LDS Apologetics Operating Costs Are More Than $7,000,000

[_Daniel Peterson]

1) Who is "Hack"?

Hack, as Ray A informed us via an interesting link a few days ago, is an Australian journalist, outed just a short while back, who, for five years, defamed people from behind the safety of a pseudonym. He's now facing legal problems.

2) Where has your word been established as Grade-A Truth? I'm sorry, Prof. P., but my past experience with you, such as your "Free Thinker" deception, marks your "word" as somewhat less than 100% reliable.

I appreciate the candor with which you admit that you regard me as a liar until I'm demonstrated otherwise.

I'd like to believe you, just for the sake of being nice

Sure you would.

All I can do is shake my head. It is right there in plain English. For anyone to see. Shall we post it on RfM as well?

You can, and undoubtedly will, do anything you choose.

The fact remains, however, that I was never paid a $20K annual fee as chairman of the FARMS board.

Produce the evidence.

What evidence would satisfy you? (None whatsoever, whispers the voice of experience.)

I'm afraid that I'm not willing to post my tax returns or allow you access to my bank accounts and financial records.

What you are saying does not fit with what the official, signed forms say.

That may or may not be true. I haven't looked at them, and I don't trust your interpretation of anything. But I know how much I was paid, and how much I wasn't.

Then what was the formula?

I don't know. It made utterly no difference to my bottom line, so I paid not the slightest attention.

Oh? You've "never been particular interested in such matters"? Then drop out and concede!

I won't concede an untruth.

The IRS was told that you made over $20,000 as the "Chair" of FARMS. Nowhere does it say anything about you working for these various other roles you are claiming.

I don't know or care much precisely how an accountant wrote things up. I suppose he had his reasons; I've never studied accounting.

LOL!!! Well, at last you are finally admitting that you were getting paid on top of your salary. Gee, how hard was *THAT*???

Quite easy. I've never denied it. (Why should I?) I've simply never seen any particular reason to break my personal salary down for your rather creepy curiosity.

As I've said before, I wasn't paid for doing apologetics. Neither my salary (for teaching and editing and directing research and publication projects) nor that temporary board chairmanship fee -- which compensated me for weekends taken away from my family and personal interests by fundraising trips, for weeks of travel to Italy and Lebanon and Mexico and elsewhere to supervise digitizing teams and negotiate partnerships with local institutions, for hours and hours and hours of time spent working out the details of the Institute's affiliation with the University, etc., etc. -- paid me to do apologetics.

And, anyways, the tax forms don't lie.

They probably don't. But they may also not be transparent -- and may or may not be properly interpreted by hostile outsider obsessives with axes to grind.

[_Ray A]

1) Who is "Hack"?

Hack, as Ray A informed us via an interesting link a few days ago, is an Australian journalist, outed just a short while back, who, for five years, defamed people from behind the safety of a pseudonym. He's now facing legal problems.

I really don't wish to pursue Scratch on this much more, but let me add this qualifier. He writes some interesting stuff, and some inanely stupid stuff. But I cannot countenance his doing this under the cover of anonymity, because I think it's extraordinarily cowardly. And I say this with all former animosities to Scratch virtually nullified. I like, and have agreed with many of his points, possibly to my eternal shame, but I cannot sustain this while Scratch posts anonymously, because the people he criticises should be able, in the spirit of fairness, to target his weak points as well. At the moment it amounts to nothing more than a covert bullying charade, and this I abhor, no matter how "true" Scratch's points may be. All of his credibility is lost in this anonymity, considering the serious charges he lays against others. I would not normally call for accountability in this regard, but in case of Scratch, I think any reasonable person would demand it, in the spirit of fairness. Dan Peterson is being clobbered by an anonymous assassin, in effect, and that appalls me no end.

[_Trevor]

I really don't wish to pursue Scratch on this much more, but let me add this qualifier. He writes some interesting stuff, and some inanely stupid stuff. But I cannot countenance his doing this under the cover of anonymity, because I think it's extraordinarily cowardly. And I say this with all former animosities to Scratch virtually nullified. I like, and have agreed with many of his points, possibly to my eternal shame, but I cannot sustain this while Scratch posts anonymously, because the people he criticises should be able, in the spirit of fairness, to target his weak points as well. At the moment it amounts to nothing more than a covert bullying charade, and this I abhor, no matter how "true" Scratch's points may be. All of his credibility is lost in this anonymity, considering the serious charges he lays against others. I would not normally call for accountability in this regard, but in case of Scratch, I think any reasonable person would demand it, in the spirit of fairness. Dan Peterson is being clobbered by an anonymous assassin, in effect, and that appalls me no end.

