Church fined by SEC

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Elder Ballard in a fireside:

”But it’s this idea that the church is hiding something, that we would have to say as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the quorum of the twelve from the beginning of time. There has been no attempt on the part, in any way, of the church leaders trying to hide anything from anybody.”

I’d have to read that quote in context. Because obviously the church has hidden stuff. There are a ton of things that most members will never know about the inner workings of the church, that the church goes out of its way not to publish.

It’s been known for years that the church keeps its investments and financials hidden from members. We’ve discussed it on here multiple times over the two decades that I’ve been here anyway.

It’s common knowledge that some stuff is carefully guarded and kept from the knowledge of most members. And it would’ve been common knowledge to most people who heard elder Ballard say that when he said it.

Given that, I have to think “what was the context of the statement, where the listeners would be aware of the many things that church leadership doesn’t tell us, and yet still consider elder Ballard’s statement to be truthful?”

Because there are are contexts where I would agree that that statement is not honest, but I need more information.

Do you have a link for the talk? I’ve tried looking it up and all I can find is that quote on critical and anti-sites with no explanation of where it came from.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

To be clear, they neither admitted guilt, nor denied it. I included a link to why this happens elsewhere in this thread.

OK, so the church agreed to an order which states it violated securities laws, while also claiming it does not agree that it is guilty of violating securities laws.

Is that a more accurate way of putting it?

Because it still seems contradictory to me, and one reason why these kinds of topics are such a mess to discuss.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Likewise.  You cannot seem to hold your church accountable to the same standards it expects of you. It is pretty clear your church went to great length to keep their massive investment fund secret.  Secret from the public and secret from its members.  The fine should have been much more than $5 million.

Yep! I don’t have a problem with them wanting to keep it secret. I do have a problem with them doing it in a way that is illegal.

And I think we’re all glad that nobody has put you in charge of fines. 😁

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 

• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng

   

No such dishonesty is mentioned in the order: 34-96951.pdf (sec.gov)

From your link, which only confirms the point of mine: "Lying is intentionally deceiving others."

There is no stealing or cheating in it, either.

Keep on cherry-pickin'! 

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

When I get 503(c)3 status and start soliciting donations for membership in my personal circle, I'll start publishing my finances. In the meantime, comparing a private citizen to a multi-billion dollar charitable organization that lives off the donations of its members is comparing apples and oranges and is a bad faith argument.

One of the many dumb arguments' from @smac97

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

This has nothing to do with tax law. None of this was done to shelter assets from taxation. Everything that is in this matter is about violations of securities law. Those are very different things.

I know, but many have opined that this kind of investment activity should be taxable.

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

So my question is was it like going 5 miles over the speed limit or more like going 50 miles over it in a school zone as school lets out?

I think in terms of its effect on the general public, it is probably closer to the first.  Not any significant harm and low risk for the markets - no insider trading and other unethical decisions based on greed.   But in terms of its effect on me, a trusting member of the church, this is closer to the second.  
 

It seems to be a repeated pattern of the church to hide things from its membership that they think we can’t handle.  One would think that they would have learned their lesson from not being forthcoming and transparent with their history and how that backfired - but apparently they still have more to learn.  The extent that they have gone to keep this from the public was really troubling to me.  To see it all outlined in point after point after point, was a bit much for me.  
 

I truly am tired of the mistrust they have towards members and the superficial obedience that they are engendering through painting a misleading narratives that they think are required for us to obey.   I am tired of the parent-child relationship.  I want to be treated like an adult.

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

“We are not a wealthy people but we are good people, and we share what we have” - Elder Neil Anderson. 

“I answered that the church is not wealthy” -President Monson.

Also your church: doing everything conceivable to hide its wealth from its members and the public. 
 

I see the attempt, and understand your feelings, but I don't see the material relevance to the "order."

[mrmarklin]

Instead of speculating, read this article.  The Church was never "charged" with anything, and at all times believed, through advice of counsel, that it was complying with the law.

As one who deals with government agencies all the time, and also has experience with the filing that is mentioned in the article, I can categorically state that had the Church done anything seriously "wrong" the matter would not have been dropped so easily.  The issue revolved around a reasonable interpretation of the law that could certainly be argued.  In fact, in a technical sense, no required information was ever withheld from the public.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-its-investment-adviser-settle-sec-probe-792ffc71?st=537fkq5lgwgadvv&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

[SteveO]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

So my question is was it like going 5 miles over the speed limit or more like going 50 miles over it in a school zone as school lets out?  At least there is not a dead body in the trunk.

