Church fined by SEC

[Malc]

People who have participated on this thread probably know more of the details (even those in dispute) than almost all of the rest of humanity. 

Now that the story is out there in the world, I have little doubt that it is and will be a net negative for the church.

Here's roughly how I see it playing out:

• 0 The vast majority of people will never hear about it, or will care not at all if they do - members and non-members alike.
• - Some critics will play it up as much as they can, and draw the ongoing attention of the world to the evils of the church, and the lack of inspiration at the top that allows such things to happen.
• 0 Most faithful members who do hear will simply assume that all is well, and that they need not care, or look further. 
• + Some faithful members will have their faith strengthened as they see the church being hassled for no good reason. Satan's about, need to be more faithful, last days, etc.
• - Some faithful members will have their faith challenged as they see the church once again on the wrong side of the question of honesty. Some will stop paying tithing. For some it will be the last little thing needed to push them out.
• - Some non-members will see the church as more interested in money than anything else, which will cause or increase negative feelings about the church.
• 0 I cannot see that any non-members are likely to look at this in a positive light and think, "Yes, that's the church I've been searching for - quick, call the missionaries!"

By the way, I'm not attempting to justify any of these positions - simply saying what my impressions are.

Any other ideas?

Does it matter at all?

[Thinking]

18 hours ago, teddyaware said:

This is what I’ve been saying. Why in the world did the SEC allow the church’s system of reporting to continue for 22 years without ever calling them out for it? What excuse does the SEC have for allowing this supposed incorrect reporting to continue for so long? Is it that reports on accounts that amount into the tens of billions of dollars aren’t large enough to merit a closer scrutiny? And why wouldn’t the EPA managers and accountants not think they were in compliance when their reporting wasn’t called into question for more than two decades?!

It's not like SEC was in the meeting when the 13 shell companies were discussed and created. The Church has properties and companies all over the United States. 13 new companies would not produce a red flag.

18 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Nevertheless, the enemies of the church on this board will invariably jump to the worst possible interpretations on such things, without allowing any of the mitigating elements of a story to even begin to penetrate their prejudiced minds. Why? Because they’re desperate to lay hold on anything that could serve as a justification for their departure from the faith. The scriptures call such behavior the sin of “watching for iniquity.” One of the reasons why watching for iniquity is so evil is because its practitioners will glom on to any of the putative missteps or errors of their enemies, without stopping for a moment to think that it might be a good idea to reserve judgement and extend the benefit of the doubt for a while, lest an opportunity to bash the church be lost.

Perhaps it's because the Church is unwilling to answer questions, except those FAQs that were published with the Church's response. The Church considers the matter closed. It may be legally closed, but the Church will and should be judged by the people (members and non-members).

18 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Coincidentally, without even doing a search,  two articles on the SEC came to my attention today, both of which assert that the SEC is an extremely corrupt and unethical organization. I’d gladly post links to these eye opening articles here, but the mods would call me out for being political. But all one has to do is a search under “SEC corrupted” and you’ll get enough hits to keep you busy for awhile.

The alleged corruption does not change what the LDS Church did. Oh, you do know that one could just as easily find articles about alleged corruption of the LDS Church.

[MiserereNobis]

17 minutes ago, Malc said:

Any other ideas?

One of the positives for me is that y'all can't call out the Catholic Church for being wealthy anymore 😁

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

One of the positives for me is that y'all can't call out the Catholic Church for being wealthy anymore 😁

The difference is that when the market crashes and the financial system implodes - you will still have your invaluable art and architecture, but our digital currency will evaporate into thin air with nothing to back it. 

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

The difference is that when the market crashes and the financial system implodes - you will still have your invaluable art and architecture, but our digital currency will evaporate into thin air with nothing to back it. 

 

We will have land though.

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Malc said:

People who have participated on this thread probably know more of the details (even those in dispute) than almost all of the rest of humanity. 

Now that the story is out there in the world, I have little doubt that it is and will be a net negative for the church.

Here's roughly how I see it playing out:

• 0 The vast majority of people will never hear about it, or will care not at all if they do - members and non-members alike.
• - Some critics will play it up as much as they can, and draw the ongoing attention of the world to the evils of the church, and the lack of inspiration at the top that allows such things to happen.
• 0 Most faithful members who do hear will simply assume that all is well, and that they need not care, or look further. 
• + Some faithful members will have their faith strengthened as they see the church being hassled for no good reason. Satan's about, need to be more faithful, last days, etc.
• - Some faithful members will have their faith challenged as they see the church once again on the wrong side of the question of honesty. Some will stop paying tithing. For some it will be the last little thing needed to push them out.
• - Some non-members will see the church as more interested in money than anything else, which will cause or increase negative feelings about the church.
• 0 I cannot see that any non-members are likely to look at this in a positive light and think, "Yes, that's the church I've been searching for - quick, call the missionaries!"

