Church fined by SEC

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

One possible explanation is that the church did not want to reveal their finances, and if this went to trial, that would likely be a part of it.

I agree. And it is clear that the church did not want to reveal the extend of the EPA funds since they took steps to hide it.

[ttribe]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But all of that does not address whether or not the church has a say in whether or not a report is published at all.  I would guess that that is not something that is a part of the compromise. 

Correct. The SEC is going to make it public whether the fined entity or persons like it or not.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Per the signed agreement the church admits to no wrongdoing. Neither does it deny it.

Mealy mouthed legal speak.  "Do you obey the law of chastity?"  "Bishop I neither admit or deny to obeying or keeping the law of chastity."

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Here is the relevant part of the WSJ:

The first sentence is not a quote but seems to indicate Clarke's opinion based on the use of the word "believed". The second paragraph includes actual quotes that I don't necessarily disagree with, it just depends on how you look at it. Ultimately, there is not enough information to know if any of what is stated comes from Church leadership or not. To me, it seems like he is sharing an opinion, but I don't know.

In his quote he said "they never wanted to be in a position...", clearly he is not talking about his own opinion on the matter.  

40 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

That being said let me see if I can share a thought on why I don't necessarily disagree with the thought. I have always been taught and have taught that paying tithing is never about the money but about a way that we can show devotion and sacrifice to the Lord and provides a way by which the Lord can richly bless us for that devotion and sacrifice. From personal experience, there are great blessings from paying tithing. I think what he is trying to say is that the Church doesn't want people missing out on the blessings of tithing because they feel the Church doesn't need their money. I think this is a little simplistic and maybe shows, at worst, a little lack of faith in members, but there are some who think like this. Additionally, the Church wants poor people in Africa to pay their tithing, not because they need it, but because of the blessings of prosperity they can miss by not paying it. The Church trusts the principle of tithing and wants all people to reap the blessings of it. I would be concerned if in newer developing parts of the Church, there were malcontents going about telling young branches of the Church not to pay tithing because the church is rich and doesn't need it. It would be kind of like overworked parents of teenagers hiring a maid service to come in while the kids are at school and the parents are at work to help relieve some of the burden but keeping it secret from the kids while still requiring them to clean their rooms because they don't want the kids to miss out on the character building part of being responsible for themselves. Agree or disagree, there is nothing sinister in it, just a love and desire for people to be blessed.

Ultimately, I don't know if this is just Clarke's opinion or something he heard from Church leadership but either way I don't view it as something negative but as something based on love, even though it may be stated awkwardly.

I agree that they thought it was best for the members - they did it to protect us from ourselves, in a parent-child type relationship.  That to me is inappropriately infantilizing, if true.  It comes off as manipulative to me, even if their intentions were good.  I think it is crippling to faith to not expect members to do the right things for the right reasons - to be forthright with out history and not coddle us with Disney type narratives.  I agree with you 100% tithing is about devotion and sacrifice and not about paying because we think the church needs the money - yet that is exactly they are fostering by this deception - they are creating members who pay because they think the church needs it instead of teaching correct principles and letting members use their own agency to stand in the right for the right reasons.  The type of obedience and faith they are engendering is weak. I think it is better to let members make mistakes and learn from their mistakes and expect more from us.    If some stop paying tithing, I think it is better that they stop paying tithing than to be deceived into paying tithing for reasons that the church itself doesn't even support (because the church needs it).   The blessing of the law come not because we pay out of a sense of misguided sense of obligation to support the church because they think the church needs it, but because the Lord commanded it.   Then there is the whole ethical question of doing the wrong thing (misleading people to believe something that is not true) in order for them to do the right thing.   The principle of honesty should not be sacrificed on the alter of people paying tithing for reasons the church doesn't even agree with and teaches against. 

 

Edited March 1 by pogi

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

In his quote he said "they never wanted to be in a position...", clearly he is not talking about his own opinion on the matter.  

