DCP as symbol/placeholder

[_harmony]

I would ask Scratch to come here and lay out all the evidence of this financial theft.

It wasn't Scratch. It was Gadianton.

I believe the evidence consists of:

One of Scratchie's birdies finding FARMS public tax forms on a public site. Seeing DCP's name next to an amount without being clear as to what it says beyond that a payment was made that had something to do with DCP. This birdie was probably not an accountant or familiar with business or non-profit tax law. With this information it is extrapolated that DCP is an embezzler/getting money under the table from someone.

So you've seen the evidence (whatever that means)? And you know Scratch's birdie's qualifications? And you don't come to any other conclusion except that DCP is/could be/might be an embezzler or worse? Geez, Nehor, with friends like you, Daniel is doomed.

It's entirely possible it's all a storm in a teacup. But even if it's not a storm in a teacup, there is a possibility that someone somewhere was simply wrong... or ignorant... or too trusting. We don't have to go for the jugular, ya know.

I'm not even suspicious. I know a little about this field. If you were to go over the tax books for any major university or foundation the names of their professors and academics would be all over them with time bought and sold without the person in question getting a penny. This is slander founded on malice and/or rank ignorance(with an emphasis on and).

If it's public information, I'm having a hard time with the whole slander thing. I mean... how can public information be slanderous?

To put it in perspective this is like someone going over your tax forms and seeing something they don't understand, deciding to accuse you of fraud.

They'd be more likely to accuse me of stupidity or incompetence (my math skills aren't exactly legendary).

[_bcspace]

So there it is. The theory is that, for the denizens of these Mormon/Critic debate boards, there is an unconscious tendency to personify all of apologetics and even much of Mormonism in DCP.

I certainly don't have that tendency. Frankly, I think you guys miss the boat on many things by concentrating so much on DCP. And as long as your attention is diverted......

[_beastie]

I certainly don't have that tendency. Frankly, I think you guys miss the boat on many things by concentrating so much on DCP. And as long as your attention is diverted......

Oh dear, I may need a doctor. I actually agree with bcspace. All the attention paid to DCP, with some minor exceptions, is a diversion from things that are much more important.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So... this is about an alledged $20,000 that the FARMS Foundation (I didn't even know there was a FARMS Foundation. What exactly is its purpose?)

FARMS stands for Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. So yes, there is a "FARMS foundation." Its purpose is to be FARMS.

supposedly paid the chairman of it's Foundation board, but said it didn't pay? That could be very serious, especially if the fiduciary responsibility resides within the person that alledgedly was (or wasn't) paid.

Isn't that kinda like paying yourself? I agree; that's a very serious thing.

And it didn't happen.

Is the FARMS Foundation like the church, and keeps its books closed to public scrutiny?

When FARMS was an independent operation, it complied with the usual disclosure laws that govern 501c3 non-profits. Whatever they are. (I'm neither an accountant nor a tax lawyer; the sheer thought of that subject leaves me virtually catatonic.) When it affiliated with the University, it began to follow University disclosure policy, which is much less open. I know nothing (and care significantly less) about the laws governing such things; if you're curious, you'll have to contact BYU's Office of General Legal Counsel.

My youngest son is scheduled to be deployed to Iraq in March. I'm very nervous about it. Frankly, it scares me spitless.

Fortunately, American casualties in Iraq are significantly down, al-Qa‘ida seems to have been almost neutralized, and Moqtada al-Sadr's "Mahdi Army" appears to be maintaining a truce for at least the time being. If someone has to be deployed to Iraq, this is the best time in several years for that to happen.

[_Mister Scratch]

Is the FARMS Foundation like the church, and keeps its books closed to public scrutiny?

When FARMS was an independent operation, it complied with the usual disclosure laws that govern 501c3 non-profits. Whatever they are. (I'm neither an accountant nor a tax lawyer; the sheer thought of that subject leaves me virtually catatonic.) When it affiliated with the University, it began to follow University disclosure policy, which is much less open. I know nothing (and care significantly less) about the laws governing such things; if you're curious, you'll have to contact BYU's Office of General Legal Counsel.

If you don't know what the rules and laws are, then how can you be certain that FARMS was in compliance with them?

by the way: for my money, there was no "tax evasion." I think that, at worst, some FARMS person may have failed to fully comply with the disclosure portion of the form---i.e., that it should have explained that the $20,000 was actually for a "buy out" of DCP's BYU teaching time, and not actually for being "Chair" of FARMS. The instructions for filling out the 990 form make it pretty clear that transactions of this nature should be disclosed and explained.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you don't know what the rules and laws are, then how can you be certain that FARMS was in compliance with them?

I'm assuming a good faith effort to comply with them on the part of our executive director, office manager, and accountant.

The onus of demonstrating that one or more of those people acted in deliberate bad faith to violate tax laws rests on any person who makes the accusation -- such as Gadianton.

by the way: for my money, there was no "tax evasion."

You might, in that case, do your overzealous convert Gadianton the kindness of reining him in just a bit.

[_The Nehor]

I would ask Scratch to come here and lay out all the evidence of this financial theft.

It wasn't Scratch. It was Gadianton.

I believe the evidence consists of:

One of Scratchie's birdies finding FARMS public tax forms on a public site. Seeing DCP's name next to an amount without being clear as to what it says beyond that a payment was made that had something to do with DCP. This birdie was probably not an accountant or familiar with business or non-profit tax law. With this information it is extrapolated that DCP is an embezzler/getting money under the table from someone.

So you've seen the evidence (whatever that means)? And you know Scratch's birdie's qualifications? And you don't come to any other conclusion except that DCP is/could be/might be an embezzler or worse? Geez, Nehor, with friends like you, Daniel is doomed.

It's entirely possible it's all a storm in a teacup. But even if it's not a storm in a teacup, there is a possibility that someone somewhere was simply wrong... or ignorant... or too trusting. We don't have to go for the jugular, ya know.

I'm not even suspicious. I know a little about this field. If you were to go over the tax books for any major university or foundation the names of their professors and academics would be all over them with time bought and sold without the person in question getting a penny. This is slander founded on malice and/or rank ignorance(with an emphasis on and).

If it's public information, I'm having a hard time with the whole slander thing. I mean... how can public information be slanderous?

To put it in perspective this is like someone going over your tax forms and seeing something they don't understand, deciding to accuse you of fraud.

They'd be more likely to accuse me of stupidity or incompetence (my math skills aren't exactly legendary).

Gadianton is one of Scrath's birdies. I guess you could replace the term with flunky or toady but I think birdie is more charitable.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If it's public information, I'm having a hard time with the whole slander thing. I mean... how can public information be slanderous?

My having been party to the felony crime of federal tax evasion isn't exactly a matter of "public information."

It's Gadianton's inference -- for which he's substantially indebted to Master Scartch, who blazed this defamatory trail (among many others).

[_Nightingale]

harmony:
"If it's public information, I'm having a hard time with the whole slander thing. I mean... how can public information be slanderous?"

I think the "public" part of it comes in when someone makes a slanderous/libelous statement within public hearing/viewing. If I read it correctly, the "public information" reference was to what was said about DCP and not the tax information itself.

One would be wise not to write libelous statements unless one has absolute proof to back up their contentions. If the object of such statements chooses to launch a lawsuit, the only defence would be that what was written was true. If not or if there is no proof of the allegations, the writer is guilty of libel. That would bite.