Church Corruption and Pipes

[JVW]

I have two unrelated questions and thought making one thread would be easier.

1) Has the Church ever shown any signs of corruption? I had a colleague accuse the Church of being corrupt in the same way that a government or corporation is corrupt and it stopped me dead in my tracks because I'd never heard of the Church being corrupt before. I know there's Ensign Peak stuff, but from what I understand the complaints around that are: lack of transparency, possible fraud, and a disagreement in how a global entity manages their money. But, as far as I know, the Church doesn't pay or accept bribes of any kind, and they don't plant people in positions of power around the world in order to open up countries to missionary work or to make money or whatever. Can anyone here confirm or deny this accusation? Is my innocent little church actually becoming a wolf in sheep's clothing?

2) I saw in a video last night someone mention that the pipes that the Elders in the School of the Prophets tossed into the fire immediately upon hearing the Word of Wisdom for the first time were found preserved in ashes. I searched online (and my wife used AI) to try and determine whether this guy, Don Bradley, was speaking out of both ends about these pipes and I couldn't find any information on the topic. Here is the link and the claim is at 5:04. I didn't finish the video after that claim and don't plan to. https://youtu.be/3JyzVCpGuo0?si=Pj_RgWPUmH6f2-l1

Thanks for your consideration of these questions, any and all replies are appreciated. Thank you Forum members.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

to try and determine whether this guy, Don Bradley, was speaking out of both ends

I’m not sure there are many more respected Latter-day Saint historians than Don Bradley

[Calm]

Don Bradley is generally respected and has found quite a bit of original documentation. Iirc, and put together important information (like Louisa Beaman is not Joseph’s first plural marriage as has been thought because the man we get the date from is not only notorious for wrong dates, but iirc gives multiple dates for it; he is going in describing things and he states the marriage took place in a certain building that wasn’t built at the date usually used), so I wouldn’t be surprised if he is accurate in this.  While I have found maybe one or two things I wonder if his interpretations are taken too far, I give him the benefit of the doubt.  If he says he’s found evidence the pipes were preserved, I believe it.  

It’s not far fetched as far as I am aware, it would depend on the material the pipe is made of and how hot the fire was.  It seems certainly physically possible from what I know of fires.  Pipes back then would be resistant to burning, whether of fired clay (thus resistant to the lower heat in most small open fires or even stove fires) or special hardwoods.  Briar wood was/is? a common pipe wood as it is very dense and resistant to burning.

The ashes would have been disposed of on an ash heap.  Fast forward quite some time and someone digging up historic sites finds the pipes discarded along with the ashes.

There’s been an organization that works on digging up Nauvoo.  I assume it’s still going.  It’s associated with the Community of Christ, I believe.  https://idignauvoo.legacyshare.org/team/

 

Edited August 27 by Calm

[Okrahomer]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

2) I saw in a video last night someone mention that the pipes that the Elders in the School of the Prophets tossed into the fire immediately upon hearing the Word of Wisdom for the first time were found preserved in ashes. I searched online (and my wife used AI) to try and determine whether this guy, Don Bradley, was speaking out of both ends about these pipes and I couldn't find any information on the topic. Here is the link and the claim is at 5:04. I didn't finish the video after that claim and don't plan to. https://youtu.be/3JyzVCpGuo0?si=Pj_RgWPUmH6f2-l1

Here’s what ChatGPT says:

”Archaeology supports that broken clay pipe stems from the Whitney / ashery area exist and were recovered in restoration-era digs (one documented recovery in 2000).”  
Sources cited:  https://website-files-bucket.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/articles/article_pdfs/Thou_Art_the_Man.pdf; and https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-27-february-1833-dc-89?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 

[Calm]

More earlier info on I Dig Nauvoo:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2013/8/17/23224113/digging-in-nauvoo-by-archaeologists-of-many-faiths/#:~:text=The "I Dig Nauvoo" volunteers,often used instead of foundations.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

Has the Church ever shown any signs of corruption?

