Church fined by SEC

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Danzo said:

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.

You are being rather harsh with Pogi.  And from one tax guy to another let's be honest.  The church leaders and EPA knew exactly what they were doing. And  they were doing it because they did not want their asset amounts to be public. And they were having  people sign a form that they knew did  not have authority to  sign it since they did not manage any of the funds that the LLCs stated owning.  That seems pretty dishonest to me at least. I would not advise a client to do something like that. Would you?

[pogi]

15 hours 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.

I think the confusion for me came from the fact that there are 3 different types of managers being discussed. 1) Institutional Investment Managers (I am assuming this means the EPA + each individual LLC), 2) Investment Managers (individual investment managers assigned to each LLC), and 3) Business Managers:

Institutional investment managers (such as EPA):

Quote

 

Ensign Peak’s significant role in the securities markets as an institutional investment manager...

 

Each LLC was set up as a distinct "institutional investment manager".  And within each of those there were individual "investment managers" assigned:

Quote

Although Ensign Peak designated several of its own investment managers to serve as
investment managers for each Clone LLC, these investment managers continued to manage the
Section 13(f) Securities on behalf of Ensign Peak. They did not know which assets were allocated
to the Clone LLCs and performed no functions for the LLCs outside of their existing
responsibilities for Ensign Peak

That was the confusing part for me.  I was confusing the individual "investment managers" with "business managers".  I think what makes it even more confusing is that the SEC seems to use "investment manager" and "institutional investment manager" interchangeably:

Quote

Pursuant to Rule 13f-1(b), an investment manager is deemed to
exercise discretion over all accounts for which any person or entity under the control of the
investment manager exercises investment discretion. Form 13F requires such institutional
investment managers, among other things, to disclose to the Commission the fair market value of
its Section 13(f) Securities under management. Forms 13F filed with the Commission are available
to the public for review.

At first glance, the above looks like individual investment managers exercise sole discretion, but the it continues "such institutional investment managers..."

Then of course there are the business managers.  They are mentioned here with "investment managers" (which I am assuming means "institutional business manager" in this case):

Quote

21. Each Clone LLC was set up with a “Business Manager,” who, according to the
terms of the LLC agreements, had responsibility for “the preparation and filing of the Company’s
governmental reports, returns, notices and the like, including reports required by law of investment
managers or entities exercising investment discretion.” However, the Business Managers
performed no functions for the Clone LLCs outside of signing the Form 13F signature pages each
quarter.

Hence the confusion/conflation of responsibility between the different managers. 

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Danzo said:

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.

I love how you keep making this about me and attacking m competency and knowledge instead of addressing what is clearly stated in the report.  I said that they were "mistreated" and a couple of them quit because of it.  You seem to be incapable of acknowledging dishonest mistreatment here.  Do you honestly believe that they were not mistreated?  If you acknowledge that they were mistreated, please stop making this about me.  

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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

THe reason for the speculation is because the church leaders clearly are obsessed with keeping the church finances secretive. 63 years ago that did not seem the case.

[Teancum]

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

I love how you keep making this about me and attacking m competency and knowledge instead of addressing what is clearly stated in the report.  I said that they were "mistreated" and a couple of them quit because of it.  You seem to be incapable of acknowledging dishonest mistreatment here.  Do you honestly believe that they were not mistreated?  If you acknowledge that they were mistreated, please stop making this about me.  

If I asked my employees to knowingly sign tax forms they knew were wrong I think I would be mistreating them.

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

THe reason for the speculation is because the church leaders clearly are obsessed with keeping the church finances secretive. 63 years ago that did not seem the case.

I find this to be an example of speculation.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

You do know your post as well as the one above is only going to be agreed to by those who already believe the SEC incident is like a traffic ticket right?  

Edited March 8, 2023 by california boy

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/6/2023 at 2:35 PM, jkwilliams said:

"Everyone does it" is not a particularly good excuse.

