Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the issue here about the affirmation isn't to call out her change of opinion- which yes, is not uncommon at all and is in fact the status quo among progressive Christians. Maybe the problem if when someone has a change of heart and immediately claims to "hate" the 50 percent or so of Christians who think like she did last week!
Also, as is often sadly the case, on the heels of "deconstruction" seems to have come "disolution"- changes in expression(cringy frequent profanity), announcing that church isn't necessary, and basically acting as though her faith has a very small place in her head. This is happening with a lot of celebrity Christians theses days and leads me to think that some of them only hung onto Christianity as long as things went well for them. When life lets them down, there's nothing there, showing that they are just as much a victim of "American Christianity" and the prosperity/personal happiness thing as the poor dumb Evangelicals that they scorn.

It’s a common tale. Back in the 90s and 2000s there was no real downside for celebrities, culturally, to being a Christian, even a conservative ones with conservative values. Now days, though, there is a huge downside for celebrities and people in the media
saying things like sex before marriage is a sin, that even a thing like ‘sin’ exists, that human life begins at conception, that Christ and Christi alone saves sinners, etc. Nothing will get you immediately dismissed from elite circles than believing and saying such horrifically unfashionable things. Therefore, we are seeing is a mass abandonment from such beliefs among formally “Christian Celebrities”. Basically, no one wants to be the weirdo and outside the mainstream looking in, especially ambitious social climber types. The thirst for public approval for folks such as these is just too intense.

Anonymous wrote:How does this 28% overhead get spent? Is there a place where these expenses are broken down line by line with full transparency?
Did your research yield how much money LC takes in annually? Curious how much that 28% was in actual dollars.

Anonymous wrote:I know this is off topic and a bit snarky but Brandon's new girlfriend has huge eyelashes, huge boobs, and huge front teeth. Wow.

Anonymous wrote:FYI, the 28% is inclusive of fees paid to Pure, so 72% of funds raised in 2021 went to the charities. This isn't out of the realm of normal for some charitable foundations but there are plenty of charitable organizations who operate with a much lower cost structure. I'm not interested in giving to an organizatino with a bloated management structure and fee-heavy process.

Anonymous wrote:Did restructuring legacy collective provide a way to get a clean slate and potentially cover any previous mismanagement by Brandon?

Anonymous wrote:So instead of someone directly donating to a charity, they give to legacy collective who then gives 5% to pure charity plus takes 28% for itself. So one third of the donation is lost before it ever reaches its intended charity? What is the reason for using legacy collective is to bring donations to the recipient charities? Is it because of Jen’s wooing them to give to her legacy collective where she picks out the recipients based on her values and interests? Her followers trust her wisdom in the choosing so they give their money to be a part of her collective? Then if they give $200 or more a month they can have an annual dinner in her yard.
Not trying to be snarky I’m genuinely confused.

Anonymous wrote:It's true that Legacy Collective completely reorganized shortly after J and B filed for divorce. In October 2020 Brandon was removed from the board of directors and CEO position and quietly moved to the team of "advisors." By the end of the year, he was no longer part of LC--nor were his sister or her spouse.

During this time, LC brought it new leadership and reorganized to a new structure. Previously it was set up as a Donor Advised Fund under a separate 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, Pure Charity. In July 2021, Legacy Collective filed a new Certification of Formation so that LC could be established as an independent non-profit 501(c)(3). This allows LC to receive funding from a wider range of sources. (Donor Advised Funds are limited in the ways they can receive funds; for example, you can't receive corporate matching gifts with DAFs.) In Jen's own words from January 2022, "We’ve spent a year and a half re-structuring Legacy, and now with the best team, the best practices, and the best community, we are ready to scale beyond our wildest dreams."

Legacy Collective continues to use Pure Charity for their donation management. In January 2022, they announced that they "will continue to partner with Pure Charity for our donation management." That could change in the future, since Legacy can now receive the donations directly under the new 501c3 structure.

If you go to the LC's website "About" page, the new bylaws and certificate of formation filed on July 13, 2021 are right there. All operations were moved under the new entity in January 2022.

This restructuring was clearly a top priority in the early days of the divorce. Whether that was because it had been mismanaged is unknown, but certainly a DAF structure was not a great choice for an organization of its size or mission, so I can see why their new management team recommended the reorg. Yet with a management team of LCs size, it seems wasteful to continue to use Pure (they take 5% off the top of any donation) in addition to LC's own administrative cost structure. In 2021 about 28% of funds raised went to admin and marketing. And some of the donations leave me scratching my head, like the one to Philanthropitch, the venture backed "Shark Tank" for new philanthropies....nothing wrong with it per se, but doesn't seem to fit the purported mission of LC.