pogi Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Amulek said: Not quite. He was merely let go early. He had put in his resignation paperwork and stated he could stay on for a couple of months, but they decided to just let him go immediately instead (technically, within a business day or two if my memory serves). That's really not uncommon though. If you've got an employee who is on the way out the door, sometimes it's best to just walk them on out. They gave him a month's pay and two months medical, so they didn't exactly kick him to the curb or anything. According to this new article, he did not want to resign or "abandon his career at the company" and wanted to "come to an accommodation." He likely felt compelled to resign only after learning that they could not make accommodations - so as to avoid being terminated with all of the negative impact on his professional reputation that could have... But in the end, his "employment file stated he had been terminated." Quote On July 23, David went to his managers at Ensign with a dilemma, he recounted later in a resignation letter. His wife and children had stopped attending church in 2015, and he intended to scale back his attendance, too, according to the letter. But he did not want to abandon his career at the company. Could they come to an accommodation? The managers said they could not, according to David's recounting. To continue working at Ensign, David would need to give a "positive confirmation" that he would remain committed enough to ensure the renewal of his "temple recommend," a church credential that affirms a member's adherence to church doctrine and practices. David decided to leave his job, writing in the Aug. 29 resignation letter that among his reasons was that "my supervisor intimated" that if David was not fully committed to the church, his being in the office might "distract others from their work." He said his last day would be Oct. 4. But on Sept. 3, David received a reply from human resources informing him that managers had decided that, "in the best interest of all parties," he should leave that day, according to the copy of the company letter. He would receive a month's pay and two months' health insurance. Lars said David feared that his employment file stated he had been terminated and worried about the impact that could have on his professional reputation. David consulted lawyers specializing in employment and, eventually, whistleblower attorneys, according to Lars. Isn't that telling! He didn't resign because of any apparent ethical/moral dilemma he felt. He would have gladly continued to work for the company despite knowing what he knew. This has all the tale-tale signs of an embittered ex-employee. He was fine to continue working for a company he felt was being dishonest until he was terminated, only then did he want to go public - and "quickly". It was his lawyers that caused him to change his mind, not any concern for how it might impact the church - it was more out of concern for himself. Selfish reasons really. It all makes so much more sense now! They previously made it sound like he resigned because he couldn't ethically work there knowing what he knows - with the intent to blow the whistle. Nope. He had no intent to blow a whistle or go public until after he was terminated. Edited January 17, 2020 by pogi 3
Calm Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 26 minutes ago, pogi said: But in the end, his "employment file stated he had been terminated." It said he feared it stated that, perhaps he didn't have access to it and was guessing.
Popular Post pogi Posted January 17, 2020 Popular Post Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Calm said: It said he feared it stated that, perhaps he didn't have access to it and was guessing. Perhaps. It scared him enough to consult lawyers about it. But that is besides the point I am making. The point is that he wanted to stay and continue working and they wouldn't let him. That fact that he wanted to stay simply is not mentioned in the original story. The original story also left out the part that "he intended to scale back his attendance, too". It is all so much more clear as to why he felt compelled to resign. It had nothing to do with his wife leaving the church, or any ethical dilemma, or intent to blow the whistle - it was because he himself was on his way out of the church and his company couldn't accommodate that. That embittered him. He had no plans of going public or going to the IRS before that. Nope, he had no plans of leaving and "didn't want to abandon his career at the company." Edited January 17, 2020 by pogi 5
Calm Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 I agree with your analysis of what has been given in the news and I wouldn't be surprised if this was accurate, but I still think we should be cautious because we haven't really been shown what is pure David and what is Lars talking for David, something David has stated he did not give permission for though he has not stated anything about accuracy. 1
The Nehor Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, pogi said: This makes it more clear that David was on his way out of the church. Originally, they made it sound like David resigned from his position at Ensign previously, but it sounds more like he was terminated because his membership was in question and could no longer hold a temple recommend. He was let go unwillingly. That seems to have embittered him. It is completely normal. You do not keep someone around if they would have any reason to undermine the organization. I remember we had a rather dense VP submit his two weeks notice because he accepted a job with a competitor and he was genuinely surprised he was immediately walked out. He was a potential risk if he stayed just like our whistleblower. Edited January 18, 2020 by The Nehor 1
