mrmarklin

While this is technically true, the Pope has at his beck and call servants and pretty much anything he wants. He also lives in a Palace. Although, I think the current one lives off site of the palace proper now. Still, he has a better home than I do, with 24 hour security.

The theory of conversion to the LDS Church is that the Spirit has converted the investigator. Not any special personal attachment to a person or particular program. Those things may help, but without the Spirit, it won't last. If this is so, the new member should follow up with regular attendance etc. etc. to strengthen his/her testimony. Obviously, the above is easier said than done.

The real problem is that many churches are sited outside the US. The Catholic church for example, has its own country even: Vatican City. Do F-Bar rules, or any others, apply to that church? I doubt it. I'm fairly sure that money flows freely from the US to Rome and Vice versa. The Lutheran church, Anglican church are other examples. I don't understand the total structure of other churches, but for the IRS, this could be a real mess, if domestic churches are treated differently to others. What is a domestic church anyway? Half of LDS members reside outside the USA.

In general, Churches are outside the purview of the IRS. I don't know if F-Bar reporting is required for churches. If it is, then the fines can be quite serious, up to 1/2 the monies invested. If that is the case, and the IRS asserts heavy fines, I would expect litigation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64790111 BBC seems to be reporting on the Church in the UK. So far, the article attached is positive.

Let’s separate the facts from the allegation. I don’t think the facts are in dispute. The Church separated its funds into separate entities for its own purposes. That is a fact. Each entity complied with reporting requirement. The allegations are that this was not proper and that the funds should have been reported in the aggregate. The Church, without admitting that the SEC position is correct, agreed to conform to that interpretation of the law. Not that that interpretation is correct. The facts are not in dispute. It’s the interpretation of how they should be reported.

We're all entitled to our opinions.😏 I expect nothing.

There's law and then there's regulation. There's law and interpretation of law. The SEC alleged that the Church misinterpreted the law, but this was never litigated. The Church's legal counsel advised at all times AFAIK, that their interpretation of the law was valid. Again, this was never litigated. With out litigation, which will never happen, it is very unfair to believe or think or allege, that the Church violated the law.

Nothing the Church did was illegal. If it was, the Church would have had to acknowledge it in the settlement. IMHO the Church "hid" what they were doing for one good reason and one bad one. This according to their own lights. The bad reason was that the fund was getting too big, and they thought that having so much money would inhibit tithing payments. The reasonable reason was that by multiplying the funds, the Church could mitigate "tracking" by investors that would want to invest in the "Lord's" way. Who could blame them? It's interesting to note that the portfolio is worth "only" $44 Billion according to the latest filings. Not $100 Billion. I doubt the 100B was a real number.

This is an opinion, and nothing to do with the reality of settling the case. At the SEC the opinion was different. If anything, because of who it was the SEC probably would have liked to prosecute. They like high profile cases. My opinion is that fraud would have been a serious stretch, since the Church did disclose all 13F requirements and relied on counsel in doing so. Maybe you could sue the lawyers for giving bad advice.

The first sentence is certainly true. The issue in question was never litigated, nor will it be with the settlement. Relying on counsel, many organizations litigate these issues and they can be in the court system for years, if not decades. From the Church's POV this is not a desired result. Every time there is a court filing, etc etc, the Church is on the front page of the SL Tribune. I don't know, nor does anyone, what the ultimate outcome of the case would have been. The SEC may have been slapped down for over reach, maybe even going so far as to say that the SEC has no right to even regulate churches. Or the Church may have had "fraud" allegations against it made by the SEC. And maybe they would have stuck. Neither of those results would have been a desired result by the losing party. Litigation is unpredictable. Given the potential downside for both parties, the $5MM settlement is dogmeat compared to the hazards of the court system and the sums of money being discussed under regulatory purview. These kinds of settlements are common and understandable.

