Church fined by SEC

[bluebell]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

So he’s not speaking about everything, but about history?  OK, that makes sense to me. Those quotes make perfect sense in that context. And I do believe they are accurate, within that context. In terms of our history, the church seems to be an open book now, when that wasn’t so in the past.

We do seem to be slow learners in that regard though. As long as there are people out there who glee in finding the church doing something wrong, then the church needs to be extremely focused on doing everything they can to not do wrong things.

It sounds like the wheels for all of this EPA stuff began turning decades ago, when keeping things hidden and secret was still acceptable by church leadership. Times change, but the church kept on trucking along like the Internet and Wikileaks and all that stuff still didn’t exist.

I would prefer to see less secrecy for secrecy’s sake from the church.  As elder Ballard said, we’ve proven that we can do it with our history, now it’s time to do it with other things too.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 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.

Also I believe the quote with context is provided in Scott Lloyds write up which is linked (the church news one)

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

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 to break the law?

So what the church did had the same capacity to cause harm to others as someone who chooses to speed through a school zone.  

Is that what you’re saying?

[bluebell]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Also I believe the quote with context is provided in Scott Lloyds write up which is linked (the church news one)

Thanks!

[smac97]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

None of that addresses why they wanted to use this scheme in the first place.  What was the intended purpose behind it?  It wasn’t used to make larger returns, or to do insider trading, or anything like that, according to Roger Clarke it was implemented to mislead and conceal in order to keep members obedient.  THAT is the big why they have neglected to answer to.

Funny, I found this part particularly egregious and misleading.  To suggest that there were no attempts to hide anything is a lie.  Yes, it may be true that all portfolios were reported to the SEC, but what is NOT true is that they were not hidden from being associated with and controlled by EPA and the church.  That was kind of the whole purpose as outlined in the SEC report,. They wanted to keep the public from tying these funds back to the EPA.  

It was terrible.  

after what fact.  It was before the SEC found out, giving them an opportunity to change course before this all blew up.

It was cautionary enough that honesty and integrity requires a person to do their due diligence under such cautionary warnings and clarify with the SEC if it is legal and change course if not.  Things would have been so different of it was revealed that the SEC found out only because the church wanted to be on the up and up.  Nope, instead they found out via a whistleblower website and neglected internal warnings.

Again more attempt to divert attention to the plain and simple fact that they intentionally lied on the reports that the LLCs had full control when they know that they didn’t.  Once could be a mistake.  Year after year for 20 years?  Nope.  Then they hid that information from the managers to sign off on.  Shady!

I am no expert, but I no that telling the truth on government reports is not complicated.  The fact that they haven’t been charged with a crime doesn’t mean that they didn’t intentionally lie.  The report is pretty explicit that they did.

Yes I noted all of this in my post.  I did read it, you don’t need to copy and paste it all.  The SEC stated that they went to “great lengths” to hide this from the public.  “Just like a traffic ticket” is also misleading.   The extravagant measures they took to mislead is nothing like a traffic ticket.  They have betrayed my trust, no traffic ticket has done that before.

Not at all.  The SEC report was explicit about the incredible measures they took to mislead and conceal these portfolios from the public and to disassociate them from the EPA.   

I am sorry that you are so energized about this.  I think you are letting your emotional response override a reasoned and clinical assessment.  This is evident from your stridency, your conclusory deprecations, your worst assumptions, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So he’s not speaking about everything, but about history?  OK, that makes sense to me. Those quotes make perfect sense in that context. And I do believe they are accurate, within that context. In terms of our history, the church seems to be an open book now, when that wasn’t so in the past.

We do seem to be slow learners in that regard though. As long as there are people out there who glee in finding the church doing something wrong, then the church needs to be extremely focused on doing everything they can to not do wrong things.

It sounds like the wheels for all of this EPA stuff began turning decades ago, when keeping things hidden and secret was still acceptable by church leadership. Times change, but the church kept on trucking along like the Internet and Wikileaks and all that stuff still didn’t exist.

I would prefer to see less secrecy for secrecy’s sake from the church.  As elder Ballard said, we’ve proven that we can do it with our history, now it’s time to do it with other things too.