In some ways I agree with you, in others I don't. I agree with you that the substance of Scratch's stuff is definitely patchy. Some decent, some wacked. As for the continuing discussion of anonymity, I tend to see imbalances of power clouding the issue. It would seem to me that it is relatively easy for Daniel Peterson to come here and do what he always does: defend the LDS Church. From all appearances it would seem that he is free to do so (as far as the LDS Church is concerned). He also comes here as one who represents the Church. He is an employee of the Church and he is a low-level ecclesiastical leader. As long as Daniel toes the party line, he is under no threat of losing his job or his standing as a member. I don't really see that it takes a whole lot of courage to do what he is doing.

Many of us do not operate under the same kind of umbrellas that Dr. Peterson enjoys. And this has much more to do with our status (where pertinent) in the LDS Church. It has to do with employment. It also has to do with the widespread prejudice against those who criticize religion or (as the case may be) do not believe in God. I think a good case can be made for the bigotry of the religious against those who are not and who would dare criticize some of the truly bad aspects of some religions, whereas it seems to me that religious folk (of the right religion, at least) get a pass for doing and believing some of the most boneheaded things imaginable. Anonymity in such a situation is sadly a prudent self protection.

Having said that, I think choosing anonymity places an extra burden of self-editing upon one. Scratch is stepping over the line from my perspective, and the risk of stepping over the line may be an "outing." I have no interest in outing Scratch, but there are those here who might gladly do so if given the opportunity. As a side note, I will say that I would prefer that the extreme rhetoric of a few not be transformed into a general condemnation of anonymity, not that I think Ray A is doing that.

[_Jason Bourne]

Liz---

I am grateful to have you and Jason Bourne participating in this thread. I think that the two of you have been extraordinarily generous and decent-minded in your comments.

Still, I have to note yet again that what you are positing is, at best, merely theoretical in nature. There is no evidence that DCP was "bought out" by BYU. The evidence we've got states, in plain, signed-under-oath English, that DCP was paid up to $20,000 for being Chair of the FARMS board. Further, no explanation has been given for the year-to-year differences in payment for the Chair position. Rollo hypothesized that it may have had to do with FARMS's solid year investment-wise. I also wonder about all of this since FARMS was in a transitional state during this time. It was not yet "officially" a part of BYU, and in fact the terms of the merger were under discussion.

To be fair to Scratch I have to agree that my comment on the pay to BYU for Dr Peterson's time is purely speculative. The 990 says it was paid to the Chairman. Unless we have better evidence Scratch's got a document that presents hard facts. If Dr Peterson can or wishes to explain it better than I never got it that will be up to him. I do not think my position that it may have been paid for his time to BYU and thus classified as a payment to the chair is unreasonable. But I have nothing to back it up.

[_Mister Scratch]

1) Who is "Hack"?

Hack, as Ray A informed us via an interesting link a few days ago, is an Australian journalist, outed just a short while back, who, for five years, defamed people from behind the safety of a pseudonym. He's now facing legal problems.

I really don't wish to pursue Scratch on this much more, but let me add this qualifier. He writes some interesting stuff, and some inanely stupid stuff. But I cannot countenance his doing this under the cover of anonymity, because I think it's extraordinarily cowardly. And I say this with all former animosities to Scratch virtually nullified. I like, and have agreed with many of his points, possibly to my eternal shame, but I cannot sustain this while Scratch posts anonymously, because the people he criticises should be able, in the spirit of fairness, to target his weak points as well. At the moment it amounts to nothing more than a covert bullying charade, and this I abhor, no matter how "true" Scratch's points may be. All of his credibility is lost in this anonymity, considering the serious charges he lays against others. I would not normally call for accountability in this regard, but in case of Scratch, I think any reasonable person would demand it, in the spirit of fairness. Dan Peterson is being clobbered by an anonymous assassin, in effect, and that appalls me no end.

Ray,

What "serious" charges are you referring to?

[_Jason Bourne]

There is no evidence that DCP was "bought out" by BYU.

Scratch/Hack discounts the fact that I've repeatedly said that I was.

The evidence we've got states, in plain, signed-under-oath English, that DCP was paid up to $20,000 for being Chair of the FARMS board.

Which I flatly deny.

Finally, I once again have to wonder about this "Buying time from BYU" theory. *What*, exactly, was being "bought"?

As I've explained several times, my time was being bought so that I could spend a certain portion of it directing the Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts (a portion of what was then called FARMS and what is now called the Maxwell Institute) and directing and editing the Middle Eastern Texts Initative (another portion of what was then FARMS and is now the Maxwell Institute) in lieu of teaching.

Ok

Now Dr Peterson is clear that his time was bought from BYU for various and sundry activviteis at FARMS. I can take him at his word for itl.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Now Dr Peterson is clear that his time was bought from BYU for various and sundry activviteis at FARMS. I can take him at his word for itl.

I've actually said it several times previously. Scratch simply regards me as an inveterate liar.

It's not at all uncommon at BYU for one entity within the University to buy someone's time from another University entity.

