Church fined by SEC

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

According to me, publicly disparaging someone or something to whom I owed "fiduciary"-style duties of loyalty, etc., is wrong.  Yes.  Particularly when there is no particular need for it, or when it's just a dogpile.  I'll own up to that every day of the week

What is your fiduciary responsivity or duty to the church?  I understand the word and it seems odd to use it in regards to how you interact with the church.  Loyalty and fealty maybe.  But not fiduciary.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Teancum

[Teancum]

18 hours 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

Personally I think Sam is spot on and you are not.  The church, and you, just want to say "well we should not have done what we did.  We admit to no guilt but we won't do it anymore.  We are sorry (sort of-my editorializing) and that all we have to say about it."  It seems to me the what Sam suggests is in order. Plus what cant he church do to assure its members that such things won't happen again and that now perhaps it is time to be more transparent with its finances.  Just me opinion.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"No [One] Knows [Your] History"?  Fawn Brodie, is that you?   

   

Sorry!   Couldn't resist!  

All in fun, ttribe.  All in fun! (Lord knows, this thread could use a shot of levity!)   

 

In the words of Kody Lee on AGT, "Heck yea!".

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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). 

All NFPs but for church's must file an annual tax return-Form 990-which has significant disclosure requirements and are made available to the public.  Small NFPs that receive contributions below a certain amount-I think $250k but not sure, can file a simplified form. In addition, NFPs that receive a larger amount of public support are required to have a CPA perform an independent audit or review, in some cases, of their financials.  Again this are typically available to the public.

But for whatever reason religions are exempted from the requirements outlined above. Personally I see no reason that they should have such exemption.  Yet there are religions the voluntarily disclose such information.  But not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Nofear]

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In short, even though they deliberately chose to not follow the rules and they lied, at least they didn’t cheat or steal.

Indeed, one of the most important elements of this brouhaha is what the SEC did not do.  Because there were no allegations that the intent was to cheat, steal, or defraud. And it should be pointed out that the LLCs themselves did file the forms13f but that instead of the individual forms, Ensign Peak Associates should have filed an aggregate form as it now currently does.

"There can be a fine line between designing a regime in an effort to comply with the law and engaging in a deliberate effort to evade the law, and the SEC clearly believes that Ensign Peak crossed that line." Followed by "Several elements of the settled administrative proceeding support the conclusion that the alleged violation was largely technical."  James Anderson then gives specifics.

• "First, the settlement alleges only violations of section 13(f) of the Exchange Act and rule 13f-1 thereunder, and not any of the broad anti-fraud provisions under the federal securities laws often cited by the SEC in settled administrative proceedings.
• Second, the settlement does not impose a requirement to disgorge any improper financial benefits from the failure to file Forms 13F. The absence of a disgorgement requirement supports the conclusion that the SEC did not identify any financial impropriety or improper conduct that resulted in a financial benefit to Ensign Peak. Otherwise, one can assume that the SEC would have imposed a disgorgement requirement in addition to the penalty.
• Finally, apart from the requirement to cease and desist and pay an administrative penalty, the settlement does not impose any additional undertakings or remedial steps common in settled SEC administrative proceedings, likely because Ensign Peak corrected its Forms 13F."

That the LLCs were designed to obscure that holdings of Ensign Peak Associates from public scrutiny isn't really disputed. Obscure = lie? I suppose one can use that language if one wants. Yet, even in that obfuscation, the SEC did not accuse Ensign Peak Associates of using that veil of obscurity to dishonestly use its fiscal leverage to abuse the market to its advantage to get rich(er).

[CV75]

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I used to feel that way but IMO I could no longer trust the character of the founder of the religion and many of his successors.  As for the current and modern leadership, loyalty and trust has to be earned.  Perhaps because I feel my faith, trust and loyalty was betrayed and burned ( and it has been in other areas of my life as well) I have become rather cynical and less apt to trust as I am now well into the seventh decade of my life.  

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In short, even though they deliberately chose to not follow the rules and they lied, at least they didn’t cheat or steal.

There are many types of bias. Emotional bias is evidenced in the first post, and attribution bias in the second half of the second post.

My own bias is reflected in my first post Posted Tuesday at 06:29 PM 

Personally, I think the press releases by the SEC and the Church align pretty closely and together serve as the best source for interpreting the communal significance of the incident. Especially given that the two parties worked so closely together. 

[MrShorty]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

If I had a disagreement with my wife...

I realize that no analogy is perfect, but I'm not sure how analogous my relationship with the church is compared to my relationship with my wife.