I agree that they thought it was best for the members - they did it to protect us from ourselves, in a parent-child type relationship.  That to me is inappropriately infantilizing, if true.  It comes off as manipulative to me, even if their intentions were good.  I think it is crippling to faith to not expect members to do the right things for the right reasons - to be forthright with out history and not coddle us with Disney type narratives.  I agree with you 100% tithing is about devotion and sacrifice and not about paying because we think the church needs the money - yet that is exactly they are fostering by this deception - they are creating members who pay because they think the church needs it instead of teaching correct principles and letting members use their own agency to stand in the right for the right reasons.  The type of obedience and faith they are engendering is weak. I think it is better to let members make mistakes and learn from their mistakes and expect more from us.    If some stop paying tithing, I think it is better that they stop paying tithing than to be deceived into paying tithing for reasons that the church itself doesn't even support (because the church needs it).   The blessing of the law come not because we pay out of a sense of misguided sense of obligation to support the church because they think the church needs it, but because the Lord commanded it.   Then there is the whole ethical question of doing the wrong thing (misleading people to believe something that is not true) in order for them to do the right thing.   The principle of honesty should not be sacrificed on the alter of people paying tithing for reasons the church doesn't even agree with and teaches against. 

 

I'd love to know more about tithing in the bible. In my mind, it was to support the pastors of congregations to be able to preach and take care of the flock without having to go out and work and then not be available. Which I think is great!

But in the LDS church the bishops actually have to go out and work and still take care of the flock, along with the stake presidents etc. But not the top tiers of the church, they each get a stipend. Plus I know tithes go to help build the kingdom too. 

Saw this in the scriptures and it's from Jesus, so I like it! 

Matthew 23:23

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

Edited March 1 by Tacenda

[Harry T. Clark]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

 

Did I miss the part of the SEC document where it laid out the fact that the hiding was done to prevent a drop of tithing? I know the head of EPA said that at one point as a possible reason in an interview, but it was no where in the SEC document as I recall.

It wasn't and so .... victory? 

It's clear the church created the LLC's for some reason and that the head of EPA, the head mind you, a person who was in the meetings where strategy was discussed, opined as to why it was done ... to prevent creating an excuse for some to not pay tithing.  I am sure he wasn't talking out of his backside when he spoke to the WS Journal reporter. 

Why else would the church take such action if not to obfuscate the amount of money under their control?  Maybe realizing the obvious, dealing with it, and moving forward is the best way to deal with this news?  Or you can follow Smac and others down the justification path.  They, the leaders, are fallible people and made a mistake.  It's not the worst mistake ever and not a trivial one either.  But it still was a mistake and misleading.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

It wasn't and so .... victory? 

With respect you have no idea what you are talking about. If you haven't been following along for the last 47 pages, I'm not going to rehash.

Edited March 1 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Ryan Dahle]

Question: Since 2019, has the Church's specific investments been made visible to the public, due to the change in the reporting of the holdings? In other words, has the change in reporting somehow made it difficult or impossible for the Church to still maintain the privacy of its holdings.

If not, why didn't the Church want to prepare their reports in this manner at an earlier time? What was the motivation for being out of compliance? Or what did they lose or have to give up with the new change in reporting? 

Late Note: These are genuine questions. I just don't know the answers. 

Edited March 1 by Ryan Dahle

[Kenngo1969]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

Per the signed agreement the church admits to no wrongdoing. Neither does it deny it.

So speaking for myself, yes, I think that’s fine.

 

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

Mealy mouthed legal speak.  "Do you obey the law of chastity?"  "Bishop I neither admit or deny to obeying or keeping the law of chastity."

Nice.

We know things are getting bad in the thread when even nonlawyers are being accused of legalspeak.

Edited March 1 by Kenngo1969

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I agree. And it is clear that the church did not want to reveal the extend of the EPA funds since they took steps to hide it.

Agreed. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Mealy mouthed legal speak.  "Do you obey the law of chastity?"  "Bishop I neither admit or deny to obeying or keeping the law of chastity."

Legal speak is stupid and dumb most of the time. That’s true whether it applies to me, to you, or the church.

Thankfully, we don’t ever have to deal with it unless we’re dealing with the law.

And, of course, anyone could give that answer to the law of Chasity question anytime they wanted to. They have the total freedom to do so. But then they have to abide by the consequences of such an answer. The same is true for the church on this topic.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

44 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Question: Since 2019, has the Church's specific investments been made visible to the public, due to the change in the reporting of the holdings? In other words, has the change in reporting somehow made it difficult or impossible for the Church to still maintain the privacy of its holdings.

Yes and no. If the church reported with a single entity from the start, there is no guarantee the public would have noticed right away. But a single large fund named Ensign peak located in Utah is easier to tie back to the church than several smaller funds located around the country. 
 