I assume you mean in recent years?  Say last 50?  Or 100?  I think anything that comes close would be blasted out there.  There’s have been several controversies that are quite active for a time and then fade away.  There’s been attempts to tie certain leaders to corrupt persons, concluding they are also corrupt by association, such as Pres. Ballard attacked through Tim Ballard (fyi, Tim Ballard is not his relative; can’t remember if you were on the board during these discussions).  There’s been claims of protecting predators.  There’s been pointing to no specific explanations or apologies when leaders are released in problematic circumstances, such as in the case of Paul Dunn (Brother Dunn shared the info he was censured, not the Church iirc).  I don’t see that as corruption.  Lack of transparency is not corruption itself, though if not careful it could go that way.  There have been claims that apostles engaged in corrupt business practices prior to being called.  Some have been based on incomplete information where if you dig deeper, the problem is resolved or it’s jumping to conclusions when it’s impossible to find enough info, sometimes because of the Church’s lack of transparency.  I don’t remember anything I saw as that solid.  (As a side note, I don’t see a lack of transparency in an organization as inherently good or bad, so using the phrase instead of confidentiality should not be interpreted as condemning the Church.)

There are a lot of critics who see the years of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as rampant with corruption.  My personal opinion is that Joseph had bad luck, bad advice and made some poor choices, including who to trust at times.  With Brigham Young there are claims of violence and predatory practices, iirc.  I am not that much into early church history, so my memory is vague on these.  I don’t think the claims are valid as far as corruption, though Brigham and other early leaders did make some significant mistakes, imo.  And some committed major sins, such as those involved in the MMM.

[2BizE]

The church’s creation of 12-13 shell companies to purposefully deceive members, investors and financial institutions for 20 years is financially irresponsible resulting in a $5 million fine by the SEC is certainly an example of corruption. Then, lying to members again at the next general conference where once again the financial report mentioned no irregularities.

I also think what the church is doing in Australia to avoid paying taxes and allowing members to illegally pay tithing is corruption.

[JustAnAustralian]

5 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Australia to avoid paying taxes

"advancing religion" is explicitly listed as a charitable purpose in the relevant legislation. They get tax-free status simply by being a church.

5 hours ago, 2BizE said:

allowing members to illegally pay tithing

Paying tithing is not illegal.
What you are probably thinking of is that people who pay tithing to the church can count it as a charitable deduction for tax purposes, where as that isn't the case with most other churches. The charity regular and tax office would be well aware of the arrangement, so clearly they are ok with it.
 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I also think what the church is doing in Australia to avoid paying taxes and allowing members to illegally pay tithing is corruption.

And yet the government set the program up to encourage people to give to philanthropic causes, I believe primarily supporting developing countries.  Why would it be corrupt to do what the government wants people to do?  They have had over a decade iirc to call out the Church for doing it this way and yet they haven’t last time I checked.

Someone, possibly Just An Australian, possibly me, calculated how much loss in taxes the government had by allowing this loophole to exist.  Used the average income, what tithing would be and the amount that was not allowed to be deducted from this average member’s taxes if the money was not donated to a government approved charity, then multiplied by number of members…my memory is vague, pretty sure the taxes lost if paid instead was enough to pay for a short stretch of road iirc, while the donations directed to humanitarian projects amounted to a good deal of benefit for the countries that got support from the donations.  The Australian government didn’t have to use their own tax funds to support these countries, but still likely got great PR because their system set it up.  Good chance, imo, they saved in administrative costs by someone else doing the decision making, paperwork, etc, what was lost in taxes.

From a letter sent out to Australian wards from JustAnAustralian (glad to see he showed up):

Quote

Australian charity law allows for individuals of any faith, or of no faith affiliation, who donate to a deductible gift recipient to receive a tax deduction. It would appear that the government encourages charitable donations because it helps the recipients, it lessens the burden on government, and it fosters a culture of giving.

LDS Charities Australia was established for these reasons. It was set up and operates according to Australian law. Humanitarian projects—many of which are principally sponsored by major charities such as UNICEF, Red Cross, Red Crescent and ADRA—are proposed to an LDS Charities Australia committee, whose members decide which projects the charity will support. LDS Charities Australia is run by Australians, according to Australian law. Overheads are low, but impact is high.

We are grateful for a government that supports charitable giving and humanitarian efforts within Australia and overseas. Church members’ donations enable the Church to operate its religious and charitable programs in Australia, as well as bless the lives of others in communities around the world.

