Church fined by SEC

[CA Steve]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Rawlins is the worst place to be stuck. I feel so bad for him. There’s a reason that’s where they put the state prison. 

Could be worse. I had to live in Big Piney for a year.  I can verify that Hell has frozen over.

[pogi]

For those asserting that these findings are only allegations, which I agree that they are (but they are not blind allegations but are based on years of thorough of investigation with first-hand access to the inner workings of the EPA) do you personally find any potential merit at all in them?  Because they are "allegations" does this mean we should dismiss them outright?  I understand that by claiming them as mere "allegations" and pointing to the potential fallibility of the SEC, that there is room to believe that the church did nothing wrong.  But do you really believe that after reading the report? 

Are the findings believable given the fact that we know the church and President of the EPA has admitted to the intent of hiding the funds from public view?   Do you believe they created these LLCs?  Why or why not?  Is there anyway possible that they could have kept these funds private and hidden from public knowledge within these LLCs without falsifying documents stating that they had full control when they really didn't?  If there was no way to keep these funds private from public knowledge without falsifying documents, then why start the LLCs in the first place?  Do you think the allegation is probably accurate that the managers of the LLCs were deprived of sufficient knowledge to attest to the accuracy and truthfulness of the documents that they were signing?  Do you think it is true that they were only given the signature page without the full document to read?  Or do you think the SEC is just making that up?  What seems more reasonable?   Same with creating false locations for these managers, suggesting that they work from different locations in the US when really they were all located in Utah - did the SEC just make that up too?    When these managers found out what was going on a few years ago some of them quit conscientiously, does that suggest to you that there might be some truth to these "allegations"?  It seems to have rung true for these managers who could not in good conscience continue working for the EPA. 

It feels as if people are trying to dismiss these findings as mere allegations.  While it may be true that they are allegations, I think it is wrong to conclude that they should be dismissed.  They NEED to be taken seriously.  Because the church chose not to try and vindicate its good name through a fair trial, it has left it up to us to be the judges of the information we have.  Instead of going to trial, the church has placed it in our hands to decide for ourselves what sounds true based on the evidence we have been presented. 

Given the on record statement of the President of the EPA attesting to their intent to hide these funds from public view in order to keep members obedient, and given that they did create shell companies for the purpose of hiding these funds - I don't see how they could have kept these funds hidden from public knowledge without going to the extent that they did.   It sounds likely to me that given this testimony and given the SECs investigation, and given that the church "regrets" mistakes and has changed practices - making their funds open to public view, all the dots seem to be painting a pretty clear picture for me that I would have to be dishonest with myself if I tried to conclude that the church did not intentionally deceive the public, intentionally falsify information on reports stating that the LLCs had full control when the didn't, intentionally falsely report that managers were located outside of Utah when they weren't, and intentionally keep information hidden from managers when requiring their signatures guaranteeing accuracy of reporting.   There is no other way that I am aware of that they could have kept their funds secret from the public without taking these measures and ensuring that the LLCs had full control when they didn't. 

If they were trying to avoid judgment by not going to court - I think they made the wrong decision.  We are all judges now.  Case closed?  I think not.  This isn't going to be that easily swept under the rug. 

Edited February 23, 2023 by pogi

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Could be worse. I had to live in Big Piney for a year.  I can verify that Hell has frozen over.

I’ve driven through Big Piney a few times, but I don’t remember very much about it. And I often get it confused with Pinedale, which I’ve also been through a few times. Is big Piney the one whose name sounds way more grand and majestic than the town actually is?

Edit to add, I’d say Rawlins is worse though. Native Wyomingites call that place the armpit of the state.  There are probably a few towns (Baggs I’m looking at you) that are worse, but Rawlins is uniquely bad because it squanders its opportunities.  It’s big enough that it should be have more resources. It’s on I-80, so it should be a nicer town just by virtue of the increase of visitors and theoretically money coming into it.

