Church fined by SEC

[Danzo]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

You think this scenario is equivalent to what you do?  The church and EPA were completely clueless as to what they were doing?  They were all just blindly going along without understanding the legal implications (even after the CAD warning)?  If so, they should all be fired.  No, I think they knew there were ethical violations and highly questionable legal practices at the very minimum. 

We might not be having this conversation if the EPA was ethical enough to hire someone like you to explain to their "managers" exactly what they were signing.  Nope, they intentionally withheld information from them and had them sign documents to verify the accuracy and correctness of false information, potentially placing them at legal peril (I wont use the word "perjury", but to pretend like they didn't knowingly place those managers in legal/ethical danger is nonsense). 

I often deal with people with facing large penalties.  I am in the middle of a case dealing with over half a million in alleged taxes and penalties. Much larger as a percentage of assets and income than what was assessed against the church. Most of these penalties revolve around misstating information on government forms.  I just don't see it in the same light that you apparently do. 

They chose a reporting strategy

The SEC (after many years) found it wasn't a legal way to report

The church paid a fine.

Life goes on.

I understand that you see this as something bigger than I do. I lot of this has to do with different life experiences.  

In the real world, government compliance is not always black and white.  Much of the law is unclear and often we cannot state the law with large degrees of certainty.

The law itself addresses this uncertainty with terms like "substantial Authority", "Reasonable basis",  "realistic possibility", "More likely than not", "non frivolous", when we give opinions.

it would seem you would like to live in a world where everything is 100% legal or 100% illegal, black and white.  That is not the world I live in and is the the world the church lives in.

 

[Danzo]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

The reason they didn't use the language may not be because they think it didn't happen, but was simply a part of the negotiated settlement to avoid that language.  I think it is fair to ask the question given the fact that it could potentially have happened and settled without charge and without any written accusation.   I will withhold judgment on the matter because I don't know enough, but I think it is fair for legal experts to opine on and for me to bring up here to discuss what legal experts have said. 

The church could potentially have tortured puppies as well, even though it wasn't part of the negotiated settlement.

Unless you know about the inner workings of the SEC investigation, I agree that making accusations beyond what was alleged is irresponsible. 

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I often deal with people with facing large penalties.  I am in the middle of a case dealing with over half a million in alleged taxes and penalties. Much larger as a percentage of assets and income than what was assessed against the church. Most of these penalties revolve around misstating information on government forms.  I just don't see it in the same light that you apparently do. 

They chose a reporting strategy

The SEC (after many years) found it wasn't a legal way to report

The church paid a fine.

Life goes on.

I understand that you see this as something bigger than I do. I lot of this has to do with different life experiences.  

In the real world, government compliance is not always black and white.  Much of the law is unclear and often we cannot state the law with large degrees of certainty.

The law itself addresses this uncertainty with terms like "substantial Authority", "Reasonable basis",  "realistic possibility", "More likely than not", "non frivolous", when we give opinions.

it would seem you would like to live in a world where everything is 100% legal or 100% illegal, black and white.  That is not the world I live in and is the the world the church lives in.

The thing that bothers me about all of this is the defense that "compliance is not always black and white".  This neglects to address my concerns of what seem to be fairly black and white ethical violations spelled out in the negotiated SEC statement at the very least.  You keep making it about the law.  It is more about the honesty and deception issues for me.  That may not be a big deal for you, but it is a big deal for me.

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The church could potentially have tortured puppies as well, even though it wasn't part of the negotiated settlement.

I'm sorry, but I don't think a legal experts opinion is the same as making up random non-sensical accusations.  Again, the legal jargon or proper legal word for what they did doesn't really matters to me.  The position they put those managers in was unethical and wrong.  

25 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Unless you know about the inner workings of the SEC investigation, I agree that making accusations beyond what was alleged is irresponsible. 

Again, this is not about what I know and think, I am addressing other opinions that I don't know if I believe or not.  That is why I am discussing it here.   But, I do have a fairly good idea of the ethically shady practices the EPA used and mistreated their employees with.  You seem to want to ignore all of that. 