We are grateful for all Australians who put love of God and service to neighbour—the two great commandments as taught by Jesus Christ in the New Testament—above other interests. As followers of Jesus Christ, this is what inspires Latter-day Saints to live as we do.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75427-i’ve-been-vindicated-church-caught-with-hands-in-cookie-jar/page/6/#findComment-1210155486

Edited August 28 by Calm

[JVW]

12 hours ago, 2BizE said:

The church’s creation of 12-13 shell companies to purposefully deceive members, investors and financial institutions for 20 years is financially irresponsible resulting in a $5 million fine by the SEC is certainly an example of corruption. Then, lying to members again at the next general conference where once again the financial report mentioned no irregularities.

I also think what the church is doing in Australia to avoid paying taxes and allowing members to illegally pay tithing is corruption.

I don't think corruption means what you think it means...

Also, I don't think you understand the purpose of financial audits and what it means to have no irregularities. I certainly don't, but my wife does and she's even worked professionally with LDS internal financial auditors and Managing Directors. Her boss's boss was the guy that reads the audit report in conference. She met with him several times. And she never mentioned any serious legal concerns with the way they run their audits or the results of their audits.

[The Nehor]

On 8/28/2025 at 9:43 AM, JVW said:

I don't think corruption means what you think it means...

Also, I don't think you understand the purpose of financial audits and what it means to have no irregularities. I certainly don't, but my wife does and she's even worked professionally with LDS internal financial auditors and Managing Directors. Her boss's boss was the guy that reads the audit report in conference. She met with him several times. And she never mentioned any serious legal concerns with the way they run their audits or the results of their audits.

Just once I want that audit report in General Conference to reveal some bombshell finding on the books they discovered.

[Pyreaux]

Good see you again @2BizE, you do liven things up. Despite what my opinion is about it, those are indeed the recent events that likely inspired the common outbursts. So, yes, thank you for that.

On 8/27/2025 at 8:45 PM, 2BizE said:

The church’s creation of 12-13 shell companies to purposefully deceive members, investors and financial institutions for 20 years is financially irresponsible resulting in a $5 million fine by the SEC is certainly an example of corruption. Then, lying to members again at the next general conference where once again the financial report mentioned no irregularities.

Corruption

The SEC's charges against the Church were for disclosure failures and misstated filings, not for corruption or fraud. The legal definition of "corruption" often involves a "scheme to defraud" or "abuse of entrusted power for private gain," the SEC did not allege that the Church was involved in insider trading, embezzlement, or personal enrichment of its leaders. The core violation was a lack of transparency, an offense but one that falls short of what many would define as "corruption."

The ex-Mormons argue that the Church, through its investment arm, somehow violated a fiduciary duty to its members by accumulating a vast reserve, instead of using it for its mission or charity. The Church, on the other hand, maintains that the reserve is necessary. As predicted, the frivolous lawsuits brought against the Church by pre-embittered ex-members, alleging that they were defrauded, have all been dismissed by courts. Tithing is a spiritual practice, members are not "investors" and are not entitled to a detailed financial report on how their donations are used.

The only members crying corruption are those with a "victimhood complex". Individuals who had already left the Church due to unrelated doubts, see the SEC fine as proof that they were right all along. It fits neatly into their pre-existing belief that the Church is dishonest and "not what it seems." The outrage is not a result of harm, but a celebration of a new piece of evidence that validates a long-held belief. Those ex-members having no direct financial loss yet feel some sense of betrayal, your anger isn't proportional to a real-world financial injury.

By collectively expressing outrage online, they reinforce their shared identity as those who have "seen the truth" and been wronged by the Church. The outcry becomes a communal ritual that strengthens their bonds and validates their shared experience, a form of "virtue signaling" and a way to reinforce a narrative of betrayal and victimhood, rather than a proportional reaction to a real-world harm.

The claim that the Church "lied to members again at the next general conference" by not mentioning "irregularities" is an oversimplification. The Church's general conference addresses have not traditionally been used for detailed financial reports. Instead, it typically provides a high-level summary from an independent auditing firm, which merely attests that all funds have been accounted for. The Church's specific statement on the SEC settlement was released separately in a press release. You are conflating different communication channels and expectations.

