Church fined by SEC

[Malc]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I believe an apology or explanation in person is needed, some kind of press conference. 

An ideal opportunity for a heartfelt apology and explanation presents itself in 6 weeks, but I have no expectation that an appropriate apology will be presented.

Naturally I expect to be criticised for daring to point this out. That's OK with me.

[Tacenda]

Just now, Malc said:

An ideal opportunity for a heartfelt apology and explanation presents itself in 6 weeks, but I have no expectation that an appropriate apology will be presented.

Naturally I expect to be criticised for daring to point this out. That's OK with me.

Well, I braced myself to see who was quoting me but luckily it was you, I thought my statement about an apology or explanation from one of the presidency or all three at a press conference would cause criticism. 

[Malc]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, I braced myself to see who was quoting me but luckily it was you, I thought my statement about an apology or explanation from one of the presidency or all three at a press conference would cause criticism. 

Give it time - it's still early evening for a lot of board participants  

[mfbukowski]

On 2/25/2023 at 9:42 PM, california boy said:

So you don't think that anything I wrote has any merit?  You don't think that people struggle when Church leaders do this kind of thing?  And if they do then they don't really have a testimony?

Trying to understand why you wrote what you wrote and why you so easily dismiss the concerns that some are having over this and other past issue as not being valid concerns.  

It's easily remedied if you have a testimony, that's what you don't get.

It's a mistake. The church is not perfect, never was, never will be.

It is run by humans. 

For those without a testimony there can be no answer, for those with one, there is no question.

Creative lawyers getting too creative and crossing the line.  No biggie.

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's easily remedied if you have a testimony, that's what you don't get.

It's a mistake. The church is not perfect, never was, never will be.

It is run by humans. 

For those without a testimony there can be no answer, for those with one, there is no question.

Creative lawyers getting too creative and crossing the line.  No biggie.

Well sure but I think it is a biggie.  At least it would be nice if the church  and its leaders were a bit more contrite about it.  But meh, just a "we consider the issue closed...move on...nothing to see here..."

But I don't expect that from them. Per Oaks, they don't apologize.  They don't need to follow the steps of repentance I guess. Second anointing and all that.  

[smac97]

On 2/25/2023 at 9:39 AM, MrShorty said:

Quote

If I had a disagreement with my wife...

I realize that no analogy is perfect, but I'm not sure how analogous my relationship with the church is compared to my relationship with my wife.

I think the analogy holds up.  

An analogy is a comparison of traits shared two otherwise dissimilar things.  At first blush, you would not think that there is much of a comparison to be made between Jesus Christ as the Savior of the World and a chicken.  And yet He himself draws that comparison - that analogy - in Matthew 23:37 ("O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!").  Once you read it, though, you almost immediately perceive the imagery and meaning.  The imagery is so potent, and the meaning of the comparison is so clear, that this verse has been cited quite a few times in General Conference.

The crux of the analogy I have used is that I, as a Latter-day Saint, owe duties of loyalty and fidelity, of devotion to and support of, my community.  And by "community" I mean the one that exists between my and my wife, and also the one that exists between me and the Church.

As regarding my wife, that "community" is our marriage.  I think most folks inherently understand the basic contours of my duties to her.  I cannot betray her trust and yet also claim to be "loyal" to her at the same time.  I cannot work against her and yet also be "devoted" to and "support" her.  In a quasi-legal sense (I'm  lawyer, so I can't help but note this), I consider myself as a "fiduciary" to her.  "Fiduciary duty" is a concept that was heavily emphasized when I was in law school as something I would be owing to my legal clients.  The Wikipedia entry sums things up fairly well:

Quote

A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties (person or group of persons). Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person. One party, for example, a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, acts in a fiduciary capacity to another party, who, for example, has entrusted funds to the fiduciary for safekeeping or investment. Likewise, financial advisers, financial planners, and asset managers, including managers of pension plans, endowments, and other tax-exempt assets, are considered fiduciaries under applicable statutes and laws.^[1] In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance, and trust in another whose aid, advice, or protection is sought in some matter.^{[2]: at p. 68 [3]} In such a relation, good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts.

A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.

— Lord Millett, Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew^[4]

Fiduciary duties in a financial sense exist to ensure that those who manage other people's money act in their beneficiaries' interests, rather than serving their own interests.

A fiduciary duty^[5] is the highest standard of care in equity or law. A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom he owes the duty (the "principal") such that there must be no conflict of duty between fiduciary and principal, and the fiduciary must not profit from their position as a fiduciary,^[6] unless the principal consents.^[7] 
...
When a fiduciary duty is imposed, equity requires a different, stricter standard of behavior than the comparable tortious duty of care in common law. The fiduciary has a duty not to be in a situation where personal interests and fiduciary duty conflict, not to be in a situation where their fiduciary duty conflicts with another fiduciary duty, and a duty not to profit from their fiduciary position without knowledge and consent. A fiduciary ideally would not have a conflict of interest. It has been said that fiduciaries must conduct themselves "at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd"^[12] and that "[t]he distinguishing or overriding duty of a fiduciary is the obligation of undivided loyalty".^{[13]: at par. 289}

The legal/business meaning and application of this concept typically centers on the fiduciary's function in, ultimately, a financial context.  But the gist of the concept can, in my view, be readily applied in other contexts:

• "{A} legal or ethical relationship of trust."
• "In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance, and trust in another whose aid, advice, or protection is sought in some matter."
• "In such a relation, good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts."
• "'A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.'"
• "When a fiduciary duty is imposed, equity requires a different, stricter standard of behavior."
• "The fiduciary has a duty not to be in a situation where personal interests and fiduciary duty conflict."
• "{The fiduciary has a duty} not to be in a situation where their fiduciary duty conflicts with another fiduciary duty."
• {The fiduciary has a duty} not to profit from their fiduciary position without knowledge and consent."
• "{F}iduciaries must conduct themselves 'at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd."
• "The distinguishing or overriding duty of a fiduciary is the obligation of undivided loyalty."