Once Mormon leaks discovered the shell companies, if the sec hadn’t stepped in, the church could have easily set up more shell companies with even better obscurity, but that option isn’t available now without setting up actual companies with independent purchasing authority. 

44 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

If not, why didn't the Church want to prepare their reports in this manner at an earlier time? What was the motivation for being out of compliance?
 

Per the newsroom statement the reporting scheme was designed to maintain privacy. 

44 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Or what did they lose or have to give up with the new change in reporting? 

Late Note: These are genuine questions. I just don't know the answers. 

 

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, that is the second time I have done that!  All these dang acronyms (SEC, EPA, CAD).

Good thing you don’t work for NASA or, even worse, public schools 😁

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Good thing you don’t work for NASA or, even worse, public schools 😁

Thank goodness!  But as a public health nurse I did have to endure the FEMA EMI NIMS ICS blah, blah, blah training.  I think that is where I developed dis-acronym-lexia 

[Malc]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

Thank goodness!  But as a public health nurse I did have to endure the FEMA EMI NIMS ICS blah, blah, blah training.  I think that is where I developed dis-acronym-lexia 

You mean DAL? 

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yes and no. If the church reported with a single entity from the start, there is no guarantee the public would have noticed right away. But a single large fund named Ensign peak located in Utah is easier to tie back to the church than several smaller funds located around the country. 
 

Once Mormon leaks discovered the shell companies, if the sec hadn’t stepped in, the church could have easily set up more shell companies with even better obscurity, but that option isn’t available now without setting up actual companies with independent purchasing authority. 

In other words, the only thing making the Church's LLC holdings invisible to the public was their obscurity (meaning their apparent lack of connection to the Church, due to the reporting method). So it isn't that the LLC's weren't available to the public. It is just that no one knew that they belonged to the Church? 

Obviously, I know virtually nothing about investments and LLCs, and their typical visibility and accessibility to the general public. But that makes more sense now, assuming I understand correctly. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

In his quote he said "they never wanted to be in a position...", clearly he is not talking about his own opinion on the matter

I disagree if you mean that this is actual information about what the leadership is thinking vs what Clarke believes they are thinking. First even if quoted, we don’t know what he said around the quote that might have increased the sense that he was relaying personal knowledge of their motivations because they shared their point of view and ultimate goals with him or that might have shifted it to the other possibility that he was just sharing his personal interpretation based on how tithing is taught by leadership. The quote could be simply his part of his interpretation based on what he has heard taught from the pulpit…I say this because I can easily seeing me phrasing it similarly if someone asked me how the Church or church leadership viewed tithing and members in less comfortable circumstances paying it, though I would provide more detail in why the opportunity is so important and I suspect he gave more detail as well, but it was trimmed to up the focus on the more interesting, controversial to some soundbite  

Since it is emphasized over and over in conference talks that tithing is an opportunity, it is not a huge leap for anyone to assume imo that it is of prime importance to leadership that tithing is seen by members as this opportunity and less as a burden or a duty towards the Church (which would imply the status of the Church should be part of the decision making process for tithing) rather than God.

 I don’t think we should assume because he states this as a fact, he must therefore know the inner thought process of leaders. While he is much, much more likely than most to do so, given the reported tendency to restrict conversation/access to info in this area  (the SEC charge itself is evidence, but also the claim made in Nielsen’s report that even apostles were not allowed access to financial info contributes to the sense they are closemouthed when it comes to finances), I have my doubts that senior leadership was or is sharing their inner thoughts on this with anyone but themselves. 

Edited March 1 by Calm

[Calm]

On 2/23/2023 at 5:06 PM, webbles said:

Also, a year before the first LLC was done, Times had just published "Mormons, Inc".  I could see church leadership not liking that type of publicity.

A friend mentioned the March 1998 kidnapping of missionaries in Saratov, Russia for ransom as being one possible reason for the decision to hide the amount of wealth.  For those who don’t remember:

https://apnews.com/article/a48a4c06afa020bb14f3b5bc9860c26d

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

Mealy mouthed legal speak.  "Do you obey the law of chastity?"  "Bishop I neither admit or deny to obeying or keeping the law of chastity."

“Bishop, I saw this adorable angel in a military uniform and broke the 3rd amendment.”