Edited March 7, 2023 by pogi

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

All the more reason for bystanders to also not "use criminal language and accusations like 'perjury.'"

The reason they didn't use the language may not be because they think it didn't happen, but was simply a part of the negotiated settlement to avoid that language. 

This is rank speculation.  If you ever run into a legal dispute, there is a decent chance that the matter will end up being settled.  If that were to happen, and if the settlement documents were silent as to admissions of wrongdoing or criminal misconduct, I suspect you would not want others to say something along the lines of what you are saying above: "The reasons pogi's settlement agreement didn't include admissions of criminal misconduct may not be because they think it didn't happen, but was simply a part of the negotiated settlement to avoid that language."

Applying even a barebones version of the Golden Rule would, I think, preclude speculation involving the worst possible interpretation of what the SEC Order does not say and why it does not say it. 

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think it is fair to ask the question

But is it fair to jump to conclusions?  

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

given the fact that it could potentially have happened and settled without charge and without any written accusation.

In the U.S. legal system, it is quite common for a trial or appellate court to say that it "need not reach" further contested issues where there are more preliminary and/or limited grounds to resolve the dispute (see, e.g., here).

Here, I think it is both reasonable and appropriate to refrain from speculation, particularly of the accusatory type.  We just don't have enough to go on.

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

I will withhold judgment on the matter because I don't know enough, but I think it is fair for legal experts to opine on and for me to bring up here to discuss what legal experts have said.

As you like.  

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

There could be several reasons why they would mention it in that order but not the church order.  The severity could be an issue, the financial harm caused, the motive for financial gain, the fact that it is not a church and may not be as careful in the accusations, maybe they didn't have as good or well-paid of lawyers.  While it is interesting to note, it doesn't really speak to the SEC motivations on this specific case.

All the more reason for bystanders to not "use criminal language and accusations like 'perjury,'" to refrain from hostile speculation, etc.  Given the absence of any required admission of wrongdoing (an option available to the SEC, but not imposed here), given the express provision that the Church is not admitting the allegations, and given the absence of any finding that the noncompliance was "criminal" or "fraudulent" or "perjurious," I would think it more "fair" to give the folks in the crossshairs some benefit of the doubt.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is rank speculation.  If you ever run into a legal dispute, there is a decent chance that the matter will end up being settled.  If that were to happen, and if the settlement documents were silent as to admissions of wrongdoing or criminal misconduct, I suspect you would not want others to say something along the lines of what you are saying above: "The reasons pogi's settlement agreement didn't include admissions of criminal misconduct may not be because they think it didn't happen, but was simply a part of the negotiated settlement to avoid that language."

I think it is a fair question given their position of trust. I don't think it needs to be left up to "rank speculation" either.   I think discussing if one could perjure themselves in signing this specific legal document is something that could be answered without much speculation.  Is it even possible to perjure oneself with this document?  If so, what would constitute perjury (you have laid out some info to consider) and do the details in the order fit with perjury?   Did the managers willfully and knowingly make a false statement about a material fact.  Yes, according to the negotiated SEC statement:

Quote

Each Form 13F also misstated that the Business Manager signed the Form 13F
from the address listed on the signature page. In fact, all Business Managers were located in Salt
Lake City, and the addresses on the forms were used to convey the impression that the Clone LLCs
were located across the country.

Then there was this bit too:

Quote

The signature page stated, “The institutional investment manager filing this report and the person by whom it is
signed hereby represent . . . that all information contained herein is true, correct and complete[.]” 

The problem is that they never were given the info to review and verify the truthfulness, correctness, or completeness of it.  That is a willful and knowingly false statement to attest to those things without even having access to the info to review.  

The only other potential issue that you mention is that it must be done "under oath".  That is what I don't know about.   I don't know if these legal documents work in that way.  If not, then it may not be perjury.  That seems like it is a question that could be answered without "speculation".

But once again, people seem to be missing the fact that whether or not it was "perjury" is less important to me.  If it wasn't, it is flirting awfully close and it was completely wrong to place church employees in that position.  It was dishonest and they knew that and "willfully and willingly" did so anyway. The negotiated and agreed upon statement that outlines in significant detail several honesty and ethical violations is the big issue for me.  

