whistleblower on Church finances

[MiserereNobis]

If you haven't seen this yet, it's from Newsweek:

MORMON WHISTLEBLOWER DENOUNCES BROTHER'S MEDIA LEAKS AS CHURCH RESPONDS TO $100 BILLION TITHING CONTROVERSY

Quote

On Friday at 6:30 p.m., Religion Unplugged received a statement from David Nielsen by email that said, "No one has been authorized to speak for me, including my brother, Lars Nielsen. Any public disclosure of information that has been in my possession was unauthorized by me. Repeated attempts to dissuade my brother, Lars Nielsen, from making public disclosures have been ignored. I will have no further comment on this matter."

I didn't read the entire article, but it's interesting that the whistleblower didn't want this to be public.

Edited December 21, 2019 by MiserereNobis

[JAHS]

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

If you haven't seen this yet, it's from Newsweek:

MORMON WHISTLEBLOWER DENOUNCES BROTHER'S MEDIA LEAKS AS CHURCH RESPONDS TO $100 BILLION TITHING CONTROVERSY

I didn't read the entire article, but it's interesting that the whistleblower didn't want this to be public.

Yes the original Washington Post article said : 
"He said he was coming forward without his brother’s approval because he believed the information was too important to remain confidential.""

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Yes the original Washington Post article said : 
"He said he was coming forward without his brother’s approval because he believed the information was too important to remain confidential.""

Oi.  I missed that part.  I have made some incorrect assumptions about David.

-Smac

[Thinking]

20 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

http://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-of-jesus-christ-finances

I was having a hard time listening to their words because my attention was focused on that vase in the background that was protected by a glass enclosure in front of some framed artwork that I'm confident isn't a copy.

Edited to strike out my mistake.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Thinking

[JAHS]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oi.  I missed that part.  I have made some incorrect assumptions about David.

-Smac

Yes. The complaint was filed to the IRS by David and in it he did ask the IRS to strip Ensign of its tax-exempt status but it was his brother Lars that decided to make it go public.
I still wonder if David did anything internally to warn the church and the Ensign company that they might be doing something wrong, before he filed the complaint. 

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Yes. The complaint was filed to the IRS by David and in it he did ask the IRS to strip Ensign of its tax-exempt status but it was his brother Lars that decided to make it go public.
I still wonder if David did anything internally to warn the church and the Ensign company that they might be doing something wrong, before he filed the complaint. 

One would have to be really naive to think this would not find its way into the public media one way or another.

[Bernard Gui]

25 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I was having a hard time listening to their words because my attention was focused on that vase in the background that was protected by a glass enclosure in front of some framed artwork that I'm confident isn't a copy.

Precisely. I could tell from the photo it was authentic, too. Just another example of extravagant spending the whistleblower was exposing. 

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

I was having a hard time listening to their words because my attention was focused on that vase in the background that was protected by a glass enclosure in front of some framed artwork that I'm confident isn't a copy.

The gold framed item behind the vase is a mirror.

 

at 28 through 33 seconds you can the reflection of a woman milling about.

at 1:51 seconds there is another moving reflection

Edited December 21, 2019 by provoman

[provoman]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Yes. The complaint was filed to the IRS by David and in it he did ask the IRS to strip Ensign of its tax-exempt status but it was his brother Lars that decided to make it go public.
I still wonder if David did anything internally to warn the church and the Ensign company that they might be doing something wrong, before he filed the complaint. 

Lars claims David did, there is a quote in the 74 page document. Line 445 and 446 with continuing Footnote eee, page 26

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by provoman

[Thinking]

18 minutes ago, provoman said:

The gold framed item behind the vase is a mirror.

You are correct.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

If you haven't seen this yet, it's from Newsweek:

MORMON WHISTLEBLOWER DENOUNCES BROTHER'S MEDIA LEAKS AS CHURCH RESPONDS TO $100 BILLION TITHING CONTROVERSY

I didn't read the entire article, but it's interesting that the whistleblower didn't want this to be public.

 Lars claims his brother asked him to write the expose.  Is that the truth and he just released it publicly early?  The expose would be stupid to write for the IRS, but it makes sense for public consumption.  And surely David would know a nonaccountant would be less capable of writing an appropriate version than a professional.

Does he explain why he asked Lars to get involved? (I plan on reading both expose and relevant news articles today, just writing out my thoughts that I want answers for in case I get distracted and think I have checked things out enough...but even more important I want to hear others' ideas on it).