I don’t know what they do to keep it so crappy. It’s ugly and the weather is horrible so I don’t expect a whole lot, but it’s still worse than you would think it would be. 😂

Edited February 23, 2023 by bluebell

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ya’ll need your own private bank. The Vatican bank is a model of upstanding fiscal responsibility…

Perhaps underlying this issue, for supporters and critics, is the issue of infallibility?

Yep.  As much as the Latter-day Saints are taught to not expect it, many of us do.  

And infallibility is a convenient crutch for our critics, as they will always be able to criticize the leaders of the Church for this or that error, with infallibility being an unspoken assumption.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Vatican bank has had some pretty shady things go on, but for me that doesn’t really relate to the truth claims of Catholicism. Ok, I meant to write more, but I’m off to a work meeting now. 

There have been some scandals and unfortunate events in the history of our church as well.  Kirtland Safety Society.  Secretive polygamy (or even polygamy altogether).  Mountain Meadows.  The Priesthood Ban.  Mark Hoffman.  And now this.

None of these retroactively negate the truth claims of the Restoration.  If those things happened, then I'm in.  That doesn't mean I excuse or condone errors and misconduct, just that I don't find those errors/misconduct to be dispositive.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here is what I think: You despise the Church.  You want it to look terrible.  You want to have talking points to use to rail against it.  You want to treat the allegations of the Church as established "facts."  

More personal attacks.  Boy this one is really hitting your hot button.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

If they were trying to avoid judgment by not going to court - I think they made the wrong decision.  We are all judges now.  Case closed?  I think not. 

I think that they messed up, and they know that they messed up, and so they were fine with paying the fine. But I don’t know that every allegation or thing that the SEC says about the case is necessarily completely correct, or that there are not explanations for some of them, which would be convincing.

But if I had to guess, I would say that the church likely decided that the judgment was worth not having to disclose all of their financials, which might have been something that the judge would have required, in an attempt to fight every allegation out in court.

Especially since the fine was so small, and they did not have to agree with the SEC allegations in order to reach a settlement.

Like you said though, will never know because so much of this issue is not knowable.

 

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, your lack of legal training and experience is really showing here.

you keep pointing this out to non attorneys. Of course the non attorneys don't have legal training.  But as an attorney who seems to be hanging his hat on his superior legal training your are not doing so well.  I am sure you know that settlements are reached all the time and language is accepted between the two parties that let them save face.  If the Church could have fought this they would have.  They knew they did likely would not succeed. So they agreed to a fine and likely asked for face saving language which the SEC granted.

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that they messed up, and they know that they messed up, and so they were fine with paying the fine. But I don’t know that every allegation or thing that the SEC says about the case is necessarily completely correct, or that there are not explanations for some of them, which would be convincing.

But if I had to guess, I would say that the church likely decided that the judgment was worth not having to disclose all of their financials, which might have been something that the judge would have required, in an attempt to fight every allegation out in court.

Especially since the fine was so small, and they did not have to agree with the SEC allegations in order to reach a settlement.

Like you said though, will never know because so much of this issue is not knowable.

 

Until someone convinces me that they could have kept these funds legally hidden from public view without falsifying records and keeping information form managers, then I don't have any other reason to believe that the report is not accurate on those critical points.  The conclusion being that they intentionally falsified records and mislead managers to hide this info from the public.  I call that lying according to the church's definition ("any attempt to deceive").

And if the testimony of the President of the EPA is accurate (which I have every reason to believe it is), then one must conclude that they lied in order to to keep members obedient.  Ya, that doesn't sit well with me. 

[Analytics]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church has neither admitted nor denied any of the allegations in the SEC Order, and the SEC has not established the allegations via adjudication.  You are studiously refusing to address this.
 

I never claims the SEC established "facts" in a legal sense via adjudication. Why should I address I point I never made?

I'm simply stating that the "facts" that the SEC laid out are simple, concrete things that the Church could easily prove to be false, if they were false. However, the Church didn't do that.

