SEC Fine and the Meaning of Sustaining our Leaders

[The Nehor]

There is a lot of conflating of two things in this discussion:

Is it legally wrong and how serious is the legal problem? Yes, but it was potentially arguable and I stand by earlier statements that it was a technical violation.

Is it morally wrong? Here I think the answer is yes. This wasn’t done to disguise any wealth from the government or from tax oversight. It was done to hide it from the public. Why? Because it is a bad look to many. In Isaiah we have that bit about sins being shouted from the housetops. It happened. It was probably inevitably going to happen. I really want to know what the decision makers were thinking and would be curious as to who was making the decisions.

[BlueDreams]

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 read the article. I don't know if I'm the best one to respond to this minus the fact that I'm an active member who regularly makes donations. This issue doesn't trigger me much at all (not to say I haven't seen local leaders make financial decisions that I disagreed with). I don't know much minus the bare min when it comes to personal finances, let along large corporate finances. And on my list of concerns in the last month or so, this hits so low on my radar, I've mainly scan read the basics about this to distract myself from my bigger concerns. Kinda like religious potato chips.  

But I also doubt I'm the only one that falls somewhere into this category, so I'll say my impressions. 

I did read the entire blog post. I disagreed a ton on it. The biggest problem for me was that it was extremely black-and-white/absolutist in tone. It gives a liany of moral indictments to the leaders as assumptions. Many of the assumptions I wouldn't agree with. I did find myself thinking about JS and the fail Kirtland banking system....which by all means had far bigger consequences than this current financial blunder. I could picture how it would be easy to go to this place that the blogger did. It made me think about my own problems with my former SP and HC members whose budget  decisions around our specialty ward really bothered me. So I don't think of this person as bad, I can empathize with the emotion in her piece....but I also don't think this is healthy or could agree with it in general, even if I recognize my own similar impulse in her response. 

Here's a couple reasons. Note I'm fighting a headcold so these jump around a little. 

1.) the problems with absolutism goes both ways. I think it easier for us to see it in those who are more absolutist in following the prophet per se. As in, they struggle to maintain any form of nuance. Any form of change or gray is seen as circumspect or a threat. They're more rigid in religious thought. But that problem to me doesn't get better if it points to criticism of the church as opposed to defense/support. It leads to very large blanket statements and an impossible standard for their to be any form of reconciliation. For example in this blog to me the only means that she will sustain the leaders is if they a) agree to her assertions/labels about them and B) publicly apologize in a manner sufficient for her expectations of apology. Though I think the church leaders made poor decisions on this, i don't agree with several of her descriptions and labels of the leaders and what they did. My immediate reaction is defensive, and I'm not them nor do I care that much about this. I'd assume my reaction would be stronger if I was. which ties to...

2) there's a very real and important difference between criticism and critique. Part of my defensiveness is like tied to her all or nothing analysis of both sustaining and the part in the CFM that talks about criticism. There's an assumption that if you don't speak up or view things in her way you're enabling. It also assumes that speaking against criticism is the same as speaking against any form of dissent or concern. To me criticism as a communication style among people and their character sounds like one of the four horsemen. It tends to break down communication and sustainable change in relationships, not build it. It tends to fuel people to see others as flat figures....people with only negative reasons guiding their decisions and that justifies our anger. That's especially true when we don't have more than a distant relationship to said people. It reduces trust for both sides and communication tends to break down. What good that can come from criticism can come with far less mess and hurt through other means of expressing concerns. It also is at best only partially true, which means investing into a skewed image of another. Again I can't say I've never done it. I have, I know I have. I probably will again at some point and feel justified in doing so. But there's a more thorough picture and means to do so and when I can reach that, it's far more productive. 

3.) An absolutist stance leads to oversimplified solutions. Ones that are usually with massive blind spots that if actually implemented would come with their own costs and potential problems. Her 2 strong suggestions both fit this category to me:

Quote

1) the First Presidency should fulfill the promise of former Church president Joseph F. Smith who, in a 1907 General Conference, prophesied, “[W]e 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 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.” We are there. No question about it. This would end the temptation to hide the Church’s billions in order to keep members tithing, which they’ve admitted was their motivation. Let members build the Kingdom of God in the ways the Spirit directs them.