Those are your words, not mine. It is not an excuse in the context I presented......over-regulation, over-legislation. It is a fact. There are so many laws and regulations (many of which we are not even aware) that even mundane activities actually break a law or regulation.

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/6/2023 at 2:59 PM, CV75 said:

The way I see it, and for good reason (apples-and-oranges), there is no temple recommend question about how one feels about following secular, governmental policy (such as fiscal transparency) in a Church setting. So, people can feel different ways about this subject and still answer all the real questions.

Someone might try to tie this to other questions such as #7 or #9, but that would be an interpretation on their part.

Or it is stating one's credentials in order to establish some kind of superior credibility. For example, I knew the head of Ex-Mormons for Jesus in Tacoma WA. In his bio he listed "former Mormon Priest." To the unlearned, that seems impressive. To those who know, it's actually not impressive at all. The same thing happens with "....and I'm a descendant of Brigham Young." So what?

[ttribe]

15 hours ago, Danzo said:

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.

Are public statements the only evidence of employees feeling mistreated? I don't know how many large organizations you've ever worked in, but the dynamics which may or may not lead someone to speak out are diverse and powerful.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Those are your words, not mine. It is not an excuse in the context I presented......over-regulation, over-legislation. It is a fact. There are so many laws and regulations (many of which we are not even aware) that even mundane activities actually break a law or regulation.

 

Does "over-regulation" excuse acts of dishonesty?

[Bernard Gui]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Are public statements the only evidence of employees feeling mistreated? I don't know how many large organizations you've ever worked in, but the dynamics which may or may not lead someone to speak out are diverse and powerful.

Depends. They can be selfish and bitter.

 

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Does "over-regulation" excuse acts of dishonesty?

Please read the context and the both of my posts....

Edited March 8, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[ttribe]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Depends. They can be selfish and bitter.

 

Are you suggesting that the employees mentioned in the SEC Order who resigned when they discovered what they'd been asked to do by their employer were really just "selfish and bitter?"

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Please read the context and the both of my posts....

I read them in context, but I'm still asking my question.

[MiserereNobis]

If everything in the SEC statement-thing (yes, lawyers and tax folk, that's an official term) were true, how would it affect your beliefs in the truth claims of your church?

How does this relate to the idea of the infallibility of your leaders?

Is there an ethical line which, if crossed by the current first presidency, would be evidence to you that your church actually wasn't Christ's church? Like President Nelson having an affair or some such thing? (as a side question, how is the LDS President removed from office? Can the quorum of the 12 remove him?)

[Bernard Gui]

23 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Are you suggesting that the employees mentioned in the SEC Order who resigned when they discovered what they'd been asked to do by their employer were really just "selfish and bitter?"

At this point, who knows what motivated them to resign? "Diverse and powerful dynamics" can be selfish and bitter. 

23 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I read them in context, but I'm still asking my question.

 

I made the comment "Federal, state, local. Everything is regulated. There isn't a one of us, individuals or organized groups, who haven't broken the law then." One can easily violate the plethora of laws and regulations without ill intent simply by moving through life unaware that someone somewhere issued a decree.

 

[Bernard Gui]

23 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

If everything in the SEC statement-thing (yes, lawyers and tax folk, that's an official term) were true, how would it affect your beliefs in the truth claims of your church?

My testimony is independent of SEC procedures.

23 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

How does this relate to the idea of the infallibility of your leaders?

There is no such idea in our Church.

23 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is there an ethical line which, if crossed by the current first presidency, would be evidence to you that your church actually wasn't Christ's church? Like President Nelson having an affair or some such thing? (as a side question, how is the LDS President removed from office? Can the quorum of the 12 remove him?)

An affair at an age approaching 100? Not a good example 😬. Apostles have been removed before, but not a President. I suppose it could happen if there were egregious offenses proven.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You do know your post as well as the one above is only going to be agreed to by those who already believe the SEC incident is like a traffic ticket right?  

