Church fined by SEC

[Analytics]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Unproven, untested allegations ought not be sufficient to indict an individual or an organization.

I'm not indicting anyone. I'm making a reasonable inference about what actually happened based upon the sum-total of the evidence we have available.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  No.  The Church didn't "just" settle the suit.  It settled it upon the express provision that it neither admitted nor denied the allegations...

 

...which is categorically different than the settlement I just described where the paying party expressly denies all wrongdoing.

That difference is significant.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

If what you said below was not an attempt to downplay the legal violation and ignore the ethical violation by turning the blame on the government and making it a problem of over-regulation instead, than I apologize for misunderstanding. 

 

I’ll wait until more information becomes available.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

If what you said below was not an attempt to downplay the legal violation and ignore the ethical violation by turning the blame on the government and making it a problem of over-regulation instead, than I apologize for misunderstanding. 

 

No, I have not tied it to the situation under discussion. As I have explained several times, this is a general observation about our over-regulated society. 

Edited March 10, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Malc]

Looking at the description of a negotiated settlement in the SEC Settlement Activities regulations (is this correct terminology?), I see a provision that appears to disallow the church, in the absence of an accepted denial in the wording of the settlement, from claiming that it is not guilty of the allegations (17 CFR § 202.5 - Enforcement activities):

Quote

(e) The Commission has adopted the policy that in any civil lawsuit brought by it or in any administrative proceeding of an accusatory nature pending before it, it is important to avoid creating, or permitting to be created, an impression that a decree is being entered or a sanction imposed, when the conduct alleged did not, in fact, occur. Accordingly, it hereby announces its policy not to permit a defendant or respondent to consent to a judgment or order that imposes a sanction while denying the allegations in the complaint or order for proceedings. In this regard, the Commission believes that a refusal to admit the allegations is equivalent to a denial, unless the defendant or respondent states that he neither admits nor denies the allegations.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/202.5

Or am I misunderstanding what this seems to say - always a distinct possibility  

[webbles]

32 minutes ago, Malc said:

Looking at the description of a negotiated settlement in the SEC Settlement Activities regulations (is this correct terminology?), I see a provision that appears to disallow the church, in the absence of an accepted denial in the wording of the settlement, from claiming that it is not guilty of the allegations (17 CFR § 202.5 - Enforcement activities):

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/202.5

Or am I misunderstanding what this seems to say - always a distinct possibility  

It sounds like the SEC will not accept an order against a defendant/respondent if they outright deny the allegations.  But (per the very last statement), they can still say that they "neither admit nor deny":

Quote

In this regard, the Commission believes that a refusal to admit the allegations is equivalent to a denial, unless the defendant or respondent states that he neither admits nor denies the allegations.

This probably is a good point on why we don't see denial statements like what @Analytics found in the class action lawsuit.  The SEC will not consent to an order if the defendant/respondent denies the allegations.  The defendant/respondent can only state that it "nether admits nor denies".

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Quote

An element of the settlement that @smac97 and I see differently is what to make out of the fact that the Church neither admitted to nor denied the SEC's allegations. From my perspective, not denying the allegations is akin to conceding they are true.

Unproven, untested allegations ought not be sufficient to indict an individual or an organization.

I'm not indicting anyone.

Piffle.  You are claiming that the Church, by not "denying the allegations" has "conced{ed} they are true."

But the Church has not conceded that.  That's the "no-admit" part of the "no-admit-no-deny" approach used by the SEC.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I'm making a reasonable inference about what actually happened based upon the sum-total of the evidence we have available.

Nope.  You are not speaking of "what actually happened," you are claiming that the Church has "conced{ed}" that the allegations in the SEC "are true."  For pete's sake, you began your comment with "An element of the settlement..." (as opposed to "an element of {the allegations as to the conduct of EPA and the Church which precipitated the SEC investigation..."}).

Any such concession would be in the aftermath of "what actually happened," not part of it.