Those who imagine they were harmed by tithing to a church they didn't know was wealthy, the Church has never made a claim of poverty to solicit funds. In fact, leaders have often preached principles of fiscal responsibility and long-term planning. The argument that members gave when they "couldn't afford to" is a personal decision based on their faith, not on a claim by the Church that it was in desperate need. In essence, they are complaining the church practices what it preached us to do, create a reserve for hard times.

 

On 8/27/2025 at 8:45 PM, 2BizE said:

I also think what the church is doing in Australia to avoid paying taxes and allowing members to illegally pay tithing is corruption.

Ex-Mormon Moral Grandstanding

Those making this claim are likely have no personal or financial stake in it. So, anger is not a result of them being harmed, and there's no evidence of such a finding by Australian legal authorities. This reflects a desire to frame their personal disillusionment as a universal truth, a key feature of the "victimhood complex."

The outrage can be critiqued as an example of "Moral Grandstanding", a term from social psychology and philosophy. Moral grandstanding is the use of moral talk in public to convince others that one is a "morally respectable" person. It's often motivated by a desire for social status and a need to project a virtuous image. The outrage is always being expressed by many people who are not current tithing payers and who have no direct financial stake. They are broadcasting their moral identity as someone who stands against institutional corruption.

In online spaces, this often takes the form of "piling on", a cascade of public condemnation that serves to reinforce group identity. By joining the chorus of outrage, individuals signal their allegiance to the ex-LDS community and their rejection of the Church. This behavior is more about group cohesion and social signaling than it is about seeking justice or a meaningful resolution.

By focusing on the "corruption" of the Church, they can redirect feelings of guilt onto an external target. Their outrage becomes a "cleansing fire" that makes them feel morally superior and helps them reaffirm their decision to leave. The act of condemning the Church allows the individual to believe they are on the "right side." This can be particularly appealing when they feel their own life choices since leaving the Church might be seen as morally questionable by others. The moral outrage over Ensign Peak becomes a convenient way to say, "I am a good or better person because I am angry about this, unlike those who are complicit."

It never results in a deeper understanding of the issue or a path to resolution.

Edited September 8 by Pyreaux

[JVW]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Just once I want that audit report in General Conference to reveal some bombshell finding on the books they discovered.

Me too, brother.

[stelf]

23 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Good see you again @2BizE, you do liven things up. Despite what my opinion is about it, those are indeed the recent events that likely inspired the common outbursts. So, yes, thank you for that.

Corruption

The SEC's charges against the Church were for disclosure failures and misstated filings, not for corruption or fraud. The legal definition of "corruption" often involves a "scheme to defraud" or "abuse of entrusted power for private gain," the SEC did not allege that the Church was involved in insider trading, embezzlement, or personal enrichment of its leaders. The core violation was a lack of transparency, an offense but one that falls short of what many would define as "corruption."

The ex-Mormons argue that the Church, through its investment arm, somehow violated a fiduciary duty to its members by accumulating a vast reserve, instead of using it for its mission or charity. The Church, on the other hand, maintains that the reserve is necessary. As predicted, the frivolous lawsuits brought against the Church by pre-embittered ex-members, alleging that they were defrauded, have all been dismissed by courts. Tithing is a spiritual practice, members are not "investors" and are not entitled to a detailed financial report on how their donations are used.

The only members crying corruption are those with a "victimhood complex". Individuals who had already left the Church due to unrelated doubts, see the SEC fine as proof that they were right all along. It fits neatly into their pre-existing belief that the Church is dishonest and "not what it seems." The outrage is not a result of harm, but a celebration of a new piece of evidence that validates a long-held belief. Those ex-members having no direct financial loss yet feel some sense of betrayal, your anger isn't proportional to a real-world financial injury.

By collectively expressing outrage online, they reinforce their shared identity as those who have "seen the truth" and been wronged by the Church. The outcry becomes a communal ritual that strengthens their bonds and validates their shared experience, a form of "virtue signaling" and a way to reinforce a narrative of betrayal and victimhood, rather than a proportional reaction to a real-world harm.