1) A marriage is for the most part considered to be a relationship of peers/equals. There's a complementarian streak that runs through us that sometimes wants to make marriage hierarchical with the husband above the wife, but most marriage commentators and therapists that I find credible will talk about husband and wife as equals. Perhaps the better analogy would be parent/child relationship.

2) Continuing with the marriage analogy. While I think a high level of loyalty in a good marriage is laudable, I also find it interesting how the idea of loyalty also keeps people in abusive relationships. I think we need to be a bit careful about making loyalty a very important virtue without tying it at least somewhat to the need on the part of both spouses to be trustworthy. In saying this, I don't want to suggest that my relationship with the church feels abusive to me, but I see many in the ex-Mormon and edge-of-inside crowds who feel like there are abusive elements in their relationship with the church. I don't think it is going to help us  in the long term deal with people who choose not to be all-in if we assume the church can never feel abusive.

3) In many relationship/marriage help circles, honesty is a frequent topic of discussion. Many of the hardest issues many marriages face often include an element of "spouse was doing <porn, drugs/alcohol, gambling or other unwise financial habist, and so on>" include an element of "the offending spouse went to some lengths to prevent the offended spouse from discovering <porn, drugs/alcohol, gambling, etc.>." I don't know if we need to rise to the level of Dr. Harley's "Policy of Radical Honesty," but, in addition to loyalty, a good marriage includes a solid dose of honesty and openness between the spouses. If I haven't already said it in this thread, the thing that stands out most to me in the SEC report is the frequent claim that the motivation behind the church's/EPA's behaviors was to prevent discovery of the church's relationship to this money.

4) Sometimes when a marriage struggles, one must take the "disloyal" step of bringing in some outside help to mediate the differences and find some way forward that allows the couple to stay together. Other than the "court of public opinion," there do not seem to be any good authorities that can be brought in to mediate members' relationship with the church. I know that the "all-in" crowd would much rather people just leave the church rather than pause at a mediation step on the way out, and I don't know what to do about that. As @pogi alluded to, if the church wants people who are bothered by this behavior to stay in the marriage, then the church needs to provide some kind of help in finding a good mediator to mediate the difficulties in the relationship and help both parties make better decisions around the relationship.

5) And finally, a thought on the parent/child version of the analogy. I frequently see people talk about the developmental step children go through when they realize that their parents are not perfect. These are the kinds of things that help us as children see the faults in the church. If the church wants to avoid becoming estranged from some of its children, I think it needs to do better at helping us cope with the imperfections we see. Refusing to talk about them because they are in the past is not always going to help.

Again, I realize that no analogy is perfect. If we are going to claim that my relationship with the church is analogous to my relationship with my wife or my relationship with my parents, there's a lot more to the analogy than just loyalty. There's honesty and openness and a willingness to acknowledge faults.

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Indeed, one of the most important elements of this brouhaha is what the SEC did not do.  Because there were no allegations that the intent was to cheat, steal, or defraud. And it should be pointed out that the LLCs themselves did file the forms13f but that instead of the individual forms, Ensign Peak Associates should have filed an aggregate form as it now currently does.

"There can be a fine line between designing a regime in an effort to comply with the law and engaging in a deliberate effort to evade the law, and the SEC clearly believes that Ensign Peak crossed that line." Followed by "Several elements of the settled administrative proceeding support the conclusion that the alleged violation was largely technical."  James Anderson then gives specifics.

• "First, the settlement alleges only violations of section 13(f) of the Exchange Act and rule 13f-1 thereunder, and not any of the broad anti-fraud provisions under the federal securities laws often cited by the SEC in settled administrative proceedings.
• Second, the settlement does not impose a requirement to disgorge any improper financial benefits from the failure to file Forms 13F. The absence of a disgorgement requirement supports the conclusion that the SEC did not identify any financial impropriety or improper conduct that resulted in a financial benefit to Ensign Peak. Otherwise, one can assume that the SEC would have imposed a disgorgement requirement in addition to the penalty.
• Finally, apart from the requirement to cease and desist and pay an administrative penalty, the settlement does not impose any additional undertakings or remedial steps common in settled SEC administrative proceedings, likely because Ensign Peak corrected its Forms 13F."

That the LLCs were designed to obscure that holdings of Ensign Peak Associates from public scrutiny isn't really disputed. Obscure = lie? I suppose one can use that language if one wants. Yet, even in that obfuscation, the SEC did not accuse Ensign Peak Associates of using that veil of obscurity to dishonestly use its fiscal leverage to abuse the market to its advantage to get rich(er).

