SEC Fine and the Meaning of Sustaining our Leaders

[Meadowchik]

An excerpt from a recent blog post by the sister who was my Young Women's leader, thirty years ago:

"PUBLIC CHATTER HAS largely abated regarding the February 21 SEC order and its incumbent fines of $1 million against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and $4 million against church-owned Ensign Peak Advisors. You can read the specifics in the order by clicking the colored link above (its surprisingly easy to understand), but the tldr; version is that, between 1998 and May, 2018, the First Presidencies and Presiding Bishoprics (identified as “senior leadership” in the order) created 13 shell (or unfunded) companies into which they pretended to transfer portions of the Church’s billions in order to hide it from the public, and then they knowingly falsified documents (F13 forms) to cover it up. This is a crime. The realization that our senior leadership spent two decades willfully committing crime ought to shock members to their core. It does me. "

She continues here: https://outsidethebookofmormonbelt.com/2023/03/28/lds-sr-leadership-the-sec-and-my-sustaining-vote/

 

While I am no longer a believer, the author still is. When I read this I was surprised at how my heart broke reading it, for her and others.

My feelings about Mormonism are complex...just yesterday I cited Joseph Smith's ideas about faith in a discussion about the realities of existence, to support my point no less.

But tithing is a painful subject. I am personally subjected to financial abuse and so I think this subject also hits a chord for me. Furthermore I remember my dad's discouragement when I was little when out family hit hard times. As the head of our home of full and faithful tithe payers, my father went to our bishop to ask for help to pay for milk for our very large family. He was turned away. 

Anyways, the author of this blog post makes some important points and also makes an argument for what sustaining our leaders should look like. I think that what she suggests could be a very healthy model.

Please read the blog in its entirety before commenting. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

[bluebell]

I'll try to read it later and comment.  I don't think she would like my reaction to her statement "The realization that our senior leadership spent two decades willfully committing crime ought to shock members to their core. It does me. " very much though.

I've spent decades of my life willfully committing crime (I rarely go the speed limit, though I don't speed excessively) and so the idea that even our leaders might see some laws as "negotiable" doesn't shock me at all.  I certainly do and I can't really hold them to a higher standard than I hold myself.

But none of that is to say that she doesn't make some great points in the blog, or that all crime is equally expendable.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'll try to read it later and comment.  I don't think she would like my reaction to her statement "The realization that our senior leadership spent two decades willfully committing crime ought to shock members to their core. It does me. " very much though.

I've spent decades of my life willfully committing crime (I rarely go the speed limit, though I don't speed excessively) and so the idea that even our leaders might see some laws as "negotiable" doesn't shock me at all.  I certainly do and I can't really hold them to a higher standard than I hold myself.

But none of that is to say that she doesn't make some great points in the blog, or that all crime is equally expendable.

Two things: the author speaks about who, and the importance of what they do. And our role in sustaining.

They're the stewards of what they call sacred funds. And not only did they break the law, they did so to deceive the people who entrusted them with those funds as stewards of the Lord. Then they used those same funds to pay the fine for their crimes.

I don't think abuse is orchestrated as a spiritual test. I genuinely don't believe my dad or my family benefited from being denied the small request of milk when we kids were little. To me, the dishonesty and the neglect are part of the same whole. Their harmful features don't occur in isolation but do have negative impact on people. 

I would say that the church's financial behavior has sullied the LDS culture's attitudes about money and wealth. Namely, it's promoted unearned trust and low accountability in our financial dealings when we should be better.

If you speed, I'd say be careful, my friend. It can be dangerous. But, do you lie about it? If so, do you lie about speeding to induce your passengers to ride with you? My guess is no, you don't.

 

 

Edited March 28, 2023 by Meadowchik

[Amulek]

I sustain President Nelson as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys - not as a tax expert nor as a securities lawyer.

I'm fully up-to-speed on the SEC situation, and I haven't come across anything which would cause me to withhold my sustaining vote this weekend. YMMV.

 

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I sustain President Nelson as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys - not as a tax expert nor as a securities lawyer.

I'm fully up-to-speed on the SEC situation, and I haven't come across anything which would cause me to withhold my sustaining vote this weekend. YMMV.

 

Could there be bahaviors that you would not be able to sustain? Is there a boundary in your mind he must not cross?

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Could there be bahaviors that you would not be able to sustain? Is there a boundary in your mind he must not cross?

I think some people do have red lines they won't cross in sustaining a leader. My dad, for example, abstained whenever Joseph Fielding Smith was put up for a sustaining vote as president of the church. I don't see anything wrong with that. 

