Layoffs at Scripture Central?

[Ego]

Jasmin, who might have every reason to expose dirty secrets about Scripture Central since she was laid off by them, posted a video just three days ago where she denies that the Church was directly a sponsor of them.

She did mention that some influencers have been receiving money through third parties but did not indicate Scripture Central received funds in the same way as the example of this she gave. But let’s say it were so, what third party would it be done through and how would it be proven? Until then it seems rather speculative to me.

The video for reference:

https://youtu.be/ZbubJuLIGHk?si=1LNfLXrE1f2RVv5w

I am confident that the LDS Church makes sure in various ways that the apologetic effort remains funded. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, by the way. I don't fully understand why the Church does not explicitly own up to its financial support for apologetics, since the matter is pretty practical. Criticism of the Church harms the Church and, as the leaders believe, the members of the Church. It is altogether in the Church's natural interest and certainly part of its responsibility to protect itself and its members. We know by their own reporting that people in the Maxwell Institute on BYU campus were soliciting donations to the Institute. If you have employees of BYU seeking donations from members to support apologetics, then I would say you have Church-funded apologetics, as the BYU folk working in the NAMI were ultimately in the Church's employ.

It's a non-issue. I don't see why it continues to be a contested thing when it is an obvious fact, but I have participated in conversations where apologists took serious issue with it. I find the denialism bizarre.

Your explanation makes sense about how donations from members or even direct BYU funding can easily constitute Church funding. Obviously members with a successful businesses who feel obligated to donate their money for the building of the kingdom of God could easily get a suggestion from their stake presidents or area authorities to donate to an apologetic group. Some of these might even be mission presidents or former mission presidents paid by the Church so it would quite definitely constitute’Church money’. Obviously the Maxwell institute as an organization of BYU is very directly funded by the corporation of the Church.

I hope you see though that this perspective is different and rather more practical than the theories about undisclosed donations directly from the corporation of the Church itself or perhaps the same but through third party corporations. It is the latter that I wanted to offer the counter to; whether Jasmine is to be trusted or not, I’m passing along that she denied it happening. Perhaps there is evidence that the Church is making such undisclosed donations, it would make sense that they would and it’s not anything they haven’t done before such as when creating the shell companies, but if there is evidence of it, I’ve missed it.

I get that this is legalistic of me. Sorry. I try to be technical because in the battle for truth above misinformation, every little bit is important to me but I might take it too far sometimes.

[Kishkumen]

Your explanation makes sense about how donations from members or even direct BYU funding can easily constitute Church funding. Obviously members with a successful businesses who feel obligated to donate their money for the building of the kingdom of God could easily get a suggestion from their stake presidents or area authorities to donate to an apologetic group. Some of these might even be mission presidents or former mission presidents paid by the Church so it would quite definitely constitute’Church money’. Obviously the Maxwell institute as an organization of BYU is very directly funded by the corporation of the Church.

I hope you see though that this perspective is different and rather more practical than the theories about undisclosed donations directly from the corporation of the Church itself or perhaps the same but through third party corporations. It is the latter that I wanted to offer the counter to; whether Jasmine is to be trusted or not, I’m passing along that she denied it happening. Perhaps there is evidence that the Church is making such undisclosed donations, it would make sense that they would and it’s not anything they haven’t done before such as when creating the shell companies, but if there is evidence of it, I’ve missed it.

I get that this is legalistic of me. Sorry. I try to be technical because in the battle for truth above misinformation, every little bit is important to me but I might take it too far sometimes.

I have no problem with that. I think it is important to have the right information. I don’t know that Jasmine has any particular insight, but she may. The LDS Church chooses to operate in an opaque fashion, and most leaders don’t even know what is going on. That is entirely their business, of course, and not mine. I just know that this opacity fuels speculation. Critics will make the worst of it, while others will assume the very best. Just about everyone is operating in the dark. The best information we have is coming from the Widows Mite, a volunteer group that tries to analyze the data we do have. At the very least, we do know the LDS Church has broken the law in its financial reporting to the federal government. Make of that what you will.