 

Except he also said: “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.” 
 

Is it the Lord’s way or not? Again, this whole “scheme” was designed to be as opaque as possible, while the Lords way is to be “as transparent as we know how I’m telling the truth”. 

[smac97]

On 2/22/2023 at 7:03 AM, Analytics said:

According to the SEC's definition of "misstatement", "Misstatements can arise from error (i.e., unintentional misstatement) or fraud."

An "unintentional" act arising from reliance on legal counsel regarding regulatory compliance can, i think, be characterized as a "misstatement."

And again, nowhere in the Order did the SEC assert "fraud."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 29 by smac97

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

I agree with the honesty and charity bit.  For me, the anger is less about the fact that it was dishonest (though that is concerning) and more about the reasons they did it in the first place.   The other disconcerting part is the fact that they refuse to own up to it and take accountability and instead hide behind more lies about it being unintentional and without intent to hide anything.   

People screw up, I get it, but frigging own up to it!  If the church is true owning up to mistakes and transparency with their finances can’t bring it down. I wish their actions would align with that fact.  It’s almost like they don’t believe it.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Again oh wise one, what was the reason EPA set up 13 LLCs?  What was the end goal?

Compliance with the law.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You are clueless here about bluebell.

Am I?

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

 What gives you the right to condemn someone who is trying to understand the idiotic law system that many who are elected to do so seems unable to manage?  

Well see her comments to me that elicited my response.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

 

She lacks your training and is therefore hesitant to assume she has things down, but still is making and effort to understand based on all the information that has been provided and trying to fill in gaps and you go to this.  So uncalled for.  Jerk move.

If you equally rage at her about her remarks to me maybe your remarks above will mean something to me. Till then not so much.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Teancum

[ttribe]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

You'd have to state that it (the Church) also does not disagree that it violated securities law to make it fully accurate.

[Teancum]

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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'! 

Keep on defending your dishonest church.

[The Nehor]

27 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.

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No substance.  Just vituperation.

 

[Teancum]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

I can only read their opinion.  Did you?

[Teancum]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No substance.  Just vituperation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Back atchya

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Compliance with the law.

Thanks,

-Smac

Good lord.  No. It was to hide their assets levels. 

[Analytics]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So what the church did had the same capacity to cause harm to others as someone who chooses to speed through a school zone.  

Is that what you’re saying?

No, that’s not the point.

A better analogy might be the requirement in some states to get your car inspected every year in order to register it. It’s like somebody was aware of this requirement but really didn’t want to get their car inspected, so they went to extreme measures to fraudulently get a sticker, and then lie about the fake sticker when registering the car. And then systematically doing this every year for 20 years.

Even if the car was otherwise safe, getting a fraudulent sticker and lying about it in writing is dishonest and categorically different than inadvertently driving for a few weeks with an expired tag.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Compliance with the law.

Thanks,

-Smac

That seems very unlikely to be required by the law. I suspect you are lying here.

[Teancum]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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'! 

“I was impressed by the great change that had come over this young man while he served on his mission and studied moral principles. How unfortunate it is that he had to learn his lesson the hard way, but what a great blessing comes when there is the realization that one cannot be in violation and feel good about that conduct” (“Basic Concepts of Honesty,” New Era, Feb. 1978, 4–5).

• Are we being dishonest when we break the laws of the land? Why?

• Write on the chalkboard We believe in being honest.

The thirteenth article of faith, written by the Prophet Joseph Smith, states, “We believe in being honest, true, … virtuous, and in doing good to all men.” In this and many other scriptures the Lord has commanded us to be honest in our personal lives and in our dealings with others.

• What does it mean to be honest? (It is doing what we know is right. If we make promises, we keep them. If we have a debt, we pay it. Honesty is to speak the truth and act truthfully. It means that we do not lie, steal, or break the laws of the land. It means that we do not deceive in any way.)

The Importance of Honesty

Being honest is necessary if we are to live the gospel of Jesus Christ. If we know the truth but do not live it, we are dishonest with ourselves and with God. To be honest with ourselves and the Lord, we must keep the covenants we have made. We must be honest to have the Holy Ghost as our companion.

