Wealthy Mormon Publicly Leaves the LDS Church

BRMC · December 22, 2021

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

I must have misread something somewhere! I'll keep looking though. It's his decision though if he wants to do interviews

Of course. I wasn't implying otherwise.

Daniel2 · December 22, 2021

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Biggest San Francisco paper also picked up the story. Right now it is the 5th most popular story read.

Looks like it’s also a reprint of the AP’a article. As Bluebell says, not surprising SF would pick it up. 😉

Robert F. Smith · December 22, 2021

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I don't want to take this off the rails, but Elder Stevenson that owns iFIT is a billionaire, or close to it. He's been called as an apostle and he's given an exemption from the church to work there or be on the company's board unlike the others in the quorum. And just this past week or so, the company laid off 250 employees right before Christmas, with no severance pay according to an article and someone that says they worked there, and it's not the first time they laid off a bunch of people like that.

Over the years, many of the members of the Twelve and First Presidency have sat on the boards of directors of various corporations. I don't know how many of them still do so now, but I imagine that they must obtain permission to do so from the First Presidency.

Daniel2 · December 22, 2021

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

How else to bring public attention to the giant donation he just made?

Pathetic really.

You may find it pathetic; others find it inspiring, aspirational, and an example of walking the walk instead of talking the talk, and putting one’s money where one’s mouth is. Not to mention these types of public disclosures are common among fundraisers attempting to create momentum /synergy for their causes (be they both conservative and liberal).

I imagine he’s also doing so as a show of support for, to build trust with, and to repair past perceived/real damage to his LGBT and straight ally employees and and shareholders, not to mention his friends and family members, given the context of the articles outlining his role as a CEO in the Tech Industry. I applaud him for doing so, as well as being public about his support. May others learn from him and follow his example of doing what they believe is right, and letting the consequence follow.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Daniel2

Robert F. Smith · December 22, 2021

51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

How else to bring public attention to the giant donation he just made?

Pathetic really.

Actually a smart move. Bound to get him a lot of new business from the LGBTQI community.

strappinglad · December 22, 2021

Meanwhile, somewhere in Afganistan...

california boy · December 22, 2021

20 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Looks like it’s also a reprint of the AP’a article. As Bluebell says, not surprising SF would pick it up. 😉

I am also not surprised it is now the 5th most popular story to be read. The Church does not really have a very good reputation in California.

Daniel2 · December 22, 2021

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually a smart move. Bound to get him a lot of new business from the LGBTQI community.

Also a great point. I should have added “customers” as well as “employees and stakeholders” in my previous post.

And also true of all liberals and conservatives who publicly disclose their in-kind contributions to their respective causes.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Daniel2

Daniel2 · December 22, 2021

15 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Meanwhile, somewhere in Afganistan...

?

smac97 · December 22, 2021

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Good chance he contacted the news himself…or his PR guy did.

News items on this story:

A few thoughts:

1. I wish Mr. Green well and hope he has a change of heart and returns.

2. I think it's interesting that Mr. Green "unofficially left the church 'more than a decade ago—not believing, attending, or practicing,'" but is nevertheless described as a "prominent Mormon billionaire." So "prominence" is not a function of his activity or service in the Church. It is, instead, a function of his bank account balance. His letter and the opinions expressed therein are noteworthy simply because he's rich, nothing more.

3. His letter is lacking in substance. He opines and berates, that's all. And his opinions are conclusory and simplistic.

4. I think his criticism of the Church's finances is . . . interesting. He has amassed for himself a fortune worth billions, and also "worries about the faith’s transparency around its history and finances," but I don't see much in the way of financial "transparency" from him. So I guess "transparent financials for thee, but not for me" is the way of things.

5. Mr. Green "has pledged to donate 90% of his estimated $5 billion fortune, starting with a $600,000 donation to the LGBTQ-rights group Equality Utah." Huh. He is "starting" his philanthropy with a $600K donation, which works out to about .012% of his $5 billion fortune. I suspect he has done more, but it sure is easy to sit back and second-guess and find fault with his charitable inclinations. Kinda like how he and so many others have done with the Church.