There is a certain staged feel to it all. Why did David wait this long to make such a protest...not just a line or two mentioned buried in the interesting stuff, but an article devoted to the topic?  Why not immediately when it would have had more impact on the perception of the expose and video?  Even if Lars took the stuff down on his site now will it likely make any difference at all.  

And this last public display by David will ensure a flurry of copying of video and commentary.  

And given the less than favorable comments by many in associating David with the expose, he now looks when readers say to themselves 'but he didn't want this, he tried to prevent the attack' as if the reviewer is being unfairly harsh (including by my ramblings in this post I bet).

So just as the controversy starts to slow, David exposes the family drama and brings it back into the news again...giving it a few more days of life in the news cycle. Now if Lars waits a few days to respond, in my view the probability this drama production was orchestrated from the beginning. 

And good chance Christmas time was chosen in order to maximize the opportunity for family discussions by those critics wanting to influence their extended family and friends out of the Church.

How is that for conspiracy theory?  I should start a new career!

PS:  four rep points in an hour...get the feeling I am not the only one who is skeptical.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

I still wonder if David did anything internally to warn the church and the Ensign company that they might be doing something wrong, before he filed the complaint. 

The expose contains in its exhibits section an email chain I have no understanding of, but appears to have nothing to do with any complaint talked about in the news or at the beginning of the expose.  I fell asleep last night before I could get to digging out what David was talking about in the emails, but I think he was calling notice to a possibly inappropriate method of accounting that needed to stop.

Perhaps it was included in order to create the image of David as the confronter who gets shut down by the Powers That Be and then a coverup because I can't understand if it is accurate in its portrayal, why wasn't it included in the list of complaints.  Maybe it was just a sloppy method that created more work rather than actual mistakes that could lead to misinformation.

Lars' commentary in various places had info with it that could only have come from David as far as I can tell, so David either helped in the creation of the expose or Lars stole the stuff from David's own work (assuming the side notes are Lars' commentary and not David's).

[mgy401]

It’s funny to me that some in this thread are criticizing the Church’s theatrical expenditures and wondering what humanitarian services could have been rendered with that kind of money, in the same week that the for-profit stinker Cats with its star-stuffed, multi-millionaire cast was released.  

[provoman]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Yes the original Washington Post article said : 
"He said he was coming forward without his brother’s approval because he believed the information was too important to remain confidential.""

Did the original WA Post published the name of the whistle blower

[JAHS]

19 minutes ago, provoman said:

Did the original WA Post published the name of the whistle blower

It said David A. Nielsen is the one who filed the complaint with the IRS and his brother Lars Nielsen is the one who made it public and gave the information to the Washington Post.
So I guess David Nielsen is the whistleblower.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Did the original WA Post published the name of the whistle blower

I carelessly read it before and assumed the comments from David Nielsen were directly from him, now it appears they were from a letter given the WaP by Lars.

Could have sworn there was something about being okay with the release of his name, but that might have been me assuming no way would his twin brother have done it if asked not to Given they were close enough David trusted Lars to work with him on it.

Quote

In a declaration signed under penalty of perjury, Nielsen urges the IRS to strip the nonprofit of its tax-exempt status and alleges that Ensign could owe billions in taxes. He is seeking a reward from the IRS, which offers whistleblowers a cut of unpaid taxes that it recovers.

Nielsen did not respond to repeated phone calls and emails seeking comment.

His twin brother, Lars P. Nielsen, provided a copy of the complaint to The Post, along with dozens of supporting documents. Lars Nielsen, a health-care consultant in Minnesota, said he prepared the complaint with his brother and helped him submit it to the IRS.

Lars Nielsen said in a statement to The Post that his brother asked him to write an exposé on his former employer.

“Having seen tens of billions in contributions and scores more in investment returns come in, and having seen nothing except two unlawful distributions to for-profit concerns go out, he was dejected beyond words, and so was I,” Lars Nielsen wrote.

He said he was coming forward without his brother’s approval because he believed the information was too important to remain confidential. “I know that sometimes newspapers use anonymous sources,” he said. “But that is usually not best for a story.”

From the OP link.