I have been an attorney for nearly twenty years, and the need for a lawyer to strictly adhere to his fiduciary duties, to regularly apply the foregoing principles to his actions relating to his client, is axiomatic.

I submit that, in a spiritual/religious context, I as a husband owe similar high duties to my wife:

• She trusts me to act in her best interests, and I am obligated to do so.
• She "vests confidence, good faith, reliance, and trust" in me, and I must therefore act to provide her "aid, advice, or protection" congruent with those reposed expectations.
• When I act on her behalf, or toward her, I must act for her benefit.
• My duties to her are of a more particular, a "different" and "stricter," standard, and are "'at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd,'" as compared to duties I owe generically to others in the Social Contract.
• My duty to her requires that I not act in such a way that I profit or benefit from the relationship in a way that is detrimental or injurious to her.  

I further submit that most of these principles can and also ought to be applied to my relationship with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  As noted above, I "owe duties of loyalty and fidelity, of devotion to and support of, my community."  In this context, that "community" is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints.  Hence, I feel that I should act in its best interests and for its benefit, to provide it "aid, advice, or protection," and so on.

I wish I could lay claim to originating the comparison here, as I think it's a pretty good one.  Alas, I cannot, because the comparison has been around for thousands of years, and originates with Paul in Ephesians 5:25:

Quote

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

The Lord compared His relationship to the Church to the relationship between a husband and wife.

There is, of course, a self-limiting aspect to fiduciary duties relative to the Church:

• "The fiduciary has a duty not to be in a situation where personal interests and fiduciary duty conflict."
• "{The fiduciary has a duty} not to be in a situation where their fiduciary duty conflicts with another fiduciary duty."

See also AoF 1:12 - "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

See also D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."

Consequently, for me there is generally no "blood is thicker than water" or "I'm with you, right or wrong" sort of sentiment about the Church, since by its own precepts I also owe a duty of loyalty to the law of the land, which duty therefore cannot conflict with the loyalty I owe to the Church.  I wrote this back in 2020 (about a pretty dumb lawsuit against the Church filed in California) :

Quote

I am not discounting all the litigation filed against the Church.  Sometimes the Church and/or its agents/representatives err{s} legally.  When and if that happens, and {when that} can be established through evidence and argument, the Church needs to take its legal lumps like anyone else.  So I don't begrudge anyone who has a legitimate (or at least colorable) grievance against the Church and avails himself to filing a lawsuit.

The Church is subject to the laws of the land.  I acknowledge that and support it.  It's right there in our scriptures.  I am, then, quite happy to help the Church advance and grow and improve, with what I call the "Jane Eyre Caveat."  From Chapter 20 (a discussion between Jane and Mr. Rochester) :

Quote

"Now you look puzzled; and I will puzzle you further. You are my little friend, are you not?"

"I like to serve you, sir, and to obey you in all that is right."

"Precisely: I see you do. I see genuine contentment in your gait and mien, your eye and face, when you are helping me and pleasing me—working for me, and with me, in, as you characteristically say, 'all that is right:' for if I bid you do what you thought wrong, there would be no light-footed running, no neat-handed alacrity, no lively glance and animated complexion. 

As it turns out, what Mr. Rochester had in mind was not altogether "right."  Understandable, yes.  Even rational and justifiable in a sense.  But in the end, not "right."  Not moral.  Not congruent with God's will.

So when I support my wife, I seek to do so "in all that is right."  And when I support the Church, I also seek to do so "in all that is right."  I think that part and parcel of being a faithful Latter-day Saint is sustaining and following the leaders of the Church.  My rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren.  To give them the benefit of the doubt.  To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit.  I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  

However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption.  That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Joseph Fielding Smith, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works."  That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works."  We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility.  So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it.  To think about it.  To study it.  To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy.  To weight it against the Standard Works.  And most of all, to pray about it.

In sum, yes, I submit that I as a Latter-day Saint owe duties of loyalty and care toward my wife, and that most aspects of those duties have some comparative value when considered in the context of my relationship with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

On 2/25/2023 at 9:39 AM, MrShorty said:

1) A marriage is for the most part considered to be a relationship of peers/equals.

Certainly.  "Equal" in the sense of "considered to be the same as another in status or quality."

On 2/25/2023 at 9:39 AM, MrShorty said:

There's a complementarian streak that runs through us that sometimes wants to make marriage hierarchical with the husband above the wife, but most marriage commentators and therapists that I find credible will talk about husband and wife as equals.

I agree with this sentiment.  Per the Proclamation: "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

On 2/25/2023 at 9:39 AM, MrShorty said:

Perhaps the better analogy would be parent/child relationship.

I'll think on that.  

On 2/25/2023 at 9:39 AM, MrShorty said:

2) Continuing with the marriage analogy. While I think a high level of loyalty in a good marriage is laudable, I also find it interesting how the idea of loyalty also keeps people in abusive relationships.

Yes, that is a risk.  Hence the "Jane Eyre" and other caveats I referenced above.

On 2/25/2023 at 9:39 AM, MrShorty said:

I think we need to be a bit careful about making loyalty a very important virtue without tying it at least somewhat to the need on the part of both spouses to be trustworthy. In saying this, I don't want to suggest that my relationship with the church feels abusive to me, but I see many in the ex-Mormon and edge-of-inside crowds who feel like there are abusive elements in their relationship with the church.

I guess we would need to talk about individualized circumstances and events.  Broadly speaking, I often find characterizations of the Church as "abusive" to be overwrought nonsense.  The Church's authority over the lives of its members is profoundly circumscribed in D&C 134:10.  And I am very happy about that.