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I disagree if you mean that this is actual information about what the leadership is thinking vs what Clarke believes they are thinking. First even if quoted, we don’t know what he said around the quote that might have increased the sense that he was relaying personal knowledge of their motivations because they shared their point of view and ultimate goals with him or that might have shifted it to the other possibility that he was just sharing his personal interpretation based on how tithing is taught by leadership. The quote could be simply his part of his interpretation based on what he has heard taught from the pulpit…I say this because I can easily seeing me phrasing it similarly if someone asked me how the Church or church leadership viewed tithing and members in less comfortable circumstances paying it, though I would provide more detail in why the opportunity is so important and I suspect he gave more detail as well, but it was trimmed to up the focus on the more interesting, controversial to some soundbite  

Since it is emphasized over and over in conference talks that tithing is an opportunity, it is not a huge leap for anyone to assume imo that it is of prime importance to leadership that tithing is seen by members as this opportunity and less as a burden or a duty towards the Church (which would imply the status of the Church should be part of the decision making process for tithing) rather than God.

 I don’t think we should assume because he states this as a fact, he must therefore know the inner thought process of leaders. While he is much, much more likely than most to do so, given the reported tendency to restrict conversation/access to info in this area  (the SEC charge itself is evidence, but also the claim made in Nielsen’s report that even apostles were not allowed access to financial info contributes to the sense they are closemouthed when it comes to finances), I have my doubts that senior leadership was or is sharing their inner thoughts on this with anyone but themselves. 

I agree with you. News reports often loose nuance with quotes. That said, there is a really simple way for church leaders to clear this up. They (the first presidency - not public affairs, and not apologists) could simple come out and tell us. For my part, the fact that they don’t is telling. It’s a continued pattern of operating in secrecy when there is no need. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

In other words, the only thing making the Church's LLC holdings invisible to the public was their obscurity (meaning their apparent lack of connection to the Church, due to the reporting method). So it isn't that the LLC's weren't available to the public. It is just that no one knew that they belonged to the Church? 

Obviously, I know virtually nothing about investments and LLCs, and their typical visibility and accessibility to the general public. But that makes more sense now, assuming I understand correctly. 

Yes. If you want to obscure the true ownership of an LLC it is possible to do so. The church was found out because of two things. They registered internet domains for each LLC in 2016. You can register these anonymously but the church failed to do so and listed the owner as “intellectual reserve inc”. With this, and the form 13f on a similarly named entity signed by an employee of the church… 

 

The church has since redacted the Whois domain information. Here is one:

https://domains.google.com/registrar?w=ashmorewealth.com&hl=en-US

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

Nice.

We know things are getting bad in the thread when evev nonlawyers are being accused of legalspeak.

She quoted the legal language the church gave.  Try to pay attention.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Legal speak is stupid and dumb most of the time. That’s true whether it applies to me, to you, or the church.

I do not know that I would call it stupid.  It serves a roll.  But we need to understand it. The constant reference by defenders here to the statement by the church that they neither admit or deny any wrong doing and consider the matter closed is really almost meaningless to me. The fact that they were investigated and the investigation resulted in a fine that the church agreed to is really what is indicative of a problem.

 

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Thankfully, we don’t ever have to deal with it unless we’re dealing with the law.

And, of course, anyone could give that answer to the law of Chasity question anytime they wanted to. They have the total freedom to do so. But then they have to abide by the consequences of such an answer. The same is true for the church on this topic.

My point on the law of chastity question is if I answered it like the church's recent statement I would not likely receive and temple recommend.

[JAHS]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'd love to know more about tithing in the bible. In my mind, it was to support the pastors of congregations to be able to preach and take care of the flock without having to go out and work and then not be available. Which I think is great!

But in the LDS church the bishops actually have to go out and work and still take care of the flock, along with the stake presidents etc. But not the top tiers of the church, they each get a stipend. Plus I know tithes go to help build the kingdom too. 

Saw this in the scriptures and it's from Jesus, so I like it! 

Matthew 23:23

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

There is a scripture that tells us that the LDS Bishop and his counselors in the early days of the church should receive financial support:

"And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned; Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop. And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church." (D&C 42:71-73)

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Good thing you don’t work for NASA or, even worse, public schools 😁

Or deal in tax law:

GRITS, GRATS, CRATS, CRUTs, PFICs, CFCs, GILTI, PTET, PTE, E&P...the list is endless.