I don't know -- it's just an observation about distinctions people do or don't make depending on their point of view, and we see the same thing in discussions about the Fall. I ses the same dynamic taking place here.

[Snodgrassian]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Those are your words, not mine. It is not an excuse in the context I presented......over-regulation, over-legislation. It is a fact. There are so many laws and regulations (many of which we are not even aware) that even mundane activities actually break a law or regulation.

 

How is requiring the individual fiscally responsible to confirm the accuracy of the 13F over-regulation? 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Or it is stating one's credentials in order to establish some kind of superior credibility. For example, I knew the head of Ex-Mormons for Jesus in Tacoma WA. In his bio he listed "former Mormon Priest." To the unlearned, that seems impressive. To those who know, it's actually not impressive at all. The same thing happens with "....and I'm a descendant of Brigham Young." So what?

I agree. In everyday conduct, a level-headed person isn't going to use their recommend to convince others of their secular/political/ethical/moral/ideological argument on this issue, and a level-headed person isn't going to be fooled by that. A recommend holder using it to sway the uninitiated, in my opinion, is possible but rare and also comes across as lacking credibility.  I haven't seen posts that show this, only the point that recommend holders understand question 9 differently in good faith.

[Ryan Dahle]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Does "over-regulation" excuse acts of dishonesty?

No. But it may play into the evaluation of the degree to which the EPA or Church leaders or both (whoever was actually most responsible for proposing and implementing these reporting practices) are morally out of line.

Returning to the speeding ticket analogy, many people know that they are speeding when they do it. If someone is intentionally going 5mph over the posted limit, what does that say about their moral integrity? Likewise, if the EPA or the Church leaders knowingly or intentionally made false reports on forms (all the while knowing that they weren't committing any sort of malignant financial crimes, but were simply doing so for what was essentially a legally harmless purpose), what does that say about their moral integrity? If they had "overregulation" as one of their justifications for their lack of compliance (just as someone might speed because he or she thinks the posted speed limit is simply impractical and they are in a hurry to fulfill a personal obligation), does that change anything about the moral calculation? What about the many other possible reasons or justifications that the Church or the EPA may have had for their actions, which no one on this board can possibly know in detail? 

I'm not saying the EPA or the Church leaders or whoever was most directly responsible should be excused for implementing a false reporting system (assuming the SEC order is accurate and that this was all intentionally carried out). I'm suggesting that the motives and mindsets of the wrongdoers may matter a great deal when we seek to understand the gravity of the errors. Most of us have probably done something that has been technically out of compliance or "dishonest" when it comes to the laws and regulations of the land, not to mention the laws and regulations of God (for those who believe in a divine, benevolent lawgiver). Thus, most of us probably shouldn't be too eager to cast stones, even though it is good to identify errors in others and resolve to not commit them ourselves.

At its core, I think this issue is really more about the Church's general lack of financial transparency than it is about people being outraged over some apparently intentional (although ultimately harmless) misstatements on some legal forms. I personally have no problem with the Church's lack of transparency. It doesn't bother me. I don't consider my tithing money to be mine. I don't feel I have a moral obligation to oversee the Church's financial activities and make sure they are doing what they should with its funds. I see that as outside of my purview, and I really just don't care. I assume God will hold those accountable who are making mistakes in their stewardship, just as he will hold me accountable for my mistakes in mine (which are manifold).

I think full transparency may be a good thing. I would embrace it if that is the direction the top Church leaders choose to go in the future, in all matters of finances. It certainly has a lot of possible benefits, and as we can see with the SEC controversy, a lack of transparency has obvious pitfalls. But I'm perfectly fine letting the Church leaders and the EPA work that out. I'm okay with the Church growing and correcting itself over time in all sorts of areas, especially those which aren't core to my doctrinal beliefs. And I choose to be patient when it doesn't grow or change in the direction I think it should, or in the manner and timing that I think it should. I have faith that God can work through fallible humans and still accomplish his core purposes, while still allowing us to individually and collectively make mistakes and learn from them along the way. And there is always the possibility that what I think should change, based on my limited perspective, is somehow flawed. 

