument without realizing it.

The only reason you would put that narrative in a 990 is if you're worried about IRS scrutiny of how much you're compensating your CEO.

It's clear John's accountant made a point of creating a narrative that would justify how much they are paying John since they're required to list on Part VII of the 990. I've literally never heard of a NP CEO being paid extra to attend events on behalf of the NP. That's...uh...part of the job. It's also highly unusual to agree to a literal pass-through of any percentage of NP donations to any employee, let alone someone who is on the BoD.

Yes or no: have you reported all of your theory to the IRS?
If yes, when and what was the outcome?
If no, why not? Do you doubt your evidence?