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Applying even a barebones version of the Golden Rule would, I think, preclude speculation involving the worst possible interpretation of what the SEC Order does not say and why it does not say it. 

If a legal expert tells me it is possible that they may have placed them in a position of perjuring themselves, I am going to consider it and freely discuss it.  I may not make a judgment without further info, but I think it is worth discussing and looking into.  Honestly, it wouldn't make that much of a difference to me in the end.

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But is it fair to jump to conclusions?  

Who's jumping to conclusions?  That is clearly not what I said. 

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As you like.  

Thank you. 

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by pogi

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think it is a fair question given their position of trust. I don't think it needs to be left up to "rank speculation" either.   I think discussing if one could perjure themselves in signing this specific legal document is something that could be answered without much speculation.  Is it even possible to perjure oneself with this document?  If so, what would constitute perjury (you have laid out some info to consider) and do the details in the order fit with perjury?   Did the managers willfully and knowingly make a false statement about a material fact.  Yes, according to the negotiated SEC statement:

Then there was this bit too:

The problem is that they never were given the info to review and verify the truthfulness, correctness, or completeness of it.  That is a willful and knowingly false statement to attest to those things without even having access to the info to review.  

The only other potential issue that you mention is that it must be done "under oath".  That is what I don't know about.   I don't know if these legal documents work in that way.  If not, then it may not be perjury.  That seems like it is a question that could be answered without "speculation".

But once again, people seem to be missing the fact that whether or not it was "perjury" is less important to me.  It was dishonest and they knew that and "willfully and willingly" did so anyway. The negotiated and agreed upon statement that outlines in significant detail several honesty and ethical violations is the big issue for me.  

If a legal expert tells me it is possible that they may have placed them in a position of perjuring themselves, I am going to consider it.  I may not make a judgment without further info, but I think it is worth discussing and looking into.  Honestly, it wouldn't make that much of a difference to me in the end, but I don't think .

Who's jumping to conclusions?  That is clearly not what I said. 

Thank you. 

 

 

I thought you weren't interested in legal arguments but if you want to engage.

You are missing the oath.

The under oath is a required element of perjury

That is why, even if the SEC determined that the church was guilty of the worst crimes, you wouldn't see a perjury charge, you will almost never see a perjury charge for filling out a false report.  Even you tax return that has an explicit jurat wont get you a perjury charge.  Congress had to make a new law to cover that (IRC 7206).   You pretty much have to be under oath for a perjury charge.

You are also missing a false statement.  You have to have a statement that is false.  Signing something is not making a statement. The perjury has to be an affirmative statement.  

Signing something you are not authorized to sign isn't perjury.

One of your issues is that you keep going back to some vague statements that some experts made to some newspaper.  The expert you rely on isn't answering any questions for you.  Yet you have people who know about the law that you can ask questions and are willing to give you answers and you keep ignoring them because of some statement that can't clarify and can't ask further questions. 

You have a chance to learn, but instead keep doubling down on a newspaper statement that cant give you any more insight.

The sees a difference between misstatements, fraud, perjury and making false statements because there is a difference.  It isn't just legal mumbo jumbo, but they are actually different things.  Things that are false aren't necessarily fraudulent, Things that are Fraudulent aren't always perjury.

The purpose of a perjury charge isn't to stop people from lying, its to stop people from lying under oath.  

 

 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I'm sorry, but I don't think a legal experts opinion is the same as making up random non-sensical accusations.  Again, the legal jargon or proper legal word for what they did doesn't really matters to me.  The position they put those managers in was unethical and wrong.  

Again, this is not about what I know and think, I am addressing other opinions that I don't know if I believe or not.  That is why I am discussing it here.   But, I do have a fairly good idea of the ethically shady practices the EPA used and mistreated their employees with.  You seem to want to ignore all of that. 

I don't want to ignore the accusations that employees of EPA were mistreated. I haven't been following all the pages of this thread, but can you show me the accusations of employees being mistreated?