pogi Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 42 minutes ago, The Nehor said: It is completely normal. You do not keep someone around if they would have any reason to undermine the organization. I remember we had a rather dense VP submit his two weeks notice because he accepted a job with a competitor and he was genuinely surprised he was immediately walked out. He was a potential risk if he stayed just like our whistleblower. I understand that it is normal. I was more interested in the revelation that he wanted to stay and that he didn’t resign for any other reason than he would have been let go. 2
Tacenda Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 More publicity.. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mormon-church-amassed-100-billion-it-was-the-best-kept-secret-in-the-investment-world-11581138011
Jeanne Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: More publicity.. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mormon-church-amassed-100-billion-it-was-the-best-kept-secret-in-the-investment-world-11581138011 I read this early this morning on news sight. I don't think that the church will escape this one. I am hoping for an IRS review. Not judging...just want clarification and transparency. 1
sunstoned Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 8 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I read this early this morning on news sight. I don't think that the church will escape this one. I am hoping for an IRS review. Not judging...just want clarification and transparency. The article references what it calls the best kept secret. The pretty much sums it all up. The church is not in anyway transparent, not even with the money that is donated to it. Historically, organizations that work in secret and hide their dealings are not trusted. I do agree that the church will not escape this. Trust has been broken. 1
Calm Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 Anyone read it to find out if new info or just repeating old stuff?
sunstoned Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 7 minutes ago, Calm said: Anyone read it to find out if new info or just repeating old stuff? It is just a re-hash of old stuff. 1
Calm Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 13 minutes ago, sunstoned said: It is just a re-hash of old stuff. Thank you.
kimpearson Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 The WSJ interviewed the head of Ensign Peak Associates and his comments are included. The WSJ also contacted other former employees and included their comments. The additional information seemed to confirm the whistler blowers facts. The tax experts quoted in the story doubt the Church will be found to have done anything against the law.
Calm Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 (edited) I figure wait long enough and there will be another report on that report: https://www.deseret.com/faith/2020/2/8/21129265/mormon-lds-church-investments-wall-street-journal-100-billion-whistleblower-ensign-peak-advisors Quote Roger Clarke, the head of Ensign Peak Advisors, and members of the church’s Presiding Bishopric sat for interviews with the Journal for the story.... Unfortunately DN isn't very generous yet. Have to wait a few more hours I guess. Edited February 8, 2020 by Calm 1
Calm Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 (edited) https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/02/08/lds-church-kept-lid-its-b/ Quote Latter-day Saint officials kept the size of the church’s $100 billion investment reserves secret for fear that public knowledge of the fund’s wealth might discourage members from paying tithing, according to the top executive who oversees the account. For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, tithing — donating 10% of one’s income to the faith — “is more of a sense of commitment than it is the church needing the money,” Roger Clarke, head of Ensign Peak Advisors, which manages the denomination’s investing holdings, told The Wall Street Journal. “So they never wanted to be in a position where people felt like, you know, they shouldn’t make a contribution,” Clarke said. Quote Clarke and former Ensign employees said the firm created a system of more than a dozen shell companies to make its stock investments harder to track. That strategy, Clarke said, was designed to prevent members from parroting what Ensign Peak was doing and to, as the paper stated, "protect them from mismanaging their own funds with insufficient information.” I can see some members thinking they will be safe if they invest in the same businesses the Church does and then if they lose money, could have a faith crisis or blame the Church for misguiding them. Edited February 8, 2020 by Calm 1
carbon dioxide Posted February 9, 2020 Posted February 9, 2020 "Latter-day Saint officials kept the size of the church’s $100 billion investment reserves secret for fear that public knowledge of the fund’s wealth might discourage members from paying tithing, according to the top executive who oversees the account." Really? If they were fearful of that, there is an easy way to solve it. Spend more of it. The church could pay for all Missionary expenses. For me, I don't care if the church has a 100 billion dollar "war" chest. What does bother me a little is that they still ask families to put up some of the cost for missions. If the church can financially handle the cost, they should do so and help some LDS families out that are struggling. 1
Tacenda Posted February 9, 2020 Posted February 9, 2020 22 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: "Latter-day Saint officials kept the size of the church’s $100 billion investment reserves secret for fear that public knowledge of the fund’s wealth might discourage members from paying tithing, according to the top executive who oversees the account." Really? If they were fearful of that, there is an easy way to solve it. Spend more of it. The church could pay for all Missionary expenses. For me, I don't care if the church has a 100 billion dollar "war" chest. What does bother me a little is that they still ask families to put up some of the cost for missions. If the church can financially handle the cost, they should do so and help some LDS families out that are struggling. My thoughts too...hopefully soon...