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Factual" means "concerned with what is actually the case rather than interpretations of or reactions to it."

Exactly! And that is the definition of "factual" I am using here. Just because a judge hasn't ruled on it doesn't mean that the "facts" laid out by the SEC are anything other than what is actually the case.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Until someone convinces me that they could have kept these funds legally hidden from public view without falsifying records and keeping information form managers, then I don't have any other reason to believe that the report is not accurate on those critical points.  The conclusion being that they intentionally falsified records and mislead managers to hide this info from the public.  I call that lying according to the church's definition ("any attempt to deceive").

And if the testimony of the President of the EPA is accurate (which I have every reason to believe it is), then one must conclude that they lied in order to to keep members obedient.  Ya, that doesn't sit well with me. 

OK, that is definitely your prerogative. It’s not where I’m coming from, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable.

[rodheadlee]

Cool 24 pages of I Told You So by the opposition. I bet you all are real happy.

[CA Steve]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’ve driven through Big Piney a few times, but I don’t remember very much about it. And I often get it confused with Pinedale, which I’ve also been through a few times. Is big Piney the one whose name sounds way more grand and majestic than the town actually is?

Edit to add, I’d say Rawlins is worse though. Native Wyomingites call that place the armpit of the state.  There are probably a few towns (Baggs I’m looking at you) that are worse, but Rawlins is uniquely bad because it squanders its opportunities.  It’s big enough that it should be have more resources. It’s on I-80, so it should be a nicer town just by virtue of the increase of visitors and theoretically money coming into it.

I don’t know what they do to keep it so crappy. It’s ugly and the weather is horrible so I don’t expect a whole lot, but it’s still worse than you would think it would be. 😂

That would be Piney, whole lot of name and not much else.

I remember Rawlins described that way as well as Evanston. You probably do not remember much of Piney because there is not much to remember. When I was there, decades ago, it only had a few hundred residents. Pinedale is just a bit bigger and nicer but still not a place I'd want to live. I did have some property in Afton where I was thinking about retiring until I visited there in January a few years back after which I sold my lot. It's just too cold.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Where can I find this referenced?

No reference. I just know how they work from experience.  As well as other legal settlements.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

No I did not fabricate expectation.  The SEC imposed the expectations on EPA and the Church.  In another post you poke at me for my lack of legal training.  Well sure. I am not an attorney though I have worked with tax law for my entire career.

I am not saying that to "poke at" you, but to rather to note that your lack of training/experience in the law is resulting in some real problems as to your arguments, conclusions, reasoning, etc.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I also have experience with a very serious SEC issue for a business I deal with.  Do you have SEC experience?  But yea I am not a litigator though I have experience guiding clients through litigation settlements from a tax and advisory role.

Good to know.  But your claims on this legal issue have been way off.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

You seem to think the SEC is just making suppositions and  not using a fact based approach.  This is simply not true at all. 

No, I do not think that.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And your clam of fabricating expectations is a disingenuous remark. 

It's not disingenuous.  I really think you are fabricating expectations and then faulting the Church for not meeting them.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Had there not been a problem of to complying with the regulations the SEC would not have brought action  against EPA and the Church. 

No.  No.  You cannot state this.  It is incompatible with the rule of law.  With the Constitution.  With Due Process.  With the presumption of innocence.  With the right to trial.

I get worried when Americans start thinking like this.  "The State said X, therefore X must be true."

The SEC's unproven and unsubstantiated say-so is not determinative.  There are all sorts of instances of the State misbehaving, or misunderstanding the facts, or misapplying the facts, or misapplying the law, or some combination of these.  This is particularly so with organs of the Administrative State.

I love America, and I am grateful for the government.  But I do not reflexively or axiomatically trust the government.  Your statement here is not just factually and legally misguided, it is dangerous.  The day may come when the State comes for you and yours.  And what will you do, having tossed out the presumption of innocence?  What will you do, having concluded something like "Hey, the State would not be going after me and mine unless I and mine had done something wrong"?  