Edited March 7, 2023 by Danzo

[ttribe]

27 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't want to ignore the accusations that employees of EPA were mistreated. I haven't been following all the pages of this thread, but can you show me the accusations of employees being mistreated?

27. 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.
 

28. Each Form 13F was signed by the designated Business Manager. The signature
page stated, “The institutional investment manager filing this report and the person by whom it is
signed hereby represent . . . that all information contained herein is true, correct and complete[.]”
However, Ensign Peak provided the Business Managers with insufficient information about the
Clone LLCs or the securities assigned to them that would enable the Business Managers to make
this representation. When Ensign Peak obtained the Business Managers’ signatures for the Forms
13F, Ensign Peak gave the Business Managers only the signature pages of the Forms 13F and not
the complete documents. In addition, the Forms 13F were often filed with electronic signatures
before Ensign Peak actually obtained the Business Managers’ handwritten signatures.
 

29. Each Form 13F also misstated that the Business Manager signed the Form 13F
from the address listed on the signature page. In fact, all Business Managers were located in Salt
Lake City, and the addresses on the forms were used to convey the impression that the Clone LLCs
were located across the country.

 

33. In May 2018, a public website reported that various entities that appeared to have
ties to the Church had filed Forms 13F revealing holdings of approximately $32 billion. The
website referenced evidence indicating that these entities’ domain names were all registered to an
entity tasked with overseeing and protecting the intellectual property of the Church, and that each
of the LLCs identified listed a Business Manager whose name matched that of a Church employee.
 

34. After the website reported this information, two Business Managers resigned their
roles, voicing concerns about what they had been asked to do. Rather than changing the LLC
Structure, two new Business Managers were assigned to replace the two who resigned.

 

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

27. 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.
 

28. Each Form 13F was signed by the designated Business Manager. The signature
page stated, “The institutional investment manager filing this report and the person by whom it is
signed hereby represent . . . that all information contained herein is true, correct and complete[.]”
However, Ensign Peak provided the Business Managers with insufficient information about the
Clone LLCs or the securities assigned to them that would enable the Business Managers to make
this representation. When Ensign Peak obtained the Business Managers’ signatures for the Forms
13F, Ensign Peak gave the Business Managers only the signature pages of the Forms 13F and not
the complete documents. In addition, the Forms 13F were often filed with electronic signatures
before Ensign Peak actually obtained the Business Managers’ handwritten signatures.
 

29. Each Form 13F also misstated that the Business Manager signed the Form 13F
from the address listed on the signature page. In fact, all Business Managers were located in Salt
Lake City, and the addresses on the forms were used to convey the impression that the Clone LLCs
were located across the country.

 

33. In May 2018, a public website reported that various entities that appeared to have
ties to the Church had filed Forms 13F revealing holdings of approximately $32 billion. The
website referenced evidence indicating that these entities’ domain names were all registered to an
entity tasked with overseeing and protecting the intellectual property of the Church, and that each
of the LLCs identified listed a Business Manager whose name matched that of a Church employee.
 

34. After the website reported this information, two Business Managers resigned their
roles, voicing concerns about what they had been asked to do. Rather than changing the LLC
Structure, two new Business Managers were assigned to replace the two who resigned.

 

Just to be clear, the allegations of mistreatment of employees coms from accusation number 34, when two managers resigned?

Do we have anything from them specifying the mistreatment?  something in the resignation letters?  have they had other interviews or made other reports specify their mistreatment?

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Just to be clear, the allegations of mistreatment of employees coms from accusation number 34, when two managers resigned?

Do we have anything from them specifying the mistreatment?  something in the resignation letters?  have they had other interviews or made other reports specify their mistreatment?

The situation is as follows:

- EPA selected employees whose names were common enough to avoid social media searches connecting the entities back to EPA or the Church and made them "Business Managers."

- EPA filed multiple 13f forms which claimed the named Business Managers had investment discretion for their funds when they did not.

- The Business Managers were not provided the complete forms they were signing and had no apparent knowledge concerning the importance of their signature and what they were attesting.

