Church fined by SEC

[Stormin' Mormon]

24 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Perhaps you would find his comment more accurate and palatable were it to be adjusted to say "in order to hide the common ownership of assets..."

Or something similar. I was trying to point out the irony of claiming to not be jumping to the worst possible interpreation immediately after jumping to the worst possible interpretation. 

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I think this is the crux of this discussion. We seem to agree that 100% transparency is not desirable, so now we simply quibble over the proper place to draw the line. 

The Church is getting dinged for drawing the line in a spot that critics (and the SEC) said was inappropriate. But the fact that they drew a line AT ALL shouldn't be shocking or scandalous. 

 

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t think that’s what Tim said. What he did say was that total transparency does not guarantee a lack of fraud or abuse. 

What John said.

[Stormin' Mormon]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t think that’s what Tim said. What he did say was that total transparency does not guarantee a lack of fraud or abuse. 

Ah yes, I see how I misread that. My apologies.

I would posit on my own then that the optimal level of transparency for fraud prevention is somewhere less than 100%. For example, being transparent about account user names, passwords, or security questions would be foolish in the extreme. That optimal level may very well be 99.9% transparency, and there's valuable discussion to be had on where that optimal level is. But I (personally) don't think it's 100%.

Edited March 3, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Ah yes, I see how I misread that. My apologies.

I would posit on my own then that the optimal level of transparency for fraud prevention is somewhere less than 100%. For example, being transparent about account user names, passwords, or security questions would be foolish in the extreme. That optimal level may very well be 99.9% transparency, and there's valuable discussion to be had on where that optimal level is. But I (personally) don't think it's 100%.

You are correct. 

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Or the clergy sexual abuse.

No. That heinous and evil abuse does not have an equivalent in the LDS church. 

Edited March 3, 2023 by MiserereNobis

[Stormin' Mormon]

Or a less extreme example: 

Even states with robust open meeting laws allow governing bodies to meet in executive session away from the public eye on defined, specific issues. 

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Or a less extreme example: 

Even states with robust open meeting laws allow governing bodies to meet in executive session away from the public eye on defined, specific issues. 

 

29 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Ah yes, I see how I misread that. My apologies.

I would posit on my own then that the optimal level of transparency for fraud prevention is somewhere less than 100%. For example, being transparent about account user names, passwords, or security questions would be foolish in the extreme. That optimal level may very well be 99.9% transparency, and there's valuable discussion to be had on where that optimal level is. But I (personally) don't think it's 100%.

I think you are greatly exaggerating what people mean when asking for more transparency on financial matters.

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

The difference is that when the market crashes and the financial system implodes - you will still have your invaluable art and architecture, but our digital currency will evaporate into thin air with nothing to back it. 

 

Here's where the church keeps most of its money. 😉

[Stormin' Mormon]

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

I think you are greatly exaggerating what people mean when asking for more transparency on financial matters.

I sympathisize with people who want more financial transparency from the Church. But that discussion must go beyond simply pointing to the principle of transparency and saying that it's good. The value of transparency lies on a continuum, a spectrum, it's not all or nothing but rather a line drawing exercise. And once we recognize it as such, we (hopefully) come to realize that we actually agree on a lot of things; we just disagree on where that line should be drawn.

I am reminded of the old joke, often misattributed to Churchill or Wilde:

Quote

 

--Ma'am, would you sleep with me for a million dollars? You would? How about for $100?

--Absolutely not! What kind of woman do you think I am?

--We've established that. Now we're just haggling over price

 

If we all agree that 100% transparency is a ridiculous ask, that some amount of obfuscation is necessary and desirable, well then, now we're just haggling over price.

Edited March 3, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Or something similar. I was trying to point out the irony of claiming to not be jumping to the worst possible interpreation immediately after jumping to the worst possible interpretation. 

If you think that is the worst possible interpretation you lack imagination or aren’t trying very hard.

[Thinking]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's also clear that the annual audit that the Brethren claim to "pass" each year is worthless.

It's not even necessary. The tithing slip now reads, "All donations to the Church are free-will offerings and become the Church’s property. In furtherance of its overall mission, the Church may shift donations from any designated use to other uses, at its sole discretion."