6. Mr. Green decided "last month" to take the "Giving Pledge, vowing to donate more than 90% of his wealth before or at the time of his death." Last month.

I admire the sentiment , but the "pledge" allows him to keep his billions for most or all of the rest of his life and then, having lived a life of opulence, give it away "before or at the time of his death." He reserves to himself his billions, and all the benefits that derive therefrom, but then presumes to judge the Church's handling of its finances. And unlike him, the Church's wealth is held in trust, and used to benefit the members and the rest of the world.

There is a strong bit of irony here. If Mr. Green had divested himself of his billions now, then he would be in a better position to criticize the Church's retention and long-term management of its funds. Instead, his plan seems to be not a whole lot different from what the Church is doing: managing accumulated wealth with the long-term goal of it going toward worthy causes. So why is it okay for him to do this with his money (all the while living the life of a literal billionaire), but awful and terrible when the Church does it?

7. Given the number of news items, I suspect this "story," such as it is, was an orchestrated PR event.

Again, I hope Mr. Green has a change of heart.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 23, 2021 by smac97

Teancum · December 22, 2021

3 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I personally think billionaires should not exist. It’s a little ironic to me to hear a billionaire criticize an organization for their finances. Still, it’s certainly his right to leave however he chooses and I can’t argue with some of his other reasons.

Well at least he pledges to give away 90% of his wealth. That is much better than the LDS Church's commitment to the poor and weary.

smac97 · December 22, 2021

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't want to take this off the rails, but Elder Stevenson that owns iFIT is a billionaire, or close to it.

Are you sure?

First, it does not seem altogether accurate to say that Elder Stevenson "owns iFIT." Per this article, Elder Stevenson and Scott Watterson, a longtime friend, "started a small import business that would eventually become Icon Health & Fitness," which later became "Weslo Design International" (apparently owned by Stevenson, Watterson and two others: Bradley Sorenson and Blaine Hancy). In 1983 "Stan Tuttleman, a Philadelphia businessman," purchased a controlling interest (55%) in Weslo. Weslo was then purchased by, and became a subsidiary of, Weider Health and Fitness in 1988. "Stevenson and Watterson continued to manage Weslo with stock options as an incentive. With new products such as motorized treadmills, Weslo’s annual sales reached $202.4 million in 1991." Further mergers, acquisitions, etc. took place, during which Stevenson continued to play important management/executive functions. However, per this article Elder Stevenson left the company in 2008 "to serve as a member of the Mormon Church's First Quorum of the Seventy."

Second, it does not seem altogether accurate to say that Elder Stevenson "is a billionaire, or close to it." Per this article, Elder Stevenson has accumulated "nearly 43.4 million iFIT shares," the valuation of which is tied to an upcoming IPO. "The company’s Oct. 1 IPO filings with federal regulators set an initial per-share price range for the prospective sale as high as $21 — which would raise the value of Stevenson’s current stock holdings in iFIT to $911.9 million." The article further states:

Quote

Being a corporate board member would appear to violate a long-standing church policy discouraging Latter-day Saint apostles from serving on such boards.

In January 1996, the faith’s governing First Presidency asked the church’s general authorities to gradually withdraw from such positions, in light of growing ecclesiastical duties from a worldwide church membership that had topped 9.3 million at that point. That membership is now above 16.6 million.

A church spokesperson said late Monday that Stevenson had received a special dispensation from church authorities, “resulting from his legacy shareholdings and his role as a co-founder of the corporation.”

The layoff at Icon does appear to have happened earlier in December. Per this Trib article, one of the laid-off employees "estimated that anywhere from 100 to 500 people across several departments had been dismissed," whereas iFIT stated that "'a small reduction in workforce occurred to align with business needs as we continue to grow as a fitness technology company.'"

