Church fined by SEC

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Your comments are really out of line here. And you are out of your league when trying to discuss this with @ttribe

You might want to sit this one out.

Meh. People get angry and defensive when cherished beliefs are challenged. It happens.

[rodheadlee]

On 2/23/2023 at 10:31 AM, Teancum said:

Well your comment adds a lot to the discussion.😏

 

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It was money from members who were organized into action by the stake. The monetary contributions don’t include the many man hours the project required.

I really applaud your Stake getting involved in the community.  It doesn't happen enough with church organizations IMO.  I think it is a big part of why so many are leaving organized religion.  They aren't seeing enough of this kind of work being done.  They only see the self interest that religion seems to be only interested in general these days.  Actions like this could change a lot of hearts and minds, especially on a local level.  I am not saying it doesn't happen, I am only saying that it doesn't happen enough.  Good for you guys.

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Non-profit ones also don't pay property taxes, and yet nobody seems to grouse about that.

I do not think this is correct, Any NFP clients we have that are not religious organizations pay property tax if they own real estate. If they rent the taxes are passed on to them in their triple net lease.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

According to me, publicly disparaging someone or something to whom I owed "fiduciary"-style duties of loyalty, etc., is wrong.  Yes.  I'll own up to that every day of the week.

Acknowledging wrongdoing is not disparagement. 

I agree.

Meanwhile, the Church has publicly "acknowledged" its "mistakes," and it's still getting raked across the coals.  It's almost as if the Church is darned if it does, darned if it doesn't.  As if calls for an apology are just a pretextual excuse for finding fault ("Hey, the Church didn't apologize!  It's bad!"), and/or a precursor for shifting the goalposts and demanding more ("Hey, the Church apologized, but it's not enough!  We want more!  It's bad!").

Broadly speaking, I am repulsed at what seems to be a call for us to emulate the "Struggle Sessions" seen in Communist China:

Quote

Struggle sessions or denunciation rallies were violent public spectacles in Maoist China where people accused of being "class enemies" were publicly humiliated, accused, beaten and tortured by people with whom they were close.^[1][2] Usually conducted at the workplace, classrooms and auditoriums, "students were pitted against their teachers, friends and spouses were pressured to betray one another, [and] children were manipulated into exposing their parents".^[2] Staging, scripts and agitators were prearranged by the Maoists to incite crowd support.^[1] The aim was to instill a crusading spirit among the crowd to promote the Maoist thought reform. 

The Church has paid a fine.  The Church has expressed regret for its "mistakes."  Not enough for some of our critics though.  They want the Church to be punished.  They want the Church to be subjecte to ...

For some or critics, no matter what the Church does, its efforts will always be...

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 24, 2023 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I agree.

Meanwhile, the Church has publicly "acknowledged" its "mistakes," and it's still getting raked across the coals.  It's almost as if the Church is darned if it does, darned if it doesn't.  As if calls for an apology are just a pretextual excuse for finding fault ("Hey, the Church didn't apologize!  It's bad!", and a precursor for shifting the goalposts and demanding more ("Hey, the Church apologized, but it's not enough!  We want more!  It's bad!").

Broadly speaking, I am repulsed at what seems to be a call for us to emulate the "Struggle Sessions" seen in Communist China:

The Church has paid a fine.  The Church has expressed regret for its "mistakes."  Not enough for some of our critics though.  They want the Church to be punished.  They want the Church to be subjecte to ...

For some or critics, no matter what the Church does, its efforts will always be...

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Struggle sessions? Seriously? All I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with concluding that the church did something wrong and saying so. No one is asking the church to apologize or make penance, let alone be humiliated. I haven't denounced anyone or any organization. The hyperbole of this thread continues unabated. Just stop it. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Non-profit ones also don't pay property taxes, and yet nobody seems to grouse about that.

I do not think this is correct, Any NFP clients we have that are not religious organizations pay property tax if they own real estate. If they rent the taxes are passed on to them in their triple net lease.

This varies by jurisdiction, I think.  Under Article XIII of the Utah Constitution, property that is owned by a nonprofit entity and used exclusively for charitable, religious, or educational purposes is exempt from property tax.

From our friend, Chat GPT:

Quote

The rules regarding exemptions from real property tax vary by jurisdiction, so the types of property owners who are exempt from paying real property tax will depend on the specific laws and regulations of the area in question.