- When it became public, two of these Business Managers resigned and specifically told EPA and the Church that the reason they were resigning was because they were being told to sign documents that were false.

 

 

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I thought you weren't interested in legal arguments but if you want to engage.

You are missing the oath.

The under oath is a required element of perjury

I did not miss "the oath".  See:

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

The only other potential issue that you mention is that it must be done "under oath".  That is what I don't know about.   I don't know if these legal documents work in that way.  If not, then it may not be perjury.  That seems like it is a question that could be answered without "speculation".

But once again, people seem to be missing the fact that whether or not it was "perjury" is less important to me.  If it wasn't, it is flirting awfully close and it was completely wrong to place church employees in that position.  It was dishonest and they knew that and "willfully and willingly" did so anyway. The negotiated and agreed upon statement that outlines in significant detail several honesty and ethical violations is the big issue for me.  

 

30 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You are also missing a false statement.  You have to have a statement that is false.  Signing something is not making a statement. The perjury has to be an affirmative statement.  

Signing something you are not authorized to sign isn't perjury.

I am no legal expert but signing a statement that falsely attests to the truthfulness, correctness and completeness seems to me to be the same as making a false statement.   If the statement is false and they sign it as if it is true...  There may be some legal technicalities that I am unaware of, but for all intents and purposes it was a dishonest and untruthful statement that he signed.  I honestly don't care about the legal term for it. 

30 minutes ago, Danzo said:

One of your issues is that you keep going back to some vague statements that some experts made to some newspaper.  The expert you rely on isn't answering any questions for you.  Yet you have people who know about the law that you can ask questions and are willing to give you answers and you keep ignoring them because of some statement that can't clarify and can't ask further questions. 

I am not ignoring them.  I am addressing them.  What do you think I am doing here? You are the one dismissing me and my concerns.  Not even addressing them actually.  

30 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You have a chance to learn, but instead keep doubling down on a newspaper statement that cant give you any more insight.

I am not doubling down on it as if to give it any conclusory meaning or power - what I am doubling down on and defending is the ability to discuss these things without getting attacked and dismissed as being unworthy of discussion.   What I keep hearing is people trying to shut down even the potential for discussion of perjury because it was not specifically mentioned in the SEC report.  I'm sorry, but I am going to ask questions that I have questions about.  You can't shut me up with your personal attacks. 

30 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The sees a difference between misstatements, fraud, perjury and making false statements because there is a difference.  It isn't just legal mumbo jumbo, but they are actually different things.  Things that are false aren't necessarily fraudulent, Things that are Fraudulent aren't always perjury.

Cool.  Would you agree that they intentionally did one of the above dishonest actions?   I keep saying, that is what matters most to me but you seem unwilling to go there.  The perjury issue is just a matter of curiosity to me given what I heard.  I have a right to discuss it and consider interpretations from different angles.  I have heard and am considering your arguments.  I am not dismissing them.  I have formed no conclusion or judgment.  I have made that abundantly clear so pleas quit framing this as if I have made conclusions or "accusations" or hold up their opinion as God's truth.  I am simply trying to state that it is worthy of discussion and doesn't have to be based entirely in "speculation". 

30 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The purpose of a perjury charge isn't to stop people from lying, its to stop people from lying under oath.  

So you agree that the deception they engaged in constitutes lying?

[webbles]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

- EPA filed multiple 13f forms which claimed the named Business Managers had investment discretion for their funds when they did not.

This isn't technically accurate.  I've seen it mentioned several times.  They didn't name the Business Managers having investment discretion.  The 13f forms named the investment LLCs as having investment discretion which they did not.  The Business Managers had no authority (per the documents that set up the LLC) to do any investments.  They (the Business Managers) had authority to sign the documents in behalf of the LLC.

I think a better way to say it is: "EPA filed multiple 13f forms which were signed by the Business Managers.  The 13f forms claimed that the LLCs had sole investment discretion for their funds when they did not."

It doesn't really change what you are saying.  Just wanted to clear up the confusion on what authority the Business Managers actually had.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

I don't want to ignore the accusations that employees of EPA were mistreated. I haven't been following all the pages of this thread, but can you show me the accusations of employees being mistreated?

