Church fined by SEC

[walran63]

Sadly there have been many instances of "untruth's" in statements made by church leaders.

In this case, the presiding bishopric and the First Presidency had to sign off on these over 19 years. 

Many material things were attested to that were in no way true.  In other words, they were false or a lie.

God is a God of truth and we don't lie to protect our leaders from their own choices. That would be immoral and wrong of us.

We might try and figure out why they did what they so as to better understand it.

Here is a copy of the agreed-upon and negotiated between the LDS Church and the Government agreement last week.

In a nutshell, they wanted to hide their money affected (about 40 billion now grown to 105B plus). This isn't surprising since the church has failed to disclose its finances to even the membership since 1959 unlike other churches.

The created 13 shell companies with LLC's 

They falsified where they were actually located claiming they were in 13 different states. They were all managed here in Utah.

They falsified who was managing them claiming that each one was "self-managed". They were all managed by EPA and the church jointly.

The rest you can see for yourself.

The issue for many might be:

1- The recommend question "are you honest in all your dealings?"

2- 12th article of faith "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

 

LDS Church SEC Order 5 million dollar fine..pdf

[walran63]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

Blind and wrong I think. Transparency is good for any large organization. Ours has had a number of issues with this even as far back as BY who's estate the church sued to recover today's equivalent of 34M after his death. The last time they disclosed was 1959 sadly.

There is always and ethical and moral obligation in any church claiming to follow Christ.

And D&C 107 as well as many documented statements by leaders over the years show a need for and indeed demand for accountability to the membership..

The church council thing is complete supposition and conjecture as we don't really know that.

 

[Malc]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

One of the allegations concerned the physical location where the documents were signed:

Quote

23. Each Clone LLC was given an address outside of Utah although none of them conducted any business at those locations other than the receipt of mail. Ensign Peak chose multiple locations across the country for these purported offices to create the impression that the Clone LLCs conducted business operations throughout the U.S., making it more difficult to trace the Clone LLCs back to Ensign Peak or the Church.

24. Each Clone LLC was also assigned a local phone number that would go directly to voicemail. An Ensign Peak senior manager instructed a Business Manager of one of the Clone LLCs to notify him of all voicemails from regulatory agencies to any of the Clone LLCs, but to delete all others.

Someone versed in the regulations may be able to explain in detail why - I cannot, although I believe perhaps it is to determine jurisdiction.

I do know, however, that it's not just SEC documents that require a location. For example, wills, land transfers, etc. (at least in Canada) usually say something like:

Signed by: ____  Date: ____  City & Province: ___ 

 https://ak-law.ca/contract-signing/#:~:text=A party signing the contract,territorial jurisdiction must be established:

Quote

A party signing the contract will put his or her name, date, signature and place where the contract was signed. This is done to make it clear as to where the contract was signed in case a court's territorial jurisdiction must be established.

 

[walran63]

OK, These  filings are to do a couple of things.

1- Protect the public when they are investing in certain entities by letting them know who the major players are and avoid hopefully an unfair playing field (which a 40-100B fund would play a big part) by letting the public and other investors know who the parties are involved and their involvement.  Not doing this to hide it from the market for personal gain would likely be called fraud if it were any other company. You may remember gamestop, AMC, etc. issues a few years ago.  If a major holder were to liquidated all their holding in a particular stock for example it could send panic through wall street.  An entity split if into 13 entities might not be so noticeable if they were acquiring or liquidating.

They are to be filed every quarter so the church on their 13 entities over 19 years missed 988 filings. In addition to having to falsify the information for the bogus LLC's that were not real companies. Think Ivan Boesky and a shell game for example.

2- It is a tool for the average guy like you and me to learn from where certain entities are investing so that we can follow.

3- But most importantly it is required by the law.

You want addresses and phone numbers as that is going to validate where the company is doing business and are they a real legitimate company and to avoid what the LDS church did which was say "were are really not a big company with 40 Billion (now 105 Billion). Don't look at us and we don't have to file any disclosures here, we don't want people to know what we are doing (nevermind how that effects the market and other investors in say "Pfizer". "

There are lots of SEC filings that stock traders and market analysts have to wade through, but few are as important as the SEC 13F Filings, which is filed by hedge funds and other institutional investment managers.