I can understand, logically, why this issue is important to others, especially those who are already feeling betrayed by the Church and its leaders, or who are generally distrustful of their decisions. Obviously, other believing Latter-day Saint commentators like @pogi are having a much more negative reaction than me, despite us holding the same essential foundational beliefs. Hopefully, in the end, we all come to a unity of faith, as we have grace for ourselves, for others on this board, and for the Church, its leaders, its financial advisors and so forth. That doesn't mean we have to stop using our brains, turn off our moral compass, or excuse incorrect behavior in ourselves or others (assuming we even accurately perceive their faults). But I think it can help us let go of some of the hurt and betrayal that we feel. That is the beauty and goodness of Christ, for those who believe in him. And for those who don't, the emotional and spiritual benefits of consciously fostering grace for others and ourselves is often self-evident.  

 

Note: I realize @ttribe that I began this post in response to your comment, but that was more of just a platform to express some of my own thoughts. Most of them aren't directly in response to your views or assumptions. I just didn't want you to infer otherwise.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

If everything in the SEC statement-thing (yes, lawyers and tax folk, that's an official term) were true, how would it affect your beliefs in the truth claims of your church?

How does this relate to the idea of the infallibility of your leaders?

Is there an ethical line which, if crossed by the current first presidency, would be evidence to you that your church actually wasn't Christ's church? Like President Nelson having an affair or some such thing? (as a side question, how is the LDS President removed from office? Can the quorum of the 12 remove him?)

It's a valid question for any topic:  How does the church's current iteration/leadership impact it's truth claims?

Did JS actually see a vision if the church is transparent with it's finances, or apologizes for past mistakes, or accepts SSM, or donates all of its money to the poor, but JS didn't actually see a vision if/when the church doesn't do those things?

 

 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

At this point, who knows what motivated them to resign? "Diverse and powerful dynamics" can be selfish and bitter. 

 

 

I made the comment "Federal, state, local. Everything is regulated. There isn't a one of us, individuals or organized groups, who haven't broken the law then." One can easily violate the plethora of laws and regulations without ill intent simply by moving through life unaware that someone somewhere issued a decree.

 

That's some serious deflection you're trying to do. I don't understand why you're trying to do it, but I guess that's the direction you're committed to following.

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's some serious deflection you're trying to do. I don't understand why you're trying to do it, but I guess that's the direction you're committed to following.

I don't get it, either. I keep asking myself two questions:

1. Why is it so important to insist that church leaders don't ever do anything wrong?

2. Why is it so terrible that believing members might actually conclude that church leaders did something wrong?

When I was going through my faith crisis, I told someone who used to post here that I was really struggling because there were things about the church that bothered my conscience. This person replied that, when I covenanted to live the law of sacrifice and the law of consecration, that meant I was required to give up everything, including my conscience, to support the kingdom of God. If the church did anything that bothered my conscience, it was my conscience that had to go. I never thought that before, and I still don't think that, but I wonder if some people don't really believe it. 

[ttribe]

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't get it, either. I keep asking myself two questions:

1. Why is it so important to insist that church leaders don't ever do anything wrong?

2. Why is it so terrible that believing members might actually conclude that church leaders did something wrong?

When I was going through my faith crisis, I told someone who used to post here that I was really struggling because there were things about the church that bothered my conscience. This person replied that, when I covenanted to live the law of sacrifice and the law of consecration, that meant I was required to give up everything, including my conscience, to support the kingdom of God. If the church did anything that bothered my conscience, it was my conscience that had to go. I never thought that before, and I still don't think that, but I wonder if some people don't really believe it. 

I experienced something similar during my faith crisis - I realized I was defending indefensible things and I just couldn't justify that anymore.