By the way, I'm not attempting to justify any of these positions - simply saying what my impressions are.

Any other ideas?

Does it matter at all?

One way I relax at the end of a long day is to spend a few minutes watching YouTube videos posted by a craftsman/carpenter guy going by "BlackTail Studio."  He usually shows the process for making customized "live edge" wood tables.  I watch these because A) I admire his skills, B) he seems like an amiable guy, someone I could strike up a conversation or friendship with, C) I enjoy watching him turn slabs of wood into custom tables (the "live edge" style is not really my cuppa, tho), and D) I sort of envy him.  He has something to show for his efforts and hard work.  In contrast, I as an attorney expend large amounts of time and effort to . . . write stuff.  I can spend a hundred hours compiling evidence, researching facts and case law, outlining and drafting a motion, argue the motion at a hearing before a judge, and then update my client and move on to the next matter.  Lawyering is intellectually challenging for me, but my "work product" is pretty much all ephemeral.

So it is, I think, with most "legal" issues and stories.  They are "ephemeral."  They come, they get bandied about, then they are resolved, and in a week they are forgotten.  That's what happens most of the time.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

We will have land though.

That's true.  And cows - lots of them.   That will be worth more than art. 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Malc said:

People who have participated on this thread probably know more of the details (even those in dispute) than almost all of the rest of humanity. 

Now that the story is out there in the world, I have little doubt that it is and will be a net negative for the church.

Here's roughly how I see it playing out:

• 0 The vast majority of people will never hear about it, or will care not at all if they do - members and non-members alike.
• - Some critics will play it up as much as they can, and draw the ongoing attention of the world to the evils of the church, and the lack of inspiration at the top that allows such things to happen.
• 0 Most faithful members who do hear will simply assume that all is well, and that they need not care, or look further. 
• + Some faithful members will have their faith strengthened as they see the church being hassled for no good reason. Satan's about, need to be more faithful, last days, etc.
• - Some faithful members will have their faith challenged as they see the church once again on the wrong side of the question of honesty. Some will stop paying tithing. For some it will be the last little thing needed to push them out.
• - Some non-members will see the church as more interested in money than anything else, which will cause or increase negative feelings about the church.
• 0 I cannot see that any non-members are likely to look at this in a positive light and think, "Yes, that's the church I've been searching for - quick, call the missionaries!"

By the way, I'm not attempting to justify any of these positions - simply saying what my impressions are.

Any other ideas?

Does it matter at all?

Most of humanity does not give any thought to the church nor what it does.  It is fairly insignificant on the world stage.  Most who know anything about it view it as a wierd cultic type religion based out of Utah.  Most just don't care much about it.

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

We will have land though.

That assumes the presence of a semi-functional government to enforce real property ownership claims.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That assumes the presence of a semi-functional government to enforce real property ownership claims.

Unless it all collapses overnight, my guess is if necessary there will be time to build up some as centers so that Saints and those who wish to dwell with them will be able to defend the centers if life gets that bad for long enough (not talking about scattered property like the chapels all over, but larger areas that can be more self sufficient).  Nor do I see total collapse as lasting that long if it happens.

Just to be clear, we need title to the land before end times hits to be prepared for it.  Imo development will happen before it is needed, not when it is needed.  And will probably be a slow burn so as not to trigger the panic they would be trying to avoid through wise stewardship.  Just as the story related the other day here about quietly selling stocks to avoid influencing the market.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Calm

[rockpond]

On 2/28/2023 at 9:30 PM, 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. 

In large part, yes. The original discovery of the twelve LLC's was because someone in church employment made the mistake of registering all of their domain names on the same day and hosting them all on the same server as the Church's website.  (How someone discovered this is far above my pay grade.)

[rockpond]

On 3/1/2023 at 12:32 PM, 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. 

I'm not sure about that... I served my mission in a South American country over 30 years ago.  Locals back then seemed to believe that we were a wealthy church, likely based on the temple, the relative size/finish of our chapels, and the North American missionaries in suits on expensive bikes.

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure about that... I served my mission in a South American country over 30 years ago.  Locals back then seemed to believe that we were a wealthy church, likely based on the temple, the relative size/finish of our chapels, and the North American missionaries in suits on expensive bikes.

Yep, that’s exactly how we were perceived in Bolivia. Oh, and they thought we were CIA.

[rockpond]

23 hours ago, teddyaware said:

This is what I’ve been saying. Why in the world did the SEC allow the church’s system of reporting to continue for 22 years without ever calling them out for it? What excuse does the SEC have for allowing this supposed incorrect reporting to continue for so long? Is it that reports on accounts that amount into the tens of billions of dollars aren’t large enough to merit a closer scrutiny? And why wouldn’t the EPA managers and accountants not think they were in compliance when their reporting wasn’t called into question for more than two decades?!