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think some people do have red lines they won't cross in sustaining a leader. My dad, for example, abstained whenever Joseph Fielding Smith was put up for a sustaining vote as president of the church. I don't see anything wrong with that. 

I would hope so. If not, the vote imo is meaningless.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'll try to read it later and comment.  I don't think she would like my reaction to her statement "The realization that our senior leadership spent two decades willfully committing crime ought to shock members to their core. It does me. " very much though.

I've spent decades of my life willfully committing crime (I rarely go the speed limit, though I don't speed excessively) and so the idea that even our leaders might see some laws as "negotiable" doesn't shock me at all.  I certainly do and I can't really hold them to a higher standard than I hold myself.

But none of that is to say that she doesn't make some great points in the blog, or that all crime is equally expendable.

The fact that you compare shuffling assets around into shell LLCs and asking employees to falsify federal forms to a speeding ticket speaks volumes about your inability to hold your leaders accountable.  Your leaders preach honesty constantly. It is required for a temple recommend.  But I an glad you think she makes some great points. I think she is spot on. No surprise there I am sure.

[Teancum]

28 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I sustain President Nelson as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys - not as a tax expert nor as a securities lawyer.

I'm fully up-to-speed on the SEC situation, and I haven't come across anything which would cause me to withhold my sustaining vote this weekend. YMMV.

 

One does not need to be a tax expert or a securities lawyer to understand when they are doing dishonest things. They full well knew what they were doing. They did it to hide assets from you and from the SEC and from the public.  It is called lying.  It is called being dishonest.

[Teancum]

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Could there be bahaviors that you would not be able to sustain? Is there a boundary in your mind he must not cross?

My guess is no.  True believers struggle with such things. It threatens their testimony.  Cogdis and all that.

[Teancum]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think some people do have red lines they won't cross in sustaining a leader. My dad, for example, abstained whenever Joseph Fielding Smith was put up for a sustaining vote as president of the church. I don't see anything wrong with that. 

Why did he abstain? And did he oppose?

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

An excerpt from a recent blog post by the sister who was my Young Women's leader, thirty years ago:

"PUBLIC CHATTER HAS largely abated regarding the February 21 SEC order and its incumbent fines of $1 million against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and $4 million against church-owned Ensign Peak Advisors. You can read the specifics in the order by clicking the colored link above (its surprisingly easy to understand), but the tldr; version is that, between 1998 and May, 2018, the First Presidencies and Presiding Bishoprics (identified as “senior leadership” in the order) created 13 shell (or unfunded) companies into which they pretended to transfer portions of the Church’s billions in order to hide it from the public, and then they knowingly falsified documents (F13 forms) to cover it up. This is a crime. The realization that our senior leadership spent two decades willfully committing crime ought to shock members to their core. It does me. "

She continues here: https://outsidethebookofmormonbelt.com/2023/03/28/lds-sr-leadership-the-sec-and-my-sustaining-vote/

 

While I am no longer a believer, the author still is. When I read this I was surprised at how my heart broke reading it, for her and others.

My feelings about Mormonism are complex...just yesterday I cited Joseph Smith's ideas about faith in a discussion about the realities of existence, to support my point no less.

But tithing is a painful subject. I am personally subjected to financial abuse and so I think this subject also hits a chord for me. Furthermore I remember my dad's discouragement when I was little when out family hit hard times. As the head of our home of full and faithful tithe payers, my father went to our bishop to ask for help to pay for milk for our very large family. He was turned away. 

Anyways, the author of this blog post makes some important points and also makes an argument for what sustaining our leaders should look like. I think that what she suggests could be a very healthy model.

Please read the blog in its entirety before commenting. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

I loved her comments. Spot on. Even more meaningful coming from an active member.

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why did he abstain? And did he oppose?

He had some personal experiences that led him to believe JFS was not a good man. Kind of a long story, but I don’t blame him. Abstaining was what he thought was right. 

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

He had some personal experiences that led him to believe JFS was not a good man. Kind of a long story, but I don’t blame him. Abstaining was what he thought was right. 

Good for him!  My da was not a JFS fan either.

[MustardSeed]

30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I would hope so. If not, the vote imo is meaningless.

Technicality for the purpose of clarifying for our mixed company:  It’s not really a vote, it’s just an agreement to support them in that position.  If one is unwilling, best not to raise hand.  If one is actually opposed, one should speak up. 

