Church fined by SEC

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Well it is pretty common knowledge that the church is wealthy. Just how wealthy may not be totally known.  So I do not buy this as a reason to hide the amount of assets.

[Ryan Dahle]

On 2/23/2023 at 8:32 PM, smac97 said:

On 2/23/2023 at 7:54 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

Quote

This may be where the legal advice went off the rails.  I have no particular expertise in this area, but "investment discretion" appears to be defined by statute, 15 U.S.C. 78(c)(a)(35), as follows:

This part of a verbose Smac post way back on page 11 was where my thoughts on the matter solidified. And I don't think I've seen this point actually addressed since then.

Nor have I.  I have since linked to it repeatedly, and still nobody has addressed it.

On 2/23/2023 at 7:54 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

It appears that the black-and-white definition of investment discretion in the US code literally says a person has investment discretion "even though some other person may have responsibility for such investment decisions."

Yes, it says that.

What it does not say, however, is "sole investment discretion," a phrase the SEC Order uses in two key parts, the first being in the first paragraph of the "Summary":

Quote

The Forms 13F that Ensign Peak filed in the names of these LLCs misstated, among other things, that they had sole investment and voting discretion over the listed securities, when Ensign Peak at all times retained discretion over all investment decisions.  

Per the statute, it seems like there is nothing actually wrong with EPA "retain{ing} discretion over all investment decisions."  And yet the SEC seems to be saying otherwise.

See also paragraph 27:

Quote

Each Form 13F filed in the name of a Clone LLC misstated that the LLC had sole investment discretion for the securities listed, that there were no other managers for these securities, and that the Clone LLC had sole voting discretion over these securities. Even though the IMAs stated that Ensign Peak had delegated investment discretion, Ensign Peak continued to manage the entire portfolio and at all times maintained investment and voting discretion over all the securities listed in the Forms 13F.  

Again, "sole investment discretion" is not in the statutory text.  It just ain't there.  And what is there ("investment discretion") seems to expressly allow for "some other person" to have "responsibility for {} investment decisions."  It may seem counterintuitive, but welcome to the world of federal legislation!

Meanwhile, here we are, many pages and many hundreds of posts later, and neither Analytics nor any other commenter bent on disparaging the Church because of the SEC's say-so has commented on this item.  

So, let's just assume for a moment that the rationale of the EPA's pre-2019 filing practices was based on this perceived discrepancy between the statutory language and the requirements of the filing. What specifically would have been going on in the minds of those making this justification as they filled out the forms or instructed others to do so. Would they basically be filling out the forms according to their own understanding of the statutory text, rather than the specific instructions and definitions provided in the 13f forms themselves? 

In that case, it seems like they would definitely be skirting some ethical lines, as they would knowingly be deceiving the SEC, but justifying that deception based on their perception that the SEC's forms themselves were engaging in something like bureaucratic overreach. I'm not saying that is the case. I have no idea. Nor am I making an assessment one way or the other about whether it would be morally justifiable. I'm just trying to get into the possible mindset of the EPA as they approached these filings. Why did they take the approach that they did?

Late Edit: I suppose there is also the possibility that the SEC's reporting guidelines and requirements changed at some point, and that the EPA could have been in better compliance with earlier versions of the 13f form. Whether or not that is plausible, I don't know. But it would add a wrinkle in the development of the EPA's rationale over time. 

Edited March 1, 2023 by Ryan Dahle

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I do not know that I would call it stupid.  It serves a roll.  [sic] ...

Really?  What kind of roll does it serve?  A cinnamon roll?  A dinner roll?  A nice, flaky croissant, perhaps?  Roll, role ... got to pick a homophone, what to do, what to do?!   As Festus Doofus, Ph.D., the noted Professor of English of the University of Southern Nowhar put it, "Them homophones, they's tricky thangs!"   

Edited March 1, 2023 by Kenngo1969

[pogi]

12 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 hope you are right that Clarke made a huge blunder in saying what he said, but I suspect (I admit I could be wrong) that someone in Clarke's position would use extreme caution in speaking for the First Presidency on the record in a publication as large as the WSJ without having any first-hand prior knowledge of their position.  To say "they never wanted..." (speaking for them) without qualifying it as his opinion is a HUGE careless blunder that is possible but unlikely that someone in his position would make, knowing that the First Presidency would be tuned into the article.  If he would have prefaced it with "I think..." or "it is my belief, but I can't speak for the Church..." that would be a different story.  I don't think someone in his position would be willing to guess why the First Presidency did it on record, let alone to do so without stating that is what he is doing.  We also know that Clarke had far more exposure to the inner workings of church finances and discussions with the First Presidency in this regard than even the apostles.  The apostles did not attend the meetings where they discussed the LLC structure, Clarke did.  It seems implausible to me that the motivations/reasons for wanting financial privacy were not discussed in these meetings on how to achieve it.  He spoke as if he knows.