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

He's been called as an apostle and he's given an exemption from the church to work there or be on the company's board unlike the others in the quorum.

See this Trib article (discussing Elder Stevenson and Elder Gay, who also owns stock in iFIT) :

Quote

Stevenson and Gay are named as some of iFIT’s largest shareholders. Securities and Exchange Commission filings also nominate them among 15 executives put forward to serve as future iFIT board directors.

That seemed to put them at odds with a long-standing call from the faith’s governing First Presidency, issued in 1996 under then-church President Gordon B. Hinckley, that general authorities stay off corporate and church business boards to devote more attention to the needs of a growing worldwide membership.

It was still common for general authorities to sit on the boards of a range of church-owned companies such as Deseret Management Corp. and Beneficial Life Insurance, even decades, Bowman said, after an evolution away from that model began in the 1960s.

The statement issued early in Hinckley’s tenure, the historian explained, reflected his desire that “church leaders become, primarily and almost exclusively, ecclesiastical leaders.”

{Matthew Bowman, head of Mormon studies at Claremont Graduate University in Southern California} said he knew of no other example since then of the kind of exception granted to Stevenson, who resigned from iFIT in 2008 for a full-time church assignment and served as its presiding bishop — overseeing the faith’s vast financial, real estate, investment and charitable operations — from 2012 to 2015, before being elevated to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

A church spokesperson said the special dispensation had been granted by church authorities because of Stevenson’s “legacy shareholdings and his role as a co-founder of the corporation.”

The church did not respond to inquiries as to whether other Latter-day Saint apostles have been granted similar exemptions.

Interesting stuff.

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And just this past week or so, the company laid off 250 employees right before Christmas, with no severance pay according to an article and someone that says they worked there, and it's not the first time they laid off a bunch of people like that.

Per the Trib article above:

Quote

Julie Tukuafu, a 31-year-old single mother of two, said she had been part of the fitness technology company’s creative and marketing team for eight years without a blemish on her record. She was let go via Zoom at her home in Arizona, where she works remotely.

Based on contacts since with other laid-off colleagues, Tukuafu said, she estimated that anywhere from 100 to 500 people across several departments had been dismissed, all with little explanation as to why after recent reports from managers the company was doing “better than ever.”

“That’s why people are upset, because it contradicts everything that they’ve been telling us for the last year,” said Tukuafu, adding that some were receiving severance packages worth the equivalent of five to eight weeks of pay, depending on their tenure.

Thanks,

-Smac

JLHPROF · December 22, 2021

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Well at least he pledges to give away 90% of his wealth. That is much better than the LDS Church's commitment to the poor and weary.

Mark 14:3 ¶ And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.
4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.

Were the Apostles right?

smac97 · December 22, 2021

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well at least he pledges to give away 90% of his wealth. That is much better than the LDS Church's commitment to the poor and weary.

Not sure about that.

Mr. Green can spend the rest of his life spending his billions on himself, and then donate the residue when he dies. In contrast, the Church's wealth is well and truly consecrated. The Brethren are not getting rich, nor is anyone else. Whether spent now or later, the Church's funds will benefit the members, "the poor and weary," and more.

And again, Mr. Green's "pledge" allows him to do something very similar to what the Church is doing, which is to preserve and grow his wealth and distribute it over time as opposed to giving it away all at once.

Thanks,

-Smac

JLHPROF · December 22, 2021

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In contrast, the Church's wealth is well and truly consecrated. The Brethren are not getting rich, nor is anyone else. Whether spent now or later, the Church's funds will benefit the members, "the poor and weary," and more.

That's what people seem to forget.
I think it's great that there are no mortgages on temples, chapels wherever needed, the ability to respond to disasters around the world, help members etc.

It's not like Pres. Nelson spends a ton of time sunning himself in Cancun on the company dime.

smac97 · December 22, 2021

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, running the Church is like running a business these days. I very much doubt you'll ever see a humble uneducated farmboy as an Apostle again.