However, in many jurisdictions, certain types of properties and property owners may be eligible for exemptions from real property tax. Some common examples include:

1. Non-profit organizations, such as charities, religious institutions, and educational institutions, may be exempt from paying property taxes on their buildings and land.

2. Government-owned properties may be exempt from real property tax.

3. Properties used for agricultural or farming purposes may be eligible for reduced property tax rates or exemptions.

4. Elderly or disabled homeowners may be eligible for property tax exemptions or discounts.

5. Properties used for conservation or preservation purposes may be eligible for tax breaks.

It's important to note that even if a property owner is exempt from paying real property tax, they may still be responsible for paying other taxes, such as income tax or sales tax.

So, yeah.  All sorts of exceptions and exemptions are out there.

I honestly can't recall seeing any calls for the elimination of other types of exemptions.  But I have seen plenty of calls for eliminating exemptions that apply to religious groups.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Struggle sessions? Seriously?

Seriously.  It came to mind when I read Sam Brunson's article:

Quote

So here’s the thing: the church may consider the matter closed. But it’s not. This represents a real betrayal to the millions of church members who have worked hard to live up to their standards, to be honest even where it’s hard, to obey the law even where it’s inconvenient. It represents a deeply disappointing disclosure to the millions of Saints who have looked to the church as a model for how to act and how to live.

And saying “this matter [is] closed” doesn’t address that betrayal, that disappointment, that hypocrisy. To move forward, the church needs to address its error. Not to the SEC—it’s already done that—but to its membership. It needs to explain what went wrong, why it went wrong, how it will ensure it doesn’t go wrong again. Members have believed that the church represents a model for their lives for a long time. And, even in the wake of this news, the church can do that: it can model how to repent and come back from severe errors.

But simply paying a fine, then ignoring the harm, is not that model. Church members deserve better. The institutional church deserves better.

The Powers-that-Be sought and obtained legal advice on how to comply with SEC reporting requirements, and then implemented a strategy that apparently comported with that advice, but which the SEC - decades later - found to be problematic. 

One or some few bureaucratic functionaries in the COB or at EPA may have made some errors in working with LLC managers, and may have erred in filling out Column 8 of the "Information Table" of the 13F forms submitted to the SEC (which the SEC found problematic, and which findings, I will again note, raise some questions as to the legitimacy of the SEC's actions and application of the governing statute). 

Concerns expressed during a church audit were apparently not acted on (which can be attributed to either A) the Church have the same run-of-the-mill bureaucratic inertia and inefficiencies as pretty much every other large organization does, or B) the Church being eeevil and nefarious, take your pick).  

Nevertheless, there is nary a whiff of any allegation of fraud or criminality.  Errors in judgment in implementing a strategy based on legal advice?  Maybe.  Errors in filling out paperwork?  Possibly.  Withholding relevant information from LLCs managers who were only given signature pages?  Yes, I see that as problematic.

But really, Sam?  This stuff is merits public denunciations as being a "real betrayal?"  A failure to "be honest even where it's hard?"  A failure to "obey the law even where it's inconvenient?"  It's "deeply disappointing?"  A failure to act "as a model for how to act and how to live?"  A "betrayal?"  "Disappointment?"  "Hypocrisy?"

Overwrought, much?

Meanwhile, look at that middle paragraph: "And saying 'this matter [is] closed' doesn’t address that betrayal, that disappointment, that hypocrisy. To move forward, the church needs to address its error. Not to the SEC—it’s already done that—but to its membership. It needs to explain what went wrong, why it went wrong, how it will ensure it doesn’t go wrong again. Members have believed that the church represents a model for their lives for a long time. And, even in the wake of this news, the church can do that: it can model how to repent and come back from severe errors."

Candidly, yes, I catch some whiffs of "Struggle Session" in this.

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

All I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with concluding that the church did something wrong and saying so.

That's fine.  I have not disputed your right to reach that conclusion or have that opinion.

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No one is asking the church to apologize or make penance, let alone be humiliated.

Sam Brunson: "To move forward, the church needs to address its error."  (Note: This was posted after the Church had expressed regret for its mistakes.)