If it was his interpretation based on what he has heard at the pulpit, there are several fairly large assumptions and steps required to get to what he said and what has actually been said at the pulpit about tithing.  If paying tithing is not to be done because "the church needs it", doesn't it seem off to perpetuate that type of obedience by misleading people to believe that the church isn't immensely wealthy in order to keep them paying tithing?  That is not something I have heard from the pulpit, and is a giant leap from what has actually been said.   I think he would have been more careful to not make those assumptions in speaking for the church on record.   

Given the history of the church in using misleading narratives and withholding information from members in order to limit reasons for them to leave the covenant path - what Clarke said rings true and fits that attitude perfectly.  The SEC report which states that they did it to avoid "negative consequences", also fits with what Clarke said and with that motivation as well. 

Given Clarkes privileged position to have access to this type of first-hand knowledge, given his willingness to state it on record in the WSJ without qualifying it as his opinion, given the SEC reports comments about wanting to avoid "negative consequences", and given the historical attitude/approach of the church - makes it all more plausible to me that he was speaking from first-hand knowledge rather than making careless remarks. 

That is what my instinct and my gut tells me based on the evidence, but I also acknowledge that people are capable of making blunders and are fallible.  But as it stands, I am persuaded that Clarke was speaking from knowledge about the motivations, and above all, he is the most credible source we have who has commented on the issue. 

 

Edited March 1, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

To say "they never wanted..." (speaking for them) without qualifying it as his opinion is a HUGE careless blunder that is possible but unlikely that someone in his position would make, knowing that the First Presidency would be tuned into the article. 

True, but what gets put into an interview is pretty much always less than what has been said.  And if he was quoted out of context, it might have been decided there would be less PR damage done by letting it go than by insisting it was only his opinion (because of the question of why wouldn’t the senior leadership explain to him why as well as his opinion being seen as just as valid as a statement of fact by many because of course he would know in their reasoning, so his protest would be meaningless for those).

Pres. Hinckley was very experienced with PR imo and yet he misspoke with an on camera interview imo, saying “we don’t teach that” which he immediately corrected to “we don’t emphasize that” and yet there has been massive controversy over the years over him lying, misleading etc.  So just because one is savvy in interviews doesn’t prevent one from making a misstep that may be minor in context, but when context is removed looks much worse.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

So, let's just assume for a moment that the rationale of the EPA's pre-2019 filing practices was based on this perceived discrepancy between the statutory language and the requirements of the filing.

And perhaps also based on a lack of any countervailing guidance from the SEC.  And/or also based on possible changes to reporting requirements between when the reporting approach was formulated (late 90s / early 00s) and when the SEC first contacted EPA about this issue (2017).

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

What specifically would have been going on in the minds of those making this justification as they filled out the forms or instructed others to do so.

I'm not sure we can presently say much about what "the forms" required when this reporting approach was initially formulated, or about what the SEC had to say regarding filling them out during that period (again, late 90s / early 00s).  I have previously cited 17 CFR § 240.13f-1, which per our friend, Chat GPT, "was initially published on December 29, 2004, in the Federal Register (Volume 69, Number 249) and became effective on February 28, 2005," and "has since been amended several times, with the most recent amendment being published on January 30, 2020."

Per the SEC Order, EPA became aware of its requirement to file 13F Forms "{b}y at least 1998," and the Church created the trust to hold the LLCs "{i}n 2001," and the first 13F form was filed "on February 26, 2003."

Per Chat GPT, the reporting requirements with the SEC originated in Section 13(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  However, "these reporting requirements were limited and did not include many of the securities that are now required to be reported on Form 13F."  Then, in 1978, the SEC "adopted Rule 13f-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which established the current reporting requirements for institutional investment managers."  Then, in 1982, the SEC adopted "Rule 13f-2," which "specified the information that was required to be included in the quarterly reports filed under Rule 13f-1," and "required managers to disclose their holdings of each security, the class of the security, the CUSIP number, the number of shares or principal amount held, and the total value of the holdings."  These reporting requirements (under Rule 13f-2) "were in effect until the SEC adopted 17 CFR § 240.13f-1 in 2004, which replaced the earlier rules and expanded the scope of the reporting requirements to include additional securities and increase the reporting threshold to $100 million in assets under management."