Being honest with ourselves and God means that we must also be honest with those around us. If we are, the Lord will bless us with His Spirit, and we will earn the trust, honor, and loyalty of those with whom we associate. Our honesty with others will enable us to serve them and magnify our callings.

• Read the following situations. Discuss as a class what you would do in each situation.

Example 1

Elder O. Leslie Stone recalled this experience: “Recently, our grandson, Adam, was traveling with Sister Stone and me on a trip to California. About noontime we stopped for lunch. When the waitress brought the bill I didn’t pay very close attention, and after she gave me my change, I realized that she had charged me for only two sandwiches instead of three.”

• What was the honest thing to do? If this happened to you, how could you teach your children about being honest?

Elder Stone continued:

“I knew that the girl would be short [of money] at the end of the day, and there suddenly flashed into my mind the thought of how my father had taught me to be honest. I felt this was a good time to talk to Adam about honesty, and so we sat down and I explained what had happened. I told him we had a problem.

“I said we could leave now and keep the extra change and no one would ever know the difference, or we could tell the girl that we still owed her for a sandwich. Our decision wasn’t at all difficult to make when we decided that if we kept money that did not belong to us that we would be breaking the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ We agreed that our Heavenly Father would be displeased with us and we would be unhappy too because we would know in our hearts that we had not been honest.

“Adam and I approached the girl at the counter, and I explained to her that she had undercharged us and that we owed almost a dollar more. Her face flushed in embarrassment for a moment, and then she thanked us for telling her of the mistake. We continued on our way with a good feeling, and I am sure our Heavenly Father approved of what we had done” (“Be Honest,” Friend, Jan. 1975, 7).

Example 2

Elder Gordon B. Hinckley recalled: “Recently we rode a train from Osaka to Nagoya, Japan. At the station were friends to greet us, and in the excitement my wife left her purse on the train.”

• If you had found Sister Hinckley’s purse, what could you do?

Since Elder Hinckley believes that most people are honest, he “called the Tokyo station to report it. When the train arrived at its destination some three hours later, the railroad telephoned to say the purse was there. We were not returning via Tokyo, and more than a month passed before it was delivered to us in Salt Lake City. Everything left in the purse was there when it was returned” (“An Honest Man—God’s Noblest Work,” New Era, Oct. 1976, 47).

• What does the Lord expect of us when we find someone else’s property?

The Lord has said, “If thou shalt find that which thy neighbor has lost, thou shalt make diligent search till thou shalt deliver it to him again” (D&C 136:26). The Lord expects us to be completely honest. To Him, anything that is not completely honest is dishonest; there is no such thing as partial honesty.

• How can we recognize what is honest and what is not? Have a class member read Moroni 7:16–17.

• Who is the source of good? What are the results of honest acts? (Good, belief in Christ, service to God) Who is the source of evil? What are the results of dishonest acts? (Evil, unbelief in Christ, denial of Him, disservice to God)

• Have class members discuss the following situations. They should decide if the person involved is being completely honest.

  1. Dad has never had a traffic ticket. He is a good driver. He always watches carefully and tries to obey all traffic laws.

  2. While at work, John uses company stamps to mail letters to his sick mother (see D&C 42:54).

  3. Jack and Leo are the best of friends. They are willing to let each other borrow anything. After one borrows something from his neighbor, he promptly returns it. (See Mosiah 4:28; D&C 136:25.)

Honesty in the Family

Priesthood holders should not only strive to be honest themselves but should also teach their children to be honest. President N. Eldon Tanner said: “This training in honesty begins in the home. Each of us has personal possessions which … should not be taken without the consent of the owner. A child who respects such honesty in the home is not apt to violate the principle outside the home. On the other hand, lack of such training fosters disrespect for the rights and property of others” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1978, 64; or Ensign, May 1978, 44).

• What can we do in our families to teach and encourage honesty?

President Brigham Young said:

“Be honest. Woe to those who profess to be Saints and are not honest.

“Honest hearts produce honest actions” (as quoted by Spencer W. Kimball, in Faith Precedes the Miracle [1972], 234).