What does the SEC Form 13F contain?

Here is a non-exhaustive summary list of what is contained in the document:

• The issuer name of all securities owned by the fund.
• A description of the class of security listed (e.g., convertible debenture, put/call option, common stock, class A shares).
• The number of shares owned by the fund as of the end of the calendar quarter.
• The fair market value of the securities listed, as of the end of the calendar quarter for which the 13F is filed.

By comparing 13F filings, you can see what stocks different hedge funds have added to their portfolios and what they have unloaded. Either way, the list of stocks you find in these filings can be an excellent way to at least begin thinking about trading ideas.

In addition, combining 13F forms over time gives you a picture of who is buying and selling a given stock. This also reveals important information (e.g., biggest buyers, sellers and liquidations) which make your trading activities more productive and can protect you against maybe picking up a stock that is being liquidated in large amounts by major players etc.

This is a very simplistic explanation.

Long story short, it's wrong to lie on anything that you do. There is no justification for it. It is against God's Law 2 Nephi 9 "34 Wo unto the ^aliar, for he shall be thrust down to ^bhell."

Trying to justify something that is incorrect is itself a sin..

[walran63]

On 2/21/2023 at 10:31 AM, Calm said:

But why is what I want to know.  What benefit was seen as worth the extra effort.

They wanted to hide from members and the world their holdings. That is the sole purpose of this. Maybe it's embarrassing if you spend 924 million on charity when you have more than 100B in a fund that has never been used for any purpose that is charitable for more than 27 years..

 

Full disclosure of finances would have avoided this. The church has been secretive for a long time and hadn't disclosed since 1959 to even its members.

[webbles]

53 minutes ago, Malc said:

One of the allegations concerned the physical location where the documents were signed:

Someone versed in the regulations may be able to explain in detail why - I cannot, although I believe perhaps it is to determine jurisdiction.

I do know, however, that it's not just SEC documents that require a location. For example, wills, land transfers, etc. (at least in Canada) usually say something like:

Signed by: ____  Date: ____  City & Province: ___ 

 https://ak-law.ca/contract-signing/#:~:text=A party signing the contract,territorial jurisdiction must be established:

 

The 13F form does have the city in it.  You can see it on page 11 - https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/form13f.pdf

And in at least one of the 13F forms that was electronically filed to the SEC, it does give the place of signing as Wilmington, DE - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1568887/000156888718000001/xslForm13F_X01/primary_doc.xml

 

[webbles]

12 minutes ago, walran63 said:

They are to be filed every quarter so the church on their 13 entities over 19 years missed 988 filings. In addition to having to falsify the information for the bogus LLC's that were not real companies. Think Ivan Boesky and a shell game for example.

Where are you getting 988 missed fillings?  All of the 13 LLCs filled a 13F form every quarter.  That's how they were discovered.

[california boy]

52 pages and what I have learned is that those that love the Church, want to trust the leaders to always do the right thing either figure out a way to justify what was done, or pass it off as just a traffic ticket or forgive and move on.

Pretty much the rest feel like what the Church leaders did was very serious, a complete breach of trust, immoral, or worse.  For some it has caused them to question if they should ever assume they can trust the leadership again.  For others, it reinforces their already loss of trust in the leaders of the Church from past issues.  

Whatever position people have, I doubt anything could be said to change anyone's mind.  And I doubt that any future bad behavior will change anyone's mind no matter how bad or good.

[Malc]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

The 13F form does have the city in it.  You can see it on page 11 - https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/form13f.pdf

And in at least one of the 13F forms that was electronically filed to the SEC, it does give the place of signing as Wilmington, DE - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1568887/000156888718000001/xslForm13F_X01/primary_doc.xml

 

Yes - I don't think that I said that the 13F doesn't give the city - on the contrary, I'm pretty sure that what I said was that it did, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

If I'm understanding the allegations correctly, the SEC's complaint was that the LLCs were not actually located where the paperwork said that they were, and the business managers who signed and dated them, and declared the location of signature, were not in these locations at the time. The faked locations were part of the smokescreen.

[Malc]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

52 pages and what I have learned is that those that love the Church, want to trust the leaders to always do the right thing either figure out a way to justify what was done, or pass it off as just a traffic ticket or forgive and move on.