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The fact that you compare shuffling assets around into shell LLCs and asking employees to falsify federal forms to a speeding ticket speaks volumes about your inability to hold your leaders accountable.  Your leaders preach honesty constantly. It is required for a temple recommend.  But I an glad you think she makes some great points. I think she is spot on. No surprise there I am sure.

I specially said in my last line that I was not saying that all crime is equal.  I'm not surprised that you missed that though.

[Pyreaux]

I sustain the leaders, I am certainly unable to do the job better. Nor do I know anyone personally who could. They can listen to poor financial advice, make legal errors if they want. They didn't steal or profit from it, so they thought they could keep it secret from the public, and filed the wrong version of the correct form. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, it's no one's business as long as they keep announcing more temples, because that is what I pay them for.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Pyreaux

[LoudmouthMormon]

“Willfully committing crime“. I’d like to address that.
 

I once did a season at a tax office.  Looking for a possible retirement gig - I know a few people who travel around in their RV, stop in some random state and work a season, then move on.   Some things I learned:

- The tax code should never be confused for some sort of moral, just, or right thing.  It's a schizophrenic and flawed battle ground for politicians, strewn with discarded hulks of partially hollowed-out reforms, changes, and additions from a century of tinkering for the purpose of winning elections.  Much of it makes absolutely no sense, and flat out contradicts other areas.  It's an indecipherable mishmash of corporate welfare, individual/family welfare, assaults on corporations, and assaults on individuals and families.

- Whatever tinkering congress did the year before (or during the tax season) often makes conflicting and contradictory laws with no clear answer on how to pay correct taxes.  The code is so complex, so in conflict with itself, that the IRS routinely sues itself, in order to answer questions on taxation.  

- Tax law, tax lawyers, tax cases, and tax rulings should also never be confused for some sort of moral, just, or right thing.  It's a necessary thing so the nation's tax preparers can get some sort of actual answer on what the crap to do with various entities tax situations.

- I was doing taxes the year Obamacare "got teeth", and the mandate that forced people to have insurance or pay a fine was in play.  I applied penalties two or three times - every time it was to some poor schmoe or lower class family that fell into a 'magic area' of not poor enough to pay zero taxes, but not well-enough employed to have employer-provided healthcare.   One guy and I spent about 45 minutes going over the massive list of exceptions to see how much I could reduce his obamacare penalty.  I managed to get him credit for two months he was behind bars.  

No really - if someone I really hated was arrested tomorrow for tax fraud, I'd say "hold up now, did he actually do anything wrong though?"

[Teancum]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I specially said in my last line that I was not saying that all crime is equal.  I'm not surprised that you missed that though.

Well I apologize for mussing it.  But all the same you have been pretty consistent with bringing up the speeding ticket comparison on other threads on this topic.  I think Meadowchik's comments on the responsibility of your leaders on this issue is pretty spot on. 

[bluebell]

I'm reading the blog now, and have some questions/comments.

1st. She says SEC orders are negotiated documents, which means the Church agreed with the accusations as stated in the Feb. 21 order.  I didn't think this was correct.  After all the discussion we had over this on that other thread, I thought it was repeatedly pointed out that the church neither agreed or disagreed with the SEC finding/rule/whatever it's called.

2nd.  This statement-They did it. For 20 years, the First Presidencies and Presiding Bishoprics willingfully broke the law. The fact is, the following men, each of whom served in either a First Presidency or Presiding Bishopric sometime between 1998 and 2018, made hypocrites of themselves as they illegally hid the Church’s wealth from the SEC, the general public, and, most importantly, from its membership--doesn't seem to hold up if the first statement is incorrect, does it? (Sincere question, not rhetorical). 

Her statement requires that these men knowingly did illegal things, which I don't believe (for a myriad of reasons that have already been discussed) has been proven.  The signed SEC document definitely doesn't prove it in my understanding.  There seems to be plenty of space for these men to have believed their plans were legal when compared with their understanding of the laws.  They were wrong.

3rd.  I think her "mormonspeak" definition of sustain illustrates a big bias.  She says if we sustain leaders, we must: 1) obey them, no matter what, and 2) remain silent about their faults and errors, even if they behave criminally. That’s how a person advances in the Church."  I'm a pretty normal active member of the church and her definition is not one that I'm familiar with. When was the last time that you sustained someone in church and thought to yourself "I've just promised to obey that person no matter what, to remain silent of faults and errors, even crimes, and by doing this I'll be able to advance in church"?

Yeah, I've never thought those things either.  I'm guessing the number of members who do think such things when they sustain someone would be practically zero.