When we are interviewed to receive a temple recommend, we are asked if we deal honestly with others. An experience of one member of the Church, President Ruben Dario Pacheo of Caracas, Venezuela, illustrates the kind of honesty expected of us:

President Pacheo and his family wanted to go to the temple. After much sacrifice and spiritual preparation, he and his family raised the money for the long trip. President Pacheo sent his daughter to the bank to get 500 U.S. dollars. He said:

“My wife took the envelope and put it away without counting the money. The night before leaving, I asked for the money and noticed that the envelope was unusually heavy. We counted the money. They had given us $4,065. I was astonished. … The bank receipts indicated a purchase of only $500—that meant that the bank had erred some $3,500 in our favor!

“Some nonmember friends at our home that night tried to persuade us to use the money to enjoy our trip to the United States. To be honest, I myself had never seen so much money in my life. However, I energetically said, ‘We cannot keep this money because it is not ours. The purpose of our trip to the temple is to make covenants with the Lord. What good will they do if we are dishonest?’

“We returned the money to the bank; they had noticed that they had lost funds but had no records indicating to whom it had been paid. Some bank clerks asked me that day, ‘Why did you do it? Nobody knew that you had that money.’ My only answer was: ‘Because I am a Mormon’” (as quoted by Mario G. Echeverri, in “Venezuela,” Ensign, Feb. 1977, 30).

• How did the Pacheo family show honesty? How do you suppose the family felt as they were sealed in the temple?

• Invite class members to share some recent examples of honesty they have experienced or observed.

The Blessings of Honesty

[Analytics]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

What facts are disputed?

Did you read this?

https://bycommonconsent.com/2023/02/21/the-church-the-investment-advisor-and-the-sec/
 

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree with the honesty and charity bit.  For me, the anger is less about the fact that it was dishonest (though that is concerning) and more about the reasons they did it in the first place.   The other disconcerting part is the fact that they refuse to own up to it and take accountability and instead hide behind more lies about it being unintentional and without intent to hide anything.   

People screw up, I get it, but frigging own up to it!  If the church is true owning up to mistakes and transparency with their finances can’t bring it down. I wish their actions would align with that fact.  It’s almost like they don’t believe it.

To be fair even if Church leaders wanted to confess that they screwed up badly here I suspect their lawyers would be screaming at them not to do so for fear that could be taken as admitting they legally did something wrong.

I agree with you. This is also an example of why we may want to rebuild the legal system from the ground up and admit that a system originally designed to mediate and rule between feudal warrior aristocrats may not map well onto a liberal democracy ostensibly seeking justice for all but that is a MUCH bigger discussion.

[SteveO]

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

No, that’s not the point.

A better analogy might be the requirement in some states to get your car inspected every year in order to register it. It’s like somebody was aware of this requirement but really didn’t want to get their car inspected, so they went to extreme measures to fraudulently get a sticker, and then lie about the fake sticker when registering the car. And then systematically doing this every year for 20 years.

Even if the car was otherwise safe, getting a fraudulent sticker and lying about it in writing is dishonest and categorically different than inadvertently driving for a few weeks with an expired tag.

That is a good analogy.  It also illustrates how benign the offense is.

[CA Steve]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

To be fair even if Church leaders wanted to confess that they screwed up badly here I suspect their lawyers would be screaming at them not to do so for fear that could be taken as admitting they legally did something wrong.

I agree with you. This is also an example of why we may want to rebuild the legal system from the ground up and admit that a system originally designed to mediate and rule between feudal warrior aristocrats may not map well onto a liberal democracy ostensibly seeking justice for all but that is a MUCH bigger discussion.

 Now that they have settled with the SEC, what difference would it make to admit to it?

[Teancum]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am sorry that you are so energized about this.  I think you are letting your emotional response override a reasoned and clinical assessment.  This is evident from your stridency, your conclusory deprecations, your worst assumptions, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

No. @pogijust can remain a believer and call out bad things the church does,  Unlike you who has to argue to the mat every jot and tittle.  It makes me wonder why you need to do this,

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Compliance with the law.

Thanks,

-Smac

You need to explain that one.  What legal need was there to split off assets into other companies?