Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The thing about transparency is, no matter how much you know, there's no way to know how much you don't know. ;) 

If cash were banned, electronic funds could be tracked everywhere they went. (I checked my spelling)

Edited by Exiled
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Exiled said:

If cash were banned, electronic funds could be tracked everywhere they went. (I checked my spelling)

I'm speaking of the transparency in general that you have spoken in favor of.  I have no idea why you took the conversation in that direction, but, whatever. :unknw: 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm speaking of the transparency in general that you have spoken in favor of.  I have no idea why you took the conversation in that direction, but, whatever. :unknw: 

Well, I was just echoing what Roger Hendrix, former Deseret Management board member, said in an interview with John Dehlin about how total transparency is coming regardless of what steps anyone takes. He makes the case that analysis of big data will provide the disclosures whether one wants them or not and I said that the same thing could happen now if cash were banned. Even so, with the speed of super computers, in the future, no one will be able to hide their finances from scrutiny. So, I think your statement about not knowing unknowns will soon dissipate. (Just checked my spelling again and feel free to check it too. I always like to have former brothers in the gospel point out spelling mistakes 😂)

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Nonsense.

Not about the cash infusion - that actually happened. But the GA's life insurance polices were never at risk, and neither were anybody else's. 

By law, Utah, like every other state in the country, has created a Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association (see, e.g., Utah Code §31A-28) which ensures that your policy will continue to be in effect and administered, either by the guaranty fund itself or (more often) by transferring your policy to another insurer, in the event that your insurance company goes out of business or is otherwise unable to pay out. 

So the notion that "G.A. life insurance policies were at stake" (in any meaningful way) is nothing but complete nonsense. 

 

So why the bailout if no policies were at risk of incurring losses? Why not just let it fail? Somebody benefitted from the bailout. Who do you think did?

Link to comment
10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know why you keep repeating this nonsense.  I have next to no desire at all to traipse down this road with you again.  As is clear I'm not receiving donations from people, thus you simply are ignoring the very reason for the push for transparency.  You've failed each and every time to give a reason why an individual should be so transparent.  

And

as you keep trying to reduce this....I have already stated my opinion.  If I were receiving donations from people I'd be transparent about what I'm doing and about my spending.  If I weren't, feeling I owed donors that much, I'd hope someone would pressure me to be transparent.  

Whether or not you desire to "traipse down this road" with him, he raises valid rebuttals to your assertions that you are obligated to address rationally.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I realize this is hyperbole but it is a bit over the top. Executioner? Come on.

I'm curious what would happen if a disinterested party came to this board and read these kinds of comments. Taking the whole thread about Bill and about Ryan into account, I'm curious which side of the argument they would find more abrasive, hostile, and just plain rude. Those supporting the church or those supporting Bill and Ryan?

It never ceases to amaze me how awful people can act when self-righteously defending the church.

 

How about the amazement over how awful people can act when self-righteously attacking the church?

And in case you missed it, the "judge, jury and executioner" thing is a well-known idiom, and is pretty much never meant to be taken literally.  Except possibly by people who are trying to misdirect a conversation from the subject at hand, to an accusation of extremism.  Which is what you're doing here.  

Judge, Jury and Executioner

"What does 'Judge, jury and executioner' mean?
If someone is said to be the judge, jury, and executioner, it means they are in charge of every decision made, and they have the power to be rid of whomever they choose."

Idioms similar to 'Judge, jury and executioner' (and no actual jury is expected to be involved): Jury's out

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whether or not you desire to "traipse down this road" with him, he raises valid rebuttals to your assertions that you are obligated to address rationally.

I raised rebuttals to his criticisms.  He's offering the criticisms and they've all been addressed as I see it.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, but people who self-righteously attack the church are obviously apostates and apostates have most definitely lost the spirit. So expectations would be lower ;) 

Ha ha.  Thanks for the smile! :D 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

How about the amazement over how awful people can act when self-righteously attacking the church?

And in case you missed it, the "judge, jury and executioner" thing is a well-known idiom, and is pretty much never meant to be taken literally.  Except possibly by people who are trying to misdirect a conversation from the subject at hand, to an accusation of extremism.  Which is what you're doing here.  

Judge, Jury and Executioner

"What does 'Judge, jury and executioner' mean?
If someone is said to be the judge, jury, and executioner, it means they are in charge of every decision made, and they have the power to be rid of whomever they choose."

Idioms similar to 'Judge, jury and executioner' (and no actual jury is expected to be involved): Jury's out

I've seen awful people do awful things on all sides. Heck, I've done a few awful things myself. I think it comes from letting our emotions and egos too attached to being "right." That's a common problem of humanity, not just Mormons or apostates.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've seen awful people do awful things on all sides. Heck, I've done a few awful things myself. I think it comes from letting our emotions and egos too attached to being "right." That's a common problem of humanity, not just Mormons or apostates.

Oh, absolutely.  I'd imagine that the awful things you've done pale in comparison with the very worst -- and my awful things may not be too much worse than yours. 

And the awful things said in attacking and defending the Church most certainly pale in comparison with those things, too.  I just wish we could attack and defend with a little more circumspection and respect than we sometimes exhibit.

One thing I do know is that I am a sinner, just as much as any other person.  And I thank God for the Savior's Atonement!  

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Amulek said:

Nonsense.

Not about the cash infusion - that actually happened. But the GA's life insurance polices were never at risk, and neither were anybody else's. 

By law, Utah, like every other state in the country, has created a Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association (see, e.g., Utah Code §31A-28) which ensures that your policy will continue to be in effect and administered, either by the guaranty fund itself or (more often) by transferring your policy to another insurer, in the event that your insurance company goes out of business or is otherwise unable to pay out. 