The claim that the Church "lied to members again at the next general conference" by not mentioning "irregularities" is an oversimplification. The Church's general conference addresses have not traditionally been used for detailed financial reports. Instead, it typically provides a high-level summary from an independent auditing firm, which merely attests that all funds have been accounted for. The Church's specific statement on the SEC settlement was released separately in a press release. You are conflating different communication channels and expectations.

Those who imagine they were harmed by tithing to a church they didn't know was wealthy, the Church has never made a claim of poverty to solicit funds. In fact, leaders have often preached principles of fiscal responsibility and long-term planning. The argument that members gave when they "couldn't afford to" is a personal decision based on their faith, not on a claim by the Church that it was in desperate need. In essence, they are complaining the church practices what it preached us to do, create a reserve for hard times.

 

Ex-Mormon Moral Grandstanding

Those making this claim are likely have no personal or financial stake in it. So, anger is not a result of them being harmed, and there's no evidence of such a finding by Australian legal authorities. This reflects a desire to frame their personal disillusionment as a universal truth, a key feature of the "victimhood complex."

The outrage can be critiqued as an example of "Moral Grandstanding", a term from social psychology and philosophy. Moral grandstanding is the use of moral talk in public to convince others that one is a "morally respectable" person. It's often motivated by a desire for social status and a need to project a virtuous image. The outrage is always being expressed by many people who are not current tithing payers and who have no direct financial stake. They are broadcasting their moral identity as someone who stands against institutional corruption.

In online spaces, this often takes the form of "piling on", a cascade of public condemnation that serves to reinforce group identity. By joining the chorus of outrage, individuals signal their allegiance to the ex-LDS community and their rejection of the Church. This behavior is more about group cohesion and social signaling than it is about seeking justice or a meaningful resolution.

By focusing on the "corruption" of the Church, they can redirect feelings of guilt onto an external target. Their outrage becomes a "cleansing fire" that makes them feel morally superior and helps them reaffirm their decision to leave. The act of condemning the Church allows the individual to believe they are on the "right side." This can be particularly appealing when they feel their own life choices since leaving the Church might be seen as morally questionable by others. The moral outrage over Ensign Peak becomes a convenient way to say, "I am a good or better person because I am angry about this, unlike those who are complicit."

It never results in a deeper understanding of the issue or a path to resolution.

So basically you don't think there is a problem. Other people do think there is a problem. 

[Pyreaux]

59 minutes ago, stelf said:

So basically you don't think there is a problem. Other people do think there is a problem. 

I, like some people, objectively believe some problems are not really their nor your problems, or they have been resolved or have a resolution. While, "other" people are not being objective, overhyping or are a little disingenuous, because it will always be a perpetual problem no matter what.

Members of the Church, have considered the Ensign Peak events and found that the problems are either already resolved, were never as significant as portrayed, or don't affect them at all. The SEC's action was not for embezzlement or fraud, thus is not "corruption". The fine was a settlement, not a criminal conviction, that concluded "no wrongdoing". For some, it's the Church's admission of a "mistake" and its change in reporting procedures is enough to close the book on the issue. They see a problem that was addressed and corrected.

This is where "cognitive dissonance" cuts in the direction of critics.

For many who leave the Church, a central part of their new narrative is that the Church is dishonest and "not what it seems." When a news story like Ensign Peak breaks, it serves as powerful confirmation bias for their existing beliefs. They've already concluded the Church is corrupt, so this story is simply more evidence of that, even if the legal and financial details don't support the most extreme claims.

In contrast, active members who can honestly reconcile their faith with a history of institutional privacy may not experience the same dissonance.

A genuine criticism: This is the person who looks at the facts and says, "The Church should have been more transparent. The SEC fine shows a lack of institutional foresight." This is a valid, objective critique.

A disingenuous outcry: This is the person who takes the same set of facts and uses them to reinforce a personal narrative of victimhood and betrayal. They inflate the issue, using terms like "corruption" and "deception" to stoke moral outrage, even when they were not personally harmed. Their goal is not to solve a problem but to validate their own life choices and affirm their identity as a former member.