On 2/25/2023 at 9:39 AM, MrShorty said:

I don't think it is going to help us  in the long term deal with people who choose not to be all-in if we assume the church can never feel abusive.

I concede that we need to acknowledge subjective assessments and feelings.  But I think we also need to keep such things contextualized and in proportion.  

On 2/25/2023 at 9:39 AM, MrShorty said:

3) In many relationship/marriage help circles, honesty is a frequent topic of discussion. Many of the hardest issues many marriages face often include an element of "spouse was doing <porn, drugs/alcohol, gambling or other unwise financial habist, and so on>" include an element of "the offending spouse went to some lengths to prevent the offended spouse from discovering <porn, drugs/alcohol, gambling, etc.>." I don't know if we need to rise to the level of Dr. Harley's "Policy of Radical Honesty," but, in addition to loyalty, a good marriage includes a solid dose of honesty and openness between the spouses. If I haven't already said it in this thread, the thing that stands out most to me in the SEC report is the frequent claim that the motivation behind the church's/EPA's behaviors was to prevent discovery of the church's relationship to this money.

Most people have an innate (and an understandable, and a legally and morally justified) expectation of some privacy.  Absent some sort of legal (or perhaps moral/ethical) duty to disclose, a decent and law-abiding person or entity generally has no obligation to divulge things he does not want to divulge.

Just look at this thread.  Pretty much all of of the most strident critics of the Church are voicing their indignation/outrage about the Church taking (legal) steps to obscure its sensitive private information while they themselves are posting anonymously, behind a pseudonym.  In doing so, they tacitly concede the point I am making here.  They take specific and intentional steps obfuscate their IRL identity.  And more power to them.  They have that right.  Increasingly these days, information is power.  No reasonable person construes "radical honesty" as imposing some sort of duty to affirmatively disclose to the world any and every facet and detail and factoid of his private life.  Nobody posts their email and bank account logins and SSN online for the world to see.

In this thread, the issue has been a narrow one, namely, the Church's compliance with complex and arcane reporting requirements relative to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Put another way, the topic is about how much of the Church's private affairs is it legally obligated to disclose to the State, as counterbalanced with its right - via lawful means available to it as much as any other person or entity subject to the laws of the land - to take steps to minimize or obscure the publication of its private affairs.  Here, the Church may have erred in some procedural elements, and in so doing must - as I have noted above - "take its legal lumps like anyone else."

On 2/25/2023 at 9:39 AM, MrShorty said:

4) Sometimes when a marriage struggles, one must take the "disloyal" step of bringing in some outside help to mediate the differences and find some way forward that allows the couple to stay together.

I don't see that as disloyal.  I and my wife spent the better part of last year in counseling.  We have a very good relationship overall, but we needed to work on some things.  During the process I came to perceive a number of things about myself that needed attention, improvement, correction, etc. (my wife also learned some things she needs to work on).  It was a sometimes difficult process, but it was very valuable and constructive.

I will note that much of the benefit came from the fact that our counseling sessions were private.  It was just me, my wife, and our therapist.  At no point did my wife or our counselor seek to use social media, the press, or other splashy means of public disclosure to force me to evaluate and modify my behaviors and thought processes.  There was no violation of fiduciary duties, nor even the thread of such a violation.  No trial in the "court of public opinion."  The correction and improvement came because my wife (and our therapist) maintained their fiduciary duties to me, because they sought to educate and persuade and encourage, not humiliate and cajole and coerce (which would have been the clear motive behind resorting to the "court of public opinion").

On 2/25/2023 at 9:39 AM, MrShorty said:

Other than the "court of public opinion," there do not seem to be any good authorities that can be brought in to mediate members' relationship with the church.

With respect, I disagree.  I have many times cited Elder Oaks' 1987 article, Criticism, and do so again here.

The "court of public opinion" is mayhem.  Anarchy.  Ad hoc, emotionalistic vitriol and arbitrariness in action.  It is judgment by the mob.  This is particularly so in the context of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as is evidenced by the fact that so many of its most strident critics regularly move heaven and earth to incite "public opinion" against the Church.  The Church has already had ample experience with mobocratic judgments against it, so it's rather weird to see its members calling for it by another name.  

No decent husband would seek to use the "court of public opinion" to humiliate and coerce his wife.  That would be a violation of his fiduciary duties toward her.

Similarly, I submit that those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owe fiduciary duties ought to avoid behaviors that contravene those duties.  Those duties are not absolute, as the Church is subject to the laws of the land.  So if the Church or one of its agents violates the law, I think a Latter-day Saint would be justified in reporting the matter to the appropriate authorities for investigation.  In the main, however, I think most members who find themselves at odds with the Church have options that allow them to address concerns without violating "fiduciary duty"-type covenants (see Elder Oaks' article above).  And disparaging the Church in the "court of public opinion" ain't one of 'em.

On 2/25/2023 at 9:39 AM, MrShorty said:

I know that the "all-in" crowd would much rather people just leave the church rather than pause at a mediation step on the way out, and I don't know what to do about that.

I think you are quite wrong in that assessment.  I think the "all-in" crowd wants members to stay in the Church, and we also want others to join it (as evidenced by our extensive missionary program).

On 2/25/2023 at 9:39 AM, MrShorty said:

As @pogi alluded to, if the church wants people who are bothered by this behavior to stay in the marriage, then the church needs to provide some kind of help in finding a good mediator to mediate the difficulties in the relationship and help both parties make better decisions around the relationship.

We already have this "help."  Again, see Elder Oaks' article above.  Moreover, the Church already has in place substantial checks and balances and other corrective mechanisms and means of "oversight" and accountability.  