Her definition has a bitter slant to it that says to me that she's venting, not instructing. Venting is fine (and important sometimes), but her venting doesn't really apply to me.  Those are her issues.  She's got some baggage with the church and it's leadership and the blog makes it clear that that it existed long before the whole SEC thing.  Her insistence that everyone should react like she is--including people without that baggage--doesn't have the impact on me that I think she thinks it should.  I'm not looking through the same glasses that she is.

I mirror what Amulek said earlier.  I don't believe anyone should feel like they have to sustain our leaders.  Do what your conscience and your testimony dictate to you.  But I will sustain them this weekend without hesitation.

4th.  I greatly disagree with her take on tithing and what Joseph F. Smith meant by the quote she provided.  I'll quote FAIR on it since they provide a concise explanation.

Quote

 

 "We may not be able to reach it right away, but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God."[1]

Some have wondered if this means tithing will eventually go away. From the early days of the Church until 1990, Church members were asked to contribute donations beyond what they paid in tithing. These extra donations were added to ward and temple building funds, ward activity budgets, and other activities. In 1990 the Church announced that all activities and operations of local units and facilities would be paid from tithes and offerings. As a result, wards and other local entities no longer were to ask for extra donations to cover building costs, activity costs, and so forth. [2]

In discussing this change, Elder Boyd K. Packer explained that it was a fulfillment of the statement by Joseph F. Smith. Elder Packer said: "For years, Presidents of the Church have talked of and prayed for the day when tithes and offerings would qualify members for full participation in the Church. President Joseph F. Smith, as early as 1907, stated, [quote from above]. . . . The scriptures speak of tithes and of offerings; they do not speak of assessments or fund-raising. To be an offering, it must be given freely—offered. The way is open now for many more of us to participate in this spiritually refining experience."

 

I would struggle much more if they rescinded the law of tithing than the SEC stuff has or could cause me to struggle.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Two things: the author speaks about who, and the importance of what they do. And our role in sustaining.

They're the stewards of what they call sacred funds. And not only did they break the law, they did so to deceive the people who entrusted them with those funds as stewards of the Lord. Then they used those same funds to pay the fine for their crimes.

I get that this some people's take, and it's certainly her take, but I disagree (for lots of reason that I've already spent a lot of time discussing on other threads so I won't repeat them here).

Quote

I don't think abuse is orchestrated as a spiritual test. I genuinely don't believe my dad or my family benefited from being denied the small request of milk when we kids were little. To me, the dishonesty and the neglect are part of the same whole. Their harmful features don't occur in isolation but do have negative impact on people.

I agree.  I'm so sorry that your dad was turned away.  That's horrible.  I've held many callings that involved welfare and I've never seen people turned away. So to me, the dishonesty and neglect are not a part of the same whole.  And those harmful features do often occur in isolation because they are bound by the weaknesses of the individual people responsible for those choices (like that bishop who in my opinion wrongly turned your dad away). 

Quote

I would say that the church's financial behavior has sullied the LDS culture's attitudes about money and wealth. Namely, it's promoted unearned trust and low accountability in our financial dealings when we should be better.

I think the church should learn from this and change how they do some things.  And I agree that it will have negative consequences on the institution and some members.  But negative consequences are not always do to immoral intentions.  Sometimes we can have the best of intentions, and proceed in ways that we believe are commendable, and still cause hurt or problems.  

Quote

If you speed, I'd say be careful, my friend. It can be dangerous. But, do you lie about it? If so, do you lie about speeding to induce your passengers to ride with you? My guess is no, you don't.

No I don't.  But I don't tell my passengers about it either (and I normally speed about 5 mph over the limit, which is still breaking the law even if everyone does it).  I do it because I know that almost no cop would ever pull me over for it and if they do, my chances of getting a ticket are practically zero (I haven't had one in decades).  Still knowingly illegal though.

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

An excerpt from a recent blog post by the sister who was my Young Women's leader, thirty years ago:

"PUBLIC CHATTER HAS largely abated regarding the February 21 SEC order and its incumbent fines of $1 million against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and $4 million against church-owned Ensign Peak Advisors. You can read the specifics in the order by clicking the colored link above (its surprisingly easy to understand), but the tldr; version is that, between 1998 and May, 2018, the First Presidencies and Presiding Bishoprics (identified as “senior leadership” in the order) created 13 shell (or unfunded) companies into which they pretended to transfer portions of the Church’s billions in order to hide it from the public, and then they knowingly falsified documents (F13 forms) to cover it up. This is a crime. The realization that our senior leadership spent two decades willfully committing crime ought to shock members to their core. It does me. "

She continues here: https://outsidethebookofmormonbelt.com/2023/03/28/lds-sr-leadership-the-sec-and-my-sustaining-vote/

 

While I am no longer a believer, the author still is. When I read this I was surprised at how my heart broke reading it, for her and others.