Pretty much the rest feel like what the Church leaders did was very serious, a complete breach of trust, immoral, or worse.  For some it has caused them to question if they should ever assume they can trust the leadership again.  For others, it reinforces their already loss of trust in the leaders of the Church from past issues.  

Whatever position people have, I doubt anything could be said to change anyone's mind.  And I doubt that any future bad behavior will change anyone's mind no matter how bad or good.

I think that you are correct. I'm heartened to see that not all of those who consider themselves to be faithful members fall into the first group.

[Malc]

For those who are excusing pretty much everything that has been done by EPA and the leaders of the church, I'd propose a couple of questions to clarify your feelings and beliefs. I'm not asking anyone to answer on this forum - rather to give it some serious thought. I'm trying my best to make the scenario agree with what I can glean from the allegations. Of course, if it's inaccurate in a substantial way, then anyone is welcome to show me why, and explain how to amend it.

Imagine that you were hired as one of the business managers, with responsibility for an LLC. I'm assuming that when you were hired for the job you expected that you had sole investment and voting discretion over the securities that were assigned to the LLC, and that you were qualified to carry out such responsibilities. (I don't think I have seen the qualifications discussed; however, if an unqualified individual was hired for the position, for me, that raises other questions about the legitimacy of the scheme.)

• Each quarter, for a period of years, someone above you in the organization asks you to sign a 13F that states that your LLC made investment decisions and acted independently.
• You knew that that was not true - your marching orders, as far as investments went, came from EPA. Or you never actually made any investments at all - you were there only to fill a spot that legally required due to the existence of the LLC, and all of the "action" took place elsewhere.
• You were given only the signature page, and were not allowed to review the entire document - but you knew at least in outline what it must be asserting.
• You could see that the location shown on the 13F, or that you were asked to write on the form, was not where you currently affirmed that you were, and that the LLC did not conduct any business at that location.
• You knew, then, that your supervisor was asking you to file false documents.
• You had every reason to think that he would continue to do so as long as you were in that position.

What questions would you ask? What would you do? What explanation would satisfy your conscience, and allow you to feel that you were honest in your dealings?

Be sure to read webbles' post for a different angle: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75133-church-fined-by-sec/?do=findComment&comment=1210139650

 

Edited March 5, 2023 by Malc
clarification of detail about the place of business of the LLC

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

52 pages and what I have learned is that those that love the Church, want to trust the leaders to always do the right thing either figure out a way to justify what was done, or pass it off as just a traffic ticket or forgive and move on.

Pretty much the rest feel like what the Church leaders did was very serious, a complete breach of trust, immoral, or worse.  For some it has caused them to question if they should ever assume they can trust the leadership again.  For others, it reinforces their already loss of trust in the leaders of the Church from past issues.  

Whatever position people have, I doubt anything could be said to change anyone's mind.  And I doubt that any future bad behavior will change anyone's mind no matter how bad or good.

I am in between. I agree that it was the equivalent of a traffic ticket. I just think setting the whole thing up is the equivalent of burying treasure.

The Joseph Smith jokes about treasure hunting write themselves. Then the Book of Mormon and Biblical references to burying treasure and even the Dead Sea Scroll referencing where treasure is buried.

Will it become slippery like the treasures in the Book of Mormon? Is it like burying the talent? The rich man who had to tear down his storehouses and build bigger ones and then died? Or one of those treasures that were hidden to the Lord that could be safely hidden?

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am in between. I agree that it was the equivalent of a traffic ticket. I just think setting the whole thing up is the equivalent of burying treasure.

The Joseph Smith jokes about treasure hunting write themselves. Then the Book of Mormon and Biblical references to burying treasure and even the Dead Sea Scroll referencing where treasure is buried.

Will it become slippery like the treasures in the Book of Mormon? Is it like burying the talent? The rich man who had to tear down his storehouses and build bigger ones and then died? Or one of those treasures that were hidden to the Lord that could be safely hidden?

Interesting thoughts.  I wonder if Church leaders thought they were hiding what they were doing from God.  Kinda like Jonah thinking he could hide from God.  I have to confess I am fascinated by what the TBM have to say and their thought process.  I believe they are completely sincere in how they feel about this.  I know how important the Church is in their lives and how important it is to believe.  