Edited September 9 by Pyreaux

[Tacenda]

I wish for the church to be transparent with everything, no matter what it exposes. I think the harm it does to it's members w/o mentioning monies, could be youth interviews. I hope they're not asking youth if they masturbated. Last night I was out to dinner with my son and daughter-in-law and they both were asked that question in their youth and neither had ever heard the word before. Therefore it's like opening up a world unknown to the youth, and also being asked about porn viewing, it can open up another world. We shouldn't be asking these things to the youth, it's harmful. Is it any wonder that we have a major porn problem in the church, also taking away the Sacrament. My daughter in law served a mission in Guam and surrounding islands, now I forget the mission name, but it wasn't just Guam. She got flesh eating disease and we saw a pic of her being hooked up to a Gatorade bottle posing as an IV of all things! She's lucky to be alive! She was only able to serve 11 months of her mission. Later she was married in the temple and active and all that. She happen to post on FB her dissatisfaction of the members in the church. She's from out of state and I guess she was so disappointed in what she'd seen. This was in Utah County, btw. Well that post was shared by someone to the bishop of her ward and he told her she needed to take it down or be disciplined. She wouldn't do it and therefore told to stop taking the Sacrament for a time. Eventually she has become inactive and was also divorced and now with my son. So corrupted? Could the church be corrupt for how it treats it's members in these ways? And also the money spent by the church, once again could go to more people and could save so many more lives out there, so I guess in a matter of speaking could that be corrupt? 

Plus, when the church set up their own banking system with Joseph Smith, could that be something? But I do know the church is good in so many ways. But lo and behold, let me have it people!  About not enough money going out. 

Edited September 9 by Tacenda

[stelf]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

I, like some people, objectively believe some problems are not really their nor your problems, or they have been resolved or have a resolution. While, "other" people are not being objective, overhyping or are a little disingenuous, because it will always be a perpetual problem no matter what.

Members of the Church, have considered the Ensign Peak events and found that the problems are either already resolved, were never as significant as portrayed, or don't affect them at all. The SEC's action was not for embezzlement or fraud, thus is not "corruption". The fine was a settlement, not a criminal conviction, that concluded "no wrongdoing". For some, it's the Church's admission of a "mistake" and its change in reporting procedures is enough to close the book on the issue. They see a problem that was addressed and corrected.

This is where "cognitive dissonance" cuts in the direction of critics.

For many who leave the Church, a central part of their new narrative is that the Church is dishonest and "not what it seems." When a news story like Ensign Peak breaks, it serves as powerful confirmation bias for their existing beliefs. They've already concluded the Church is corrupt, so this story is simply more evidence of that, even if the legal and financial details don't support the most extreme claims.

In contrast, active members who can honestly reconcile their faith with a history of institutional privacy may not experience the same dissonance.

A genuine criticism: This is the person who looks at the facts and says, "The Church should have been more transparent. The SEC fine shows a lack of institutional foresight." This is a valid, objective critique.

A disingenuous outcry: This is the person who takes the same set of facts and uses them to reinforce a personal narrative of victimhood and betrayal. They inflate the issue, using terms like "corruption" and "deception" to stoke moral outrage, even when they were not personally harmed. Their goal is not to solve a problem but to validate their own life choices and affirm their identity as a former member.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think I understand better where you are coming from. I also appreciate that you do not lump all criticisms into the groups of "genuine" and "disingenuous outcry" as to me it leaves room for other options or expressions. I would simply counter that one need not be personally harmed in order to be upset at a perceived wrong.

[Pyreaux]

On 9/9/2025 at 1:55 PM, stelf said:

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think I understand better where you are coming from. I also appreciate that you do not lump all criticisms into the groups of "genuine" and "disingenuous outcry" as to me it leaves room for other options or expressions. I would simply counter that one need not be personally harmed in order to be upset at a perceived wrong.

I'm sure they can, but their target is misleading. When one uses the word 'corruption,' they're not speaking in a legal or even a consistent ethical sense. They're using it as a catch-all term for any institutional behavior they dislike. The fact that you feel personally wronged by the Church's financial management even though you were not legally or financially harmed suggests that your perception is driven by something other than the objective facts of the case. The outrage over a financial fine is disproportionate to the actual harm done, but it is a perfect outlet for the bottled-up pain and passive aggression stemming from more profound, personal wounds.