They need to be CEOs almost as much as they need to be faithful to do the job. God likes Masters degrees or equivalent for Apostles.

A while back I was in a discussion with my dad about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and their respective strengths and weaknesses. My dad then said something that I thought was astute and reasonable (I'm paraphrasing) : "Brigham Young probably could not have received the revelations given through Joseph Smith, but then, Joseph probably could not have led the Saints West, establish dozens of towns and settlements, run the Church for decades, and all the other things that Brigham did. The Lord needs different people at different times for different purposes."

Per this article, in 1870, agricultural workers comprised half of all workers; in 1900, about one-third of all workers; and in 1950, less than a fifth of all workers. Today, "19.7 million full- and part-time jobs were related to the agricultural and food sectors—10.3 percent of total U.S. employment." So farming as an occupation has gone way down.

Pres. Nelson was a doctor. Pres. Oaks was a lawyer, law professor, judge and academic administrator. Pres. Eyring was an academic and academic administrator. Elder Ballard was a businessman, as were Elders Rasband and Stevenson. Elder Holland worked for the Church and in education. Elder Uchtdorf was an airline pilot and executive. Elder Bednar was an academic and higher education administrator. Elder Cook was an attorney, as was Elder Christofferson. Elder Andersen was in healthcare administration. Elder Renlund was a doctor. Elder Gong has worked in government and in academia. Elder Soares worked for the Church and for several multi-national corporations.

So yeah, lots of education and business and administrative experience seem to be a useful part of the calling.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · December 22, 2021

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

From the article that I kind of read (it was behind a paywall so maybe someone with a tribune subscription can clarify), when the company went public with stock options it had the potential to maybe make Stevenson almost a billionaire.

And "almost a billionaire" is tied entirely to the valuation of his stock. Until and unless he sells it, this is not "liquid" wealth.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

In other words, it didn't sound like they really had that much of an idea how much money he had and also didn't have that much of an idea how much money he might be able to make.

Beyond that, it's hard to say much more about how anyone spends their money, how much goes to charity, or anything like that, unless it's been disclosed somehow. Also, being laid off from a job has to happen sometimes. It really sucks.

It does. For many reasons.

Thanks,

-Smac

katherine the great · December 22, 2021

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well at least he pledges to give away 90% of his wealth. That is much better than the LDS Church's commitment to the poor and weary.

Those are words. If he gave it away today I would be incredibly impressed.

katherine the great · December 22, 2021

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not like Pres. Nelson spends a ton of time sunning himself in Cancun on the company dime.

Which explains his dewey, youthful complexion.

LoudmouthMormon · December 22, 2021

It seems like folks enjoy passing judgments on others for how others' use the resources at their disposal. I'd guess most of the time, it's folks with less, judging folks with more. In this case, it's someone with more, judging an organization with more.

Here's my favorite example of those with more, judging someone with less:

(It's either that, or the artist is judging those with more, by making art depicting rich ppl judging a poor person. Art is complicated - it's hard to know who is judging who.)

Edited December 22, 2021 by LoudmouthMormon

smac97 · December 22, 2021

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

didn't he decline further comment? that doesn't sound pathetic

It could also be a matter of avoiding inconvenient questions.

"Mr. Green, you are faulting your former faith for accumulating and not immediately distributing substantial wealth. Isn't that what you have done, are now doing, and what you intend to do in the future? So if the Church is somehow obligated to immediately spend all of its financial means as a moral necessity, do you have the same obligation? Or are you only indignant when publicly pontificating about how others should spend their means?"

"Mr. Green, you are fauling your former faith, a private religious organization, for not being - in your view - sufficiently financially 'transparent.' When can we expect complete and unfettered access to your entire financial history? Or is financial transparency one of those 'for thee and thine but not for me and mine' kind of things?"