I get that you are willing to throw the Church under the wheels of the Administrative State.  For some, the Church is guilty until proven innocent.  That is the implication of your statement above.  I find that disappointing and disturbing.  The same rights and protections that apply to you ought also apply to the Church.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Once again, there is no meaningful indication that the Church improperly "hid" anything, that it engaged in any fraudulent behavior, and so on.  Instead, it sought and obtained, and then acted on, legal advice as to a course of action that the SEC has, decades later, asserted to be problematic.

Really?  Well we know the LLCs were set up to hide the existence of the assets. 

And we also know that you "hide" your IRL identity by going by "Teancum."  We also know that you "hide" your SSN by not posting it online.  We also know that you "hide" your email and bank and other logins by not publishing them to the world.

The thing is, nobody faults you for that.  There is nothing wrong with you "hiding" such things (which on this board is often anti-Mormon code for "not publishing sensitive and private information to the entire world, despite having no legal or other obligation to do so").

The Church certainly has an obligation to comply with the law.  The law allows private parties to "hide" or obscure their sensitive information.  The purported error alleged by the LLC is not that the Church created these LLCs, but that it failed to vest them with "sole investment discretion" (an expectation that may very well be contradicted by the relevant statutory text, which would put the SEC, not the Church, in the wrong).

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

The church did not want the public or its members to know about this.  Why is that?  What are they afraid of? 

Teancum does not want the public or his friends and relatives to know his SSN, his email and bank logins, the contents of his safety deposit box, and so on.  Why is that?  What is he afraid of?

Don't you see what you are doing here?  That you are fabricating expectations out of thin air, imputing them onto the Church, and then saying "Why is the Church not doing what I think it ought to do?  What is it afraid of?"

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

The Church is hyper concerned about keeping its financial activities secret. 

Again, you are fabricating expectations out of thin air, imputing them onto the Church, and then faulting the Church for not meeting them.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Oddly many other churches go to great lengths to be transparent with their financial actions even though US law does not require it.  But not the self proclaimed Church of Jesus Christ.  Was it fraudulent?  I don't that I would go that far. 

Teancum does not want the public or his friends and relatives to know his SSN, his email and bank logins, the contents of his safety deposit box, and so on.

Is he being fraudulent?  I don't that I would go that far. 

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Was it improper?  Well they took steps to avoid required reporting did they not? 

No, they did not.  This is very wrong, both factually and legally.

The Church "took steps" to comply with the law, which included reporting.  And they may very well have complied with the law (a point I have commented on at length earlier in this thread).

From the Public Square Mag article:

Quote

Why was the SEC investigating Ensign Peak Advisors?

In 2019, the SEC contacted EPA with concerns over EPA’s disclosure reporting practices. Based on the advice of its attorneys, between 2000-2019, each subsidiary LLC had been filing its own form 13F rather than filing one aggregate form. The SEC’s investigation focused on this previous practice of separate reporting.

Based on the SEC’s direction, EPA started reporting through one aggregate report in 2020.

What is form 13F, and why is it important to disclose?

Form 13F is a quarterly report that must be filed by institutional investment managers with more than $100 million in stocks, bonds, and other securities. The information disclosed in form 13F is used by regulators and other market participants to monitor market activities.

Is it unusual for the SEC to investigate an investment management firm?

No. Investigations of this type are quite common, especially for large investment funds. 

Did Ensign Peak Advisors ever hide its stock holdings?

There are no allegations that they did. Each of EPA’s subsidiaries reported their holdings. So all of the fund’s holdings were disclosed through form 13F reports for each individual affiliated entity. EPA and the Church have stated that they believe all of their holdings were reported. 

Were the “shell companies” the EPA used illegal?