I think the press releases, by the SEC and the Church, each designed for informing the public in good faith, align pretty closely and together serve as the best source for interpreting the communal significance of the incident.

SEC.gov | Press Releases

Church Statement on SEC Settlement (churchofjesuschrist.org)

 

 

SEC Charges The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Its Investment Management Company for Disclosure Failures and Misstated Filings FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 2023-35   Washington D.C., Feb. 21, 2023 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against Ensign Peak Advisers Inc., a non-profit entity operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to manage the Church’s investments, for failing to file forms that would have disclosed the Church’s equity investments, and for instead filing forms for shell companies that obscured the Church’s portfolio and misstated Ensign Peak’s control over the Church’s investment decisions. The SEC also announced charges against the Church for causing these violations. To settle the charges, Ensign Peak agreed to pay a $4 million penalty and the Church agreed to pay a $1 million penalty.   The SEC’s order finds that, from 1997 through 2019, Ensign Peak failed to file Forms 13F, the forms on which investment managers are required to disclose the value of certain securities they manage. According to the order, the Church was concerned that disclosure of its portfolio, which by 2018 grew to approximately $32 billion, would lead to negative consequences. To obscure the amount of the Church’s portfolio, and with the Church’s knowledge and approval, Ensign Peak created thirteen shell LLCs, ostensibly with locations throughout the U.S., and filed Forms 13F in the names of these LLCs rather than in Ensign Peak’s name. The order finds that Ensign Peak maintained investment discretion over all relevant securities, that it controlled the shell companies, and that it directed nominee “business managers,” most of whom were employed by the Church, to sign the Commission filings. The shell LLCs’ Forms 13F misstated, among other things, that the LLCs had sole investment and voting discretion over the securities. In reality, the SEC’s order finds, Ensign Peak retained control over all investment and voting decisions.   “We allege that the LDS Church’s investment manager, with the Church’s knowledge, went to great lengths to avoid disclosing the Church’s investments, depriving the Commission and the investing public of accurate market information,” said Gurbir S. Grewal, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “The requirement to file timely and accurate information on Forms 13F applies to all institutional investment managers, including non-profit and charitable organizations.”   Ensign Peak agreed to settle the SEC’s allegation that it violated Section 13(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 13f-1 thereunder by failing to file Forms 13F and for misstating information in these forms. The Church agreed to settle the SEC’s allegation that it caused Ensign Peak’s violations through its knowledge and approval of Ensign Peak’s use of the shell LLCs.   Paul Feindt conducted the SEC’s investigation under the supervision of Tracy Combs and Tanya Beard of the Salt Lake Regional Office and Laura Metcalfe of the Denver Regional Office.

Church Issues Statement on SEC Settlement https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-issues-statement-on-sec-settlement   The Church released the following statement on Tuesday, February 21, 2023.   The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its affiliated investment manager, Ensign Peak Advisors, Inc., have settled a matter with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).   Investment managers who oversee a portfolio of public equities above a certain threshold are required to file Forms 13F with the SEC quarterly. These forms publicly disclose the names of the securities and their values.   Since 2000, Ensign Peak received and relied upon legal counsel regarding how to comply with its reporting obligations while attempting to maintain the privacy of the portfolio. As a result, Ensign Peak established separate companies (LLCs) that each filed Forms 13F instead of a single aggregated filing. Ensign Peak and the Church believe that all securities required to be reported were included in the filings by the separate companies.   In June 2019, the SEC first expressed concern about Ensign Peak’s reporting approach. Ensign Peak adjusted its approach and began filing a single aggregated report. Since that time, 13 quarterly reports have been filed in full accordance with SEC requirements.   This settlement relates to how the forms were filed previously. Ensign Peak and the Church have cooperated with the government over a period of time as we sought resolution.   We affirm our commitment to comply with the law, regret mistakes made, and now consider this matter closed.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But for whatever reason religions are exempted from the requirements outlined above. Personally I see no reason that they should have such exemption.  Yet there are religions the voluntarily disclose such information.  But not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Exactly. But somehow my desire to force Churches to play by the same rules as everyone else is interpreted by one poster here as anti-religion. A level playing field = religious discrimination. And asking for all organizations that don’t pay taxes and solicit donations to abide by the principle of informed consent is hypocritical. Unless I post my login credentials to my bank. And this poster is a lawyer. SMH

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Indeed, one of the most important elements of this brouhaha is what the SEC did not do.  Because there were no allegations that the intent was to cheat, steal, or defraud. And it should be pointed out that the LLCs themselves did file the forms13f but that instead of the individual forms, Ensign Peak Associates should have filed an aggregate form as it now currently does.

