Church fined by SEC

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Even if everything had been legal and they had not been fined, there is something unsettling about the secrecy to me as a former full tithe payer (still a full tithe payer if you permit me to tithe to groups outside of the church).

If paying 10% to an outside organization is a tith payer, I suppose Bill Gates is a tith payer as well.

[Kenngo1969]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

So as long as we don't admit to things that we do wrong, it is all good, right?

Whatever opinion you wish to hold, a priori, regarding alleged wrongdoing by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no one can stop you.  However, evidence matters, truth matters, and proof matters.  And in this case, no evidence (much less any proof) has been offered in a court of law that indicates or demonstrates that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has engaged in any wrongdoing.

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

That seems to be the name of the game.  This doesn't help with trust.

You're free to bestow or to withhold your trust as you see fit, as is anyone else.  There are a lot of opinions out there about me, many of which are based on information that, at best, is incomplete, and that, at worst, is simply flat-out wrong.  I don't have any control over whether someone chooses to withhold his or her trust from me based on incomplete or inaccurate information.  No one who knows me well, however, would believe inaccurate information, no matter who might swear that such inaccurate information is gospel.

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

 Members are not stupid.  They don't need to admit to anything for us to see the writing on the wall. 

You're welcome to your opinion.  Contrary to the foregoing statement, however, you do not speak for all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Let me get this straight. You think the Church's attorneys said that it would be legal and ethical to select "Business Managers" who didn't do anything whatsoever to run the business, hand those "Business Managers" signature pages of SEC documents that the Business Manager's didn't understand, and then attach those signed signature pages to filings that were full of deliberate lies misstatements?

You think that is proper, ethical advice that the Church got from its attorneys and followed in good faith, thinking it honest?

If there is no moral dimension to this story, why do you think two of the business managers resigned when this started to come to light? 

Don't forget the part about 'managers' being selected because they had common names to avoid fruitful social media searches. That also shows how ethical and moral these actions were.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Quote

pretend like the case is closed

Isn't that the point of settling though? Agree to pay/do something rather than go through a trial. Neither side is forced to settle. 

Yes, that is the point.  That this is being construed as a talking point critical of the Church is . . . weird.

The investigation has been resolved through settlement and payment of a fine.  The SEC Order says what it says.  The Church has issued a formal statement.

I think some want the Church to explain more.  To hash out the particulars of what happened (going back, it seems, 20+ years).  Perhaps even to name names.  All regarding its efforts to comply with one of the most complex bodies of regulatory law ever created.  I find that both unlikely to happen and unnecessary to do.  If the Church erred in its regulatory compliance, that error has been rectified.

I hope folks, particularly those who affirm faith in the Restored Gospel but who are nevertheless upset about this story, will take a step back, calm down, set aside hard feelings and other knee-jerk reactions, and contextualize this.  What has happened is just as pertinent to our relationship with the government - particularly the Administrative State - as it is to our relationship with the Church.  There are a lot of moving parts here, not a single one of which implicates the truth claims and foundational events of the Restoration.  Either Joseph Smith experienced the First Vision, or he did not.  Either he was guided by the Angel Moroni to obtain, and later translate "by the gift and power of God," the Book of Mormon, or he was/did not.  Either Peter, James and John descended in angelic form and restored the Priesthood to Joseph Smith, or this did not happen.  Either Joseph Smith received the revelations published in the Doctrine & Covenants, or he did not.

If these things happened, then let's stay the course.  If some of you are upset (and candidly, I can understand and appreciate why you might be), then write a letter to the Church to express your views.  Do so with grace and charity, and with temperance and patience.  Otherwise, let's keep moving forward. 

The government has mechanisms in place to address disputes as to compliance with the law, and those mechanisms have worked.  The Church is now fully compliant with the SEC's expectations and guidelines.  The Church will be paying a fine.  The Church has also expressed regret for its "mistakes."  

If this story was indicative of some widespread and/or ongoing corruption or incompetence in the upper echelons of the Church, or by those charged with managing the financial and business affairs of the Church, I could see a need to have "more" explained to us.  But I don't think that is the case.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 23, 2023 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

... The motives were to hide their assets from public view. And they did dishonest things, IMO, to do so. See above.