Also Sam Brunson: "{The Church} needs to {publicly} explain {to the entirety of the Church} what went wrong, why it went wrong, how it will ensure it doesn’t go wrong again."  (Note: This was posted after the Church had expressed regret for its mistakes, and after the SEC had concluded its investigation, and several years after the Church had taken remedial steps to satisfy the SEC.)

Also Sam Brunson: "{The Church should use this public explanation to} model how to repent and come back from severe errors."  (Note: This was posted after the Church had expressed regret for its mistakes, and after the SEC announced the fine.)

"OT" in Sam's comments: "It is to say the least, disappointing.  I think the church needs to apologize."  (Note: This was posted after the Church had expressed regret for its mistakes and after the SEC announced the fine.)

"Andrew" in Sam's comments: "It would increase credibility in the institution significantly if it were to simply admit that since it is made up of imperfect mortals sometimes bad decisions are made, have unqualified contrition for the bad decision, apologize or otherwise rectify the situation to the extent possible..."  (Note: This was posted after the Church had expressed regret for its mistakes, and after the SEC had concluded its investigation, and several years after the Church had taken remedial steps to satisfy the SEC.)

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 24, 2023 by smac97

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

I really applaud your Stake getting involved in the community.  It doesn't happen enough with church organizations IMO.  I think it is a big part of why so many are leaving organized religion.  They aren't seeing enough of this kind of work being done.  They only see the self interest that religion seems to be only interested in general these days.  Actions like this could change a lot of hearts and minds, especially on a local level.  I am not saying it doesn't happen, I am only saying that it doesn't happen enough.  Good for you guys.

I’m thankful our stake views community service to really important. Every year it holds a stake day of service (separate from the activity we’ve been talking about) where every organization in the ward is expected to be involved in some form of service that day for the town.

The last year other stakes were doing their service day on the same day and every donut shop/grocery store was sold out in the whole town. A town of 60,000.  We do service right I guess. 😂

[Teancum]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So, yeah.  All sorts of exceptions and exemptions are out there.

I honestly can't recall seeing any calls for the elimination of other types of exemptions.  But I have seen plenty of calls for eliminating exemptions that apply to religious groups.

Well as for me I am not advocating that.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Well as for me I am not advocating that.

Glad to hear it.

SeekingUnderstanding is, though.  He wants exemptions eliminated, but just those for religious groups.  Is that correct SU?  Or are you advocating for across-the-board elimination of all exemptions?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Powers-that-Be sought and obtained legal advice on how to comply with SEC reporting requirements, and then implemented a strategy that apparently comported with that advice, but which the SEC - decades later - found to be problematic. One or some few bureaucratic functionaries in the COB or at EPA may have made some errors in working with LLC managers, and may have erred in filling out Column 8 of the "Information Table" of the 13F forms submitted to the SEC (which the SEC found problematic, and which findings, I will again note, raise some questions as to the legitimacy of the SEC's actions and application of the governing statute).  Concerned expressed during a church audit were apparently not acted on.  Nevertheless, there is nary a whiff of fraud or criminality.  Errors in judgment in implementing a strategy based on legal advice?  Maybe.  Errors in filling out paperwork?  Possibly.  Withholding relevant information from LLCs managers who were only given signature pages?  Yes, I see that as problematic.

And for all this the Church got its hand slapped and asked to fix things.

Is there any post 2019 behavior that remains potentially problematic?

[jkwilliams]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Seriously.  It came to mind when I read Sam Brunson's article:

The Powers-that-Be sought and obtained legal advice on how to comply with SEC reporting requirements, and then implemented a strategy that apparently comported with that advice, but which the SEC - decades later - found to be problematic. 

One or some few bureaucratic functionaries in the COB or at EPA may have made some errors in working with LLC managers, and may have erred in filling out Column 8 of the "Information Table" of the 13F forms submitted to the SEC (which the SEC found problematic, and which findings, I will again note, raise some questions as to the legitimacy of the SEC's actions and application of the governing statute). 

Concerns expressed during a church audit were apparently not acted on (which can be attributed to either A) the Church have the same run-of-the-mill bureaucratic inertia and inefficiencies as pretty much every other large organization does, or B) the Church being eeevil and nefarious, take your pick).  