Nevertheless, the enemies of the church on this board will invariably jump to the worst possible interpretations on such things, without allowing any of the mitigating elements of a story to even begin to penetrate their prejudiced minds. Why? Because they’re desperate to lay hold on anything that could serve as a justification for their departure from the faith. The scriptures call such behavior the sin of “watching for iniquity.” One of the reasons why watching for iniquity is so evil is because its practitioners will glom on to any of the putative missteps or errors of their enemies, without stopping for a moment to think that it might be a good idea to reserve judgement and extend the benefit of the doubt for a while, lest an opportunity to bash the church be lost.

Coincidentally, without even doing a search,  two articles on the SEC came to my attention today, both of which assert that the SEC is an extremely corrupt and unethical organization. I’d gladly post links to these eye opening articles here, but the mods would call me out for being political. But all one has to do is a search under “SEC corrupted” and you’ll get enough hits to keep you busy for awhile.

The Church agreed to a settlement and an SEC order in which the First Presidency acknowledged authorizing the LLC structure in order to hide church assets.  That's not jumping to the worst possible interpretation, it's now the reality of the situation.  Members of the Church, regardless of where they land on the faith spectrum, will each need to decide how to process that information.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

Perhaps it's because the Church is unwilling to answer questions, except those FAQs that were published with the Church's response. The Church considers the matter closed. It may be legally closed, but the Church will and should be judged by the people (members and non-members).

It's also clear that the annual audit that the Brethren claim to "pass" each year is worthless.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's also clear that the annual audit that the Brethren claim to "pass" each year is worthless.

That's a bit of an overstatement, but I certainly think bringing in outside auditors would go a long way toward regaining some credibility.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's a bit of an overstatement, but I certainly think bringing in outside auditors would go a long way toward regaining some credibility.

Not sure...

Yes, the audit tells us that the church has followed GAAP.

But, it has also mistakenly misled many members to think that all finances are being handled honestly and ethically - which has not been happening.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not sure...

Yes, the audit tells us that the church has followed GAAP.

But, it has also mistakenly misled many members to think that all finances are being handled honestly and ethically - which has not been happening.

Don't get me wrong, their credibility took a big hit on this, IMO, but they were also in a bit of an impossible situation when you are reporting to the same people who have approved the plan you are criticizing. That's why I say an external audit really ought to be considered.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

One of the positives for me is that y'all can't call out the Catholic Church for being wealthy anymore 😁

Or the clergy sexual abuse.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not sure...

Yes, the audit tells us that the church has followed GAAP.

But, it has also mistakenly misled many members to think that all finances are being handled honestly and ethically - which has not been happening.

 

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Don't get me wrong, their credibility took a big hit on this, IMO, but they were also in a bit of an impossible situation when you are reporting to the same people who have approved the plan you are criticizing. That's why I say an external audit really ought to be considered.

There is something about transparency that drives better behavior. The knowledge that the internal audit would never see the light of day enables riskier behavior than the knowledge that whatever audit you submit to will be made public. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 in order to hide church assets.  That's not jumping to the worst possible interpretation,

Hide assets from who? Which assets weren't reported on any 13f? Which assets did the SEC claim should have been reported but weren't?

Edited to add: I won't argue that the Church didn't obscure the assets from the public, but that's a far cry from hiding assets from the SEC.

Edited March 3, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[ttribe]

Just now, Stormin' Mormon said:

Hide assets from who? Which assets weren't reported on any 13f? Which assets did the SEC claim should have been reported but weren't?

Perhaps you would find his comment more accurate and palatable were it to be adjusted to say "in order to hide the common ownership of assets..."

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

There is something about transparency that drives better behavior. The knowledge that the internal audit would never see the light of day enables riskier behavior than the knowledge that whatever audit you submit to will be made public. 

As an anti-fraud professional I have an admitted bias toward favoring more transparency over less. On average, such transparency of financial matters is a useful deterrent (not 100%, mind you) against the pressures that might encourage someone to commit a fraud.

[Stormin' Mormon]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 (not 100%, mind you)

I think this is the crux of this discussion. We seem to agree that 100% transparency is not desirable, so now we simply quibble over the proper place to draw the line. 

The Church is getting dinged for drawing the line in a spot that critics (and the SEC) said was inappropriate. But the fact that they drew a line AT ALL shouldn't be shocking or scandalous. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I think this is the crux of this discussion. We seem to agree that 100% transparency is not desirable, so now we simply quibble over the proper place to draw the line. 

The Church is getting dinged for drawing the line in a spot that critics (and the SEC) said was inappropriate. But the fact that they drew a line AT ALL shouldn't be shocking or scandalous. 

I don’t think that’s what Tim said. What he did say was that total transparency does not guarantee a lack of fraud or abuse.