I think the problem comes when individual members want to do more than just voice a concern.  When they want to exercise stewardship and dominion over the Church in unseemly ways.  When they go beyond voicing a concern and demand capitulation and compliance with the individual's say-so.

Kate Kelly.  Sam Young.  Bill Reel.  These folks did this in big, splashy, coercive "court of public opinion"-style ways.  That's just not the way the Church functions, nor should it.

On 2/25/2023 at 9:39 AM, MrShorty said:

5) And finally, a thought on the parent/child version of the analogy. I frequently see people talk about the developmental step children go through when they realize that their parents are not perfect. These are the kinds of things that help us as children see the faults in the church. If the church wants to avoid becoming estranged from some of its children, I think it needs to do better at helping us cope with the imperfections we see. Refusing to talk about them because they are in the past is not always going to help.  Again, I realize that no analogy is perfect. If we are going to claim that my relationship with the church is analogous to my relationship with my wife or my relationship with my parents, there's a lot more to the analogy than just loyalty. There's honesty and openness and a willingness to acknowledge faults.

That's a decent point.  However, I think there is a country mile's worth of difference between such candid discussions and violating fiduciary duties by hashing out such matters through the coercive and mobocratic "court of public opinion."

The Church already has more than its share of critics and opponents.  If I think there is an error in matters of Church governance, I have options available that do not involve me contravening my covenants, or humiliating and disparaging the Church in the "court of public opinion."

Good discussion.  I appreciate your comments and insights.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 27, 2023 by smac97

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

People attempting to mimic the investment strategy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and then blaming the Church and its leaders if the investment strategy leads to "negative consequences" strikes me as a pretty reasonable rationale.  To each, his own, I suppose.

As I understand it, the Church's investment portfolio has now been made pubic since 2019.  Have you seen wide spread issues with members knowing what stocks the Church owns?  Is the problem bigger than the one the Church has created by hiding the true wealth of the Church?

 

Or are some grasping at straws looking for any excuse it can come up with to rationalize the deception the Church was using to hide it's wealth from members.  By putting out these baseless theories, it seems to me that it only exacerbates the problem.  But as you say, to each his own i suppose.

[smac97]

On 2/25/2023 at 7:19 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Dan Peterson weighs in.

And his comments - as is often the case - merit some attention:

Quote

My general attitude toward the issue is that it doesn’t involve deliberate fraud but, rather, a disagreement about proper reporting of financial data.  Not substantive but procedural.  I don’t claim to be an intimate friend of the Brethren, but I know many more of them than I ever expected to, and some of them I know much better than I ever thought I would.  I’ve also known a fair number of them who have now passed on.  And my impression of them is that they are scrupulously honest and very, very careful to obey the law.  I’ve seen many illustrations of their seriousness on this. at first hand.  They want to do things by the book — by which I mean according to the relevant legal codes, as well as according to the scriptures — and there is absolutely no disposition on their part to profiteer personally from their service in the Church.

I think this perspective is being missed or overlooked by some.

The leaders of the Church are, in the main, very decent.  The implied - and overt - claims of dishonesty, betrayal of trust, etc., are - in my view - pretty overwrought.

The principal disconnect for me is A) the total absence of any allegation of fraud, insider trading, market manipulation, "fiscal leverage," etc., and B) the allegations that the Church "lied," was "dishonest," betrayed the trust of its members, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

d

[smac97]

On 2/25/2023 at 5:16 PM, pogi said:

Once again, people are missing the point and mischaracterizing the concern many are having.

I don't think anyone is expecting perfection, but I do expect measures of restitution.  Not just legal restitution which has been payed, but work towards restoration of trust by actually addressing the concerns of members.  It wouldn't even take much for me.  A simple acknowledgement would go a long way. 

"We affirm our commitment to comply with the law, regret mistakes made and now consider this matter closed."

That seems to be "a simple acknowledgement" which you are not accepting.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't know who "Pogi" is, either, so I suppose if you are justifying that as a rationale for ignoring or discounting what someone says, it works as well in your case as it does in "Mike's."

No, I wasn't trying to justify a rationale for ignoring him, I was just noting that there is no reference to who he is or the source from where you got that information.  You quoted him without reference as if we should all know who "Mike" is.  At least with Pogi, there is a reference.  I am that dude that has been hanging out here for the past decade, have formed relationships here, and I have a long history that people can review and get an idea of who I am and what I believe. 

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

People attempting to mimic the investment strategy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and then blaming the Church and its leaders if the investment strategy leads to "negative consequences" strikes me as a pretty reasonable rationale.  To each, his own, I suppose.

That is rationale that has no reference.  Roger Clarke is a credible reference.  We have a direct quote on record from the President of the EPA himself.  It doesn't get much higher than that.   He actually mentioned that there are multiple reasons, it is not just one or the other.  But the fact that he mentioned the one that he did suggests that it was an important factor.  I was ok with the idea of financial privacy, I think there are many legitimate reasons for that, but I also think there are troubling reasons too and he mentioned one troubling one for me. 

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay.  It's puzzling, though, that what you see on its face as dishonest behavior has generated, as of this writing, a 33-page thread.  That's a puzzling result if the issue is as cut-and-dried as you allege that it is.

It is not puzzling to me.  It seems that most here agree that there was dishonest behavior at some level but suggest that it is "no biggie" or "it doesn't matter" etc.  Some either downplay or are outright permissive of the dishonesty, but recognize it as being dishonest.  Those who claim that no dishonest behavior happened attack the SECs credibility and suggest that they are merely "allegations" that have not been substantiated.  Ok, well that is not what "Mike" was suggesting.  "Mike" was saying that there is no apparent dishonesty in the evidence presented by the SEC - "Mike" is saying that one would have to look beyond the mark of what is claimed to find any dishonesty.  I don't think ANYONE here is suggesting that or would defend that.  