My wife got home last night from her “mom’s group” get together.  Someone there who I never would’ve thought, had some serious problems.  So, I think this whole thing is unfortunate, and probably not something the church should move on too quickly from.

That said, this really doesn’t bother me.  Just speaking for myself.  I dabble in the market, and a Fortune 500 company paying this fine wouldn’t even register on the news of the day.  If I owned stock of a company that did this, I’d probably shrug my shoulders and continue to hold the stock.  I think the terms “lying” and especially “fraud” I’ve seen thrown around here are just absurd.

But I do understand why some people would have issues with it.  How much of that is influenced by people not fully understanding how all this works and that reading an SEC report is boring as hell, I’m not sure.  

[smac97]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

When I get 503(c)3 status and start soliciting donations for membership in my personal circle, I'll start publishing my finances.

Ah.  Special pleading then.  "Rules for thee, but not for me" and all that.

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

In the meantime, comparing a private citizen to a multi-billion dollar charitable organization that lives off the donations of its members is comparing apples and oranges and is a bad faith argument.

Malarky.  If there is bad faith, it's in your special pleading.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’d have to read that quote in context. Because obviously the church has hidden stuff. There are a ton of things that most members will never know about the inner workings of the church, that the church goes out of its way not to publish.

It’s been known for years that the church keeps its investments and financials hidden from members. We’ve discussed it on here multiple times over the two decades that I’ve been here anyway.

It’s common knowledge that some stuff is carefully guarded and kept from the knowledge of most members. And it would’ve been common knowledge to most people who heard elder Ballard say that when he said it.

Given that, I have to think “what was the context of the statement, where the listeners would be aware of the many things that church leadership doesn’t tell us, and yet still consider elder Ballard’s statement to be truthful?”

Because there are are contexts where I would agree that that statement is not honest, but I need more information.

Do you have a link for the talk? I’ve tried looking it up and all I can find is that quote on critical and anti-sites with no explanation of where it came from.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2017/11/20/23213151/personal-revelation-homosexuality-and-dating-among-topics-discussed-in-face-to-face-broadcast
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2017-10-2000-ysa-face-to-face-with-elder-oaks-and-elder-ballard?lang=eng

 

Also said: “Just trust us, wherever you are in the world, and you share this message with anyone else who raises the question about the Church not being transparent. We’re as transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth. We have to do that; that’s the Lord’s way.”

 

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  Special pleading then.  "Rules for thee, but not for me" and all that.

Malarky.  If there is bad faith, it's in your special pleading.

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you also argue that publicly traded companies shouldn't have to issue publicly available financial statements?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Instead of speculating, read this article.  The Church was never "charged" with anything, and at all times believed, through advice of counsel, that it was complying with the law.

As one who deals with government agencies all the time, and also has experience with the filing that is mentioned in the article, I can categorically state that had the Church done anything seriously "wrong" the matter would not have been dropped so easily.  The issue revolved around a reasonable interpretation of the law that could certainly be argued.  In fact, in a technical sense, no required information was ever withheld from the public.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-its-investment-adviser-settle-sec-probe-792ffc71?st=537fkq5lgwgadvv&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

From your link ““It goes back to the concept of this as a case against a major religious institution,” said Jacob Frenkel, chair of the government investigations and securities enforcement practice at ****inson Wright LLP. “If this had been anyone else, it is reasonable to believe that the SEC likely would have charged an anti-fraud violation.””

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2017/11/20/23213151/personal-revelation-homosexuality-and-dating-among-topics-discussed-in-face-to-face-broadcast
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2017-10-2000-ysa-face-to-face-with-elder-oaks-and-elder-ballard?lang=eng

 

Also said: “Just trust us, wherever you are in the world, and you share this message with anyone else who raises the question about the Church not being transparent. We’re as transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth. We have to do that; that’s the Lord’s way.”

 

No transcript? Dang, I really don’t want to sit through that whole thing.

Have you watched it and do you know the context of the statements? If not, that’s fine I can watch it, just trying to be lazy.

[smac97]

On 2/22/2023 at 12:34 PM, ttribe said:

Do you also argue that publicly traded companies shouldn't have to issue publicly available financial statements?

We are obligated to follow the law.  Beyond that, I repose little trust in the pronouncements of people hostile to my faith about what it ought to do, particularly in the context of something as arcane as compliance with the (fairly braod and shifting) reporting requirements of the SEC.

Your pronouncements are based on your hostility to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  You are singling it out for arbitrary demands of your own fabrication.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 29 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No transcript? Dang, I really don’t want to sit through that whole thing.