Unless Lars had more documents than in the expose, I think dozens is an overstatement...but then what I think is supporting (actual EPA documents) is likely different than what Lars sees and possibly the WaP (though I really hope a KSS note doesn't fall in that category for them even if Lars couldn't resist).

[Calm]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

I didn't read the entire article, but it's interesting that the whistleblower didn't want this to be public.

His brother, Lars, is yet again using it as an opportunity for self promotion, sharing his and his brother's life stories.

And this:

Quote

Lars said he thought David would also agree to release the materials publicly. He realized his brother had other considerations including his own family. He noted his brother is patient and considers others feelings. "I believe he is acting ethically according to his value system," Lars said. "I have a different value system. It's not like one is better than the other."

What a piece of crap justification for stealing what is his brother's work.  

But I guess Lars used the same justification of 'it's for the greater good' that David used to leak the documents to Lars (unless Lars is lying) as well the IRS that Lars used to leak David's stuff.

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

It’s funny to me that some in this thread are criticizing the Church’s theatrical expenditures and wondering what humanitarian services could have been rendered with that kind of money, in the same week that the for-profit stinker Cats with its star-stuffed, multi-millionaire cast was released.  

If warning unsuspecting members not to see Cats doesn't qualify as a judicious use of those raining day funds, I just don't know what does.

😲

[Calm]

That Newsweek article has a few lines about David not wanting to comment and then goes off on a kitchen sink approach throwing everything in it (mostly negative, a few positive comments...no attempt as far as I could tell to correct in accuracies in any comments given), including becoming the very opposite of what the headline suggests it will be as it gives Lars yet another pulpit for the carnival show.

If David is really not wanting this all public, he must be grinding his teeth smooth by now.

And it demonstrates again how superficial some are treating it even though they see it as a very significant issue.

Quote

Hayes said she was shocked to learn how much money the church had, and while others long suspected the church was using donations to fund City Creek, she said she never assumed the organization would be so brazen as to lie about the source of its funds for the project. After this week's revelations, she said she thought the church needed to give the money back to the community, in the form of investments in affordable housing or a homeless shelter. "We're taught to give our wealth away, we're supposed to tithe 10% per year, and they're not even tithing half a percent," she said. "I think it's a scam, at this point."

Although she personally left the church four years ago, Hayes said she has tried to sound the alarm among members of her family who continue to practice within the faith. Some of her family, she said, refuses to even talk about it.

She is ignoring the fact the invested money in Ensign is only 14% of the alleged income (in essence the Church tithing paid is 86% at the very least apparently) and may be tithing and for profit income (if it includes for profit in the alleged 1 billion yearly investment, than their 'tithing' is even higher than 86%).  If the Church is spending 6 billion elsewhere while investing 1 billion in donations from tithing and its business, would it still be a "scam" in her view?

I can understand why some of her family won't talk to her about it if this is the usual quality of her arguments (refusing to recognize what the Church actually does).

Edited December 21, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

If you haven't seen this yet, it's from Newsweek:

MORMON WHISTLEBLOWER DENOUNCES BROTHER'S MEDIA LEAKS AS CHURCH RESPONDS TO $100 BILLION TITHING CONTROVERSY

I didn't read the entire article, but it's interesting that the whistleblower didn't want this to be public.

Oh goodie, now it is getting good. A late stage denial because of blowback? Realizing you will now definitely never work in the financial field again with how public this is? Will we see a lawsuit against his brother.

I need to go pop some popcorn!

[Analytics]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oi.  I missed that part.  I have made some incorrect assumptions about David.

-Smac

Not necessarily. I don't know David and I'm not trying to be cynical, but David signed some very serious confidentiality agreements as part of his job. He knew information about Church finances that the apostles aren't even authorized to know. He could legally file a whistleblower complaint in good faith with the IRS and be legally protected, but he still can't leak the info to the public.

So, if he sincerely wanted to honor the agreements he made, he would say Lars went forward without his approval, because that is exactly what happened.

But if he wanted the information to go public but didn't want the Church to sue him or otherwise publicly denigrate him, he would say that Lars went forward without his approval. Wink wink.

[Analytics]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Oh goodie, now it is getting good. A late stage denial because of blowback? Realizing you will now definitely never work in the financial field again with how public this is? Will we see a lawsuit against his brother.

I need to go pop some popcorn!