mrmarklin Posted February 9, 2020 Posted February 9, 2020 12 hours ago, Tacenda said: More publicity.. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mormon-church-amassed-100-billion-it-was-the-best-kept-secret-in-the-investment-world-11581138011 Just a rehash of what has already been discussed ad nauseam on this forum.
sunstoned Posted February 9, 2020 Posted February 9, 2020 I just noticed the title of the article. I guess the Wall Street Journal didn't get the memo about the church's name.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted February 9, 2020 Posted February 9, 2020 10 hours ago, sunstoned said: I just noticed the title of the article. I guess the Wall Street Journal didn't get the memo about the church's name. Has the church provided an alternative that fits in a headline?
Tacenda Posted February 9, 2020 Posted February 9, 2020 10 hours ago, mrmarklin said: Just a rehash of what has already been discussed ad nauseam on this forum. Not quite, first time it's mentioned that the dollar amount the church has amassed is kept quiet in order to keep tithing coming in.
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 On 2/9/2020 at 6:42 AM, sunstoned said: I do agree that the church will not escape this. Trust has been broken. I think you may be projecting here. Number of people who were discussing this topic in my non-American ward yesterday: zero. Percentage of stake members whom I've raised this topic with who were already familiar with it: 100 per cent. Number of stake members whom I've raised this topic with who expressed concern in any way: again zero. In fact, the most common reaction has been, basically: Good on them! I hope that we -- note the first-person pronoun! -- actually have much more than that! One of my newly married former young men said it motivated him to keep saving despite being a full-time student who supports himself with night shifts. (I helped guide him through saving for his mission -- he served against his parents' wishes and without any financial support from them -- and I walked him through the mathematics of investing once he returned from his mission. He still manages to sock away a certain percentage of his small income.) Those who are already finding discipleship an ill fit may choose to use this as a reason to pull even further away. The rest of us are kind of excited that the Church is increasingly in a position to fulfil its divine mission. I personally feel quite chuffed over the whole matter. I'm proud to belong to an organisation characterised by sound financial planning. 4
provoman Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 On 2/8/2020 at 12:42 PM, sunstoned said: The article references what it calls the best kept secret. The pretty much sums it all up. The church is not in anyway transparent, not even with the money that is donated to it. Historically, organizations that work in secret and hide their dealings are not trusted. I do agree that the church will not escape this. Trust has been broken. Could you explain the broken trust?
provoman Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Number of people who were discussing this topic in my non-American ward yesterday: zero. Percentage of stake members whom I've raised this topic with who were already familiar with it: 100 per cent. Number of stake members whom I've raised this topic with who expressed concern in any way: again zero. I have only discussed the fund online. I have not heard it discussed at Church.
Recommended Posts