[webbles]

53 minutes ago, Malc said:

For those who are excusing pretty much everything that has been done by EPA and the leaders of the church, I'd propose a couple of questions to clarify your feelings and beliefs. I'm not asking anyone to answer on this forum - rather to give it some serious thought. I'm trying my best to make the scenario agree with what I can glean from the allegations. Of course, if it's inaccurate in a substantial way, then anyone is welcome to show me why, and explain how to amend it.

Imagine that you were hired as one of the business managers, with responsibility for an LLC. I'm assuming that when you were hired for the job you expected that you had sole investment and voting discretion over the securities that were assigned to the LLC, and that you were qualified to carry out such responsibilities. (I don't think I have seen the qualifications discussed; however, if an unqualified individual was hired for the position, for me, that raises other questions about the legitimacy of the scheme.)

• Each quarter, for a period of years, someone above you in the organization asks you to sign a 13F that states that your LLC made investment decisions and acted independently.
• You knew that that was not true - your marching orders, as far as investments went, came from EPA. Or you never actually made any investments at all - you were there only to fill a spot that legally required due to the existence of the LLC, and all of the "action" took place elsewhere.
• You were given only the signature page, and were not allowed to review the entire document - but you knew at least in outline what it must be asserting.
• You could see that the location shown on the 13F, or that you were asked to write on the form, was not where you currently affirmed that you were, and that the LLC did not conduct any business at that location.
• You knew, then, that your supervisor was asking you to file false documents.
• You had every reason to think that he would continue to do so as long as you were in that position.

What questions would you ask? What would you do? What explanation would satisfy your conscience, and allow you to feel that you were honest in your dealings?

The business managers were not supposed to have "sole investment and voting discretion".  From the SEC order:

Quote

21. Each Clone LLC was set up with a “Business Manager,” who, according to the
terms of the LLC agreements, had responsibility for “the preparation and filing of the Company’s
governmental reports, returns, notices and the like, including reports required by law of investment
managers or entities exercising investment discretion.” However, the Business Managers
performed no functions for the Clone LLCs outside of signing the Form 13F signature pages each
quarter.

The business managers were just there to sign the government reports.  If you look at the Form 13F, it doesn't say that the person signing the document has the sole investment authority.  That is the "Institutional Investment Manager".  Looking at one of the filled out forms, you'll see that it just states the LLCs name.  Apparently you don't need an actual human to be listed as the investment manager.

Here's a modified scenario:

Imagine you were an employee of the church and a manager asked you to be a "business manager" of an LLC that had been created by the investment arm of the church (EPA).  Your responsibilities as the "business manager" would be to sign and file government forms for the LLC.  You were told that the LLC was to manage investments and so you would be filing forms to the SEC.  You were told that the LLCs place of business is in Delaware/California/etc.

• Each quarter, for a period of years, someone from EPA asks you to sign a 13F that states that your LLC made investment decisions and acted independently.
• You assumed that is true since you aren't part of the investment decisions of the LLC.  The EPA is in control of that and they told you that the LLC made investment decisions and acted independently.
• You were given only the signature page.  (there is no indication that business managers were prevented from seeing the form)
• You could see that the location shown on the 13F, or that you were asked to write on the form, was not where you currently affirmed that you were.  You have no idea if the LLC was conducting business in that location.

With this change, there really isn't a place for the business manager to realize that they were signing false documents.  The signing page on the 13F form says:

Quote

The institutional investment manager filing this report and the person by whom it is signed hereby
represent that the person signing the report is authorized to submit it, that all information
contained herein is true, correct and complete, and that it is understood that all required items,
statements, schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of this form.

If I was the business manager and asked to sign the document, I would ask the EPA manager if it is "true, correct and complete".  The manager would say yes, I would believe them, and sign the document.  I'm not involved in the investment strategy as I'm just there to sign the forms.

Only the location would be problematic to me.

