Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[consiglieri]

Praise from Caesar!

And thank you so much to Professor Severus Snape for the very kind OP and wonderful friendship!

I am honored to be included in this august company.

[AZCaesar]

Praise from Caesar!

You called?

[consiglieri]

[jpatterson]

Just for kicks and giggles, let's talk about John's flirtations with the United States tax code.

In 2010, John made a famous plea for donations so he could get his PhD. His promise was that he would make Mormon Stories a 501(c)3 so people could make tax-exempt donations he could then use to fund his degree.

Only problem with that? It's illegal.

Honest mistake, right? John sometimes gets ahead of himself.

Except he was advised in a series of emails in 2010 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nhhDk4 ... sp=sharing) that what he was suggesting -- both publicly to listeners and privately to financial and other advisors -- was illegal and that he probably shouldn't do that.

From a friend who was advising him on non-profit matters:

Mon Jun 21 2010 at 9:10 pm “In other words, you can’t use Mormon Stories as a pass-through entity to fund your schooling and pay your expenses. You may become an employee of Mormon Stories and draw a salary, but you can’t use these funds for your personal use as a director of a non-profit organization.”

She's referring to the private inurement prohibition of IRS tax code.

From Guidestar:

I. THE PRIVATE INUREMENT PROHIBITION
The private inurement prohibition requires that a
public charity that has been granted tax-exempt
status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code (“charity”) operate so that none
of its income or assets unreasonably benefits
any of its board members, trustees, officers,
or key employees. These types of individuals
are commonly referred to as “insiders.” Thus,
the prohibition precludes any of the income or
assets of a charity from unfairly or unreasonably
benefiting, either directly or indirectly,
individuals who have close relationships with their
organizations and the ability to exercise control
over them.

Not only did John keep doing what he had been advised was illegal, he kept bragging about it.

In 2015, in response to Peggy Fletcher Stack writing a (pretty benign) article about John's finances, he reminded listeners that he had made good on his promise to use tax-exempt donations to fund his PhD, knowing that it was illegal.

5) Words cannot express how grateful I am for those who have financially supported Mormon Stories over the past six years. As the article graciously mentioned, I made a deal with listeners back in 2010 that if they would support me with the podcast, I would use the money to help pay for groceries, health insurance and medical bills (both of which we pay out of pocket), clothes, tuition, etc. I have used the money exactly as promised, and my family and I are forever indebted to you for your generous support. I literally could not have done it without you.

In 2012, the Board of Directors of the Open Stories Foundation was disbanded, except for two insider directors, John Dehlin (the founder) and Natasha Parker. An additional director was brought on at that time – Dan Wotherspoon, also an insider as a paid employee of the Foundation. Between 2012 and 2015, this completely insider board structure existed to govern the Open Stories Foundation, creating an environment that was impossible to guard against potential conflicts of interest.

One of the main things the IRS looks at to decide if an "insider" is taking improper benefits from a charitable foundation? "Whether the compensation was approved by an independent board of directors."

An independent Open Stories Foundation board of directors did not exist from approximately late 2012 until, as far as I can tell, 2016.

During this time period, John's salary more than doubled, from $40,000 in 2011 to more than $91,000 in 2015. Even when, for example, when John stated publicly that he needed to hire a production assistant because he would have less time to do Foundation work due to a “50-hour per week internship” as part of his PhD program. In fact, his salary only increased during that time.

Rosebud has claimed that John liked to keep the board small and disempowered, a claim backed up by the following email excerpts:

Mon Jun 21 2010 at 5:34 pm “Just to be clear – if I don’t need to add a board of directors to be successful…I’m very cool with simplicity.”

and

Mon Jun 21 2010 at 8:46 pm Right now, as I’m trying to get my PhD – I think my greatest need is simplicity. I feel as if I need to be able to operate the foundation with as little time commitment as possible. If I can’t direct the funds as I need them (to help pay my way through school), and if I got bogged down in board conflict – it would probably end me. My initial logic for creating the foundation was that folks would be willing to donate more if they got a tax deduction. That’s about it.

Am I missing something at this point?”

Now, embezzling money isn't quite the right word to describe what John did, but it's close enough for the sake of a broader discussion about his character. He was told what he wanted to do was wrong. He did it anyway. He privately benefited from tax-exempt deductions and continues to benefit from that illegal activity today.

[consiglieri]

I’ll take your change of subject as a tacit admission of defeat on the sexual harassment allegation.

[jpatterson]

I’ll take your change of subject as a tacit admission of defeat on the sexual harassment allegation.

Nope. Proof that I have access to documents that bring John's integrity into question.

So, would you like to actually respond to John's documented illegal and dishonest activity above?

[drumdude]

James Patterson is simply acting as an apologist for Rosebud. He has arrived at the conclusion and works backwards through the evidence. He simply doesn't agree with us that evidence is the only way to come to the correct conclusion. In his own words:

James Patterson wrote:

I approach the word apologist from a less pejorative perspective, although I acknowledge many do not. Frankly, I see apologists at the other end of the spectrum from scientists (using the latter term very loosely).

Scientists base their “findings” purely on evidence, and acknowledge the possibility of any future evidence contradicting current findings.

Apologists, on the other hand, arrive first at findings (based mostly on spiritual or emotional evidence) and largely dismiss any future evidence that may contradict their current findings.

I’m not saying one is better or worse than the other.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2015/02/10/my-belief/

[jpatterson]

James Patterson is simply acting as an apologist for Rosebud. He has arrived at the conclusion and works backwards through the evidence. He simply doesn't agree with us that evidence is the only way to come to the correct conclusion. In his own words:

James Patterson wrote:

I approach the word apologist from a less pejorative perspective, although I acknowledge many do not. Frankly, I see apologists at the other end of the spectrum from scientists (using the latter term very loosely).

Scientists base their “findings” purely on evidence, and acknowledge the possibility of any future evidence contradicting current findings.

Apologists, on the other hand, arrive first at findings (based mostly on spiritual or emotional evidence) and largely dismiss any future evidence that may contradict their current findings.

I’m not saying one is better or worse than the other.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2015/02/10/my-belief/

Someone has been doing some googling.

It may not surprise you that people's perspectives change over time. I look at Mormon apologetics vastly differently than I did six years ago, back when I was still a member.

You'll also notice in that same comment thread me defending John and someone calling me a John Dehlin apologist.

So...nice own?

ETA: I'll also note that you refuse to examine the evidence I posted above. Do you really value evidence as much as you say you do?

[Tavares Standfield]

After years and years of defending John Dehlin here and on other boards I have finally be vindicated!

Rosebud has been exposed as the COB shill that she is. Her entire narrative has crumbled and her lies have been exposed.

The great accomplishments of John Dehlin in taking down the Kingpin of Mopologetics and causing the self-implosion of the Maxwell Institute will be long remembered.

Rosebud's lies will rightfully go into the trash heap of history as disingenuous histrionics funded by the COB.

[drumdude]

I'll also note that you refuse to examine the evidence I posted above. Do you really value evidence as much as you say you do?

I'm going to echo RFM and call that out as a complete non-sequitur. John may have a litany of sins completely unrelated to the specific sexual harassment claims that Rosebud has been making for nearly a decade.

I'll go ahead and completely agree with you that John is a tax fraud, and deserves jail time, so that you can get back to the topic at hand. What does that have to do with sexual harassment?

It's very telling when someone switches to a completely unrelated topic after being pressed as you and Rosebud have been.