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

It's not even necessary. The tithing slip now reads, "All donations to the Church are free-will offerings and become the Church’s property. In furtherance of its overall mission, the Church may shift donations from any designated use to other uses, at its sole discretion."

Even though I do not attend or participate I used to still give to fast offering and the humanitarian aid category.  I think both are worthy efforts.  But with this new language I decided eventually to stop giving to the church entirely.  

[rockpond]

On 3/2/2023 at 5:54 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

Hide assets from who? Which assets weren't reported on any 13f? Which assets did the SEC claim should have been reported but weren't?

Edited to add: I won't argue that the Church didn't obscure the assets from the public, but that's a far cry from hiding assets from the SEC.

I didn't say "hide assets from the SEC".  They were hiding assets from the street and the media.  Church leadership's words, not mine.

The First Presidency broke the law by creating shell LLC's that did not actually manage the assets attributed to them.  Church employees were either coerced or voluntarily perjured themselves by signing the 13F forms.

[rockpond]

On 3/2/2023 at 6:17 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

I think this is the crux of this discussion. We seem to agree that 100% transparency is not desirable, so now we simply quibble over the proper place to draw the line. 

The Church is getting dinged for drawing the line in a spot that critics (and the SEC) said was inappropriate. But the fact that they drew a line AT ALL shouldn't be shocking or scandalous. 

The line that the First Presidency drew wasn't just "inappropriate" it was a violation of federal law.

And, when the First Presidency chooses to draw a line that violates the law, it is scandalous.

A good place to begin the transparency would be for President Nelson to stand in front of the members next month and explain

• The value of the Church's investment holdings.
• The purpose of those holdings and how they fit within the mission of the Church
• Why he, his presidency, and the presiding bishopric chose to hide these assets at great cost to the Church.

Edited March 4, 2023 by rockpond

[Hamilton Porter]

On 3/2/2023 at 5:34 PM, Teancum said:

Most who know anything about it view it as a wierd cultic type religion based out of Utah. 

This is true for a lot of the population. I'm online acquaintance with an Irish guy who thought Mormonism was a cult. Then Romney ran for president, and eventually he realized he was a lot more normal than the candidate after him.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Hamilton Porter]

On 3/3/2023 at 1:19 PM, Thinking said:

It's not even necessary. The tithing slip now reads, "All donations to the Church are free-will offerings and become the Church’s property. In furtherance of its overall mission, the Church may shift donations from any designated use to other uses, at its sole discretion

I was told that's just legal cover in case something happens. But then that raises another question: Why does the church have so many lawyers and is so obsessed with legal liability it's off the rails.

I understand the church faces so many lawsuits from ambulance chasers it has to be that way. Thus far, 100% of the those lawsuits turned out to be from nutjobs (e.g. that McKenzie woman).

[Hamilton Porter]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And, when the First Presidency chooses to draw a line that violates the law, it is scandalous.

Nah. Filing violations aren't scandals. Gotta get a hold of yourself.

That's comparable to when I got a letter from the IRS asking telling me I didn't report capital gains when I moved money out of my mutual fund into something else.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

The line that the First Presidency drew wasn't just "inappropriate" it was a violation of federal law.

And, when the First Presidency chooses to draw a line that violates the law, it is scandalous.

A good place to begin the transparency would be for President Nelson to stand in front of the members next month and explain

• The value of the Church's investment holdings.
• The purpose of those holdings and how they fit within the mission of the Church
• Why he, his presidency, and the presiding bishopric chose to hide these assets at great cost to the Church.

My first thought is that fiscal transparency is a principle of good government, not a religious, or even an ethical or moral, obligation. So the best place to begin, if it is thst important, would be government requirements. 2nd, this is a matter between the Church and the US government, not the Church and her members -- if members want fiscal transparency, they would more appropriately work through government processes -- right tool for the job. 3rd, there is value in celebrating, or at least in recognizing, the value of ethical diversity in ecclesiastical settings. 4th, Church councils are the most successful route / method for running the Church.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

the value of ethical diversity

Clarify your meaning please

[Stormin' Mormon]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

The First Presidency broke the law by creating shell LLC's that did not actually manage the assets attributed to them.  Church employees were either coerced or voluntarily perjured themselves by signing the 13F forms.