There’s no allegation that they were. These companies are the subsidiary LLCs that EPA used to reorganize in 2000. Most shell companies are used for legitimate purposes, particularly in the financial sector. They can be used to legitimately maintain the privacy of investors or better organize financial assets. The SEC’s claim is not that EPA’s organizational scheme was fraudulent, but that using that organization, EPA should have reported differently than they did.

If nothing was hidden and the organization was legal, why was the SEC concerned?

Because the subsidiaries were all under the control of EPA the SEC believed they needed to file one joint form 13F.

No accusations have been made that EPA abused the separate filings to gain advantage, but the separate filings could in theory have made it possible to do so.

I invite you to read these carefully.  The SEC did not allege, as you inaccurately and unfairly claim, that the Church "avoid{ed} required reporting."  Instead, the SEC is alleging that the EPA did file the required reports, but that it did so in an incorrect way.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Is that honest?  Maybe you should spent sometime reading up  on what your church and its leaders say about honesty as well as what is expected of its members. 

Teancum made a good faith error in seeking and obtaining a tax credit in 2021.  The IRS caught it and required him to pay the shortfall, plus interest.

Was Teancum honest?  

Also, is Teancum still skinning puppies for fun and profit?  Asking for a friend.   

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

The standards are pretty high.  Then answer whether it is honest. 

Again, from the Public Square Mag article:

Quote

Were the “shell companies” the EPA used illegal?

There’s no allegation that they were. These companies are the subsidiary LLCs that EPA used to reorganize in 2000. Most shell companies are used for legitimate purposes, particularly in the financial sector. They can be used to legitimately maintain the privacy of investors or better organize financial assets. The SEC’s claim is not that EPA’s organizational scheme was fraudulent, but that using that organization, EPA should have reported differently than they did.

Again, you are fabricating expectations, imputing them onto the Church, and then complaining when those expectations are not met.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Clearly they knew if they did not set up the numerous  LLCs they would have a reporting issue. 

And yet, they did set up numerous LLCs.  So what is your point?

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

They set them up with legal council in order to avoid such reporting. 

No.  No.  You are getting the basic things wrong, both as to the law and to the facts.

The LLCs were formed, and each of them submitted 13F forms.  Again from the PSM article:

Quote

Why was the SEC investigating Ensign Peak Advisors?

In 2019, the SEC contacted EPA with concerns over EPA’s disclosure reporting practices. Based on the advice of its attorneys, between 2000-2019, each subsidiary LLC had been filing its own form 13F rather than filing one aggregate form. The SEC’s investigation focused on this previous practice of separate reporting.

Based on the SEC’s direction, EPA started reporting through one aggregate report in 2020.

The Church never tried to avoid the reporting requirements.  Rather, the issue is that the SEC thought that the Church's filings were procedurally flawed.

And gain, the SEC may very well be quite wrong as to the premise of its allegations against the Church.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

And it may well be that the SEC has exceeded the scope of the statute, and has charged the Church with violating a statute when the violation is instead related to a embellishment added to the statutory by the SEC (see here).  If so, then the legal advice the Church received may well have been accurate.

Now who is fabricating things.

 Not me.  Hence my qualifying language ("it may well be" and "may well have been").

See, I am not interposing my say-so as fact (as opposed to you and Analytics, who have been doing that throughout this thread).  When I speculate or theorize, I typically make that clear (as I did here).

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

But what is some self-appointed critic of your fine self comes along as says "Not good enough.  I want more.  In the interests of 'transparency' as I arbitrarily define it and apply to you, whom I dislike with a burning intensity"?

Would you take that demand seriously?

Dude your stretch here just does not work. 

I think it does.  You are fabricating expectations and demands, and then applying them to the Church, and then impugning the Church's honesty for not meeting your fabricated expectations.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Nor does your over the top hyperbole for anyone who is rational and not so deep of a believer that they have to defend things at all cost. 