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm glad you're OK with forgiving.  As to pretending that "it" didn't happen, as much as I hate to quote Bill Clinton, whether anyone is pretending that "it" didn't happen might depend on what the definition of the word "it" is.  

"It" being dishonesty.

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"We affirm our commitment to comply with the law, regret mistakes made and now consider this matter closed."

That seems to be "a simple acknowledgement" which you are not accepting.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is not addressing the concerns of many members, including myself.  I went to some effort to express what I thought would address the issues I have, if you don't want to hear it, that is up to you. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by pogi

[SteveO]

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

  Is the problem bigger than the one the Church has created by hiding the true wealth of the Church?

Is public knowledge of the church’s wealth a “problem” among the membership?  How do you know it’s a problem?  What data are you using/seeing?  This is the second time I’ve asked.  You ignored me the first time.

[smac97]

On 2/24/2023 at 5:51 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

In an informal "real world" context, I think that normally takes the form of "benefit of the doubt," that is, to "to believe something good about someone, rather than something bad, when you have the possibility of doing either."  I think this is, or ought to be, the starting point, the default presumption.

Would you also grant that same default presumption of basic honesty and professionalism to the public servants who work at the SEC?

No.  I respect and value the Government, but I do not repose in it any particular "presumption of basic honesty and professionalism," particularly the "Administrative State" and its unelected, unaccountable, faceless bureaucrats.

On 2/24/2023 at 5:51 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

So I don't see a symmetry in our biases.  My presumption, my starting point, is benevolent toward the Church.  I give the benefit of the doubt to the Church, to its leaders, to its members, to its defenders.

Why don't you give the same benefit of the doubt to the SEC and to the public servants who work there?

For the same reason I do give the benefit of the doubt to the Church: experience.

I know the Brethren.  I have long experience with them (and no small number of people whom I know and trust personally have far more experience with them, often extensive and in person) .  I trust them.  I see them as overwhelmingly deserving of that trust.  I see the Church having some problems arising from bureaucratic complexity / inertia / inefficiencies / dysfunctions, but nothing close to the corruptions and coercive abuse of power so regularly manifest by the State (again, particularly the Administrative State).

I also know the Administrative State.  I know about its lack of accountability, its lack of meaningful oversight, its arbitrariness, and tendency toward favoritisim (and, as a corollary, disfavoritism), its sometimes politicized decisionmaking processes, and so on.  I neither know nor have any particular reason to trust its unelected, unaccountable, faceless bureaucrats.

Again, I find it grimly amusing that you repose so much trust, and give so much deference, to the organs of the State, particularly the Administrative State.  I suspect this is mostly arising as a manifestation of the special pleading fallacy.  That is, you are lauding the SEC simply because it is in a position to speak adversely to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  If and when you or someone you care about ever end up in the crosshairs of the Administrative State, I really doubt you would insist upon this same sort of obsequious deference to the goodness and competency of its various regulatory agencies.  But as long as its pronouncements can be used as a brickbat against a religious group you dislike....  

On 2/24/2023 at 5:51 PM, Analytics said:

Thank you for the law school lesson.

Sarcasm, but no actual answers to questions that, I think, are pretty pertinent to the issue of the Church's compliance with SEC regulations.

On 2/24/2023 at 5:51 PM, Analytics said:

Rather than diving into that level of detail at the moment, allow me to ask you a few Socratic questions.

The actual law says: 

Every institutional investment manager which exercises investment discretion with respect to accounts holding section 13(f) securities, as defined in paragraph (c) of this  section, having an aggregate fair market value on the last trading day of any month of any calendar year of at least $100,000,000 shall  file a report on Form 13F (§ 249.325of this chapter) with the Commission within 45 days after the last day of such calendar year and within 45 days after the last day of each of the first three calendar quarters of the subsequent calendar year.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.13f-1

It is interesting that you cite the CFR as "the actual law," while making no reference to the U.S. Code.

Are you familiar with the United States Code? 

Do you know what "CFR" stands for?

Do you know the relationship between, say, 15 U.S. Code § 78c(a)(35) and 17 CFR § 240.13f-1?

I would normally explain, but you are dodging my efforts substantively address the law, so I'll defer for the moment.  But I will drop a hint: The former was passed by an elected body, the constituent members of which were answerable to the electorate.  In contrast, the latter was written by an group of unknown, unelected, unaccountable, faceless bureaucrats within the Administrative State.

My experience as an attorney has been mostly with private parties in "private" litigation (that is, both parties are private).  However, I have had plenty of opportunities to research and study the effects of the Administrative State on those private parties.  And the results have been . . . sobering.  My experience is reflected rather well in this article: Confronting the Administrative State

Some excerpts:

Quote

The Supreme Court's 2014-15 term will undoubtedly be remembered as one of the most significant of the Roberts Court. From the definition of marriage to the legality of Obamacare's implementation, the Court issued several landmark decisions that grabbed headlines and consumed commentators.

Less noticed, however, were four opinions authored by Justice Clarence Thomas that call into question the constitutionality of the massive and largely unaccountable bureaucracy that we commonly refer to as the administrative state. In bold and clear prose, Justice Thomas explained how the basic principles of our Constitution's separation of powers are incompatible with the system of bureaucratic rule that took root in the Progressive era and now reaches into virtually every realm of American life.

I think the corrosive effects of the Administrative State go largely unnoticed by the electorate, so much so that we even have members of the electorate praising it as presumptively competent, fair, and benevolent.

Quote

In Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, Justice Thomas described the violence done to the structure of our constitutional system when Congress delegates its lawmaking powers to administrative agencies. In B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries, he stressed that agencies may not, consistent with Article III of the Constitution, usurp the federal courts' judicial power. And in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association and Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, he argued that federal courts shirk their constitutional duty when they defer to an agency's interpretation of federal law. Together, the principles articulated by Justice Thomas in these opinions attack the very existence of the modern administrative state.

These decisions are worth a read.

Also, a big part of the whole "defer to an agency's interpretation of federal law" arises from . . . the CFR.

Quote

It is fitting that we refer to the administrative state as a "state," for it has become a sovereign power unto itself, an imperium in imperio regulating virtually every dimension of our lives. Its nearly 450 agencies are manned by legions of bureaucrats, now numbering almost 2.7 million. In 2013 alone, 3,659 final rules were issued, adding 26,417 pages to the Federal Register. All told, the Code of Federal Regulations contained 175,496 pages of regulations spread out over 235 volumes as of 2013. That represents a 7.4% increase in the number of pages in the CFR since President Obama assumed office — and that figure does not include 2014 or 2015.

450 agencies.  2.7 million employees.  

Thousands of new "rules," amounting to tens of thousand of pages, are created every year.  All drafted by unknown, unelected, unaccountable, faceless bureaucrats within the Administrative State.

Golly, what could go wrong with that?  

Quote

The domain of the administrative state is vast, ranging from the most trivial to the most significant matters of public and private life. With the votes of three FCC commissioners, it declares the internet a public utility and seizes control over our nation's web-based economy. With the issuance of an environmental rule, it commands once-sovereign states to re-order their electricity markets or face crippling blackouts. Its legions regulate our health care and our children's dolls, our national banking system and our neighborhood stop signs. As Chief Justice John Roberts recently stated: "The Framers could hardly have envisioned...the authority administrative agencies now hold over our economic, social, and political activities."

Although the framers could not have envisioned the modern administrative state, they certainly envisioned the danger to liberty posed by the accumulation of government powers in the hands of federal officials. Indeed, it was to protect against this hazard that they separated the great powers of government.

Our constitutional system, and specifically its separation of powers, was premised on the founders' conception of the nature of man, and it was the Progressive movement's rejection of this conception of man that led to the rise of the administrative state that now rules over us. The Progressive understanding of man and government will continue its logical unfolding — and the administrative state's rule will grow ever-more expansive and oppressive — until the people strip it of the power it has accumulated.

I encourage you to read the entire article.

I think concerns about, and generalized mistrust as to the competency and accountability of, the various organs of the Administrative State are . . . pretty justified.

That you keep publishing gooey paeans to the virtues and wonderfulness of the SEC is, I think, situational.  The situation is that the SEC made an adverse ruling against a religious group you dislike, ergo the SEC is the coolest thing ever.  But if and when you or someone you care about ends up in its crosshairs, all your blather about the SEC's presumptive benevolence will disappear like a burp in the wind.

On 2/24/2023 at 5:51 PM, Analytics said:

Say I was an investment manager with a cool $180,000,000 in assets, and for my own personal reasons, really, really didn't want to file Form 13F and disclose my assets to the world.

No, I won't say that.  There is no evidence that the Church did not "want to file Form 13F."  To the contrary, it did file the forms.

On 2/24/2023 at 5:51 PM, Analytics said:

Say I call up you and ask your legal advice on a way I could manage all of these assets and legally not file. Here is my scheme:

1. Set up two LLC's, and have a couple of my employees be the "Manager" of each of them.
2. Give each manager "investment discretion" to manage $90,000,000 of the aggregate portfolio.
3. Have each of them use their "investment discretion" to delegate management back to me.
4. Since these two "Managers" of the two LLC's each manage less than $100,000,000 of assets, we don't need to fileForm 13F

In your opinion, would this scheme comply with the letter of the law?

It appears to.

However, there umpteen ways to err in complying with regulations promulgated by the Administrative State, so it's hard to say for sure.  Even attorneys with years and years of experience can sometimes end up giving advise that contravenes the preferences and interpretations of this or that regulatory agency.

On 2/24/2023 at 5:51 PM, Analytics said:

Does it comply with the spirit of the law?

First, as noted above, I reject the premise.  There is no evidence that the Church did not "want to file Form 13F."

Second, your loaded terminology ("scheme") does not help.

Third, the "spirit of the law" is often ambiguous or in the eye of the beholder.

Fourth, the "spirit" of laws that are essentially purely regulatory and malum prohibitum in character is going to be pretty hard to quantify, if it exists at all.  

Fifth, the "spirit of the law" is not intended to strip private parties of their rights and property.  For example, I rather strongly suspect that you itemize your tax deductions.  Why would you do that?  The "spirit" of the Sixteenth Amendment allows the federal government to impose tax obligations on you, so does itemizing deductions - and entirely lawful exercise, BTW - constitute a violation by you of the "spirit of the law"?  

This is, in my view, a poor line of argument from you.  If I can use lawful means to limit the power of government in my life, I will do so.  So do most people.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Trying to frame such efforts as violating "the spirit of the law" is a bit of contrived, ad hoc nonsense.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 27, 2023 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

... Or are some grasping at straws looking for any excuse it can come up with to rationalize the deception the Church was using to hide it's wealth from members.  By putting out these baseless theories, it seems to me that it only exacerbates the problem.  But as you say, to each his own i suppose.

If you would like to dismiss what I write as "grasping at straws" and "looking for any excuse ... to rationalize the deception the Church [sic] was using to hide it's [sic] wealth from its members," you're perfectly at liberty to do so.  From the tenor of the thread, you would be in quite numerous company.

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

"We affirm our commitment to comply with the law, regret mistakes made and now consider this matter closed."

That seems to be "a simple acknowledgement" which you are not accepting.

It is not addressing the concerns of many members, including myself. 

I think your "concerns" are more properly construed as conclusory accusations.

Nevertheless, you asked for "a simple acknowledgement" after having received one.  You find it lacking.

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

I went to some effort to express what I thought would address the issues I have, if you don't want to hear it, that is up to you. 

I think you are being unreasonable, in a few ways.

First, I think you are shifting the goalposts.

Second, you are being emotional.  Here I am, having had extensive interactions with you, and yet you claim I "don't want to hear" your concerns.  That is unfair and inaccurate.  And I think that unfair and inaccurate approach is more broadly evidence in your criticisms of the Church.

Third, the Church issued a formal statement which included a fairly extensive Q&A: Church Issues Statement on SEC Settlement

Fourth, the Church included in its statement an explanation of its position relative to the SEC investigation,

• an explanation that EPA "received and relied upon legal counsel regarding how to comply with its reporting obligations while attempting to maintain the privacy of the portfolio," and also
• that EPA - consequent to the SEC's investigation - "adjusted its approach" to complying with reporting requirements,
• that EPA and the Church "worked with the SEC for years to come to this settlement,"
• that the Church affirmed its "commitment to comply with the law,"
• that the Church "regret{s} mistakes made," and
• that the Church "now consider{s} this matter closed."

Fifth, your dissatisfaction with the foregoing statement is a pretty good demonstration of why I find calls/demands for public "apologies" and the like to be unreasonable.  There is no way the Church will ever be able to placate or satisfy such demands.

Here's what you want:

Quote

"we are aware that there are members who feel like a sacred trust has been violated.  

I think this is addressed in the Church stating that it "regret{s} mistakes made."

Quote

We understand that there are concerns about dishonest behavior.  

This is like you saying "I understand that some folks have concerns about I, pogi, skinning puppies for skin and profit."  Would you feel comfortable publishing that to the world?  

I think the Church might actually do well by educating here, rather than knuckling under.  Again, there is no allegation of fraud, insider trading, market manipulation, seeking "fiscal leverage," etc.  The SEC did not require any admission of wrongdoing (which it had the option of requiring as a condition of settlement).

But if it did, I suspect folks like you would become even more dissatisfied.  I think you have indicted the Church, and you want the Church to cop to that.  However, I think your condemnatory characterization of the Church, both as to its conduct which precipitated the SEC investigation, its cooperation and remedial efforts during the investigation, and its press release following the investigation is, in the main, substantively inaccurate, overwrought, unfair, and way beyond your stewardship.

I don't think the Church should tacitly or impliedly cop to serious accusations that are neither established nor even warranted under the circumstances here.

Quote

We understand that members want to see their leaders living the same standards of temple worthiness that each member is expected to live.

Same as above.  This is loaded language.  Inapproprirate.

Quote

We understand that members have concerns about information being hidden from them, and that some may even feel manipulated by such behavior.  

More loaded language.

"I, Spencer Macdonald, have concerns about pogi hiding information from me.  I don't know his real name, or his home address, or his email and bank logins, or his SSN.  I don't know his salary, his assets and liabilities.  I feel manipulated by his failure to disclose these things to me."

Would you buy that?

Absent a duty to disclose, characterizing the Church as "hiding" stuff is poppycock.  

What what is the "feel manipulated" nonsense?  Members "feel manipulated" by the Church's failure to properly fill out Column 8 of the "Information Table" appended to the 14F Form promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission?  Nonsense.  None of us knew a thing about any of this prior to last week, and so we cannot accuse the Church of "manipulating" us about it.

Quote

The church has gone a long way to become more transparent in our history and to paint a more accurate and honest narrative.  

And that is worlds apart from the Church's obligation to properly fill out Column 8 of the "Information Table" appended to the 14F Form promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Quote

Many things were left unsaid in the past in good-intentioned efforts to protect members from information that leaders believed might have had negative consequences on the faith of some members.  

Many things will always be "left unsaid," particularly when there is no duty to disclose, and also when there is good and ample justification for not disclosing.

Quote

We understand now that that was the wrong approach,

No.  No.  Again, the Church should not cop to serious accusations that are neither established nor even warranted under the circumstances.

Quote

and that many members may have felt manipulated and even infantilized by this approach and effort to protect them and keep them safe from history that some find troubling and concerning.

More loaded language.  Emotionalistic nonsense.  Contrived twaddle.  Again, none of use knew anything about any of this until last week.

You can say what you "may have felt," but I don't think you can presume to say that "many" feel this way.

You don't want an explanation.  You want a pound of flesh.  You want the Church to cop to your accusations.  I the the Church's press release, in tandem with the SEC Order, is sufficient, and I do not want the Church to acquiesce to overwrought characterizations of its errors in this matter.

Quote

Instead of addressing those issues head on in a transparent way (trusting that the Saints who are expected to be willing to sacrifice all that they have for the kingdom can endure the truth as well) it was hidden.  We regret that mistake. "  

More loaded language.

You are angry.  I get that.  But it is unreasonable for you to take your angry and emotional stance on this story as factual and accurate, and to impose it on the Church, and then to vilify the Church for not kowtowing to your accusatory denunciations.

Quote

"Some may feel those old wounds re-opened with this revelation about church finances which were hidden, again in a good-willed attempt to protect members from negative consequences.   We sincerely regret the violation of trust that this has caused and want you to know that this sacred trust is important to us and will be taking every effort to rebuild this trust.  

Meh.  More loaded language.

Quote

We want you to feel like you can be trusted with these things too.  Those who have violated principles of honesty and ethical practices have been disciplined and corrected and we are taking measures to review practices throughout the church to see how instances like this can be avoided in the future.  You place a sacred trust in us, and we intend to do all we can to restore and protect that trust in all that we do."  

More loaded language.

I reject your proposal.  I find it roundly unfair, inaccurate, unreasonable, and unwarranted.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

unaccountable, faceless bureaucrats

 

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

More loaded language.