To me, this is absolutely still in question. There's her assumption likely based the church sitting on a large stack of assets and accrued wealth. Wealth most of us I feel fairly comfortable in saying none of us will ever have in our lives. There's a gut since that the church could move forward without a penny spent by the lay member on it. But it doesn't take much for that to shift. That wealth is not endless or static. And on second glance that's not what the quote even infers. I think this focuses more on the first part and misconstrues the bold. It by no means assumes that this would be "letting the member build the Kingdom of God in the ways the Spirit directs them." It means more that we'll be aligned with the body of the church in a way that means the storehouse will have what's needed to build the Kingdom. But again, the assumption based on absolutism ignores any other conclusion that could be there but her own. 

Quote

And 2), they should disconnect tithing from temple worthiness, thereby disconnecting monetary coercion from saving ordinances. Have a little faith in the people.

Again, this is looking at the connection in only one, most negative perspective. If one doesn't agree that tithing should be disconnected, than one is circumspect about both their perspective on coercion and the amount of faith they have in people. I don't agree at all with the disconnection, but my reasons have nothing to do with coercion or faith in people. It has everything to do with how I see tithing in connection to the temple and the covenants made in it. I prefer having the two tied together because of this as I see tithing as preparatory to greater covenants such as consecration. 

 

Personally, for me I'll sustain my leaders the way I've always had:  Not assuming that my sustaining means I approve of every action or will ignore any problem, but that in my sphere and influence I can build up and work with fellow imperfect humans to a better whole called Zion. I don't need nor want criticism as my tool to try to get there. It's slow work. It's sometimes frustrating. But long-term it's been far more fruitful in my experience.   

 

With luv,

BD

[2BizE]

5 hours 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.

This is one of the most disappointing parts of this fraud. Church leaders (The First Presidency) knowingly and purposefully asked employees to falsify documents. This was dishonest and extremely unethical. If your bishop knowingly and purposefully stole tithing money would you sustain him?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, 2BizE said:

If your bishop knowingly and purposefully stole tithing money would you sustain him?

I don’t think this analogy works. Stealing is very different from hiding.

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

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

I think in this case, you have a point. As my friend points out in her blog, as LDS we're supposed to not criticise our leaders even when they're wrong. That's not a culture that has worked out a healthy accountability process for its leadership.

BUT I think it's possible. I think the church could change and be better. I do think accountability of leadership can exist in religion.

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

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. 

Thanks, but while we're at it please note that "vote" is a term used by the church. Probably because it did used to be more of a vote in the usual sense.

[mrmarklin]

Lots of falsehoods in the opening statement. No crime was committed.  The Church did not agree that there was any wrongdoing. The entire case revolved around a technicality in form filing. It could still be contested in the halls of justice today. But this stuff takes years. So to avoid ongoing publicity, the Church settled. Nothing was decided, right or wrong. The Church did agree to file forms the way proposed by the SEC. Let’s not make this more than it is. 
Im not going to respond to false and loaded statements by someone I don’t even know. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

not going to respond to false and loaded statements by someone I don’t even know. 

Except you just did, didn’t you?  

[Amulek]

15 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?

Sure. Prophets can fall; and, based on my reading of the D&C, even be excommunicated.

Just because I don't think the SEC thing crosses the line doesn't mean I believe no such line exists at all.

 

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Thanks, but while we're at it please note that "vote" is a term used by the church. Probably because it did used to be more of a vote in the usual sense.

Was it ever a vote in the traditional sense, where the yays and nays were tallied to see which got more or where competing members needed the winning number of sustainers to get/keep the calling?

[CA Steve]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think this analogy works. Stealing is very different from hiding.

I agree it is not.

A better analogy would be contributing to ward fast offerings for 20 years because the bishop(s) over the pulpit for those 20 years were telling ward members the funds were needed locally, only to find out the bishop(s) were just placing the funds in accounts which the bishops knew were not being used for that purpose. 