So the notion that "G.A. life insurance policies were at stake" (in any meaningful way) is nothing but complete nonsense. 

 

It might also be noted that Beneficial Life no longer writes new policies, hasn’t for years. They service existing policies, waiting for current policy holders to die off, after which they will close their doors for good. 

My understanding is that General Authorities are covered by the same benefits plan (DMBA) that I have from employment in a Church-owned enterprise. It has always been very stable, even under the train wreck known as Obamacare. 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Exiled said:

So why the bailout if no policies were at risk of incurring losses? Why not just let it fail? Somebody benefitted from the bailout. Who do you think did?

Beneficial Life had a fiduciary responsibility to its clients, all of them, not just General Authorities, if any. By keeping the company it owns afloat with an infusion of capital, the Church made certain those responsibilities would be met without being foisted off onto others. 

Why does this anger you so?  I don’t get the rancor on your part. It is inexplicable. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Beneficial Life had a fiduciary responsibility to its clients, all of them, not just General Authorities, if any. By keeping the company it owns afloat with an infusion of capital, the Church made certain those responsibilities would be met without being foisted off onto others. 

Why does this anger you so?  I don’t get the rancor on your part. It is inexplicable. 

I think you're exaggerating my "rancor" or "anger." But that probably fits your narrative and probably you can't judge tone well with the written word. I just want to know why the bailout and who benefitted from it.  I'm curious. 

As far as fiduciary duties, the officers certainly had them and might have breached them by investing in the garbage they did. Fiduciaries have to be conservative in the investments they make. I wonder if potential lawsuits and the notariety they would have brought influenced the decision to bailout the company? In any event we won't ever know.

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think you're exaggerating my "rancor" or "anger." But that probably fits your narrative and probably you can't judge tone well with the written word. I just want to know why the bailout and who benefitted from it.  I'm curious. 

As far as fiduciary duties, the officers certainly had them and might have breached them by investing in the garbage they did. Fiduciaries have to be conservative in the investments they make. I wonder if potential lawsuits and the notariety they would have brought influenced the decision to bailout the company? In any event we won't ever know.

Who do you think benefitted?

CFR that the officers invested in "garbage" as opposed to the company being hit with a meltdown in financial markets occasioned by the Great Recession of 2008 and beyond.

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Who do you think benefitted?

CFR that the officers invested in "garbage" as opposed to the company being hit with a meltdown in financial markets occasioned by the Great Recession of 2008 and beyond.

I think your CFR is misplaced.  It was obvious garbage that the company invested in because it took the company down.  Now, the real question is who knew what and when and should they have know better than to invest in what turned out to be garbage.  We won't know that due to the bailout.  As to who benefited, I think the church did in that it avoided a protracted public legal battle with one of its companies.  Beyond that, I can only guess (and I know you don't like guessing or possibilities when it could harm the church or the brethren, so I won't engage)

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Exiled said:

I think you're exaggerating my "rancor" or "anger." But that probably fits your narrative and probably you can't judge tone well with the written word. I just want to know why the bailout and who benefitted from it.  I'm curious. 

As far as fiduciary duties, the officers certainly had them and might have breached them by investing in the garbage they did. Fiduciaries have to be conservative in the investments they make. I wonder if potential lawsuits and the notariety they would have brought influenced the decision to bailout the company? In any event we won't ever know.

It would be weird for the Church to default on one of its businesses and let the State (taxpayers) shoulder the commitment instead.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Exiled said:

I think your CFR is misplaced.  It was obvious garbage that the company invested in because it took the company down.  Now, the real question is who knew what and when and should they have know better than to invest in what turned out to be garbage.  We won't know that due to the bailout.  As to who benefited, I think the church did in that it avoided a protracted public legal battle with one of its companies.  Beyond that, I can only guess (and I know you don't like guessing or possibilities when it could harm the church or the brethren, so I won't engage)

So you have no idea, then, what investments were made, whether they were indeed "garbage," or whether the downturn in the prosperity of Beneficial Life was due to being hit with a meltdown in financial markets attendant to the Great Recession which was hitting financial institutions across the board at the time, particularly smaller companies like Beneficial LIfe. In short, this is nothing more than gossip mongering on your part with baseless gossip at that.

I have no further interest in this conversation.

 

Link to comment
On 8/14/2018 at 10:32 PM, Exiled said:

So why the bailout if no policies were at risk of incurring losses? Why not just let it fail? Somebody benefitted from the bailout. Who do you think did?

Honestly? The employees who worked for Beneficial Life.

A controlled shutdown allows the company to scale back over time, offer job placement services to employees in stages, etc. The alternative would have been to put everyone out on the street at once during a major downturn in the economy, and I really don't see the church wanting to go that route if it was avoidable.

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you have no idea, then, what investments were made, whether they were indeed "garbage," or whether the downturn in the prosperity of Beneficial Life was due to being hit with a meltdown in financial markets attendant to the Great Recession which was hitting financial institutions across the board at the time, particularly smaller companies like Beneficial LIfe. In short, this is nothing more than gossip mongering on your part with baseless gossip at that.

I have no further interest in this conversation.

 

They invested in mortgage backed securities and lost. But those well meaning executives probably were doing the best that they could, by definition.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Honestly? The employees who worked for Beneficial Life.

A controlled shutdown allows the company to scale back over time, offer job placement services to employees in stages, etc. The alternative would have been to put everyone out on the street at once during a major downturn in the economy, and I really don't see the church wanting to go that route if it was avoidable.

 

I'm sure there were potential lawsuits that drove this as well. But we will never know. So, move on.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...