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

[Dr Moore]

Luckily, I received a pair of links recently from an "informant" which help to shed some light on the situation: namely, Interpreter's 2021 and 2022 tax documents. These documents show, very curiously, that rather than burning a hole in Interpreter's budget, Witnesses managed to somehow turn a profit: $387,000 for 2021, and $102,000 for 2022. What on earth is going on here?

Doctor, forgive me for the public correction. You misattributed Witnesses profit to the stated revenue in the 990 forms. Please see the correct profit computations below, pieced together by our talented new financial studies intern, Nobert Rygren.

WITNESSES

2020 Revenue: $0 (page 10)
2020 Expenses: $335,165 (page 3)
2020 Loss: -$335,165

2021 Revenue: $387,274 (page 10)
2021 Expenses: $631,041 (page 3)
2021 Loss: -$243,767

2022 Revenue: $102,076 (page 10)
2022 Expenses: $234,843 (page 3)
2022 Loss: -$132,767

2020-2022 total loss from Witnesses: -$711,699

So as a profit venture, Witnesses was a huge loser.

What is interesting from these 990 filings is this: despite losing $711,699 on Witnesses over the course of 3 years, Interpreter managed to turn a nice profit each year. For a shoestring budget operation, how does that happen? My best guess is they had generous donor(s) fully funding the production and marketing of Witnesses. To that theory, Interpreter reported the following "contributions and grants" revenue. The spike in 2019 and elevated level in 2020 suggest successful fundraising efforts against expected production & marketing costs. My guess is that Witnesses was "sold" to donors on the following assumptions: (1) cost over $1 million to make & distribute (actual close to $1.2 million) and (2) theatrical revenue could be zero.

Interpreter -- total contributions & grants revenue:

• 2018: $359,977 (pre Witnesses)
• 2019: $1,177,102 (pre Witnesses)
• 2020: $838,080 (Witnesses in production, no revenue)
• 2021: $575,635
• 2022: $447,501

Off of $359,977 in 2018, incremental "contributions & grants" during 2019-2021 totaled roughly $1.5 million. Thus, the movie's $711,699 loss was more than compensated for by elevated donations.

The question you should be asking is how much of the elevated donations to Interpreter -- $1.2 million in 2019 and $838,000 in 2020 -- came from private donors and how much came from institutional donations, i.e. the church.

[Doctor Scratch]

Thank you very much, Dr. Moore! And to Nobert Rygren, for that matter. (A relative of Nichard Rygren, perhaps?) I welcome "public correction"--especially when it pertains to matters that fall outside my normal areas of study, as this most certainly does. Your remark here would seem to sum up the matter just about perfectly:

The question you should be asking is how much of the elevated donations to Interpreter -- $1.2 million in 2019 and $838,000 in 2020 -- came from private donors and how much came from institutional donations, i.e. the church.

As I noted above, Prof. Midgley stated quite plainly that Interpreter is given money by the Church. It stands to reason, then, that some of this money went towards Witnesses. It's rather remarkable that, despite the financial losses, they are making yet another film!

[Tom]

Luckily, I received a pair of links recently from an "informant" which help to shed some light on the situation: namely, Interpreter's 2021 and 2022 tax documents. These documents show, very curiously, that rather than burning a hole in Interpreter's budget, Witnesses managed to somehow turn a profit: $387,000 for 2021, and $102,000 for 2022. What on earth is going on here?

Doctor, forgive me for the public correction. You misattributed Witnesses profit to the stated revenue in the 990 forms. Please see the correct profit computations below, pieced together by our talented new financial studies intern, Nobert Rygren.

WITNESSES

2020 Revenue: $0 (page 10)
2020 Expenses: $335,165 (page 3)
2020 Loss: -$335,165

2021 Revenue: $387,274 (page 10)
2021 Expenses: $631,041 (page 3)
2021 Loss: -$243,767

2022 Revenue: $102,076 (page 10)
2022 Expenses: $234,843 (page 3)
2022 Loss: -$132,767

2020-2022 total loss from Witnesses: -$711,699

So as a profit venture, Witnesses was a huge loser.