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Was it ever a vote in the traditional sense, where the yays and nays were tallied to see which got more or where competing members needed the winning number of sustainers to get/keep the calling?

I suppose you could look at the vote taken after Joseph Smith died to see whether Nauvoo members would follow Brigham Young or Sidney Rigdon. I don't believe a tally was taken because it was evident who was preferred.

[Amulek]

15 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.

They were acting on the advise of counsel and had an articulable (albeit, in my view, flimsy) justification for their course of action.

And they weren't hiding assets from the SEC - they were merely obscuring the allocation of those assets from the public in a way that runs afoul of the SEC's desired reporting methods. But nothing they were doing was actually fraudulent or designed to manipulate the market / take advantage of investors which is what the SEC exists to guard against. That's why they settled for a slap on the wrist - because what they were doing just wasn't that big of a deal.

 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I suppose you could look at the vote taken after Joseph Smith died to see whether Nauvoo members would follow Brigham Young or Sidney Rigdon. I don't believe a tally was taken because it was evident who was preferred.

Is that the only instance?  I can’t think of any others but I’m not a church history buff.

 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I agree it is not.

A better analogy would be contributing to ward fast offerings for 20 years because the bishop(s) over the pulpit for those 20 years were telling ward members the funds were needed locally, only to find out the bishop(s) were just placing the funds in accounts which the bishops knew were not being used for that purpose. 

Did our leaders lie about where tithing and fast offer funds were going?

[CA Steve]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Did our leaders lie about where tithing and fast offer funds were going?

It is my opinion that one of the reasons they created the sub-funds was to hide the actual size of the fund so members would continue to pay tithing.

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Sure. Prophets can fall; and, based on my reading of the D&C, even be excommunicated.

Just because I don't think the SEC thing crosses the line doesn't mean I believe no such line exists at all.

 

Good to hear.

[smac97]

22 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/

Yeesh.  Not much in the way of careful scrutiny of claims and evidence. 

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

While I am no longer a believer, the author still is.

Not sure what "believer" means in this context.  Her posts for the last year:

LDS Sr. Leadership, the SEC, and my Sustaining Vote (March 2023)

• "{B}etween 1998 and May, 2018, the First Presidencies and Presiding Bishoprics {} 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. "
• "SEC orders are negotiated documents, which means the Church agreed with the accusations as stated in the Feb. 21 order. 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."
• "What I am to conclude other than that, for those two decades, these men were unworthy of the Holy Spirit? These prophets, these stewards of the Church, these special witnesses of Jesus Christ… None of them should’ve rightly passed a temple recommend interview during the designated years. Not a single one."
• "I’ve been able to comprehend that very old men who were raised in religious bigotry and sexism would continue to perpetrate that bigotry and sexism, especially in a system that kept assuring them their thoughts are divinely inspired.  On those issues, I’ve extended grace while encouraging them to do better."
• "But on this? None of them were raised to be dishonest, to be law-breakers. They’ve known better from the cradle."
• "This SEC order overturns the rock under which senior leadership has hidden their sin."
• "Do we believe these men are above reprimand? Do we believe that God asked them to violate the law? Or that it’s no big deal they dragged the name of the Church through the mud? That they lied to us? Betrayed our trust?"
• "This coming weekend, members will be asked to sustain the men listed above who maintain positions in the upper echelons of the LDS Church. Although I’ll be in my house, watching the broadcast, I won’t raise my hand to sustain them.  This post is my way of publicly acknowledging that I’ve had it. I oppose. I have no grace to offer men who would betray the name of the Savior and the trust of every member of the Church, nor have I patience with criminality in spiritual leaders."
• "{O}ur senior leadership has been corrupted by greed at best, and pride at worst."
• "It’s about dishonesty, lying, hypocrisy, and the betrayal of trust."
• "Senior leadership needs to earn our trust back by changing the system that disrupted their moral core.  That’s how they’ll earn back my sustaining vote."
• "Obeying the law isn’t difficult. Lying and covering up a crime–those things are difficult."