You are imputing sinister motives to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I think you assume entirely too much.

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You presume that which has yet to be demonstrated, namely, that the Church did "wrong."

But to answer your question, no.

I don't think members are stupid, either.  But I also think most don't have the time or inclination or ability to parse out the particulars of this story, and so will instead rely on popular narratives, some of which will be from critics and dissidents.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, I am left to presume things because they opted not to be tried by the law.  I am left to use my best judgment.  Their good name is not a matter of law. 

I asked a set of questions previously.  Perhaps you would like to answer them.  I will post it again here.

But please answer these questions:

Quote

 

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. 

 

 

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

With due respect, by that standard, no one ever should plead "Not Guilty" in a criminal proceeding, nor should any defense attorney (particularly not a Latter-day Saint defense attorney) defend such a person ... because "the optics are bad."  It wouldn't matter even if everyone in the world were of exactly the same opinion that the conduct of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this matter is reprehensible.  Unlike in the "court" of public opinion, in courts of law, there are rules of evidence and procedure.  (One of which, by the way, is that one party cannot use what another party says in settlement negotiations against the first party, and some of the very reasoning on display in this very thread provides an excellent rationale for that rule's existence.) 

In contrast to the foregoing "optics" standard, however, thankfully, the way things actually work is that it doesn't matter if everyone in the world believes a person or entity is guilty of a crime or guilty of wrongdoing unless and until the matter is proven by the relevant legal standard in a court of law.  In this case, nothing ... and I'll emphasize that again, nothing ... has been proven in a court of law.  Absolutely nothing.

 

Do you feel better now that you've gotten that off your chest?

My statement was about SMac's defense tactics, not the Church's settlement.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

 

Seems like good advice

Also this

 

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal, but if ye do, hide your wealth with a maze of shell corporations, to make sure no one finds out about it. 

[Kenngo1969]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

... The government has mechanisms in place to address disputes as to compliance with the law, and those mechanisms have worked.  The Church is now fully compliant with the SEC's expectations and guidelines.  The Church will be paying a fine.  The Church has also expressed regret for its "mistakes." ...

More to the point, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been compliant with SEC regulations for quite some time now, as it stopped submitting SEC 13Fs through the shell corporations some time ago.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You are imputing sinister motives to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I think you assume entirely too much.

 On March 15, 2005, the Church became aware that the public might link this first LLC to the Church because the person signing the Forms 13F was listed in a public directory as a Church employee. To address this issue, on March 21, 2005, the senior leadership of the Church approved a new reporting entity to be created with “better care being taken to ensure that neither the ‘Street’ nor the media [could] connect the new entity to Ensign Peak.”

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

However, evidence matters, truth matters, and proof matters. 

Nope, none of that matters. All that matters is the church didn’t admit to anything and kept it out of court. Possible deniability is the name of the game!

[Kenngo1969]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Do you feel better now that you've gotten that off your chest?

My statement was about SMac's defense tactics, not the Church's settlement.

Okay.

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You are imputing sinister motives to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I think you assume entirely too much.

It does not take much imputation of sinister motives to understand  that manipulating employees into signing documents that just aren't true is dishonest.

[Kenngo1969]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Nope, none of that matters. All that matters is the church didn’t admit to anything and kept it out of court. Possible deniability is the name of the game!

On the contrary.  If there were something unusual or nefarious about a party being able to settle without admitting wrongdoing, you might have a point, but since there is nothing unusual or nefarious about such a clause, with due respect, you don't.

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It does not take much imputation of sinister motives to understand  that manipulating employees into signing documents that just aren't true is dishonest.

There are several a priori assumptions there that with which I think people can, reasonably and in good faith, take issue.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It does not take much imputation of sinister motives to understand  that manipulating employees into signing documents that just aren't true is dishonest.

Especially considering that it was the SEC, quoting the church itself, that stated the motive. 

[ttribe]

Just going to link the Order again since we have new thread participants who may not have taken the time to read the discussion up to this point:

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2023/34-96951.pdf

[Teancum]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You are imputing sinister motives to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I think you assume entirely too much.

Question. Why did the church condone EPA set up 13 LLCs to split up reporting of assets and have people who were not investment managers to sign off on the Form 13F?  Why do you think they did this?  For fun?  To pay attorney fees?  Because having 13 LLCs is cool?  What as the business purpose?  What was the legal reason?