I don't defend the Church "at all costs."  See here:

Quote

I genuinely love and am devoted to the Church.  I believe it is foundationally and broadly good and beautiful.  In its roots, trunk, branches and leaves.  It is not, however, perfect.  It needs to constantly check itself, and improve and grow, and correct errors and defects.

And sometimes the Church really messes up, as seems to be the case here.  For me, there is generally no "blood is thicker than water" or "I'm with you, right or wrong" sort of sentiment about the Church.  I wrote this back in 2020 (about a pretty dumb lawsuit against the Church filed in California) :

Quote

I am not discounting all the litigation filed against the Church.  Sometimes the Church and/or its agents/representatives errs legally.  When and if that happens, and can be established through evidence and argument, the Church needs to take its legal lumps like anyone else.  So I don't begrudge anyone who has a legitimate (or at least colorable) grievance against the Church and avails himself to filing a lawsuit.

That said, there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits filed against the Church.  Those filed by Cook and Gaddy come immediately to mind.  And these are just the recent ones.  

Another participant chimed in, and I responded:

Quote

I agree with this but am curious if you can point out an instance where the Church needed to take its legal lumps? 

McKenna Denson's suit was a possible one.  Respondeat superior and all that.  If liability had been established, and the statute of limitations was somehow tolled or deemed inapplicable...

Also, the Church lost in the Main Street Plaza case, as it should have.  The deal with SLC was clearly unconstitutional.

Also, the Church erred in its daily reporting requirements during Prop 8, and as a result paid a small fine (see here).

Late last year I said (regarding the story about the Church's financial stockpile): "I'm sure the IRS will sort out whether the Church has complied with the law.  If the Church has not complied with it, it needs to be held accountable."  

I'm sure there are more instances than these.
...
I am not discrediting all lawsuits against the Church.

In my first or second post in this thread, I specifically quoted the above "the Church needs to take its legal lumps like anyone else" language.

So I reject your accusation.  I do not defend the Church "at all costs."  I defend the Church as to those matters where a defense is merited.  And happily, that is most of the time.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

When I have assets that the SEC requires me to report you can be sure I will.  I won't take steps to hide things.

Again, you are fabricating expectations here.  You "hide" your IRL identity on this board by not posting it here.  You "hide" your sensitive logins, your home address, your bank account numbers, your assets by not publishing them to the world.  And good on ya.  There is no obligation for you to disclose such things.  And given that lack of obligation, characterizing your nondisclosure as "hiding" would be pretty a pretty dumb accusation.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

The Church is now years into its full compliance with what the SEC wants it to do. 

Yes a few years.

It is possible that the Church was never out of compliance.  That's a point that may be worth discussing.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

Something that I think is getting lost in all of this discussion of 'facts' and 'allegations' and 'the Church admitted nothing' is the meaning of the Church's agreement that it also does not deny the findings of fact listed in the Order. In short, at no time in the future can the Church dispute the findings of fact in that document without violating its settlement agreement. Not ever. As far as the SEC is concerned, those are the facts of the case and nothing can be done to legally change that. The SEC's job is to regulate and enforce securities law civilly (they have no criminal enforcement powers). Their actions, their opinions, their conclusions carry considerable weight.

So, lawyers who don't actually represent the Church and amateur apologists can try to sow doubt about the findings of fact in the Order, the Church cannot join in on that effort. They cannot join in because they are legally prevented from doing so and they agreed to that as part of the settlement. They knew the findings of fact would be published and, by entering into the settlement agreement, they agreed to that as well.

[bsjkki]

I definitely agree with the church statement of 'mistakes were made.' It's kind of a half glass full or half glass empty interpretation of everything else. If you are inclined, it is easy to place the most nefarious interpretation as to the motives of how these mistakes happened. If you are so inclined, it is also easy to understand less nefarious or understandable motives of why these mistakes occurred. IMO, the more I read, the less nefarious the motives become. Accountants and lawyers give us advice all the time on taxes and business, and I am not an expert and go with their advice. Keeping the scope of the church's holding more private in a legal way was understandable. They don't want to have members track their investments, they don't want to be 'market movers,' they are a church and in some ways it is unfortunate that because the church has had an excellent savings program (following their sound advice given to all members), they have to lose their privacy. People agree to settlements all the time because it is in their best interests to do so, even if they have a sound defense. The process, in some ways, is its own punishment. 