Advocating for the LDS Advocates Within (February 2023)

• Here she lionizes Ordain Woman, Sam Young, Kate Kelly, and "advocacy" (that is, activism) in general.
• She criticizes Elder Oaks (notably omitting his title), Brother Ahmad Corbitt (erring in calling him "Elder," and misspelling his first name), and Elder Kevin S. Hamilton.  She accuses "leaders" of having "attitudes" that "divide" the flock from "advocates" (that, activists) and "teach" members to "judge and fear" them (advocates/activists), to "step back and withhold friendship" from them, to "marginalize" them.  She claims that leaders of the Church "divide" members in "judgemental and unchristlike" ways.  She specifically declares that she is speaking in opposition to Pres. Oaks, Bro. Corbitt and Elder Hamilton.  
• She claims that "advocates" (activists) like her stand "between power {the Brethren} and the powerless {the members}."  She claims that "advocacy" (activism) ought to be credited for pretty much every improvement in the Church for the last many decades. 
• She's patting herself and others on the back, and claiming that she is on the side of Jesus, while the Brethren are . . . well, see above.
• Lots of faultfinding.  Lots of anger.  

If the Restoration Continues, So Must the Apostasy Within the LDS Church (January 2023)

• She asserts that the Church "remains, in part, in a state of apostasy."  She immediately walks that back ("I’m not suggesting the church is in apostasy"), but then immediately says it again in a more roundabout way: "{T}he church must still be operating under the influence of philosophies prevalent during the apostasy."
• She asserts that "the philosophy of patriarchy" is one of the "ideas" which were "prevalent during the apostasy."
• She claims that "{a}ll patriarchal systems" are "built on the assumption of male superiority."
• She claims that in her "private study" she has "discovered Jesus’ anti-patriarchal lessons."
• She claims that Junia was an apostle, and that the Church has "downgraded" her.
• She claims that "{r}eligious patriarchy is literally the philosophy of men, mingled with scripture," that "patriarchy" has created "havoc ... for women in the church," that it is a "'false' truth," a "foolish tradition," a "holdover" from the Great Apostasy, etc.
• Again, lots of faultfinding.  Lots of anger.

To LDS Mothers on Children Leaving the Fold (December 2022)

• She says that she taught her kids "the good news of Jesus Christ, to love God and their neighbors, to possess a generosity of spirit," but then "I brought them to church" and were taught "the opposite."  She says there were taught "that women aren’t of the same value as men and our voices aren’t as important," that "God offers cishet people blessings He denies others," that "love says one thing but does another," and that the Church has an "institutional bigotry" against "against the LGBTQIA membership," and also facilitates "the oppression of LDS women," that her kids left the Church "to remove the religion’s prejudice and sexism from their lives" because they could not "stay with integrity."
• She accuses the leaders of the Church as carrying "blame" for "dwindling retention," that they preserve "the foolish traditions of our fathers" and fail to "advance the church institution along the path of enlightenment," that they "reward maleness for the sake of maleness" and "diminish femaleness, also for the sake of maleness," that they "oppress" and "demean" and "dehumanize," that they are "cruel,"  that they do not love gay people, that they (the leaders) are "bigot{ed} and sex{ist}," that they have "accuse{d} God of {their} own sin."
• Again, lots of faultfinding.  Lots of anger.

The Strength of Serious Doubt, Difficult Questions, and Disagreement with the LDS Church (July 2022)

LDS Church Should Throw Its Resources into Making Mandated Reporting Universal in US (August 2022)

Ending the Objectification of Exalted Women: Joseph Smith’s Antidote to Literal Offspring Theology (April 2022)

Do You Hear in General Conference what LGBTQIA Members Hear? (April 2022)

On Being Heavenly Mother’s Daughter in an Era of Retrenchment (March 2022)

Heavenly Mother Reportedly on the Outs with Priesthood Authorities (March 2022)

Will the LDS Church Ever Be Less Patriarchal? (March 2022)

I don't have time to read through the rests of her posts.  I would not characterize what I have read as "faithful" or "faith-affirming" in any material sense.  Rather, she exhibits quite a bit of vitriol and condemnation.  She amply quotes Jesus in the abstract, but vehemently condemns His servants whenever they say something she doesn't like, and which things also happen to contravene currently popular social trends. 