A ton of potential employers and hiring managers will believe that David's actions were honorable given the situation. Sure, people who have things to hide or are somehow really sympathetic for the Church's position of hoarding money and hiding its financial details from the donors wouldn't trust him. But a lot of people will see the other side and think he did the right thing.

In general (and in theory, at least), big corporations profess love, respect, and protection for people who are in difficult situations when they perceive unethical behavior and who blow the whistle. David is quite employable.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

In general (and in theory, at least), big corporations profess love, respect, and protection for people who are in difficult situations when they perceive unethical behavior and who blow the whistle. David is quite employable.

Unless it turns out that David is engaging in "wink wink" shenanigans (as you put it: "But if he wanted the information to go public but didn't want the Church to sue him or otherwise publicly denigrate him, he would say that Lars went forward without his approval. Wink wink.").

A few different layers of dishonesty, there (if that is what happened).

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

That Newsweek article has a few lines about David not wanting to comment and then goes off on a kitchen sink approach throwing everything in it (mostly negative, a few positive comments...no attempt as far as I could tell to correct in accuracies in any comments given), including becoming the very opposite of what the headline suggests it will be as it gives Lars yet another pulpit for the carnival show.

If David is really not wanting this all public, he must be grinding his teeth smooth by now.

And it demonstrates again how superficial some are treating it even though they see it as a very significant issue.

She is ignoring the fact the invested money in Ensign is only 14% of the alleged income (in essence the Church tithing paid is 86% at the very least apparently) and may be tithing and for profit income (if it includes for profit in the alleged 1 billion yearly investment, than their 'tithing' is even higher than 86%).  If the Church is spending 6 billion elsewhere while investing 1 billion in donations from tithing and its business, would it still be a "scam" in her view?

I can understand why some of her family won't talk to her about it if this is the usual quality of her arguments (refusing to recognize what the Church actually does).

The Newsweek article is designed to highlight the negative. It deserves a deep analysis in media bias...anyone need a term paper?

Is does state, “For those who viewed tithes as an act of faith or obedience, the size of the church's fortunes is not only acceptable, but gratifying. Others, particularly those who understood tithing to be humanitarian giving, were more likely to express disappointment.”

It then goes on to provide statements from those in the latter category and giving them a dominate role in the story while those who see it as ‘positive’ are sidelined. It also does not point out that the church also teaches that tithing is an act of faith and that members are taught extensively tithing is provided for church operations (buildings, temples, hymn books etc) and that fast offerings are a direct help to the poor. I’ve taught this many times in Primary. 

Really, every news story on a controversy should be read by parsing it’s construct and facts vs opinions contained within it.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

A ton of potential employers and hiring managers will believe that David's actions were honorable given the situation. Sure, people who have things to hide or are somehow really sympathetic for the Church's position of hoarding money and hiding its financial details from the donors wouldn't trust him. But a lot of people will see the other side and think he did the right thing.

In general (and in theory, at least), big corporations profess love, respect, and protection for people who are in difficult situations when they perceive unethical behavior and who blow the whistle. David is quite employable.

That is incredibly idealistic. I can say that if I were running a brokerage or some kind of financial management company I would not hire someone who previously blew the whistle on a previous employer and blew up a confidentiality agreement. Why take the risk of a repeat and the headache it would be for me. I am not suggesting I would engage in financial duplicity but someone on a crusade for fairness could cause explosions and a PR disaster even where there is no wrongdoing.

If I knew it was this case specifically I would be even more sure never to hire him. He has someone else submit a whistleblower complaint on his behalf (so you are already disclosing to someone else you do not need to to file a complaint) who is willing to publish that complaint in the public eye and the complaint is a shoddy piece of garbage focused mostly on spreading propaganda. So either you approve of blasting employers beyond what is needed to correct a perceived wrongdoing or you show horrible judgement by passing on confidential information to those who will.

Then look at the supposed wrongdoing. He is accusing the Church of violating minimums on spending. He cites a law aimed at non-profits. The problem is churches share many of the protections of non-profits but they are not non-profits and are under separate rules (even though they overlap to a degree). More reason to question this doofus’s judgement. It is clear he is attacking his employer more than he is looking to fix something.

I am guessing his good career prospects are shot and deservedly so. Whistleblowers are often unemployable just because they blew a whistle despite all the well-intentioned protections. This guy went above and beyond to make sure this stain is not going to come out. Who knows though? Maybe he can go on the anti-Mormon celebrity list for a bit and try that for a career?