You would have no problem with a company who selected you for your common name and low social profile instead of your accomplishments to superficially promote you to be a (pseudo) "Business Manager" of a shell company that you supposedly have investment discretion over (but you really don't); and they expect you to attest to the truthfulness, correctness, and completeness of legal documents (that seems to be your sole purpose) that they don't give you to review and which have false address on, in an effort to protect their own interests and in disregard over the ethicality and legality of what they are asking you to do?  If you think that is not mistreatment of a church employee who unethically got sucked into a web of deceit because of their generic name...  I don't know what to say.    

Edited March 8, 2023 by pogi

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

n the end, what I find most troubling isn't the church's actions (I've said what I think about that) but that people are not only denying that anything improper was done but are attacking the character of those who do find it troubling. That I will never understand.

It is an odd dynamic.

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by Teancum

[ttribe]

37 minutes ago, webbles said:

This isn't technically accurate.  I've seen it mentioned several times.  They didn't name the Business Managers having investment discretion.  The 13f forms named the investment LLCs as having investment discretion which they did not.  The Business Managers had no authority (per the documents that set up the LLC) to do any investments.  They (the Business Managers) had authority to sign the documents in behalf of the LLC.

I think a better way to say it is: "EPA filed multiple 13f forms which were signed by the Business Managers.  The 13f forms claimed that the LLCs had sole investment discretion for their funds when they did not."

It doesn't really change what you are saying.  Just wanted to clear up the confusion on what authority the Business Managers actually had.

That's an important distinction. Thank you.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is rank speculation.  If you ever run into a legal dispute, there is a decent chance that the matter will end up being settled.  If that were to happen, and if the settlement documents were silent as to admissions of wrongdoing or criminal misconduct, I suspect you would not want others to say something along the lines of what you are saying above: "The reasons pogi's settlement agreement didn't include admissions of criminal misconduct may not be because they think it didn't happen, but was simply a part of the negotiated settlement to avoid that language."

Applying even a barebones version of the Golden Rule would, I think, preclude speculation involving the worst possible interpretation of what the SEC Order does not say and why it does not say it. 

But is it fair to jump to conclusions?  

In the U.S. legal system, it is quite common for a trial or appellate court to say that it "need not reach" further contested issues where there are more preliminary and/or limited grounds to resolve the dispute (see, e.g., here).

Here, I think it is both reasonable and appropriate to refrain from speculation, particularly of the accusatory type.  We just don't have enough to go on.

As you like.  

All the more reason for bystanders to not "use criminal language and accusations like 'perjury,'" to refrain from hostile speculation, etc.  Given the absence of any required admission of wrongdoing (an option available to the SEC, but not imposed here), given the express provision that the Church is not admitting the allegations, and given the absence of any finding that the noncompliance was "criminal" or "fraudulent" or "perjurious," I would think it more "fair" to give the folks in the crossshairs some benefit of the doubt.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hey well Smac, you know what could clear this all up.  If the church leaders would just talk openly about it to their members.  You know, a bit more than there kurt statement and now consider the matter closed.  They could tell us all what they did, why the did it, if they regret it and clear up all this "speculation."  But you and  I both know they won't do that, now will they.  

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

The church could potentially have tortured puppies as well, even though it wasn't part of the negotiated settlement.

Unless you know about the inner workings of the SEC investigation, I agree that making accusations beyond what was alleged is irresponsible. 

After reading this thread, what I have become the most convinced about is that if Church leaders were caught red handed torturing puppies, there would be those defending the Church leaders coming up with excuses about how either it is not that big of deal, puppies get tortured every day.  What are you expecting?  Perfection in Church leaders?  

And there would be those calling for the death penalty for all Church leaders caught with puppy blood on their hands.  