In my home department, for example, the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages, one of our number heads up the interdepartmental/intercollege Asian Studies program. The Asian Studies budget purchases his time from my department so that my department can partially replace him with a part-time person. Our Korean curriculum could not be maintained curently without such an arrangement.

Another of my department colleagues is an associate dean of General and Honors Education. The General and Honors Education budget purchases his time from my department so that my department can partially replace him with a part-time person. Our Japanese curriculum could not be maintained currently without such an arrangement.

My Arabist colleague Kirk Belnap is the executive director of the federally-funded National Middle East Languages Resource Center, established in the wake of 11 September 2001 and housed at BYU. The NMELRC budget purchases his time from my department so that my department can replace him almost full time with a nearly full-time person. Our Arabic curriculum could not be maintained without such an arrangement.

When I or one of my Arabist or Hebraist colleagues goes over for a semester or a year to BYU's Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies, the Jerusalem Center's budget purchases his time from my department so that my department can replace him during his absence. Our Arabic and Hebrew programs in Provo would not survive without such an arrangement.

When I went over to direct the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative and the Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, what was then FARMS (and is now the Maxwell Institute) compensated my department so that it was able to hire Dr. Muhammad Eissa to take over my Arabic classes during a period when he had left Northwestern University but had not yet taken up a position at the University of Michigan. That gave the department a breathing spell during which it could devise more long-term strategies for covering what has turned out to be a very long-term (and perhaps permanent) assignment outside the department.

I would be quite surprised if such arrangements are not common at other universities and in the business world.

[_Mister Scratch]

Having said that, I think choosing anonymity places an extra burden of self-editing upon one. Scratch is stepping over the line from my perspective, and the risk of stepping over the line may be an "outing." I have no interest in outing Scratch, but there are those here who might gladly do so if given the opportunity. As a side note, I will say that I would prefer that the extreme rhetoric of a few not be transformed into a general condemnation of anonymity, not that I think Ray A is doing that.

Believe me, Trevor: I don't intend to step over any "line." I have always limited my comments strictly to LDS- and mostly LDS-apologetic-related items. Virtually 100% of my posts have to do with stuff that was written on other Mormon-centric messageboards. In return for that, I have received death threats from DCP and The Nehor, both of whom have suggested (joking or otherwise) that they would like to use an "assault rifle" on me. Now, DCP is implying that he would like to sue me, or to see me bogged down in legal troubles.

Let me state very clearly: I have *never* said anything remotely like the abjectly nasty things above. I would never want to see somebody's actual life thrown into disarray over messageboard posts, and certainly I would never make a threat (even as a joke!) against someone's life. I have never said that I hold any apologist or defender "in contempt." I have never said that I would like to see DCP, or Pahoran, or whoever else get sued. I just don't wish those kinds of ills on other people. If I really have become hated to the point that people are genuinely considering killing me or taking me to court, then perhaps I should take a permanent leave of absence.

[_Daniel Peterson]

In return for that, I have received death threats from DCP

No you haven't, silly.

Now, DCP is implying that he would like to sue me, or to see me bogged down in legal troubles.

I've said nothing of the sort, you irrepressible madcap you.

And I'm serenely confident that you don't really believe that I have.

If I really have become hated to the point that people are genuinely considering killing me or taking me to court, then perhaps I should take a permanent leave of absence.

You haven't, of course.

But the "permanent leave of absence" idea has real merit. If I were you, I'd give it serious consideration.

[_Mister Scratch]

In return for that, I have received death threats from DCP

No you haven't, silly.

I absolutely have. See my signature line.

Now, DCP is implying that he would like to sue me, or to see me bogged down in legal troubles.

I've said nothing of the sort, you irrepressible madcap you.

And I'm serenely confident that you don't really believe that I have.

I don't know what to believe, Dan. Are you sorry you said those things? Or do you genuinely wish I'd be sued, or killed with an assault rifle? You haven't, I notice, made any effort whatsoever to demonstrate that you regretted your "assault rifle" comment. Or that, in fact, you *don't* wish I was dead, or harmed, or sued, or put under distress of some kind. I'm left to assume that you regard me with utter contempt and hatred---something you once actually said, as I recall. Thus, for my own safety and well-being, I think have to take your threats against me very seriously.

If I really have become hated to the point that people are genuinely considering killing me or taking me to court, then perhaps I should take a permanent leave of absence.

You haven't, of course.

No? Then why the "Hack" remarks? Why the death threats? Or do you think that threatening people's lives, threatening to destroy them completely, is something that's funny to joke about?

But the "permanent leave of absence" idea has real merit. If I were you, I'd give it serious consideration.

Why, Dan? What on earth are you talking about? Has all of this just been about getting me to shut up? You threaten me with lethal force and "legal troubles" so that I'll shut up?