Edited February 23, 2023 by bsjkki

[Teancum]

38 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Cool 24 pages of I Told You So by the opposition. I bet you all are real happy.

Well your comment adds a lot to the discussion.😏

[Teancum]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Teancum does not want the public or his friends and relatives to know his SSN, his email and bank logins, the contents of his safety deposit box, and so on.  Why is that?  What is he afraid of?

Don't you see what you are doing here?  That you are fabricating expectations out of thin air, imputing them onto the Church, and then saying "Why is the Church not doing what I think it ought to do?  What is it afraid of?"

I really see no reason to pursue this with you any longer. Especially with this continued argument that you repeat over and over (along with how all your no attorney opponents fail in their legal analysis. Oh and how hateful all the spiteful apostate critics are to the poor Church).  This argument simply fails for the numerous reasons I have stated. Your superior legal training ought to make that obvious to you.

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

It is possible that the Church was never out of compliance.

I noticed that you used the word "possible" instead of "plausible." Do you think it's plausible that the Church was never out of compliance?

Edited February 23, 2023 by Thinking

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

If you are inclined, it is easy to place the most nefarious interpretation as to the motives of how these mistakes happened. If you are so inclined, it is also easy to understand less nefarious or understandable motives of why these mistakes occurred. IMO, the more I read, the less nefarious the motives become. 

The President of the EPA has gone on record to explain the motives behind it all - to hide these funds from the public to keep members obedient in paying tithing.  What are the "mistakes" that were made? See my post above  as to why one would be hard pressed not to give these allegations serious consideration and merit given the stated intentions of the church.  Whether or not their lawyers thought it was legal, the measures and methods they are alleged to have used (and which I have every reason to believe given the stated motive of the EPA) of deception are unethical.  

I guess it is up to you decide if that is "nefarious" or not.  I find it terribly unsettling to be placed in that kind of relationship with the church. 

[Teancum]

44 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Something that I think is getting lost in all of this discussion of 'facts' and 'allegations' and 'the Church admitted nothing' is the meaning of the Church's agreement that it also does not deny the findings of fact listed in the Order. In short, at no time in the future can the Church dispute the findings of fact in that document without violating its settlement agreement. Not ever. As far as the SEC is concerned, those are the facts of the case and nothing can be done to legally change that. The SEC's job is to regulate and enforce securities law civilly (they have no criminal enforcement powers). Their actions, their opinions, their conclusions carry considerable weight.

So, lawyers who don't actually represent the Church and amateur apologists can try to sow doubt about the findings of fact in the Order, the Church cannot join in on that effort. They cannot join in because they are legally prevented from doing so and they agreed to that as part of the settlement. They knew the findings of fact would be published and, by entering into the settlement agreement, they agreed to that as well.

Great point!

[pogi]

Given the stated motives of wanting to influence members to keep paying tithing (through allegedly deceitful and dishonest means), does it feel uncomfortably ironic to anyone else that these two temple recommend questions are back-to-back?

9) Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?

10) Are you a full-tithe payer?

I doubt any higher-ups are going to loose their temple recommends over what happened. 

I think this irony highlights the discomfort I am feeling.   Why is tithing a higher value or principle than honesty?   Why is it ok for the church to violate honest behavior to keep us obedient to #10?  Where is the accountability?   I would be much more ok with this if I saw some accountability, but without that, how am I supposed to trust that this kind of stuff wont happen, and isn't happening, in other ways?