"There can be a fine line between designing a regime in an effort to comply with the law and engaging in a deliberate effort to evade the law, and the SEC clearly believes that Ensign Peak crossed that line." Followed by "Several elements of the settled administrative proceeding support the conclusion that the alleged violation was largely technical."  James Anderson then gives specifics.

• "First, the settlement alleges only violations of section 13(f) of the Exchange Act and rule 13f-1 thereunder, and not any of the broad anti-fraud provisions under the federal securities laws often cited by the SEC in settled administrative proceedings.
• Second, the settlement does not impose a requirement to disgorge any improper financial benefits from the failure to file Forms 13F. The absence of a disgorgement requirement supports the conclusion that the SEC did not identify any financial impropriety or improper conduct that resulted in a financial benefit to Ensign Peak. Otherwise, one can assume that the SEC would have imposed a disgorgement requirement in addition to the penalty.
• Finally, apart from the requirement to cease and desist and pay an administrative penalty, the settlement does not impose any additional undertakings or remedial steps common in settled SEC administrative proceedings, likely because Ensign Peak corrected its Forms 13F."

That the LLCs were designed to obscure that holdings of Ensign Peak Associates from public scrutiny isn't really disputed. Obscure = lie? I suppose one can use that language if one wants. Yet, even in that obfuscation, the SEC did not accuse Ensign Peak Associates of using that veil of obscurity to dishonestly use its fiscal leverage to abuse the market to its advantage to get rich(er).

Yes, it could have been worse.  Deception is not as bad a out and out fraud.

[Pyreaux]

45 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Yes, it could have been worse.  Deception is not as bad a out and out fraud.

I guess it's like when you don't tell the Egyptian government that Sarah is also your wife and get dubbed a liar by critics for several millennia.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Actually, I was aware that you and many others have been in the believers' shoes. But it has probably been a while since you have been on that side of the tracks. 

It has been a while for me. But I certainly remember the experience well.  As a full active member as much as anyone is or has been and as a hobby apologist.  Even on this board.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I remember when the three of us defended the church on this board. Then the darkness came …

Indeed.  All three of us now malicious critics.😉

Edited February 25, 2023 by Teancum

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"No [One] Knows [Your] History"?  Fawn Brodie, is that you?   

   

Sorry!   Couldn't resist!  

All in fun, ttribe.  All in fun! (Lord knows, this thread could use a shot of levity!)   

 

Now that was pretty funny.  🤣

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Exactly. But somehow my desire to force Churches to play by the same rules as everyone else is interpreted by one poster here as anti-religion. A level playing field = religious discrimination. And asking for all organizations that don’t pay taxes and solicit donations to abide by the principle of informed consent is hypocritical. Unless I post my login credentials to my bank. And this poster is a lawyer. SMH

Interestingly, as I am sure you know, in many nations Church's have to disclose financial activity and of course the church complies in those jurisdictions.

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Indeed.  All three of us now maliciou critics.😉

Well, everyone needs a hobby. 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

Indeed, one of the most important elements of this brouhaha is what the SEC did not do.  Because there were no allegations that the intent was to cheat, steal, or defraud. And it should be pointed out that the LLCs themselves did file the forms13f but that instead of the individual forms, Ensign Peak Associates should have filed an aggregate form as it now currently does.

"There can be a fine line between designing a regime in an effort to comply with the law and engaging in a deliberate effort to evade the law, and the SEC clearly believes that Ensign Peak crossed that line." Followed by "Several elements of the settled administrative proceeding support the conclusion that the alleged violation was largely technical."  James Anderson then gives specifics.

• "First, the settlement alleges only violations of section 13(f) of the Exchange Act and rule 13f-1 thereunder, and not any of the broad anti-fraud provisions under the federal securities laws often cited by the SEC in settled administrative proceedings.
• Second, the settlement does not impose a requirement to disgorge any improper financial benefits from the failure to file Forms 13F. The absence of a disgorgement requirement supports the conclusion that the SEC did not identify any financial impropriety or improper conduct that resulted in a financial benefit to Ensign Peak. Otherwise, one can assume that the SEC would have imposed a disgorgement requirement in addition to the penalty.
• Finally, apart from the requirement to cease and desist and pay an administrative penalty, the settlement does not impose any additional undertakings or remedial steps common in settled SEC administrative proceedings, likely because Ensign Peak corrected its Forms 13F."