It may be helpful to review Rule 13f-1 and Rule 13f-2, as they existed and were in effect in the time period in which EPA developed its reporting approach (last 90s / early 00s).  Unfortunately, the online CFR only shows modifications going back to February 2017.  However, this law journal article, published in 1987, may be helpful: Disclosure of Equity Holdings by Institutional Investment Managers: An Analysis of Section 13(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Specifically, section 6 of this article goes into a lot of detail about filling out "Item 6" of the "Schedule of Investments" submitted as part of the 13F form, "which requires the manager to segregate holdings of the security in question according to the nature of the investment discretion that managers may exercise in respect thereto."  It goes on to explain the "{t}hree types of discretion" which are possible, including "sole," "shared" and "shared with a non-reporting manager."  See also section 8 of the article.

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Would they basically be filling out the forms according to their own understanding of the statutory text, rather than the specific instructions and definitions provided in the 13f forms themselves? 

I think EPA would have been filling out the forms according to the legal advice/guidance it had sought and received.

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

In that case, it seems like they would definitely be skirting some ethical lines, as they would knowingly be deceiving the SEC, but justifying that deception based on their perception that the SEC's forms themselves were engaging in something like bureaucratic overreach. I'm not saying that is the case. I have no idea. Nor am I making an assessment one way or the other about whether it would be morally justifiable. I'm just trying to get into the possible mindset of the EPA as they approached these filings. Why did they take the approach that they did?

I would think because they were following the legal advice/guidance it has received.

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Late Edit: I suppose there is also the possibility that the SEC's reporting guidelines and requirements changed at some point, and that the EPA could have been in better compliance with earlier versions of the 13f form. Whether or not that is plausible, I don't know. But it would add a wrinkle in the development of the EPA's rationale over time. 

Possibly a pretty substantial wrinkle.  Hard to say at present.

The longer this hullabaloo drags out, the more smoke, but less fire, I see.  Much has been said about Sam Brunson's comments on this story, but I am presently more persuaded by this assessment (by "Mike" in the "Comments" section of Daniel Peterson's post on this subject) :

Quote

I've read much that Sam has produced over the years, including this recent post. Sometimes I agree with him, and other times I do not. This time, I do not. When he assigns dishonest and evil motives to the church's senior leadership, he has gone too far for me. In his post, he goes through many of the facts of this case, and does a decent job explaining the rather arcane SEC filing procedures. It is very lawyerly, as I would expect. But then he goes beyond the facts in evidence, leaves behind his legal analysis and takes giant leaps of personal opinion about dishonesty, etc.

Is it possible that senior leaders acted dishonestly and knowingly deceived the federal government? I suppose it's possible. I wasn't in the meetings when any of this was discussed. But neither was Sam Brunson. In fact, we don't know who was present in any meetings, how long the meetings lasted, when they took place, who the lawyers and advisors were who crafted this LLC structuring, the information that was conveyed to anyone, what intentions anyone had, the information that was relied upon, etc., etc. In other words, it's a bit much to ascribe dishonesty to a few individuals in leadership positions without knowing what they saw, heard, knew, and believed and understood was happening.

If you're going to charge senior church leaders with the crime of false pretenses, and no one has done anything of the sort here, you had better have some sort of clear evidence to establish the elements of that particular crime. Sam has not done that in the slightest. Knowing what I know about the character of those in senior church leadership, I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt, as I believe them to be honest and decent people, something we have mountains of evidence to establish that fact.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 1, 2023 by smac97

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

True, but what gets put into an interview is pretty much always less than what has been said.  And if he was quoted out of context, it might have been decided there would be less PR damage done by letting it go than by insisting it was only his opinion (because of the question of why wouldn’t the senior leadership explain to him why as well as his opinion being seen as just as valid as a statement of fact by many because of course he would know in their reasoning, so his protest would be meaningless for those).

That is true, but given all the other reasons I mentioned, I have little reason to suspect that he was quoted out of context. 