I get that you really really want to use the SEC Order in a "The Church admitted such-and-such" or "The Church violated the law" or some such similar talking point.  You want this so badly that you are ignoring the actual text of the SEC Order and are replacing it with conclusory speculations that contravene the text.  You can reasonably infer all you like about "what actually happened" as to EPA's compliance efforts with SEC regulations, but you are uttering a falsehood when you claim that the Church has "conceded" that the allegations in the order "are true."  That just ain't so.

Looking back I think it is that falsehood that comprises a lot of my opposition to what you and yours have been claiming in this thread. 

I don't deny that the Church made mistakes, because the Church admitted as much.  

I don't deny that the Church was fined, as the Church admitted that, too. 

I utterly reject the notion that the Church holds the law in contempt, or thinks that it, like Steven Seagall, is "above the law." 

I don't deny that some of the allegations in the SEC Order are troubling (particularly as to the managers of the LLC being given only signature pages to sign). 

I presently cannot discern the legal reasoning and analysis that the lawyers provided to EPA around 2000 or so.  

I think the difference between me and you is that

A) I think there is insufficient information and evidence to reach an informed decision about the scope and breadth and particulars of what the Church and EPA did and the extent to which their conduct was legally questionable or problematic, except to say that the SEC predicated its findings on the Church neither admitting nor denying the allegations, and also that the SEC did not require, as a condition of settlement, an admission of wrongdoing; and

B) I am both capable and willing to let this go without reaching an informed decision, whereas I don't think you are.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[gopher]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

LOL, well done.

Unless you are serious in which case please seek help.

I must need help because I still think the fine was excessive.  That's money the church should have been able to use to build new temples (or new shopping malls).

[Analytics]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Piffle.  You are claiming that the Church, by not "denying the allegations" has "conced{ed} they are true."

No, I am not claiming that.

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  You are not speaking of "what actually happened," you are claiming that the Church has "conced{ed}" that the allegations in the SEC "are true."

No, I'm not claiming that.

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I get that you really really want to use the SEC Order in a "The Church admitted such-and-such" or "The Church violated the law" or some such similar talking point.

Actually, I really, really don't care.

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

  You want this so badly that you are ignoring the actual text of the SEC Order...

First, your perception of what I want and care about bears no resemblance to reality and is false (it's interesting how you think you can make judgements about my inner thoughts and feelings that I explicitly and adamantly deny, but somehow think I'm not allowed to make judgements about the Church's conduct that it explicitly does not deny. Why does someone as judgmental as yourself feel he has the license to pontificate about the need of others to withhold judgement?). Second, I'm not ignoring the actual text. My opinion is based on the sum total of the entire text, and everything we know from other sources.

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

and are replacing it with conclusory speculations that contravene the text.

No, I didn't do that.

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

  You can reasonably infer all you like about "what actually happened" as to EPA's compliance efforts with SEC regulations...

Thank you.

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

...but you are uttering a falsehood when you claim that the Church has "conceded" that the allegations in the order "are true."  That just ain't so.

I never uttered that.

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't deny that the Church made mistakes, because the Church admitted as much.  

You don't deny it, but you don't admit to it either, right? And what specific mistakes did the Church admit to? 

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't deny that some of the allegations in the SEC Order are troubling (particularly as to the managers of the LLC being given only signature pages to sign). 

But you don't admit that they are troubling, right?

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I presently cannot discern the legal reasoning and analysis that the lawyers provided to EPA around 2000 or so.  

I can't either. However, the SEC provides a compelling narrative that explains the Church's motives for doing what it did. Given that there is no alternative theory for what happened, what is wrong with accepting what the SEC said?

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the difference between me and you is that

A) I think there is insufficient information and evidence to reach an informed decision about the scope and breadth and particulars of what the Church and EPA did and the extent to which their conduct was legally questionable or problematic, except to say that the SEC predicated its findings on the Church neither admitting nor denying the allegations, and also that the SEC did not require, as a condition of settlement, an admission of wrongdoing; and

I simply believe that there is sufficient evidence to believe that the SEC order accurately articulates what happened. In contrast, you see yourself as somehow having a fiduciary duty to defend the Church at all costs and are looking at things to argue about other than the actual facts of the matter.

