Did the Church "Bail Out" Interpreter with Tithing Money?

[Kishkumen]

The mediating entities are what smokescreens the whole thing. I think you have to include DCP in the group with the rest of them, even though they have gone to great lengths to hide direct connections.

I don’t know who is paid, but I would imagine some of them MUST be. DCP has his retirement and may not need the income. He treats his projects like his mission, after all.

[Flemming]

I don’t know who is paid, but I would imagine some of them MUST be. DCP has his retirement and may not need the income. He treats his projects like his mission, after all.

whAt dO yOU thInk fUnds byU rEtIrEmEnt AccOUnts?

[Kishkumen]

whAt dO yOU thInk fUnds byU rEtIrEmEnt AccOUnts?

The kind of comment that seems clever when you have walked into a conversation that has been going on a very long time.

[Flemming]

The kind of comment that seems clever when you have walked into a conversation that has been going on a very long time.

I know. I’m just predicting what the apologist haters might say. Am I wrong?

[Kishkumen]

I know. I’m just predicting what the apologist haters might say. Am I wrong?

Doubtless someone will say that. But we have already been through arguments about what BYU faculty who did apologetics were paid for. I don't think the argument is worth the trouble. I don't see anything to be ashamed about in an apologist being paid to do apologetics. Indeed, I find the whole thing silly. But, clearly a lot of people on both sides think that paid apologetics is objectionable.

[Doctor Scratch]

The Proprietor writes:

It’s now being suggested that the Church contributed a large sum of money to Witnesses. It did not. No portion of the overall “Witnesses” project was subsidized or “bailed out” by the Church. Not with tithing money. Not with blood diamonds. Not with crypto-currency. Not with gold bullion or barrels of crude oil or midnight shipments of blackmarket wheat. Not in any way at all. The Church covered no part of the expenses of the “Witnesses” project. Period.

But Louis Midgley said, right there on SeN, with no correction or modification whatsoever from the Proprietor, that the Church gives money to Interpreter. Was he wrong, then? Did the Interpreter Foundation *also* not pay for its own project? Or is this a case where DCP is defining things in a way similar to the way that his anonymous ‘apostate’ friend defined “prophet”?

[Gadianton]

Good point, Doctor. It's a little too easy to say diamonds or crypto weren't used directly. But was crypto bought with tithing, and diamonds with crypto, and then diamonds exchanged for wheat?

I'm not saying that's exactly how I'd expect it to happen, but metaphorically.

[I Have Questions]

The Proprietor writes:

It’s now being suggested that the Church contributed a large sum of money to Witnesses. It did not. No portion of the overall “Witnesses” project was subsidized or “bailed out” by the Church. Not with tithing money. Not with blood diamonds. Not with crypto-currency. Not with gold bullion or barrels of crude oil or midnight shipments of blackmarket wheat. Not in any way at all. The Church covered no part of the expenses of the “Witnesses” project. Period.

But Louis Midgley said, right there on SeN, with no correction or modification whatsoever from the Proprietor, that the Church gives money to Interpreter. Was he wrong, then? Did the Interpreter Foundation *also* not pay for its own project? Or is this a case where DCP is defining things in a way similar to the way that his anonymous ‘apostate’ friend defined “prophet”?

You will note that the proprietor doesn’t declare those sums as “profits”. Nearly $500,000 profit would be an incredible success that Interpreter would be keen to promote. That they’re not confirms my earlier thoughts on the matter. I suspect losses are significant, and are being hidden in the hastily arranged corporate vehicle to which the costs have been applied.

[Dr Moore]

How would paying for distribution rights to independently-produced content be viewed as a bailout?

[Doctor Scratch]

How would paying for distribution rights to independently-produced content be viewed as a bailout?

Well, I *did* use scare quotes: "bail out." What I meant was that (perhaps) the Church stepped in to help Interpreter after they took a financial hit at the box office. If this were a "normal" business transaction, where a distributor is swooping into buy rights from an independent filmmaker, then yes: calling it a "bailout" is probably a misnomer. But when the good 'ol boys / "back-slappin' bros" are hooking each other up, especially when one of them is deep in the hole? I think it's fair to characterize that as a "bailout."

But as I noted at the outset: all of this is speculation.