Have you watched it and do you know the context of the statements? If not, that’s fine I can watch it, just trying to be lazy.

The context are questions about the church’s obfuscation of its history. 

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

As I understand it, the SEC Order contains allegations.  Claims of fact not yet proven to be true.

You must not have read their report.

So in your view a "report" from the SEC, without more, is an adjudication of disputed facts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes.  Because they were guilty at going to lengths to hide their investments from the SEC.

In other words we got caught doing something we should not have done.

Oh boo hoo. This is one you really should not try to defend and not whine about.  There is good reason to find fault with this.

No substance.  Just vituperation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

Just now, smac97 said:

We are obligated to follow the law.  Beyond that, I repose little trust in the pronouncements of people hostile to my faith about what it ought to do, particularly in the context of something as arcane as reporting requirements of the SEC.

Your pronouncements are based on your hostility to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  You are singling it out for arbitrary demands of your own fabrication.

Thanks,

-Smac

You didn't answer my question. You attacked me personally and tried to discredit me because you think I'm hostile toward the Church. That appears to be more bad faith argumentation on your part. Very sorry to see you resort to that kind of rhetoric. In the meantime, I hope at least someone has found some of my posts helpful on this issue.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

I believe this is what most Hollywood productions do as well, The big studios set up new entities to take on the risks of the production.

@smac97 how long do these LLCs that you assist with remain open/active?

As long as the remediation of the property is going on, and and as long as the property needs to be owned.  Once the property is sold, the annual registration of the LLC is typically allowed to expire.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

A speeding ticket doesn't require intentional deception.   There is no way that these things can be explained as unintentional. 

They dishonestly hid truths about the EPAs control over the LLCs from the SEC and from managers in an attempt to hide things from the public.  As is the case with lying, it often ends up leading to a web of lies to different entities and individuals in order to keep the original deception secret.  They lied about the location of the managers too in an effort to deceive.  It just goes on and on.  That doesn't happen with a traffic ticket. 

 

I don’t think it was unintentional. I just think it was more an attempt at privacy rather than an attempt to deceive legal authorities. The line between hiding from the public or intending to deceive the public is partly semantics though.

This is not intended as a defense of the Church either. It is disheartening to see the Church pursuing being opaque to the public using tricks that are often meant to deceive. In many ways if it were an attempt to legally mitigate taxes it would make more sense. Using the tricks of society to shield assets (legally) might look ugly but it is reasonable. This is just an attempt to hide something that might look bad and was very clumsy.

It does, as others have pointed out, make teaching absolute honesty to the membership seem rather silly. Of course I am inclined to Hugh Nibley’s point that pursuing absolute honesty before acquiring charity is insane. If I honestly shared everything I think about people I would be much more of a net negative to society than I am now. Maybe if I ever acquire enough charity I can pull it off.

Edit: This assumes the Church didn’t do anything beyond technically violating reporting laws out of ignorance. If they did do more it is worse.

Edited February 22, 2023 by The Nehor

[smac97]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

I chose not to go into a line-by-line discussion of that article for two reasons: 1) it would turn into a morass of things like what does "the" mean in this context, etc.; and 2), I can overall not disagree with the facts of the article without getting into scraps about language that I already labeled as self-serving.

ETA: For the record, I find the 'traffic ticket' analogy rather laughable, but that's the hyperbole of attorneys and apologists that I'm rather numb to these days.

Ah.  So the apparent objectivity and clinical assessment was a veneer, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

So my question is was it like going 5 miles over the speed limit or more like going 50 miles over it in a school zone as school lets out?  At least there is not a dead body in the trunk.

I would say it’s like somebody who really wants to drive 10-over through the school zone and is convinced that he can do so safely, but thinks the law shouldn’t apply to him. So every day as he approaches the school he pulls over and removes the license plates from his car so that the speed camera can’t identify him.  (Trying to fit this into the analogy), every quarter he swears in writing that he obeys all traffic laws and doesn’t speed.

At the end of the day what’s he guilty of? Assuming nobody got hurt, is this no harm, no foul? Or is this a minor infraction of just accidentally driving a couple of blocks without your plate showing? Or is is he guilty of inadvertently going 30 through a 20? Or is there something more fundamentally dishonest about going to great lengths too break the law?

[smac97]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'd be happy with a simple citation from the SEC's report that uses the condemnatory terminology/interpretations the critics are using.

Don't hold your breath.

Anything the Church does that is laudatory is ignored.  Anything the Church does that is flawed or problematic is trumpeted and blown out of proportion.  Same with anything that the Church does which can be construed that way (such as this issue).

Thanks,

-Smac