Instead of speculating, read this article. The Church was never "charged" with anything, and at all times believed, through advice of counsel, that it was complying with the law. As one who deals with government agencies all the time, and also has experience with the filing that is mentioned in the article, I can categorically state that had the Church done anything seriously "wrong" the matter would not have been dropped so easily. The issue revolved around a reasonable interpretation of the law that could certainly be argued. In fact, in a technical sense, no required information was ever withheld from the public. https://www.wsj.com/articles/church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-its-investment-adviser-settle-sec-probe-792ffc71?st=537fkq5lgwgadvv&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

These are technical issues. Likely the Church could have negotiated for years regarding this supposed violation. Or even gone to the court system. But the government has a heavy hand. Sometimes it’s cheaper and certainly quicker just to pay a bribe er fine.

I’ll speak specifically and generally. These mediums are total scam artists and frauds. So is the guy you are referring to. The great illusionist Harry Houdini, in the 20s, spent a lot of time debunking these guys, and today Penn and Teller do the same thing. It’s just magic tricks. But they get very good at convincing people. I will point out that an aneurysm of the aorta is not a heart attack. My father died of this.

There is a behind the scenes scam going on. So called Spiritualism has been debunked for well over 100 years. 🥴

YAWN I'm sure that the Church does everything in its power to comply with the law. If there was an omission of 13-K filings (which I doubt) one simply negotiates a fine and done. AFAIK there would be no other filings required.

The reason that Holland or Hamilton don’t “correct “ their remarks is that I don’t think that a handful of disbelievers on the forum are even on their radar screen. And, of course, maybe they intended the remarks to mean what they do, considering the context and audience to whom they spoke.

We don't know that the authorities were wrong about this. The Lord may have had good and clear reasons for the ban. Obviously, He has not revealed the reasons, and in fact, the Church has disavowed the "reasons" that were posited by the GAs in the past. But it doesn't mean the ban was an incorrect teaching at the time. Christians eat pork. Things change.

This stuff is suggestions. Not "Thus Saith the Lord". So I let my conscience be my guide. If one needs to pray about it, fine with me. I don't particularly feel the need. I think what the poll should imply is doctrine. The kind of stuff that ends up in the D&C as scripture. I my mind, there would never be any conflict between my personal revelations and scripture. I think it would be impossible to a sincere person. So yeah, I would follow the Prophet. Edit: One of the things that strikes me abut this forum, is that everyone seems to think that whatever comes out of the mouth of a GA is Gospel. But it's not. It's mostly considered opinion. I would give it the same weight as advice from my attorney or accountant. Likely I would follow, but not a sin if I don't Caffeine, playing cards, not waiting to have children etc etc is counsel that may or may not be appropriate to any single person's situation. I certainly don't pay attention to stuff that doesn't apply to me. And maybe I'd be better off taking the advice, but it certainly is not the end of the world if I don't.

No.

Both interpretations are correct.

I have not read the whole speech, or even the above comments. But I will state that every member of this Church has within him/herself the right to revelation before they follow the counsels of the prophet. We are not a church of blind obedience. All of us need to take advantage of this promise……..”Upon this rock……..”.

Of course He intervenes. There is a reason He allowed John the beloved and the three Nephites to be in the world until the millennium. I believe He intervenes in indirect ways as well, but I can only be sure in the next life.

Pretender, Don't take any of these opinions too seriously. Consider to whom he was giving the speech in question--a group of LDS educators. White men, whose opinions likely coincided to Petersen's at the time. Cut them all some slack. Context.................

As I said, context is everything. This is certainly an interesting opinion, but not then and not now Church doctrine. As a person who married in 1971 a woman of a different race than myself while attending BYU, I can say that similar opinions were rampant. And that my wife was gently advised that marrying into "another culture" was not a good idea. Both of us at the time asked: What culture would that be? We considered ourselves in the Church culture, having similar life goals as LDS. Fifty one years later we are still in the Church culture. Most of the marriage prohibitions quoted in the Bible are not so much racial, as advice not to marry outside the Church. AFAIK back then these were all Semitic people. So, my conclusion is, don't take any of this too seriously. The opinions of the prophet and the apostles are worth considering, given their overall life experience. Many on this forum treat these opinions as doctrine. I don't. And for very obvious reasons.