They did manage the assets assigned to them. They had "investment authority" (as defined by the law in question) but not "sole investment authority" (as defined by the SEC regulation in question). 

This was bad legal advice, not perjury. This was failing to adhere to federal regulations, not breaking the law. 

And that's still bad optics and not a great look for the church. I'm not really trying to deny that.

But perjury? Coercion? Violation of federal law? That really is jumping to the worst possible interpretation.

[Tacenda]

52 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

They did manage the assets assigned to them. They had "investment authority" (as defined by the law in question) but not "sole investment authority" (as defined by the SEC regulation in question). 

This was bad legal advice, not perjury. This was failing to adhere to federal regulations, not breaking the law. 

And that's still bad optics and not a great look for the church. I'm not really trying to deny that.

But perjury? Coercion? Violation of federal law? That really is jumping to the worst possible interpretation.

I listened to this Radiowest podcast where they mention that the church filed 4 times or quarterly for 22 years and how that isn't quite a "mistake" as was mentioned in the church's statement that said they regretted the mistake, but more an intent. And really, what kind of an apology was that, or maybe it wasn't mean't as one. Which stands to reason since I'm pretty sure the church doesn't apologize.

https://radiowest.kuer.org/show/radiowest/2023-03-02/a-nine-page-report-on-hiding-lds-church-investments

[webbles]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

A good place to begin the transparency would be for President Nelson to stand in front of the members next month and explain

• The value of the Church's investment holdings.
• The purpose of those holdings and how they fit within the mission of the Church
• Why he, his presidency, and the presiding bishopric chose to hide these assets at great cost to the Church.

I'd love for President Nelson to talk about those first two.  But I don't think he would be the best person for the last item because I don't think he was actually involved in the hiding.  The 13 LLCs were discovered in 2018, shortly after he became president, and the church started submitting a single rolled up 13F for the last quarter of 2018.  From one of the stories in the EPA whistleblower's docs, I find it likely that members of the Quorum of the Twelve were not informed about the EPA and what it was doing.

But the Presiding Bishopric is a different story.  Elder Gary E Stevenson was the Presiding Bishop from 2012-2015 and President Gerald Causse was 1st Councilor during that time and then replaced Elder Stevenson.  Both of them would have been in some of the discussions on creating the later LLCs.  I think one of them would be a good candidate to explain why the church chose to hide the assets.

[Malc]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

They did manage the assets assigned to them. They had "investment authority" (as defined by the law in question) but not "sole investment authority" (as defined by the SEC regulation in question). 

This was bad legal advice, not perjury. This was failing to adhere to federal regulations, not breaking the law. 

And that's still bad optics and not a great look for the church. I'm not really trying to deny that.

But perjury? Coercion? Violation of federal law? That really is jumping to the worst possible interpretation.

Even if SEC regulations do not have the effect of law in the US - I don't know, IANAL - I do not see how what EPA did, with the knowledge of senior church leaders, can be shrugged of as "failing to adhere to federal regulations, not breaking the law."

I believe that, for anyone who following the case in any detail and who believes in being honest as we are taught at church, an attempt to shrug off the dishonesty involved causes further damage to the church. I say this because it may give the appearance that the church is to be defended at all costs, even that of excusing systematic dishonesty over a period of more than two decades. This was not a simple one-time mistake, and not just the result of bad legal advice.

What about all of the people involved - real people with real-world lives?

The scheme depended on the "business managers" knowingly lying every quarter on the documents they were signing - lying amongst other things, about the investment discretion they had, and about where they were signing the documents.

The people who presented them with the documents to be signed knew beforehand that they were fraudulent.

The people who implemented the scheme knew that the ongoing dishonesty was required.

And so did the people who designed the scheme.

And, if we are to believe the SEC Order, it appears that the First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric, none of whom, I believe, are completely naïve about business, were aware that this was going on, right from the beginning in 2001.

So I'd say that there's a lot more than bad optics here.

YMMV

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

They did manage the assets assigned to them.

In what sense do you see them as managing the assets?

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Malc said:

about where they were signing the documents.

Can you explain this?  Are there documents that are required to be signed at the business location?  If not, why would where the person was when they signed them matter?