What is interesting from these 990 filings is this: despite losing $711,699 on Witnesses over the course of 3 years, Interpreter managed to turn a nice profit each year. For a shoestring budget operation, how does that happen? My best guess is they had generous donor(s) fully funding the production and marketing of Witnesses. To that theory, Interpreter reported the following "contributions and grants" revenue. The spike in 2019 and elevated level in 2020 suggest successful fundraising efforts against expected production & marketing costs. My guess is that Witnesses was "sold" to donors on the following assumptions: (1) cost over $1 million to make & distribute (actual close to $1.2 million) and (2) theatrical revenue could be zero.

Interpreter -- total contributions & grants revenue:

• 2018: $359,977 (pre Witnesses)
• 2019: $1,177,102 (pre Witnesses)
• 2020: $838,080 (Witnesses in production, no revenue)
• 2021: $575,635
• 2022: $447,501

Off of $359,977 in 2018, incremental "contributions & grants" during 2019-2021 totaled roughly $1.5 million. Thus, the movie's $711,699 loss was more than compensated for by elevated donations.

The question you should be asking is how much of the elevated donations to Interpreter -- $1.2 million in 2019 and $838,000 in 2020 -- came from private donors and how much came from institutional donations, i.e. the church.

I appreciate the analysis. Early this year, the proprietor made the following comment about the genesis of the Six Days in August film project: "We did Witnesses and we enjoyed it enough--we always had in mind that if it was at all a success, if any money came in from it, we would devote that money to another project, sort of in the manner of the Perpetual Education Fund or the Perpetual Immigration Fund, you know, where you just keep rolling it over and doing the next one."

[Flemming]

Question: why do we trust Midgley, a—by my calculations—93 year old man, with information he is almost certainly not privy to?

[Dr. Shades]

Question: why do we trust Midgley, a—by my calculations—93 year old man, with information he is almost certainly not privy to?

Because he has lots of Mopologetic friends who tell him things.

[I Have Questions]

Thank you very much, Dr. Moore! And to Nobert Rygren, for that matter. (A relative of Nichard Rygren, perhaps?) I welcome "public correction"--especially when it pertains to matters that fall outside my normal areas of study, as this most certainly does. Your remark here would seem to sum up the matter just about perfectly:

The question you should be asking is how much of the elevated donations to Interpreter -- $1.2 million in 2019 and $838,000 in 2020 -- came from private donors and how much came from institutional donations, i.e. the church.

As I noted above, Prof. Midgley stated quite plainly that Interpreter is given money by the Church. It stands to reason, then, that some of this money went towards Witnesses. It's rather remarkable that, despite the financial losses, they are making yet another film!

Early one when it became clear Witnesses was not going to be a financial success, the proprietor declared, at length, that it was never about the money. So if profit v loss isn’t the metric by which Witnesses is to be measured, what is?
Has the film converted anyone to the Church?
Has the film kept anyone in the Church?
Has the film brought new information to light?
Has it increased awareness of the Church’s restoration to anyone who wasn’t already fully aware of it?
Has it enhanced the reputations of any of the people who were featured in the film?
Has it enhanced the reputations of any of the people involved in its production?

Outside of making the proprieter feel like he’s doing something so noteworthy it’s more important than serving a senior mission, what has Witnesses actually delivered?

If the proprietor’s aim is, as he states, for as many people to see the film as possible, and it’s NOT about the money, why isn’t Witnesses already available on You Tube?

[Dr Moore]

Something else quite telling in these Interpreter 990 forms is this: its mission statement uses the word "enemies."