[bsjkki]

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

The President of the EPA has gone on record to explain the motives behind it all - to hide these funds from the public to keep members obedient in paying tithing.  What are the "mistakes" that were made? See my post above  as to why one would be hard pressed not to give these allegations serious consideration and merit given the stated intentions of the church.  Whether or not their lawyers thought it was legal, the measures and methods they are alleged to have used (and which I have every reason to believe given the stated motive of the EPA) of deception are unethical.  

I guess it is up to you decide if that is "nefarious" or not.  I find it terribly unsettling to be placed in that kind of relationship with the church. 

This is what he said in 2020. You can interpret this how you wish. But, this is not new information. I don't pay tithing because the church needs my money. But, I can understand how the church really not needing money, may be a stumbling block to paying tithing for others. So again, do you believe him and the motives stated in 2020 or not? 

"For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, tithing — donating 10% of one’s income to the faith — “is more of a sense of commitment than it is the church needing the money,” Roger Clarke, head of Ensign Peak Advisors, which manages the denomination’s investing holdings, told The Wall Street Journal.

“So they never wanted to be in a position where people felt like, you know, they shouldn’t make a contribution,” Clarke said.

" Clarke and former Ensign employees said the firm created a system of more than a dozen shell companies to make its stock investments harder to track. That strategy, Clarke said, was designed to prevent members from parroting what Ensign was doing and to, as the paper stated, “protect them from mismanaging their own funds with insufficient information.”

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This is what he said in 2020. You can interpret this how you wish. But, this is not new information. I don't pay tithing because the church needs my money. But, I can understand how the church really not needing money, may be a stumbling block to paying tithing for others. So again, do you believe him and the motives stated in 2020 or not? 

"For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, tithing — donating 10% of one’s income to the faith — “is more of a sense of commitment than it is the church needing the money,” Roger Clarke, head of Ensign Peak Advisors, which manages the denomination’s investing holdings, told The Wall Street Journal.

“So they never wanted to be in a position where people felt like, you know, they shouldn’t make a contribution,” Clarke said.

" Clarke and former Ensign employees said the firm created a system of more than a dozen shell companies to make its stock investments harder to track. That strategy, Clarke said, was designed to prevent members from parroting what Ensign was doing and to, as the paper stated, “protect them from mismanaging their own funds with insufficient information.”

I totally believe him - and it is new information to me.    And I agree with him as to why we should pay tithing.  So why the heck are they going to the extent that they are to get us to obey for the wrong reasons?

I don't pay tithing because the church needs me to either, which is why this comment is so troubling to me.  They seem to think that it is ok to manipulate perceptions in dishonest ways because they think that some members might stop paying tithing if they think the church didn't need their money.  How is that ok?    How is that respecting to us faithful members who are committed to sacrifice all for the kingdom of God to treat us like children and not adults capable of doing the right thing for the right reasons.  It is manipulative.  It is dishonest.  And it is not holding themselves to the same standards that we are required to obey to be temple worthy.  It is not ok. 

Edited February 23, 2023 by pogi

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I definitely agree with the church statement of 'mistakes were made.' It's kind of a half glass full or half glass empty interpretation of everything else. If you are inclined, it is easy to place the most nefarious interpretation as to the motives of how these mistakes happened. If you are so inclined, it is also easy to understand less nefarious or understandable motives of why these mistakes occurred. IMO, the more I read, the less nefarious the motives become. Accountants and lawyers give us advice all the time on taxes and business, and I am not an expert and go with their advice. Keeping the scope of the church's holding more private in a legal way was understandable. They don't want to have members track their investments, they don't want to be 'market movers,' they are a church and in some ways it is unfortunate that because the church has had an excellent savings program (following their sound advice given to all members), they have to lose their privacy. People agree to settlements all the time because it is in their best interests to do so, even if they have a sound defense. The process, in some ways, is its own punishment. 

I don't mind this, except that they need to let up on the tithing talks. Why is it so important, in the Bible tithing isn't all that important in the scheme of things. That's my only problem with the church and it's soon to be trillions.