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, webbles said:

The business managers were not supposed to have "sole investment and voting discretion".  From the SEC order:

The business managers were just there to sign the government reports.  If you look at the Form 13F, it doesn't say that the person signing the document has the sole investment authority.  That is the "Institutional Investment Manager".  Looking at one of the filled out forms, you'll see that it just states the LLCs name.  Apparently you don't need an actual human to be listed as the investment manager.

Here's a modified scenario:

Imagine you were an employee of the church and a manager asked you to be a "business manager" of an LLC that had been created by the investment arm of the church (EPA).  Your responsibilities as the "business manager" would be to sign and file government forms for the LLC.  You were told that the LLC was to manage investments and so you would be filing forms to the SEC.  You were told that the LLCs place of business is in Delaware/California/etc.

• Each quarter, for a period of years, someone from EPA asks you to sign a 13F that states that your LLC made investment decisions and acted independently.
• You assumed that is true since you aren't part of the investment decisions of the LLC.  The EPA is in control of that and they told you that the LLC made investment decisions and acted independently.
• You were given only the signature page.  (there is no indication that business managers were prevented from seeing the form)
• You could see that the location shown on the 13F, or that you were asked to write on the form, was not where you currently affirmed that you were.  You have no idea if the LLC was conducting business in that location.

With this change, there really isn't a place for the business manager to realize that they were signing false documents.  The signing page on the 13F form says:

If I was the business manager and asked to sign the document, I would ask the EPA manager if it is "true, correct and complete".  The manager would say yes, I would believe them, and sign the document.  I'm not involved in the investment strategy as I'm just there to sign the forms.

Only the location would be problematic to me.

I get that you want to dismiss as much as possible.  But you do realize this is exactly why the SEC fined the Church 5 million dollars right?  It wasn't just about the location issue.  The manager was signing the 13F form that was NOT "true, correct and complete".  In fact, it was false.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Interesting thoughts.  I wonder if Church leaders thought they were hiding what they were doing from God.  Kinda like Jonah thinking he could hide from God.  I have to confess I am fascinated by what the TBM have to say and their thought process.  I believe they are completely sincere in how they feel about this.  I know how important the Church is in their lives and how important it is to believe.  

I don't see how they could think they were hiding from God.  The total investments were still being managed in one place (EPA) and not all of the investments are 13F securities.

[webbles]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I get that you want to dismiss as much as possible.  But you do realize this is exactly why the SEC fined the Church 5 million dollars right?  It wasn't just about the location issue.  The manager was signing the 13F form that was NOT "true, correct and complete".  In fact, it was false.

I agree that the 13Fs were filled incorrectly.  But the business manager didn't know that.  From the SEC order (middle of #28):

Quote

However, Ensign Peak provided the Business Managers with insufficient information about the
Clone LLCs or the securities assigned to them that would enable the Business Managers to make
this representation.

The business manager probably believed that it was "true, correct and complete" because the EPA manager told them that.  But the EPA never gave the business managers enough information for them to make that decision with their own knowledge.  Maybe the business manager should have looked into it for themselves but it appears that when they were signed up to be the business manager, they never expected to need to do that.  Malc's scenario was giving too much authority and knowledge to the business manager when they never had that nor did they expect to have that.

 

By the way, I'm not dismissing what happened.  I believe the church and EPA were definitely in the wrong and I do not care for the statements that they've made after the fine was announced.  They gloss over quite a bit.

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, Malc said:

What questions would you ask? What would you do? What explanation would satisfy your conscience, and allow you to feel that you were honest in your dealings?

🤣🤣

Psychological priming doesn't work on educated people.

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Interesting thoughts.  I wonder if Church leaders thought they were hiding what they were doing from God.  Kinda like Jonah thinking he could hide from God.  I have to confess I am fascinated by what the TBM have to say and their thought process.  I believe they are completely sincere in how they feel about this.  I know how important the Church is in their lives and how important it is to believe.  

Every person I've seen use the word "TBM" has been a moral bunghole (not saying you are. Past isn't always indicative of future).

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Every person I've seen use the word "TBM" has been a moral bunghole (not saying you are. Past isn't always indicative of future).

Do you have a better term that you prefer to describe those members that will defend the Church no matter what it does?