[Kenngo1969]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal, but if ye do, hide your wealth with a maze of shell corporations, to make sure no one finds out about it. 

Thanks for providing us with the "SUT" ("SeekingUnderstanding Translation") of those verses, but with due respect, I'll stick with better known and more widely used translations.  

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

There are several a priori assumptions there that with which I think people can, reasonably and in good faith, take issue.

I just gave you a factual statement the SEC made. No assumptions.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Question. Why did the church condone EPA set up 13 LLCs to split up reporting of assets and have people who were not investment managers to sign off on the Form 13F?  Why do you think they did this?  For fun?  To pay attorney fees?  Because having 13 LLCs is cool?  What as the business purpose?  What was the legal reason?

Again, the church’s reasons are stated:

To address this issue, on March 21, 2005, the senior leadership of the Church approved a new reporting entity to be created with “better care being taken to ensure that neither the ‘Street’ nor the media [could] connect the new entity to Ensign Peak.”

No sinister imputations necessary. 

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Sigh.

I have always been taught by the church that this is speaking of condemnation, but that we should use righteous judgment - else we be doormats.  Blind faith/trust is not the expectation.  That requires judgment my friend.   I can probably forgive, but that is not equivalent to trusting.  Trust is not so easily regained where there is no willingness to be accountable and make restitution to those injured in trust.  

16 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Bring it on.  I am not condemning them.  

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Yes, I am left to presume things because they opted not to be tried by the law. 

"Presume things" about . . . technical compliance with arcane (and possibly erroneous) reporting requirements promulgated by the Administrative State?

Or by "presume things" do you have something else in mind?

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I am left to use my best judgment. 

I encourage you to use that best judgment.  All of it.  The same sort of judgment you would hope others would apply to you.

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I asked a set of questions previously.  Perhaps you would like to answer them.  I will post it again here.

But please answer these questions:

Oi.  Okay.

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?  

Yes.

Because they are "allegations" does this mean we should dismiss them outright?  

No.  Because they are "allegations" means that we should not accept them outright.  Due Process.  Presumption of innocence.  Actual evidence presented to an impartial factfinder (rather than unadorned assertions, as we have in the SEC Order).  These things are important.

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? 

I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing wrong."  But yes, I think there is room to believe that the Church complied with the law, and that the SEC is wrong.  See here.

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?  

Yes, the findings are "believable."  But they are not established as fact.

I am not sure what you are referencing with the "President of the EPA" stuff.

Do you believe they created these LLCs?  Why or why not?  

Because the creation of the LLCs is an empirically testable claim.

By the way, there was nothing legally "wrong" or unethical or improper or untoward in "the creation of the LLCs."

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?  

I am not satisfied that documents were falsified.

And again, I think it is possible that the SEC is wrong on this point.  See here.

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?  

Your "if" is too speculative.  And we already know why the Church started the LLCs.  And I think we also know that, in and of itself, and without more, creating an LLC is an entirely legal thing to do.

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?  

I don't know.

Do you think it is true that they were only given the signature page without the full document to read?  

I don't know.

Or do you think the SEC is just making that up?  

I don't trust the SEC to get the facts pristinely correct, or to objectively and clinically recite them.

What seems more reasonable?  

You are asking for speculation and guesswork.  All we have is the SEC's say so.  On the other side of the scales, we have a number of things like Due Process, the Presumption of Innocence, the generalized decency of the Church, and so on.

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?   

I am not persuaded that "creating false locations" happened.  LLCs can be headquartered anywhere.

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"?  

I found these allegations troubling, but only potentially so.  I don't think we have enough to go on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I just gave you a factual statement the SEC made. No assumptions.

For the umpteenth time, in a legal setting, nothing is a "fact" unless it's admitted by the party charged or adjudicated as fact by an impartial factfinder.

So yes, "assumptions" abound in this discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For the umpteenth time, in a legal setting, nothing is a "fact" unless it's admitted by the party charged or adjudicated as fact by an impartial factfinder.

So yes, "assumptions" abound in this discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

What about when the SEC quotes an organization’s statement of its motive?