"Mr. Green, you publicly announced a charitable donation of $600,000, which works out to about .012% of your $5 billion in wealth. You also said you intend to give away 90% of your wealth before you die. What is preventing you from giving away 90% of your wealth now? Why not lead by example? If you reserve to yourself the right to retain, manage, grow, and gradually distribute your wealth to causes you see appropriate, why can't you allow your former faith the same consideration?"

Yeah, plenty of awkward questions. Glass houses and all that.

Thanks,

-Smac

katherine the great · December 22, 2021

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't want to take this off the rails, but Elder Stevenson that owns iFIT is a billionaire, or close to it. He's been called as an apostle and he's given an exemption from the church to work there or be on the company's board unlike the others in the quorum. And just this past week or so, the company laid off 250 employees right before Christmas, with no severance pay according to an article and someone that says they worked there, and it's not the first time they laid off a bunch of people like that.

That is very unfortunate (And IMHO immoral) As I said, I personally don’t think billionaires should exist. (of course I don’t make the rules either…)

Duncan · December 22, 2021

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It could also be a matter of avoiding inconvenient questions.

"Mr. Green, you are faulting your former faith for accumulating and not immediately distributing substantial wealth. Isn't that what you have done, are now doing, and what you intend to do in the future? So if the Church is somehow obligated to immediately spend all of its financial means as a moral necessity, do you have the same obligation? Or are you only indignant when publicly pontificating about how others should spend their means?"

"Mr. Green, you are fauling your former faith, a private religious organization, for not being - in your view - sufficiently financially 'transparent.' When can we expect complete and unfettered access to your entire financial history? Or is financial transparency one of those 'for thee and thine but not for me and mine' kind of things?"

"Mr. Green, you publicly announced a charitable donation of $600,000, which works out to about .012% of your $5 billion in wealth. You also said you intend to give away 90% of your wealth before you die. What is preventing you from giving away 90% of your wealth now? Why not lead by example? If you reserve to yourself the right to retain, manage, grow, and gradually distribute your wealth to causes you see appropriate, why can't you allow your former faith the same consideration?"

Yeah, plenty of awkward questions. Glass houses and all that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Maybe he'll come out with something, guess we'll see

smac97 · December 22, 2021

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

You may find it pathetic; others find it inspiring, aspirational, and an example of walking the walk instead of talking the talk, and putting one’s money where one’s mouth is. Not to mention these types of public disclosures are common among fundraisers attempting to create momentum /synergy for their causes (be they both conservative and liberal).

I imagine he’s also doing so as a show of support for, to build trust with, and to repair past perceived/real damage to his LGBT and straight ally employees and and shareholders, not to mention his friends and family members, given the context of the articles outlining his role as a CEO in the Tech Industry. I applaud him for doing so, as well as being public about his support. May others learn from him and follow his example of doing what they believe is right, and letting the consequence follow.

Do you allow the leaders of the Church the same consideration? That they are "doing what they believe is right, and letting the consequence follow"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Freedom · December 22, 2021

4 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I personally think billionaires should not exist. It’s a little ironic to me to hear a billionaire criticize an organization for their finances. Still, it’s certainly his right to leave however he chooses and I can’t argue with some of his other reasons.

not sure how this can be stopped. and why no billionaires. What about multi millionaires? why is it their fault that they created critical services such as amazon, microsoft or aerosol that we cannot seem to love without. i do not begrudge them their wealth, i do take issue with the media giving his voice more statute than yours. his wealth does not give him any moral or academic status.

Sign In

Wealthy Mormon Publicly Leaves the LDS Church

Recommended Posts

BRMC

Daniel2

Robert F. Smith

Daniel2

Robert F. Smith

strappinglad

california boy

Daniel2

Daniel2

smac97

Teancum

smac97

JLHPROF

smac97

JLHPROF

smac97

smac97

katherine the great

katherine the great

LoudmouthMormon

smac97

katherine the great

Duncan

smac97

Freedom

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse