Church fined by SEC

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Poe's Law in action?

Dunno. If so, then it fooled me.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Dunno. If so, then it fooled me.

Honestly, I can't tell, either. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/8/2023 at 1:02 PM, CV75 said:

I agree. In everyday conduct, a level-headed person isn't going to use their recommend to convince others of their secular/political/ethical/moral/ideological argument on this issue, and a level-headed person isn't going to be fooled by that. A recommend holder using it to sway the uninitiated, in my opinion, is possible but rare and also comes across as lacking credibility.  I haven't seen posts that show this, only the point that recommend holders understand question 9 differently in good faith.

Nevertheless, some use a recommend or their ancestry as credentials to make themselves seem credible.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

No.  I asked a simple question that requires no speculation and you dodged it.

Because I can see things in two ways is not a dodge, rather an invitation to discuss any aspect you want. If you want me to answer just "yes" or "no" only, just pick one and we can discuss accordingly.

[Snodgrassian]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Asked and answered several times. Not relevant to my comments. Please don’t ask again.

For example, 

 

LOL, roger Bernard Gui. Though you are the one who brought up over regulation in this thread, and you never tied it back to the issue at hand, you made a blanket statement. 

I am glad you found a new place to live, I too spent some formative years in Washington State, it is not for everyone. 

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

Now that everyone seems to be in agreement that the Church and Ensign Peaks weren't at fault and the entire blame should be placed on their lousy legal counsel, is anyone else unhappy with the amount of the fine?  It seems excessive.  I've seen statements from the current SEC chairman claiming they are going to crackdown on violations, but trying to use a church as an example seems a poor decision.  It could also have a chilling effect on the other similar sized churches that also have $100 billion collected in tithing from its members.  What couldn't they have just issued a warning and dropped the case when they saw the church complied?  It just seems very heavy handed action against a church that is very deserving of its status as a persecuted minority group in the US.  Hatred towards the church is still very present as evidenced by the comments section of practically every news story that comes out.  It was disappointing to see the church leadership comply with this unfair ruling without any type of protest.  Hopefully the church will get it all back when the US finally comes through with reparations for all the egregious injustices this country has inflicted on church members.

LOL, well done.

Unless you are serious in which case please seek help.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I absolutely would. They had an increasing trust of faith built on solid experience that is implicit in their decisions to follow “blindly.” We all have had similar, if not as dramatic, experiences.

Yeah, I experienced something that felt like a spiritual prompting last night that was telling me to do something very unexpected. Like……..no bishop in his right mind would counsel me to do that. It doesn’t fit the profile of me not wanting to do it though.

It also isn’t a “fine but I warned you” losing the Book of Mormon transcript since I never asked if it was okay.

[jkwilliams]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, I experienced something that felt like a spiritual prompting last night that was telling me to do something very unexpected. Like……..no bishop in his right mind would counsel me to do that. It doesn’t fit the profile of me not wanting to do it though.

It also isn’t a “fine but I warned you” losing the Book of Mormon transcript since I never asked if it was okay.

Better to ask forgiveness than ask permission. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Better to ask forgiveness than ask permission. 

That is terrible advice but I might take it anyways.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think you missed the point here that he WAS following the spirit which WAS his conscience/ still small voice. Same with Abraham, but opposite situation/outcome.

"18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword."

No, I get the point. Critics today look askance at Nephi, Abraham, and others because they supposedly were “blind obeyers” even to seemingly difficult commands. They make no allowance for the Spirit. And if one does, even fellow Saints will take one to task.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, I experienced something that felt like a spiritual prompting last night that was telling me to do something very unexpected. Like……..no bishop in his right mind would counsel me to do that. It doesn’t fit the profile of me not wanting to do it though.

It also isn’t a “fine but I warned you” losing the Book of Mormon transcript since I never asked if it was okay.

Well, that’s an interesting non-response. You have probably had legitimate “blind” faith experiences. So have I, but sharing them here here seems somewhat inappropriate.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I absolutely would. They had an increasing trust of faith built on solid experience that is implicit in their decisions to follow “blindly.” We all have had similar, if not as dramatic, experiences.

I don't know how you are defining "blind", but I wouldn't describe these instances as "blind faith".   Ultimately, and despite initial reservations, their conscience caused them to obey the direct (therefore, non-blind) communion and instruction of God/Spirit. 

Latter-day Saints don't believe in blind faith/obedience:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/ata-do-lds-believe-in-blind-obedience

[jkwilliams]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is terrible advice but I might take it anyways.

I excel at terrible advice. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

LOL, roger Bernard Gui. Though you are the one who brought up over regulation in this thread, and you never tied it back to the issue at hand, you made a blanket statement. 

I am glad you found a new place to live, I too spent some formative years in Washington State, it is not for everyone. 

 

Of course I brought it up. That’s why I’m here. And as you correctly noted, It was a blanket statement, but obviously not intended to absolve anyone of blame. It only peripherally relates to the issue at hand. I have even said that I will wait for more information before I will come to any conclusions about the event. 

So the gratuitous LOL was unnecessary, thank you very much. My observation was that with the tens of thousands of laws and regulations we have at all levels of government, no one can go a week or maybe even a day without violating one or another and not even know it, which makes us all criminals. Perhaps you disagree?

Edited March 9, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know how you are defining "blind", but I wouldn't describe these instances as "blind faith".   Ultimately, and despite initial reservations, their conscience caused them to obey the direct (therefore, non-blind) communion and instruction of God/Spirit. 

Latter-day Saints don't believe in blind faith/obedience:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/ata-do-lds-believe-in-blind-obedience

Defining “blind faith” as the misrepresentation made by critics and even some members here and elsewhere that “TBMs” blindly and without thought or reason follow the prophets or support the Church.

As others have said elsewhere, LDS follow “faith obedience” which aptly describes my two scriptural examples and the way I have experienced walking into the unknown, not blindly, but with faith in God’s word either in scripture, by personal revelation, or from the prophets. Some might say Nephi and Abraham were exercising blind faith. They were not. I think I made that clear already.
 

Quote

One of the sneaky ploys of the adversary is to have us believe that unquestioning obedience to the principles and commandments of God is blind obedience. His goal is to have us believe that we should be following our own worldly ways and selfish ambitions. This he does by persuading us that “blindly” following the prophets and obeying the commandments is not thinking for ourselves. He teaches that it is not intelligent to do something just because we are told to do so by a living prophet or by prophets who speak to us from the scriptures.
Our unquestioning obedience to the Lord’s commandments is not blind obedience. President Boyd K. Packer in the April conference of 1983 taught us about this: “Latter-day Saints are not obedient because they are compelled to be obedient. They are obedient because they know certain spiritual truths and have decided, as an expression of their own individual agency, to obey the commandments of God. … We are not obedient because we are blind, we are obedient because we can see” (“Agency and Control,” Ensign, May 1983, 66).
We might call this “faith obedience.” With faith, Abraham was obedient in preparing Isaac for sacrifice; with faith, Nephi was obedient in obtaining the brass plates; with faith, a little child obediently jumps from a height into the strong arms of his father. “Faith obedience” is a matter of trust. The question is simple: Do we trust our Heavenly Father? Do we trust our prophets? 

Elder Conrad Schultz, April 2002 General Conference.

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

duplicate

Edited March 9, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My observation was that with the tens of thousands of laws and regulations we have at all levels of government, no one can go a week or maybe even a day without violating one or another and not even know it which makes us all criminals. Perhaps you disagree?

There seems to be an ongoing theme of those defending the EPA.  There is a heavy emphasis on law.  There is a tendency to justify the violations by comparing it to comparatively minor infractions, suggesting that "we all break the law, perhaps every day".   For far too many, there is no acknowledgment of the ethical violations, deceptions, mistreatment of employees, and lies which has caused untold damaged for many members of the church.  The risks to trust and hurt faith were enormous.     The recourse is sometimes to denigrate those members who find it troubling beyond minor traffic violations, which only furthers the damage to the holistic church (which includes all of us). 

It comes off as excusing a violation of the 9th temple recommend question on honesty.   Note, that question does not ask about the law.  It asks about honesty.   The severity of the violation of honesty in this case is measured by the damage it has caused.  This is no minor traffic infarction.  

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by pogi

[The Nehor]

53 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, that’s an interesting non-response. You have probably had legitimate faith “blind” experiences. I would like to give personal examples, but somehow that seems inappropriate here.

No worries. I have done things on pretty blind faith before when I was convinced I was guided or even commanded to do something. Some went well. Some did not. One ended up helping others but went very badly for me. The results of that last one made me the angriest I think I have ever been with God.

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

There seems to be an ongoing theme of those defending the EPA.  There is a heavy emphasis on law.  There is a tendency to justify the violations by comparing it to comparatively minor infractions, suggesting that "we all break the law, perhaps every day".   For far too many, there is no acknowledgment of the ethical violations, deceptions, mistreatment of employees, and lies which has caused untold damaged for many members of the church.  The risks to trust and hurt faith were enormous.     The recourse is typically to denigrate those members who find it troubling beyond minor traffic violations, which only furthers the damage to the holistic church (which includes all of us). 

It comes off as excusing a violation of the 9th temple recommend question on honesty.   Note, that question does not ask about the law.  It asks about honesty.   The severity of the violation of honesty in this case is measured by the damage it has caused.  This is no minor traffic infarction.  

 

Are you speaking to me? If so, you have not read what I have been saying. 

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No worries. I have done things on pretty blind faith before when I was convinced I was guided or even commanded to do something. Some went well. Some did not. One ended up helping others but went very badly for me. The results of that last one made me the angriest I think I have ever been with God.

Learning the differences may be part of the reason we are here.

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Defining “blind faith” as the misrepresentation made by critics and even some members here and elsewhere that “TBMs” blindly and without thought or reason follow the prophets or support the Church.

As others have said elsewhere, LDS follow “faith obedience” which aptly describes my two scriptural examples and the way I have experienced walking into the unknown, not blindly, but with faith in God’s word either in scripture, by personal revelation, or from the prophets. Some might say Nephi and Abraham were exercising blind faith. They were not. I think I made that clear already.
 

 

Ok.  It was the context of your response to mfbukowski's post that threw me off.  It came off as a rebuttal to his claim that we should never obey blindly and contrary to our conscience. 

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are you speaking to me? If so, you have not read what I have been saying. 

If what you said below was not an attempt to downplay the legal violation and ignore the ethical violation by turning the blame on the government and making it a problem of over-regulation instead, than I apologize for misunderstanding. 

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

My observation was that with the tens of thousands of laws and regulations we have at all levels of government, no one can go a week or maybe even a day without violating one or another and not even know it, which makes us all criminals. Perhaps you disagree?

 

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok.  It was the context of your response to mfbukowski's post that threw me off.  It came off as a rebuttal to his claim that we should never obey blindly and contrary to our conscience. 

Yeah, that's the way I took it, but it seemed odd to interpret Bernard that way.

[Analytics]

An element of the settlement that @smac97 and I see differently is what to make out of the fact that the Church neither admitted to nor denied the SEC's allegations. From my perspective, not denying the allegations is akin to conceding they are true. From Smac's perspective, not admitting to them means we ought to presume the Church's innocence. He has said something to the effect that just because somebody settles a lawsuit doesn't mean they are really guilty of the allegations.

I happened to come across a small class action lawsuit that has recently been settled for about $10 million. To juxtapose the "without admitting or denying the findings herein" language in the Church's settlement with the SEC, this Settlement Agreement contains the following denial: 

 

Quote

Defendants deny all of the claims and allegations made in the Action and deny that they ever engaged in any wrongful conduct. If the Action were to continue, the Defendants would raise numerous defenses to liability, including:

• Defendants did not engage in any of the allegedly improper conduct charged in the Complaint;

• The Plans expressly exclude coverage for the types of Residential Programs at issue here, i.e., boarding schools,recreational, adventure, wilderness, and ranch programs;

• Class certification is likely to be denied because individualized inquiries are necessary to evaluate whether BCBSMA properly denied benefits or requests for reimbursement given, among other things, variations between the many different programs at issue, as well as variations between Plans and BCBSMA’s procedures during the Class Period;

• BCBSMA’s procedures comply with the law and Plaintiffs cannot show prejudice (i.e., that disclosure of the factors that BCBSMA takes into consideration in assessing coverage would have changed the outcome).

•  

https://brentssettlement.com/Portals/0/Document Files/Full Settlement Notice.pdf?ver=QQvPjBvGWA8J6FyBJCHZ4Q%3d%3d

I think it's worth keeping in mind that it is possible to deny allegations and still settle.

•  

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

An element of the settlement that @smac97 and I see differently is what to make out of the fact that the Church neither admitted to nor denied the SEC's allegations. From my perspective, not denying the allegations is akin to conceding they are true.

You can only reach that conclusion by ignoring, or doing violence to, the plain text of the SEC Order, which states that the Church neither admitted nor denied the SEC's allegations.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

From Smac's perspective, not admitting to them means we ought to presume the Church's innocence.

Yes.  Unproven, untested allegations ought not be sufficient to indict an individual or an organization.

I have addressed this several times.  If

A) John Doe were to file a lawsuit against Robert Lewis alleging that Lewis had engaged in sexual misconduct, and

B) if Doe and Lewis later settled the matter with an express provision of no admission of wrongdoing by Lewis, and 

C) if you were Lewis,

You would not be saying what you are saying above.  You would not say "I, Robert Lewis, despite having expressly not admitted to any wrongdoing, nevertheless concede that the allegations are true.  So nobody ought to presume my innocence.  John's allegations against me are evidence unto themselves.  No need for evidence.  No need for an admission.  By settling the matter, I am presumptively guilty."

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

He has said something to the effect that just because somebody settles a lawsuit doesn't mean they are really guilty of the allegations.

No.  No.  The Church didn't "just" settle the suit.  It settled it upon the express provision that it neither admitted nor denied the allegations.  And the SEC predicated its findings on that no-admit-no-deny stance.  And the SEC could have required, as a condition of settlement, an admission of wrongdoing, and yet it did not do so.

Broadly speaking, a settlement leaves the allegations untested and unproven.  

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

I happened to come across a small class action lawsuit that has recently been settled for about $10 million. To juxtapose the "without admitting or denying the findings herein" language in the Church's settlement with the SEC, this Settlement Agreement contains the following denial: 

 

https://brentssettlement.com/Portals/0/Document Files/Full Settlement Notice.pdf?ver=QQvPjBvGWA8J6FyBJCHZ4Q%3d%3d

I think it's worth keeping in mind that it is possible to deny allegations and still settle.

Well, yes.  That happens all the time.  Most of the time, in fact.

This does not support your suggestion that settling a dispute without expressly denying the allegations amounts to "conceding" that the allegations "are true."  That's an unwarranted leap, in both logic and the law.  

Thanks,

-Smac