Nevertheless, there is nary a whiff of any allegation of fraud or criminality.  Errors in judgment in implementing a strategy based on legal advice?  Maybe.  Errors in filling out paperwork?  Possibly.  Withholding relevant information from LLCs managers who were only given signature pages?  Yes, I see that as problematic.

But really, Sam?  This stuff is merits public denunciations as being a "real betrayal?"  A failure to "be honest even where it's hard?"  A failure to "obey the law even where it's inconvenient?"  It's "deeply disappointing?"  A failure to act "as a model for how to act and how to live?"  A "betrayal?"  "Disappointment?"  "Hypocrisy?"

Overwrought, much?

Meanwhile, look at that middle paragraph: "And saying 'this matter [is] closed' doesn’t address that betrayal, that disappointment, that hypocrisy. To move forward, the church needs to address its error. Not to the SEC—it’s already done that—but to its membership. It needs to explain what went wrong, why it went wrong, how it will ensure it doesn’t go wrong again. Members have believed that the church represents a model for their lives for a long time. And, even in the wake of this news, the church can do that: it can model how to repent and come back from severe errors."

Candidly, yes, I catch some whiffs of "Struggle Session" in this.

That's fine.  I have not disputed your right to reach that conclusion or have that opinion.

Sam Brunson: "To move forward, the church needs to address its error."  (Note: This was posted after the Church had expressed regret for its mistakes.)

Also Sam Brunson: "{The Church} needs to {publicly} explain {to the entirety of the Church} what went wrong, why it went wrong, how it will ensure it doesn’t go wrong again."  (Note: This was posted after the Church had expressed regret for its mistakes, and after the SEC had concluded its investigation, and several years after the Church had taken remedial steps to satisfy the SEC.)

Also Sam Brunson: "{The Church should use this public explanation to} model how to repent and come back from severe errors."  (Note: This was posted after the Church had expressed regret for its mistakes, and after the SEC announced the fine.)

"OT" in Sam's comments: "It is to say the least, disappointing.  I think the church needs to apologize."  (Note: This was posted after the Church had expressed regret for its mistakes and after the SEC announced the fine.)

"Andrew" in Sam's comments: "It would increase credibility in the institution significantly if it were to simply admit that since it is made up of imperfect mortals sometimes bad decisions are made, have unqualified contrition for the bad decision, apologize or otherwise rectify the situation to the extent possible..."  (Note: This was posted after the Church had expressed regret for its mistakes, and after the SEC had concluded its investigation, and several years after the Church had taken remedial steps to satisfy the SEC.)

Thanks,

-Smac

Last I checked, Sam Brunson isn’t on this board or in this thread. 

“That's fine.  I have not disputed your right to reach that conclusion or have that opinion.”

But you have repeatedly attacked the characters of posters for reaching that conclusion. That’s what sucks.

Edited February 24, 2023 by jkwilliams

[Tacenda]

@smac97what do you think about members that could/might sue the church for back tithing they paid in the years the Ensign Peak did the LLC's. RFM posted a tiktok about how it could work. Do you think it could, I mean you're both lawyers. I know it didn't pan out when James Huntsman sued the church, but maybe this is leaning more corporate vs. religious.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/02/23/read-yourself-what-sec-found-lds/

Here are some highlights taken straight from the document to look for:

• “The church was concerned that disclosure of the assets in the name of Ensign Peak … would lead to negative consequences in light of the size of the church’s portfolio. Ensign Peak did not have the authority to implement this approach without the approval of the church’s First Presidency.”

• “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.’”

• “The senior leadership of the church approved Ensign Peak’s recommendation to ‘gradually and carefully adapt Ensign Peak’s corporate structure to strengthen the portfolio’s confidentiality.’”

• “Two business managers resigned their roles, voicing concerns about what they had been asked to do.”

• “Two church Audit Department internal audits of Ensign Peak — one in 2014 and one in 2017 — … highlighted the risk that the SEC might disagree with [Ensign Peak’s reporting] approach.”

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Glad to hear it.

SeekingUnderstanding is, though.  He wants exemptions eliminated, but just those for religious groups.  Is that correct SU?  Or are you advocating for across-the-board elimination of all exemptions?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think financial transparency should be imposed on all non-profits. If an organization declines it should not receive tax exemptions. On a moral level, I don’t think any organization that solicits donations without transparency is complying with the moral and ethical principle of informed consent. The church’s overt acts to rob its members of informed consent are immoral in my eyes. To its credit the church has started to make strides in this area in response to intense criticism (see improved transparency on secretive temple rituals and church history). 