He is a highly credible person and there are so many reasons to believe that he was speaking from a position of knowledge.  I don't think there is anyone besides the First Presidency/Presiding Bishopric who could know better than him.  Plus the church has a history of similar behavior so it rings true.  Plus it correlates with what was stated in the SEC report.  That is a lot of reason to believe it.  

The biggest reason not to believe it is based on mere hope of human blunder by either Clarke or the WSJ.  If people want to suspend judgment because of the potential for error, that is fine, but I think that dismissing his comments outright because of potential error is unreasonable. 

When I weigh the two in the balance, I am heavily leaning towards believing that Clarke's statement was accurately stated and reported. 

Edited March 1, 2023 by pogi

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Or deal in tax law:

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

The Chief Information Security Officer of our local university puts this after his name in emails:

CPA, CIA, CFE, CISA, CISSP

I haven't looked them up. It makes my eyes roll.

[ttribe]

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Chief Information Security Officer of our local university puts this after his name in emails:

CPA, CIA, CFE, CISA, CISSP

I haven't looked them up. It makes my eyes roll.

Mine on my CV for getting qualified as an expert witness are CPA/CFF, CFE, CICA. It's a bit pretentious, but looking smarter on paper than the opposition is part of the game in what I do.

[Ryan Dahle]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Would they basically be filling out the forms according to their own understanding of the statutory text, rather than the specific instructions and definitions provided in the 13f forms themselves? 

I think EPA would have been filling out the forms according to the legal advice/guidance it had sought and received.

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

In that case, it seems like they would definitely be skirting some ethical lines, as they would knowingly be deceiving the SEC, but justifying that deception based on their perception that the SEC's forms themselves were engaging in something like bureaucratic overreach. I'm not saying that is the case. I have no idea. Nor am I making an assessment one way or the other about whether it would be morally justifiable. I'm just trying to get into the possible mindset of the EPA as they approached these filings. Why did they take the approach that they did?

I would think because they were following the legal advice/guidance it has received.

I guess I was questioning EPA's rationale based on the legal and financial knowledge in their possession (either because of the legal and financial expertise of their own staff or as derived from the advice/guidance received in consultation with experts outside of their organization). In any case, one or more persons were responsible for suggesting this course of action, and they (whoever they are) presumably had at least some degree of expertise to be in a position to make such recommendations. At least between 2017-2019, it appears that EPA incorrectly filled out the 13f form as we now have it. I'm trying to hypothesize the rationale (whether on the part of EPA or their legal/financial advisors) that might have been used to justify this approach to filing. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well it is pretty common knowledge that the church is wealthy. Just how wealthy may not be totally known.  So I do not buy this as a reason to hide the amount of assets.

How wealthy makes a big difference to how and how much attention is drawn to that wealth.  How many more articles about the wealthiest men and women in the world are written vs. the 250th wealthiest  person in the world?  It is not like the Church or its leaders flaunted its wealth or there were scandals about misuse of massive amounts of funds occurring with the church leading to tons of news articles that kept the Church’s wealth uppermost in people’s heads.  However, if we were known to be the wealthiest or among the wealthiest churches….if wealth is the first thing that popped into people’s heads when they saw our missionaries because that was what they heard in the news over and over….

There were tons of people in Russia who didn’t have a clue who the Mormons were, let alone we were a wealthy church when we were over there in the early and mid 90’s.  No doubt this number in the dark decreased dramatically whenever news coverage of us hit the street.  Look at the level of worldwide coverage of its wealth that has occurred once Mormonleaks released that info.  The Church’s wealth has been in the news over and over again in Britain, Australia, Norway, and Austria that I am aware of, so assuming it is getting frequently mentioned worldwide.

And while you may not see it as a valid reason to hide assets, I am thinking more of what was going through senior leadership and others’ minds when making the decision to hide the wealth.  At the time a direct line was drawn from the Time article about the Church’s wealth and why the kidnappers chose Mormon missionaries to kidnap for ransom (the first kidnapping of any foreign missionaries in Russia btw).  This is apparently mentioned in the movie about the kidnapping, The Saratov Approach.  I remember there was great concern among the small group of members familiar with Russia I was a part of back then that this would be the first of many kidnappings because now the idea was out there, the negative view of the Church held by many Russians (due to their politicians equating it with some nasty groups as well as the Church’s very American identity and the Russian Orthodox leaders running a campaign against proselyting religions) would make it a relatively safe target to attack and therefore the Church would have to pull out their foreign missionaries because of the potential threat to them. One of my husband’s friends had been assassinated in Moscow by Russian mafia when he fought their takeover of his business and my sister in law and her husband were warned by the US State Department never to go back to Russia when they had a contract put out on them for the same reason, so it was very believable to us that this was going to be the beginning of a trend as long as the Church and especially its wealth was going to be a big thing in the news.  It felt like Russia was the Wild West to me at that time (the mayor of Moscow was involved in the assassination, the government officials seemed as likely to kidnap as to try and stop the kidnappings).  I told my husband he was not allowed to go back.  We knew too many who had been threatened with harm on top of the killing of his friend he had worked with.  