As I read her posts I was reminded of several of these quotes: 

Quote

Teachings of Joseph Smith

Losing confidence in Church leaders, criticizing them, and neglecting any duty required by God lead to apostasy.

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”

Heber C. Kimball, while serving as a counselor to President Brigham Young, reported: “I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy.”

Wilford Woodruff, while serving in the Quorum of the Twelve, said: “Brother Joseph used to counsel us in this wise: ‘The moment you permit yourselves to lay aside any duty that God calls you to perform, to gratify your own desires; the moment you permit yourselves to become careless, you lay a foundation for apostasy. Be careful; understand you are called to a work, and when God requires you to do that work do it.’ Another thing he said: ‘In all your trials, tribulations and sickness, in all your sufferings, even unto death, be careful you don’t betray God, be careful you don’t betray the priesthood, be careful you don’t apostatize.’”

Wilford Woodruff also said: “I remember Brother Joseph Smith visited myself, Brother [John] Taylor, Brother Brigham Young and several other missionaries, when we were about to take our mission to England. We were sick and afflicted, many of us. At the same time we felt to go. The Prophet blessed us, as also our wives and families. … He taught us some very important principles, some of which I here name. Brother Taylor, myself, George A. Smith, John E. Page and others had been called to fill the place of those [apostles] who had fallen away. Brother Joseph laid before us the cause of those men turning away from the commandments of God. He hoped we would learn wisdom by what we saw with the eye and heard with the ear, and that we would be able to discern the spirits of other men without being compelled to learn by sad experience.

“He then remarked that any man, any elder in this Church and kingdom, who pursued a course whereby he would ignore or, in other words, refuse to obey any known law or commandment or duty—whenever a man did this, neglected any duty God required at his hand in attending meetings, filling missions, or obeying counsel, he laid a foundation to lead him to apostasy and this was the reason those men had fallen. They had misused the priesthood sealed upon their heads. They had neglected to magnify their calling as apostles, as elders. They had used that priesthood to attempt to build themselves up and to perform some other work besides the building up of the kingdom of God.”

In 1840, a small, organized body of Church members continued to live in Kirtland, Ohio, although most of the Saints had gathered to Nauvoo, Illinois. In response to news that a Church member in Kirtland was trying to destroy the Saints’ confidence in the First Presidency and other authorities of the Church, the Prophet wrote to a Church leader in Kirtland: “In order to conduct the affairs of the Kingdom in righteousness, it is all important that the most perfect harmony, kind feeling, good understanding, and confidence should exist in the hearts of all the brethren; and that true charity, love one towards another, should characterize all their proceedings. If there are any uncharitable feelings, any lack of confidence, then pride, arrogance and envy will soon be manifested; confusion must inevitably prevail, and the authorities of the Church set at naught. …

“If the Saints in Kirtland deem me unworthy of their prayers when they assemble together, and neglect to bear me up at the throne of heavenly grace, it is a strong and convincing proof to me that they have not the Spirit of God. If the revelations we have received are true, who is to lead the people? If the keys of the Kingdom have been committed to my hands, who shall open out the mysteries thereof?

“As long as my brethren stand by me and encourage me, I can combat the prejudices of the world, and can bear the contumely [harsh treatment] and abuse with joy; but when my brethren stand aloof, when they begin to faint, and endeavor to retard my progress and enterprise, then I feel to mourn, but am no less determined to prosecute my task, being confident that although my earthly friends may fail, and even turn against me, yet my heavenly Father will bear me off triumphant.