My feelings about Mormonism are complex...just yesterday I cited Joseph Smith's ideas about faith in a discussion about the realities of existence, to support my point no less.

But tithing is a painful subject. I am personally subjected to financial abuse and so I think this subject also hits a chord for me. Furthermore I remember my dad's discouragement when I was little when out family hit hard times. As the head of our home of full and faithful tithe payers, my father went to our bishop to ask for help to pay for milk for our very large family. He was turned away. 

Anyways, the author of this blog post makes some important points and also makes an argument for what sustaining our leaders should look like. I think that what she suggests could be a very healthy model.

Please read the blog in its entirety before commenting. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Regarding her 2 suggestions:

Re: 1), “…tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the Kingdom of God” is up to those we sustain to determine how to set aside and manage the storehouse. We have tithing instead of a united order, teaching the principles of consecration, and I imagine it will continue until we have a full-blown united order in place.

Regarding 2), temple worthiness is primary decided by the person answering the question for the recommend. If in due course their reply is questioned or challenged, or their recommend denied, it is not a matter of “the Church” lacking faith in that person or “the people” in general, but of upholding faith in tithing and its connection to temple covenants and blessings.

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

One does not need to be a tax expert or a securities lawyer to understand when they are doing dishonest things. They full well knew what they were doing. They did it to hide assets from you and from the SEC and from the public.  It is called lying.  It is called being dishonest.

Who is "they" in this instance?  I am not so confident that the apostles for example spend a lot of time on finances.   It is possible that whatever they did know and consent about was just bad advice from those the church hired and trusted more with the issue. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Two things: the author speaks about who, and the importance of what they do. And our role in sustaining.

They're the stewards of what they call sacred funds. And not only did they break the law, they did so to deceive the people who entrusted them with those funds as stewards of the Lord. Then they used those same funds to pay the fine for their crimes.

I don't think abuse is orchestrated as a spiritual test. I genuinely don't believe my dad or my family benefited from being denied the small request of milk when we kids were little. To me, the dishonesty and the neglect are part of the same whole. Their harmful features don't occur in isolation but do have negative impact on people. 

I would say that the church's financial behavior has sullied the LDS culture's attitudes about money and wealth. Namely, it's promoted unearned trust and low accountability in our financial dealings when we should be better.

If you speed, I'd say be careful, my friend. It can be dangerous. But, do you lie about it? If so, do you lie about speeding to induce your passengers to ride with you? My guess is no, you don't.

The interpretation of this event in terms of abuse, neglect, deception, lying, etc. can be spun either way, depending on our bias, which I believe has a bit to do with our moral foundations [Moral foundations theory - Wikipedia] . As with any other mortal attribute, I believe the companionship of the Holy Ghost helps us navigate these gray areas so we can keep our covenants and advance our relationship with Christ through our perception of and struggles with "inexplicable unfairness." Infuriating Unfairness (churchofjesuschrist.org)

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Could there be bahaviors that you would not be able to sustain? Is there a boundary in your mind he must not cross?

Everyone here knows that this revelation has affected me greatly.  As troubling as this is to me, it was not enough for me personally to withhold from sustain him.  For me, sustaining doesn’t mean that I agree with everything they say and do. I can both sustain them in their larger calling and call them out on specific responsibilities they fail at.  

For me personally, the line on this issue would be if they did all of this to line their own pockets.  I don’t think they are guilty of greed (as the article suggest).  I think they are guilty of dishonesty and not fulfilling the 4th mission as they should, but I truly don’t believe they intend to use this money in greedy ways.  I don’t trust that they really have a good plan for it, honestly.  I think they got caught up in the inertia of accumulation/saving with no plan on when to stop.  I have other issues with their behavior that I have addressed that I have lost trust over.  

I just pray that the same grace that is afforded me as I am sustained through my weakness  by our leaders will be applied to them as well as we sustain them in their weakness.  That’s the only way we all make it through our earthly ministry.

I also pray that “grace” is not equated with putting on blinders or complicity justifying poor behavior.

But yes, there is a line.

Edited March 28, 2023 by pogi