The kidnapping took place a few months before the decision to hide assets.  I can easily imagine it being brought up in a discussion among leadership about the pros and cons of church wealth and how to handle the PR surrounding it based on how I saw it being discussed among lay members.  Not suggesting it was the primary reason as I am thinking this decision was more likely the result of concern over several issues surrounding the Church’s wealth.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Calm

[T-Shirt]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 If he would have prefaced it with "I think..." or "it is my belief, 

The article implies exactly that. The sentence before the quotes says:

Quote

Mr. Clarke said he believed church leaders were concerned that public knowledge of the fund’s wealth might discourage tithing.

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

So, let's just assume for a moment that the rationale of the EPA's pre-2019 filing practices was based on this perceived discrepancy between the statutory language and the requirements of the filing. What specifically would have been going on in the minds of those making this justification as they filled out the forms or instructed others to do so. Would they basically be filling out the forms according to their own understanding of the statutory text, rather than the specific instructions and definitions provided in the 13f forms themselves? 

In that case, it seems like they would definitely be skirting some ethical lines, as they would knowingly be deceiving the SEC, but justifying that deception based on their perception that the SEC's forms themselves were engaging in something like bureaucratic overreach. I'm not saying that is the case. I have no idea. Nor am I making an assessment one way or the other about whether it would be morally justifiable. I'm just trying to get into the possible mindset of the EPA as they approached these filings. Why did they take the approach that they did?

Late Edit: I suppose there is also the possibility that the SEC's reporting guidelines and requirements changed at some point, and that the EPA could have been in better compliance with earlier versions of the 13f form. Whether or not that is plausible, I don't know. But it would add a wrinkle in the development of the EPA's rationale over time. 

Good questions.

The question for me remains that given all of this potential perceived discrepancies and arguments of unclear guidance from the SEC, and given the CAD warning after their audits that the SEC might disagree with their approach - wouldn't it be the honest thing to do to clarify with the SEC given the mess of confusion (as the argument seems to go) and especially given the warning by the CAD?   If they would have done that, that would have "confirmed" in my mind at least, their "commitment to comply with the law". 

[pogi]

Duplicate

Edited March 1, 2023 by pogi

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

The article implies exactly that. The sentence before the quotes says:

Thanks for pointing that out.  I think that certainly gives more reason to consider that it didn't come from the First Presidency.  Unless his quote was taken out of context though, I didn't see that stated in his quote - but it is something to consider. 

Edited March 1, 2023 by pogi

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Really?  What kind of roll does it serve?  A cinnamon roll?  A dinner roll?  A nice, flaky croissant, perhaps?  Roll, role ... got to pick a homophone, what to do, what to do?!   As Festus Doofus, Ph.D., the noted Professor of English of the University of Southern Nowhar put it, "Them homophones, they's tricky thangs!"   

Let's go with the roll bolded above.  😀

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Let's go with the roll bolded above.  😀

Chocolate filled, please….man, I miss those. 

[Ryan Dahle]

44 minutes ago, pogi said:

Good questions.

The question for me remains that given all of this potential perceived discrepancies and arguments of unclear guidance from the SEC, and given the CAD warning after their audits that the SEC might disagree with their approach - wouldn't it be the honest thing to do to clarify with the SEC given the mess of confusion (as the argument seems to go) and especially given the warning by the CAD?   If they would have done that, that would have "confirmed" in my mind at least, their "commitment to comply with the law". 

I suppose that partially depends on the answer to my question. It is hard to make assessments until we know who all knew what and when. What were the specific internal discussions between EPA and their legal/financial advisors, between EPA and the CAD, between the EPA/CAD and church leaders, or between legal experts independent of these entities and the Church leaders. There are lots of layers of decision-making going on here, and potential rationales along the way. The Church statement declares: 

Quote

The Church’s senior leadership received and relied upon legal counsel when it approved of the use of the external companies to make the filings. Ensign Peak handled the mechanics of the filing process. The Church’s senior leadership never prepared or filed the specific reports at issue.