TO RESEARCH AND DESCRIBE THE RESTORATION OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST AS REVEALED TO JOSEPH SMITH AND WITH QUALITY, FAITH PROMOTING SCHOLARSHIP BY PUBLISHING ON-LINE A JOURNAL FREE OF CHARGE TO THE PUBLIC. TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS FROM THOSE GENUINELY INVESTIGATING THE RESTORATION. TO SPEAK IN DEFENSE OF THE RESTORATION AGAINST CRITICS, ENEMIES, AND DETRACTORS. TO PROVIDE AND PURSUE RELATED CHARITABLE SERVICES AND PURPOSES.

(emphasis added)

Normally, non-profit mission statements indicate positive, affirmative motivations. The Interpreter's mission statement assumes the mantle of an independent militia. It presupposes "enemies" of the restoration, whatever that means. (IMHO, just about everyone I know who opposes the church or its leaders have little beef with "the restoration," but rather take issue with all the lying, deceit, racism, trickery, abuse, violence, hypocrisy, elitism, colonialism, etc etc etc... but anyway)

Follow the OP's links to the Interpreter's 990 filings at Propublica. In the upper right there is a search bar. Search the word "enemies" and then select all filings (my search turns up 2,912 hits). Then sort by date and scroll page after page.

Only two, just 2, non-profit networks use the word "enemies" in their mission statements.

1) Military veteran support groups. VFW chapters, veterans clubs, American Legion chapters, all over America. Their mission statements all include the same language:

To provice fraternal, patriotic, historical and educational services; to preserve and strengthen comradeship among it's members; to assist worthy comrades; to perpetuate the memory and history of our dead, and to assist their widows and orphans; to maintain true allegiance to the Government of the United States of America and fidelity to it's Constitution and laws; to foster true patriotism; to maintain and extend the Institutions of American Freedom; and to preserve and defend the United States from all her enemies, whomsoever.

(emphasis added)

2) The Interpreter Foundation (page 4 of the search results, as of today, if ordered by date)

In summary, of all non-profits in America, mission statements that mention "enemies" are either (1) United States Armed Forces veteran support groups, or (2) The Interpreter Foundation.

Search for yourself. Words that come to mind: megalomaniacal, grandiose, hubristic, narcissistic, fantastical, quixotic.

This all reminds me of a great joke I heard recently. A nervous man bursts into a library, frantically scanning around. He approaches the librarian and whispers, "Do you have any books on paranoia?" The librarian, leaning in conspiratorially, whispers back, "They're right behind you!"

[Boomer57]

Only two, just 2, non-profit networks use the word "enemies" in their mission statements.

1) Military veteran support groups. VFW chapters, veterans clubs, American Legion chapters, all over America. Their mission statements all include the same language:

To provice fraternal, patriotic, historical and educational services; to preserve and strengthen comradeship among it's members; to assist worthy comrades; to perpetuate the memory and history of our dead, and to assist their widows and orphans; to maintain true allegiance to the Government of the United States of America and fidelity to it's Constitution and laws; to foster true patriotism; to maintain and extend the Institutions of American Freedom; and to preserve and defend the United States from all her enemies, whomsoever.

(emphasis added)

2) The Interpreter Foundation (page 4 of the search results, as of today, if ordered by date)

In summary, of all non-profits in America, mission statements that mention "enemies" are either (1) United States Armed Forces veteran support groups, or (2) The Interpreter Foundation.

Search for yourself. Words that come to mind: megalomaniacal, grandiose, hubristic, narcissistic, fantastical, quixotic.

This all reminds me of a great joke I heard recently. A nervous man bursts into a library, frantically scanning around. He approaches the librarian and whispers, "Do you have any books on paranoia?" The librarian, leaning in conspiratorially, whispers back, "They're right behind you!"

That is some stellar and telling detective work there! Amazing, isn't it, when you peel back all the fluff and see what's really underneath.

[Flemming]

Question: why do we trust Midgley, a—by my calculations—93 year old man, with information he is almost certainly not privy to?

Because he has lots of Mopologetic friends who tell him things.

I doubt that’s true. At 93, one has outlived most of their friends.

[drumdude]

Because he has lots of Mopologetic friends who tell him things.

I doubt that’s true. At 93, one has outlived most of their friends.

They’re younger than him…