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

B) I am both capable and willing to let this go without reaching an informed decision, whereas I don't think you are.  

I have reached an informed decision about the matter. That is true. In this case, there is sufficient information to make such a decision.

 

Edited March 10, 2023 by Analytics

[jkwilliams]

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

No, I am not claiming that.

No, I'm not claiming that.

Actually, I really, really don't care.

First, your perception of what I want and care about bears no resemblance to reality and is false (it's interesting how you think you can make judgements about my inner thoughts and feelings that I explicitly and adamantly deny, but somehow think I'm not allowed to make judgements about the Church's conduct that it explicitly does not deny. Why does someone as judgmental as yourself feel he has the license to pontificate about the need of others withhold judgement?). Second, I'm not ignoring the actual text. My opinion is based on the sum total of the entire text, and everything we know from other sources.

No, I didn't do that.

Thank you.

I never uttered that.

You don't deny it, but you don't admit to it either, right? And what specific mistakes did the Church admit to? 

But you don't admit that they are troubling, right?

I can't either. However, the SEC provides a compelling narrative that explains the Church's motives for doing what it did. Given that there is no alternative theory for what happened, what is wrong with accepting what the SEC said?

I simply believe that there is sufficient evidence to believe that the SEC order accurately articulates what happened. In contrast, you see yourself as somehow having a fiduciary duty to defend the Church at all costs and are looking at things to argue about other than the actual facts of the matter.

I have reached an informed decision about the matter. That is true. In this case, there is sufficient information to make such a decision.

 

From what I gather, it's somehow wrong to reach a conclusion unless the church admits to wrongdoing. Kind of convenient. 

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’ll wait until more information becomes available.

Don't hold your breath. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Don't hold your breath. 

Not to worry.

[Tacenda]

I wonder if the church will ever do what it tells it's members as far as apologizing when doing something wrong. 

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/local-guest-opinions/2023/mar/08/guest-opinion-the-lds-church-preaches-repentance-they-can-practice-it-too

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Don't hold your breath. 

It appears that the church has, to borrow an expression, drawn a line under this and has moved on. If any further light and knowledge were to appear, it would have to come from sources outside the church. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

It appears that the church has, to borrow an expression, drawn a line under this and has moved on. If any further light and knowledge were to appear, it would have to come from sources outside the church. 

Of course. The steps of repentance are good for thee but not so much for me.

[rodheadlee]

Aren't you guys done beating the church up yet? You are sucking all of the oxygen out of the board.

[jkwilliams]

26 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Aren't you guys done beating the church up yet? You are sucking all of the oxygen out of the board.

I for one will never be done beating up the church. 

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Aren't you guys done beating the church up yet? You are sucking all of the oxygen out of the board.

It's online. There is no oxygen.

[bluebell]

On 3/8/2023 at 3:53 PM, Teancum said:

If JS really had a vision does it excuse things that are done wrong by leaders after him? 

No, but it would (should) inform our actions when dealing with such wrongs.

Quote

If they teach false doctrine like AG Doctrine does that impact the church truth claims today?

Does it impact whether or not JS really saw a vision or if the BOM is true or if priesthood authority is necessary?  No, I don't see how it could impact those things.  If I teach someone that 2+2=4, but then later teach them that the square root of 437 is 24.90, the later teaching doesn't impact the truth of the first teaching.

But it could cause someone to decide that if they couldn't trust me to always get it right that that meant I had never gotten it right ever I suppose.  So while it wouldn't impact truth claims, it could impact how people perceive them.

Quote

If they change or corrupt the temple ordinances does that impact the truth claims?  If JS smith had his vision (Big if. Likely never happened) then so what?  That does not mean his successors have not screwed it all up.