Pot meet kettle. 

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

People attempting to mimic the investment strategy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and then blaming the Church and its leaders if the investment strategy leads to "negative consequences" strikes me as a pretty reasonable rationale.  To each, his own, I suppose.

No financial advisor would or should allow any client to do that unless the client was worth hundreds of billions of dollars and who's financial goals were to establish a world wide theocracy.

Not too many around like that.

And even then mimicking investment strategies good for the Catholic church may not be best for the COJCLDS.  Italian vineyards?

I don't think so.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

Pot meet kettle. 

"Faceless bureaucrats" just means people doing their jobs. But you know, it sounds better to pretend they're nameless, faceless cogs in the machine that oppresses us. Or something. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

Is public knowledge of the church’s wealth a “problem” among the membership?  How do you know it’s a problem?  What data are you using/seeing?  This is the second time I’ve asked.  You ignored me the first time.

Sorry, I didn't see your first post.  

From what I am seeing and hearing is that the church's wealth is a problem among some of the membership.  Not a problem for others.  I don't think anyone has any data on what those numbers are.  What has been documented is the exiting of a lot of members because of past hiding of information about the history of the Church and not presenting an honest narrative.  Trust is a factor for a lot of people.  That we know.

I am not ever sure what percentage of the Church even knows how much wealth the Church has. This current exposure of how Church leaders hid that wealth from the members just happened.  How it will affect those in the Church?  Guess we will soon see.  

I know there is a variety of reasons for people leaving the Church.  I think this will only add to those numbers.  

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If you would like to dismiss what I write as "grasping at straws" and "looking for any excuse ... to rationalize the deception the Church [sic] was using to hide it's [sic] wealth from its members," you're perfectly at liberty to do so.  From the tenor of the thread, you would be in quite numerous company.

Just curious why you didn't include the first part of my post which gives the actual reason for not finding any substance to your claim?  Is it too hard for you to address?  Here it is again in case you now want to address it.

Quote

As I understand it, the Church's investment portfolio has now been made pubic since 2019.  Have you seen wide spread issues with members knowing what stocks the Church owns?  Is the problem bigger than the one the Church has created by hiding the true wealth of the Church?

 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

unaccountable, faceless bureaucrats
...
More loaded language.

Pot meet kettle. 

Feel free to correct me.  

Who are the authors of 17 CFR § 240.13f-1?  Were they elected officials?  Was there any debate as to its form and content?  Have any of these authors ever erred in their duties?  If so, have they been held accountable for those errors?

Take your time.  I'll wait.   

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think your "concerns" are more properly construed as conclusory accusations.

No, I have said over and over and over and over again that I am not attempting to substantiate anything as fact.  This is just another example of you not caring to listen and understand those who have issues with this and instead paint me in an unfair light to dismiss my concerns outright. I have acknowledged that these are unsubstantiated allegations and evidence only.  I have stated that this is my interpretation of the evidence, which forms my beliefs.  I am saying "this is what I believe" , I am not saying "this is what happened".  They didn't acknowledge common and legitimate concerns I have about dishonesty.  They haven't addressed the motivations stated by Roger Clarke.  To say that "we regret mistakes" is weak sauce. What mistakes?  Are you speaking of intentional or unintentional mistakes?  Are you speaking of dishonest mistakes?  It is a vague lawyerly statement that allows reasonable doubt to anything specific that they may be acknowledging.   If yo, or the church, thinks that is sufficient in addressing the honesty and motivation concerns that many members have, you are gravely mistaken.  

You keep trying to dismiss my perspective as being blinded by emotions.  But I have already stated that I did not approach this from an emotional position.  I have always defended the church's finances and financial privacy.  If anything, I entered this biased in favor of the church.  The emotions did not blind my interpretation, rather my interpretation lead to the emotion.  I have stated this before, but once again, you don't seem to care to hear that or believe it. 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by pogi

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Malc said:

An ideal opportunity for a heartfelt apology and explanation presents itself in 6 weeks, but I have no expectation that an appropriate apology will be presented.

It would, I suspect, be followed by an ideal opportunity for an ad hoc and arbitrary rejection of that explanation, and I have every expectation that such an rejection will be presented.

The Church has already presented an explanation for what happened, expressed "regrets" for "mistakes made," has taken remedial measures to ensure compliance with SEC guidelines, and so on.  And yet it's not enough because . . . reasons.

14 hours ago, Malc said:

Naturally I expect to be criticised for daring to point this out. That's OK with me.

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Feel free to correct me.  

Who are the authors of 17 CFR § 240.13f-1?  Were they elected officials?  Was there any debate as to its form and content?  Have any of these authors ever erred in their duties?  If so, have they been held accountable for those errors?

Take your time.  I'll wait.   

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Ok. So calling calling government workers “unaccountable” and “faceless” is not “loaded language.” But calling a plan to create 13 shell companies with the stated purpose of obfuscating the church’s holdings a “scheme” is loaded language. I’m just trying to understand the pretzel that makes up apologetic arguments. Good to know. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Feel free to correct me.  

Who are the authors of 17 CFR § 240.13f-1?  Were they elected officials?  Was there any debate as to its form and content?  Have any of these authors ever erred in their duties?  If so, have they been held accountable for those errors?

Take your time.  I'll wait.   

Thanks,

-Smac

And to answer your actual question, all government rule making is done in consultation with affected industries, and interested members of the public. All is open to public comment. All records and government action is open to FOIA requests. All government employees are accountable to elected executive branch leaders. 
 

In contrast, can you explain what accountability there is for EPA or the first presidency? How do I go about getting access to the internal audits that highlighted the risks of the shell company scheme? Or how can I get the details about the two church employees that resigned in protest? Is there a process there, or just your blind trust in an organization that is accountable to no one?