One can choose to see this statement as a smoke screen for the brethren to hide behind, while unjustly blaming their own errors primarily on the legal experts and EPA. But I just don't think that is yet warranted by the evidence. There are lots of things we don't know still, and the specific details of those various internal discussions and deliberations matter when assessing the severity of the mistakes/wrongdoing and who bears what portion of the blame. 

Edited March 1, 2023 by Ryan Dahle

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

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

I think it is already known that the church could ransom missionaries if they chose to pay off kidnappers. It is not a matter of means.

The Church won’t and nor should they. Paying a ransom to get back kidnapped missionaries would be declaring open season on missionaries worldwide.

[Ryan Dahle]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think it is already known that the church could ransom missionaries if they chose to pay off kidnappers. It is not a matter of means.

The Church won’t and nor should they. Paying a ransom to get back kidnapped missionaries would be declaring open season on missionaries worldwide.

Many people, especially in foreign countries, may not know much about the Church. If the Church were to become increasingly portrayed in the media primarily as an uber-wealthy corporate-type religious entity, that may somewhat increase the risk of these types of incidents around the globe. I'm not saying it would. It is probably a difficult thing to predict. But it may be one of many understandable concerns. 

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

I think you might have lost track of the context of my posts to ttribe and others when you replied to me, because the context of my posts was in what the church agreed to in terms of their guilt.

Quote

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.

That was my point as well.  The church will deal with some negative consequences because of the statement that they signed neither agreeing or disagreeing with the SEC.  They are accepting those consequences without complaint.  If you were to answer similarly in a temple recommend interview, you would need to do the same.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I think it is already known that the church could ransom missionaries if they chose to pay off kidnappers. It is not a matter of means.

The Church won’t and nor should they. Paying a ransom to get back kidnapped missionaries would be declaring open season on missionaries worldwide.

I agree.  But we are talking about 1998 when cell phones weren’t yet a connection to the internet and there were still plenty of places in the world relying on the old style of news to get information.  And whether or not kidnappers think the risk is worth it, not whether it actually was.  Iirc, one of the Russian kidnappers only got two years probation, the other a couple of years jail time.  If this was well reported in Russian news, I could see Russian kidnappers thinking it was worth the risk, maybe this time it would work.  This was not the organized crime type of kidnappers who likely would only get involved once the promise of a payoff was more likely; this was the desperate, last resort type of kidnappers from what I understand and Russia was full of that kind of person from what I knew as well as the mafia type willing to take advantage of any sign of weakness.

 I remember feeling out of touch in 2001 because AOL wasn’t offered in my area and we were a few hours north of the Canadian border.  People make decisions even now without choosing to be informed or they choose the wrong source to listen to.  Kidnappers assuming the Church will pay just because the kidnappers see endless dollar signs is not an unlikely scenario imo even now.  Back then even more so.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

58 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Many people, especially in foreign countries, may not know much about the Church. If the Church were to become increasingly portrayed in the media primarily as an uber-wealthy corporate-type religious entity, that may somewhat increase the risk of these types of incidents around the globe. I'm not saying it would. It is probably a difficult thing to predict. But it may be one of many understandable concerns. 

It would happen once and wouldn’t work.

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Chief Information Security Officer of our local university puts this after his name in emails:

CPA, CIA, CFE, CISA, CISSP

I haven't looked them up. It makes my eyes roll.

He works for the Central Intelligence Agency?!   

(Sorry.  Couldn't resist! )

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It would happen once and wouldn’t work.

Kidnappers aren’t always business like, rational or knowledgeable.  Nor are reactions to kidnappings always fully logical.  
 

Plus Russia was awful at getting accurate info about the Church.  Our Elders were wizards according to many, devils according to others, millionaires, kidnappers (adoption of Russian children wasn’t appreciated by many), and pretty much viewed as having bottomless pockets by many Russians, being Americans.  A 13 year old friend of my son who visited us while we were there was spat on by a beggar because he didn’t give him enough money.  And then there was propaganda by politicians and the ROC.  Our elders got beat up (not badly) while we were there.  Not sure they told the MP, they were laughing about it telling us about that and how often they were followed around and harrassed.  I was very grateful my son wasn’t sent to Russia like I expected he would go,

Edited March 1, 2023 by Calm