It doesn't mean that his successors have not screwed it all up but it would mean something.  Something about the church and God and our relationship/responsibilities regarding them both. 

[Hamilton Porter]

There's no need to defend the church over some compliance violation. The church has a track record of obeying the law to a fault. It doesn't proselytize where it's illegal while Evangelical churches do. 

Some time I think it should break the law more (although not in this case). 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

It's online. There is no oxygen.

Metaphorically speaking. 

[rodheadlee]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I for one will never be done beating up the church. 

That fact is obvious.

[Malc]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I for one will never be done beating up the church. 

You're a scriptural necessity  

[teddyaware]

9 hours ago, Malc said:

You're a scriptural necessity  

Very true,

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad… (2 Nephi 2)

It’s dirty work, with the worst possible “rewards,” but somebody’s gotta do it! Otherwise those who seek for eternal life would never have the trials of faith needed to prove themselves worthy of obtaining celestial glory. I wouldn’t want the job, but in the end I suppose it’s a good thing that there are some who are willing to play this absolutely essential roll. After all, could Jesus have ever become the Christ if it weren’t for the wickedness of his enemies?

Edited March 11, 2023 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Very true,

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad… (2 Nephi 2)

It’s dirty work, with the worst possible “rewards,” but somebody’s gotta do it! Otherwise those who seek for eternal life would never have the trials of faith needed to prove themselves worthy of obtaining celestial glory. I wouldn’t want the job, but in the end I suppose it’s a good thing that there are some who are willing to play this absolutely essential roll. After all, could Jesus have ever become the Christ if it weren’t for the wickedness of his enemies?

If it were not for members input the church wouldn't really change much would it? The church has put out surveys for years, even on temple experiences. And they change from the critics going public as well. So it's a good thing I guess. 

[MiserereNobis]

I haven't read every single post here -- I'm guilty of skimming. But I do want to say from an outsiders point-of-view it's not a very good look to have billions sitting in the stock market. I'm not telling you what you should do with it (I'm not weighing in on the debate between Pogi and smac, for example), but it just seems... excessive. I think most people wouldn't find anything wrong with a church having a bunch of assets in land, buildings, tangible things, etc. And there's nothing wrong with having money saved away for future needs and emergencies. But for a relatively small church to be one of the world's wealthiest organizations because of stock investments raises eyebrows, not just among critics, but also among people who don't follow or really care what the LDS church does. I'm not saying that you should make decisions based on the views or opinions of others, but I just wanted to point out that people who are not out to get you or ruin the name of your church do think something's not quite right with what's being reported.

Maybe this is just a bias against stocks and Wall Street, but Wall Street certainly feels like a den of thieves. Maybe, as I'm pretty sure has been brought up, it's also me wondering how investing in stocks is supposed to give the LDS church money when the world system falls apart as many believe will happen prior to the second coming of Christ (buy cows, as someone said earlier on the thread!).

Despite the fact that you all should be Catholics, I am an ally of your church  So I'm not coming at this as a critic would. I agree as many have pointed out that your leaders certainly appear to be decent men and are not using the wealth for themselves. If it so happened to turn out that some of them were doing nefarious things (which I don't believe at all), it also wouldn't change my view of your church, just as the past history of bad popes and the current history of decent popes making bad decisions (Francis! Leave the traditional sacraments alone!) doesn't affect my view of my church. The official silence on how much money you have and specific purposes for the money just leaves a vacuum for people to fill with negative views, simply because of the huge scale of the fund.

I love that our churches work together frequently on charitable projects. I'm on the southern border and many churches have stepped up to help with the many migrants who are in the area. Your church has consistently donated food to our diocese to help. We're a heavily Catholic area, and the Catholic Church has kind of taken the lead in helping the migrants, so it makes sense that non-Catholic churches and people are using our infrastructure. The Methodists have a strong functioning food bank here, too, and I have seen information given to Catholic parishes on how to help them out. It's good when Christians, and everyone, set aside any differences and come together to help the poor.