Edited February 24, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Glad to hear it.

SeekingUnderstanding is, though.  He wants exemptions eliminated, but just those for religious groups.  Is that correct SU?  Or are you advocating for across-the-board elimination of all exemptions?

I think financial transparency should be imposed on all non-profits.

I wasn't asking about "financial transparency."  You said:

Quote

Church's don't pay property taxes. Don't help fund schools, roads, or other public works, but take full advantage of all of them. If an organization wants to run as opaque as possible, great, let them. I just want nothing to do with subsidizing them. 

It seems like the only way to dispose of what you call "subsidizing" churches relative to "property taxes" is to . . . make churches pay property taxes.

Is that what you are calling for?

If so, are you also calling for eliminating all other exemptions?  All non-profits, charities, educational institutions, farmers, elderly and disabled homeowners, conservation/preservation properties?

Or is it just the exemption for religious groups that you want to eliminate?

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If an organization declines it should not receive tax exemptions.  On a moral level, I don’t think any organization that solicits donations without transparency is complying with the moral and ethical principle of informed consent.

We're not talking about tax exemptions generally.  Just property taxes.  

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The church’s overt acts to rob its members of informed consent are immoral in my eyes.

I disagree.  And not relevant to my question about what sorts of exemptions for property tax you want eliminated. 

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

To its credit the church has started to make strides in this area in response to intense criticism (see improved transparency on secretive temple rituals and church history). 

Well!  Didn't see that coming. Thank you.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 24, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

@smac97what do you think about members that could/might sue the church for back tithing they paid in the years the Ensign Peak did the LLC's.

I think they're going to be disappointed in the results.  And the lawyers that take such cases will be gouging them.

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

RFM posted a tiktok about how it could work. Do you think it could, I mean you're both lawyers. I know it didn't pan out when James Huntsman sued the church, but maybe this is leaning more corporate vs. religious.

I'd have to see the video.  That it is posted on tiktok does not exactly inspire confidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Last I checked, Sam Brunson isn’t on this board or in this thread. 

“That's fine.  I have not disputed your right to reach that conclusion or have that opinion.”

But you have repeatedly attacked the characters of posters for reaching that conclusion. That’s what sucks.

I'll go back and review my posts, and retract and apologize as necessary.

I think what I have criticized is the bombast and mischaracterizations.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Last I checked, Sam Brunson isn’t on this board or in this thread. 

Analytics has cited and quoted and touted Sam Brunson's assessment in this thread.  Several times.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It seems like the only way to dispose of what you call "subsidizing" churches relative to "property taxes" is to . . . make churches pay property taxes.

Is that what you are calling for?

It might help if you read the whole post before chopping it up. I have no problem with tax exemptions provided to not for profit organizations(churches included) so long as they practice financial transparency.  

Edited February 24, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

That explains a heck of a lot. According to you, acknowledging someone you love did something wrong is disloyal. Yikes. 

Not at all.  It's simply a question of how the acknowledgment and alleged wrongdoing are handled.  There are ways to do it that don't damage the loyalty, the trust, and the relationship, and there are ways to do it that would absolutely destroy the loyalty, the trust and the relationship.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Not at all.  It's simply a question of how the acknowledgment and alleged wrongdoing are handled.  There are ways to do it that don't damage the loyalty, the trust, and the relationship, and there are ways to do it that would absolutely destroy the loyalty, the trust and the relationship.

Over and over in this thread, those in and out of the church who have expressed their conclusion that the church did wrong have been attacked and ridiculed as overly emotional, bitter, hostile, and disloyal. That should not happen. 

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Over and over in this thread, those in and out of the church who have expressed their conclusion that the church did wrong have been attacked and ridiculed as overly emotional, bitter, hostile, and disloyal. That should not happen. 

Oh, stop being so bitter, hostile, and disloyal. 

[Ferdinand55]

This conversation could probably benefit from an adherence to Hanlons's razor.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, stop being so bitter, hostile, and disloyal. 

I can’t help it. It’s just who I am.