Displacement is a defense mechanism where a person redirects a strong emotion, like anger, from the source of the emotion to a less threatening person or object.

For many who leave the Church, particularly those who have experienced family or spousal estrangement, the pain is deeply personal and multifaceted. They may have been "pushed out" of their community, shunned by their parents, or left by a spouse who chose the Church over them. Confronting the Church or their family directly about these issues can be incredibly difficult and emotionally fraught.

The Ensign Peak story provides a convenient and emotionally "safe" outlet for this anger. It's an impersonal, institutional issue that allows for public moral outrage without requiring a painful personal confrontation. The anger over a financial report, a topic that has little direct impact on their daily lives, is an easier emotion to express than the raw pain of a broken family.

Passive Aggression is another relevant concept. It's the indirect expression of negative feelings. Instead of saying, "I'm angry that my parents won't talk to me," the former member might use the Ensign Peak issue as a vehicle to indirectly communicate their hostility. It allows them to express their anger in a way that can be easily denied ("I'm not angry at my parents, I'm just 100% concerned about financial ethics!") while still protecting their feelings of resentment.

It isn't that they don't feel upset, it's the source of that upset is complex and, in specific contexts, appears to be an overhyped, and in some cases, a disingenuous moral outcry. The continued outrage and re-litigation of the issue, long after the legal and financial matter is settled, suggests the outrage isn't about the problem itself. It's about a need to maintain a narrative of being wronged.

This outrage can be a form of cognitive dissonance reduction. The belief that the church is fundamentally flawed creates a conflict with the fact that many of its practices, even the Ensign Peak fund, are actually not illegal or fraudulent. In the context of government or corporate *corruption", the term implies specific, illegal activities which the church hasn't actually participated in. By inflating a transparency issue into "corruption", the ex-LDS person resolves this conflict, making their decision to leave seem more justified.

Edited September 11 by Pyreaux

[mburgess1982]

On 8/27/2025 at 11:30 AM, JVW said:

I have two unrelated questions and thought making one thread would be easier.

1) Has the Church ever shown any signs of corruption? I had a colleague accuse the Church of being corrupt in the same way that a government or corporation is corrupt and it stopped me dead in my tracks because I'd never heard of the Church being corrupt before. I know there's Ensign Peak stuff, but from what I understand the complaints around that are: lack of transparency, possible fraud, and a disagreement in how a global entity manages their money. But, as far as I know, the Church doesn't pay or accept bribes of any kind, and they don't plant people in positions of power around the world in order to open up countries to missionary work or to make money or whatever. Can anyone here confirm or deny this accusation? Is my innocent little church actually becoming a wolf in sheep's clothing?

 

 

I know a few people, some close family members who left the Church and even took their names off the records during the 2020-2022 timeframe regarding how the Church handled Covid, pushing masks and the jab etc that they didn't agree with and saw that as a form of corruption. Seeing the Governments around the World doing corrupt things and then watching the Church go along with it was enough to push them over the edge I guess

[JVW]

7 hours ago, mburgess1982 said:

I know a few people, some close family members who left the Church and even took their names off the records during the 2020-2022 timeframe regarding how the Church handled Covid, pushing masks and the jab etc that they didn't agree with and saw that as a form of corruption. Seeing the Governments around the World doing corrupt things and then watching the Church go along with it was enough to push them over the edge I guess

There are church leaders that are closely tied to the UN and all of that kind of stuff too. I've seen people on FB taking that angle that the leaders are apostate because they are globalist. I think even Elder Christofferson did a talk in GC about agenda 2030. And I'm pretty sure we donate a bunch of money and time to UNICEF and those types of organizations. Where did your family members end up going? Are they still religious?

[mburgess1982]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

There are church leaders that are closely tied to the UN and all of that kind of stuff too. I've seen people on FB taking that angle that the leaders are apostate because they are globalist. I think even Elder Christofferson did a talk in GC about agenda 2030. And I'm pretty sure we donate a bunch of money and time to UNICEF and those types of organizations. Where did your family members end up going? Are they still religious?

Brother and his family, no not really religious anymore. My wifes aunt and her family seem to still believe in God but I'm not really too sure where they are at spiritually

 

Edited September 11 by mburgess1982