That the LLCs were designed to obscure that holdings of Ensign Peak Associates from public scrutiny isn't really disputed. Obscure = lie? I suppose one can use that language if one wants. Yet, even in that obfuscation, the SEC did not accuse Ensign Peak Associates of using that veil of obscurity to dishonestly use its fiscal leverage to abuse the market to its advantage to get rich(er).

I agree with all of this.  But again, it seems to be answering to a criticism that doesn't seem to exist.  No one seems to think (that I have seen anywhere) that the church went to such great lengths to obfuscate in order to "abuse" and "take advantage" of the market, or for "fiscal leverage".

In terms of "lying", I think it is only fair that the church is held to the same standards that we are held:

Quote

Lying is intentionally deceiving others.

Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

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

This happened in layer upon layer and point upon point in great lengths throughout the scheme, ignoring warnings along the way. 

How important is honesty?

And then there is the stated motive... Ya, that one gets me too. 

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

No one seems to think (that I have seen anywhere)

You must stay in the saner parts of the internet.   

[Nofear]

Deleted. Didn't figure out the right formatting.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Nofear

[pogi]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

You must stay in the saner parts of the internet.   

I wouldn't be surprised if haters and genuinely maliciously motivated outsiders out there make such claims. The internet is a crazy place.  But I think they are the outliers and those arguments are not really affecting any active faithful members in the church who are struggling with this.  It feels like the real issues that are affecting members are not being addressed, or are being downplayed by holding the members to higher standards of honesty than the church itself; or worse, they are being accused of ill-intent towards the church for voicing their concerns.  That to me is unfortunate in all the responses I see to this.  So many people just don't see any acknowledgment of what they are feeling.   It feels like the church just wants to tuck it under the rug without addressing the honesty concerns many have, and without addressing the motive.  That does little to build confidence that they are taking steps to assure that stuff like this won't happen (or isn't happening) in other areas.  It feels like they are not learning their lessons form their obfuscation of history, and don't seem to care to.   They get caught and are forced to shape up in that area, but they still seem to try to get away with this kind of stuff in other areas.  It's an honesty issue and an infantilization issue.  We can't handle the truth, it seems.  That attitude has disastrous consequences whenever they are caught.  

Edited February 25, 2023 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

You must stay in the saner parts of the internet.   

It does get tedious on a discussion forum when people respond to crazy stuff elsewhere without specifying that that’s what they are doing. 

[jkwilliams]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

I wouldn't be surprised if haters and nasty outsiders out there make such claims. The internet is a crazy place.  But I don't think those arguments are really affecting any active faithful members in the church who are struggling with this.  It feels like the real issues that are affecting members are not being addressed, or are being downplayed by holding the members to higher standards of honesty than the church itself; or worse, they are being accused of ill-intent towards the church for voicing their concerns.  That to me is unfortunate in all the responses I see to this.  So many people just don't see any acknowledgment of what they are feeling.   It feels like the church just wants to tuck it under the rug without addressing the honesty concerns many have, and without addressing the motive.  That does little to build confidence and trust that crap like this won't happen (or isn't happening) in other areas.  It feels like they are not learning their lessons from their obfuscation of history, and don't seem to care to.   They get caught and are forced to shape up in that area, but they still seem to try to get away with this kind of stuff in other areas.  It's an honesty issue and an infantilization issue.  We can't handle the truth, it seems.  That attitude has disastrous consequences whenever they are caught.  

Maybe that’s what I’ve been missing. Somehow we are lumped in with every critical comment on the internet, as if we agree and are expected to defend even the angriest, most hostile comments. The reality is that you and I seem to be roughly on the same page: we think the church did wrong in this case and we wish they hadn’t. We are not demanding penance and “abject humiliation.” At least I’m not, and I haven’t seen anyone here who is. 

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It does get tedious on a discussion forum when people respond to crazy stuff elsewhere without specifying that that’s what they are doing. 

I agree.  At the very least it should be made clear when someone refers to something off board that it is not something that has been seen on the board.  Others thinking what is being said is referring to those you are quoting or talking to when it lacks this qualifier is one of the most common misunderstandings I see on the board and it is a very reasonable assumption to make, so I wish it was a board rule to label as something off board if it is or not mention it at all.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Calm

[why me]

Well...I don't expect perfection from anyone or anyone representing an organization. Human beings are human beings. Stuff happens. However, what does this all have to do with the book of mormon? And that is what is important. It has nothing to do with it. Now if they would find a letter by Joseph Smith stating that he wrote the book, well, the church is history. But....

Edited February 25, 2023 by why me

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

You must stay in the saner parts of the internet.   

I very much appreciate the posters here and the moderators. Thanks @Nemesis!