Neither side would be able to see why the other side feels the way they do. So lets attack their character and motive for their position.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You would have no problem with a company who selected you for your common name and low social profile instead of your accomplishments to superficially promote you to be a (pseudo) "Business Manager" of a shell company that you supposedly have investment discretion over (but you really don't); and they expect you to attest to the truthfulness, correctness, and completeness of legal documents (that seems to be your sole purpose) that they don't give you to review and which have false address on, in an effort to protect their own interests and in disregard over the ethicality and legality of what they are asking you to do?  If you think that is not mistreatment of a church employee who unethically got sucked into a web of deceit because of their generic name...  I don't know what to say.    

You seem to feel very badly for someone who, unless I missed something, hasn't complained. 

I don't think you really enough to speculate on the woes and misfortunes of these "mistreated" employees.

[Danzo]

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

After reading this thread, what I have become the most convinced about is that if Church leaders were caught red handed torturing puppies, there would be those defending the Church leaders coming up with excuses about how either it is not that big of deal, puppies get tortured every day.  What are you expecting?  Perfection in Church leaders?  

And there would be those calling for the death penalty for all Church leaders caught with puppy blood on their hands.  

Neither side would be able to see why the other side feels the way they do. So lets attack their character and motive for their position.

When the leaders get caught torturing puppies, we can have a whole thread devoted to it, but we should wait for the news release first. Likewise we can discuss how the church perjures itself when it is  actually accused of perjuring itself.

 

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Hey well Smac, you know what could clear this all up.  If the church leaders would just talk openly about it to their members.  You know, a bit more than there kurt statement and now consider the matter closed.  They could tell us all what they did, why the did it, if they regret it and clear up all this "speculation."  But you and  I both know they won't do that, now will they.  

They most likely won't do what you suggest -- and do you know why? Yes, I'm setting you up. Will you forbear? That might be the first step toward putting a damper on "speculation." The kind of speculation we see in discussions like these seems to come from a personal need to assuage the aversive feeling of uncertainty by venting and even sharing one's angst. This Church does teach self-reliance, and not everyone is uncomfortable with uncertainty, especially given the greater certainty they might enjoy.

[california boy]

32 minutes ago, Danzo said:

When the leaders get caught torturing puppies, we can have a whole thread devoted to it, but we should wait for the news release first. Likewise we can discuss how the church perjures itself when it is  actually accused of perjuring itself.

 

Your response makes my point extremely well.  While some see clear indication that managers were instructed to sign a form affirming that the form is accurate when they knew that wasn't the case, others see it as just a misunderstanding.  

[CV75]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Your response makes my point extremely well.  While some see clear indication that managers were instructed to sign a form affirming that the form is accurate when they knew that wasn't the case, others see it as just a misunderstanding.  

I think this thread all along has represented the same strong attitudes we find in threads about the Fall -- is this a sin? a transgression? inherently wrong? a formally prohibited tort? Despite the references made to their distinction:

The Fulness of the Gospel: The Fall of Adam and Eve (churchofjesuschrist.org) Regarding this distinction, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed: “This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: ‘We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’ (emphasis added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.”

“The Great Plan of Happiness” (churchofjesuschrist.org) "...a transgression—an exercise of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a formality to serve an eternal purpose." And: "This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression ...echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall."

The consequence of what went on is a fine. The "collateral" damage people have made of trust and reputation is due to their perspective, which reflects the idea in Articles of Faith 2: "they suffer for their own sins/transgressions/weaknesses/fallibility, and not the Church’s transgression."

There are also plenty of talks distinguishing between doctrine, principle and policy that come into play in the same way.

Edited March 8, 2023 by CV75

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

They most likely won't do what you suggest -- and do you know why? Yes, I'm setting you up. Will you forbear? That might be the first step toward putting a damper on "speculation." The kind of speculation we see in discussions like these seems to come from a personal need to assuage the aversive feeling of uncertainty by venting and even sharing one's angst. This Church does teach self-reliance, and not everyone is uncomfortable with uncertainty, especially given the greater certainty they might enjoy.

I already said they won't do what I suggested.  And the reason has nothing to do with your flawed explanation.

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

I already said they won't do what I suggested.  And the reason has nothing to do with your flawed explanation.

And so, what is your solid explanation for "all this 'speculation'"? Or are you forbearing, illustrating the soundness of my point?