Edited March 5, 2023 by california boy

[Malc]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

The business managers were not supposed to have "sole investment and voting discretion".  From the SEC order:

The business managers were just there to sign the government reports.  If you look at the Form 13F, it doesn't say that the person signing the document has the sole investment authority.  That is the "Institutional Investment Manager".  Looking at one of the filled out forms, you'll see that it just states the LLCs name.  Apparently you don't need an actual human to be listed as the investment manager.

Here's a modified scenario:

Imagine you were an employee of the church and a manager asked you to be a "business manager" of an LLC that had been created by the investment arm of the church (EPA).  Your responsibilities as the "business manager" would be to sign and file government forms for the LLC.  You were told that the LLC was to manage investments and so you would be filing forms to the SEC.  You were told that the LLCs place of business is in Delaware/California/etc.

• Each quarter, for a period of years, someone from EPA asks you to sign a 13F that states that your LLC made investment decisions and acted independently.
• You assumed that is true since you aren't part of the investment decisions of the LLC.  The EPA is in control of that and they told you that the LLC made investment decisions and acted independently.
• You were given only the signature page.  (there is no indication that business managers were prevented from seeing the form)
• You could see that the location shown on the 13F, or that you were asked to write on the form, was not where you currently affirmed that you were.  You have no idea if the LLC was conducting business in that location.

With this change, there really isn't a place for the business manager to realize that they were signing false documents.  The signing page on the 13F form says:

If I was the business manager and asked to sign the document, I would ask the EPA manager if it is "true, correct and complete".  The manager would say yes, I would believe them, and sign the document.  I'm not involved in the investment strategy as I'm just there to sign the forms.

Only the location would be problematic to me.

Fair enough - thanks - others may be more (or less) trusting.

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Do you have a better term that you prefer to describe those members that will defend the Church no matter what it does?

No, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that word. Just that people who use it have all been bungholes.

 

[CV75]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

Clarify your meaning please

I mean that there are many ways in which people sharing the same testimony and covenants adopt, apply and express the principles of moral behavior to abide by their testimony and attain the aims of the covenants. For example, not everyone keeps the sabbath the same way. Not everyone practices honesty in the same way. But they all have temple recommends and strive for worthy Church membership. When people such as these work together in councils, where they accept each other's differences in good faith, they can come develop a consensus for a particular course of action, individually and collectively. Personally, I don't see fiscal transparency as a moral or ethical obligation, but a matter of policy and administration. If I were to participate in a Church council on bringing fiscal transparency into Church administration, my view would be part of the mix.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, walran63 said:

Blind and wrong I think. Transparency is good for any large organization. Ours has had a number of issues with this even as far back as BY who's estate the church sued to recover today's equivalent of 34M after his death. The last time they disclosed was 1959 sadly.

There is always and ethical and moral obligation in any church claiming to follow Christ.

And D&C 107 as well as many documented statements by leaders over the years show a need for and indeed demand for accountability to the membership..

The church council thing is complete supposition and conjecture as we don't really know that.

 

Perhaps you misunderstand my post. Fiscal transparency is a good thing for governments, but the ecclesiastical parallel is a matter of administrative policy, not morality or the ethics they inform. The example cited in your post is more complex than a lack of transparency. Both policy development and moral accountability (two different things) are very well supported through councils. I use the term "council" broadly, to refer to prayerful decision-making conversations ranging from one-on-one (e.g., membership councils) to the highest quorum(s) in our Church. Since the revealed council process is well-documented in scripture and the Handbook, I conclude that councils are the most successful route for running the Church and is at least a well-justified if you want to characterize my view as supposition or conjecture. I'm not sure of other ways that have been tried and found, and touted, to be more successful.

Edited March 5, 2023 by CV75

[CV75]

Something that might be applicable to this discussion:

MormonDocument LDS Church Internal Leaks 2016 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

These access levels comport with the D&C 107 and 120, which show that it falls to the First Presidency and Presiding Bishopric to steward that which is left over from the more day-to-day operational decisions of the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes, of which the Quorum of the Twelve is a part. This is an ingenious check and balance system and leverages the callings in areas where they are best suited.

Tie everything back to these sections and you have a system where the First Presidency, Twelve and Presiding Bishopric have a nicely balanced scope of responsibility, which turns out to be reflected in the information they access for their decisions as listed in File 25.