“However, I hope that even in Kirtland there are some who do not make a man an offender for a word [see Isaiah 29:21], but are disposed to stand forth in defense of righteousness and truth, and attend to every duty enjoined upon them; and who will have wisdom to direct them against any movement or influence calculated to bring confusion and discord into the camp of Israel, and to discern between the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

“It would be gratifying to my mind to see the Saints in Kirtland flourish, but think the time is not yet come; and I assure you it never will until a different order of things be established and a different spirit manifested. When confidence is restored, when pride shall fall, and every aspiring mind be clothed with humility as with a garment, and selfishness give place to benevolence and charity, and a united determination to live by every word which proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord is observable, then, and not till then, can peace, order and love prevail.

“It is in consequence of aspiring men that Kirtland has been forsaken. How frequently has your humble servant been envied in his office by such characters, who endeavored to raise themselves to power at his expense, and seeing it impossible to do so, resorted to foul slander and abuse, and other means to effect his overthrow. Such characters have ever been the first to cry out against the Presidency, and publish their faults and foibles to the four winds of heaven.”

This is from Chapter 27 of Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, aptly titled "Beware the Bitter Fruits of Apostasy."

I have previously laid out thoughts on the phenomenon I think is taking place with Sis. Downing here:

• Thoughts on Addressing a Struggle with, or Loss of, Faith
• Tacit Notions/Expectations of Prophetic Infallibility: A Key Ingredient in Faith Crises?

I hope Sis. Downing can take pause to reconsider her current path.

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

When I read this I was surprised at how my heart broke reading it, for her and others.

Such empathy can be helpful.

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

Yes, Joseph is a tough nut to crack.  And a divisive figure.

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

Alas, bishops can and do make mistakes like this.  I am sorry to hear of such things.

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Anyways, the author of this blog post makes some important points and also makes an argument for what sustaining our leaders should look like.

She seems to be advocating against sustaining them.  She positively excoriates them.  Their character, their honesty, their decency, their morality.

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that what she suggests could be a very healthy model.

I think she is speaking from substantial ignorance and malice.  Her other posts evince a huge chip-on-the-shoulder attitude.

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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

It was a slog, but I did it.  I found it almost entirely conclusory and condemnatory (pretty ironic, given how often and how strongly she accuses the Church and its leaders of being "judgmental").  At the same time, it was almost wholly bereft of substantive or thoughtful analysis.  Hers is a screed of pure emotion.  No reasoning.  No assessment of the evidence.  No substantiation.  Just anger and vituperation.  She assumes the absolute worse about the Brethren, while at the same time aggrandizes herself and those who agree with her.  She rails against mixing "philosophies of men" with revealed truths, and then proceeds to do just that, over and over.

The 13th Article of Faith states: "We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

I see little of this in Sis. Downing's words.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 29, 2023 by smac97

[Smiley McGee]

On 3/28/2023 at 10:36 AM, Meadowchik said:

This is a crime.

It’s not. It’s non-compliance with regulatory reporting requirements. The technical nature of the matter has led to sloppy armchair commentary from people with no relevant expertise or experience, which distracts from the broader discussion of the ethics of the lack of financial disclosure to all relevant stakeholders (ie, tithe payers). 

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It was a slog, but I did it.  I found it almost entirely conclusory and condemnatory (pretty ironic, given how often and how strongly she accuses the Church and its leaders of being "judgmental").  At the same time, it was almost wholly bereft of substantive or thoughtful analysis.  Hers is a screed of pure emotion.  No reasoning.  No assessment of the evidence.  No substantiation.  Just anger and vituperation.  She assumes the absolute worse about the Brethren, while at the same time aggrandizes herself and those who agree with her.  She rails against mixing "philosophies of men" with revealed truths, and then proceeds to do just that, over and over.

You pretty much said the same things about pogi's concerns. Is there any criticism of the church's actions you don't consider to be judgmental, condemnatory, etc.? One need not be guilty of bad faith to find this stuff troubling. 

Edited March 29, 2023 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You pretty much said the same things about pogi's concerns.

Okay.

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Is there any criticism of the church's actions you don't consider to be judgmental, condemnatory, etc.?

Yes.  Quite a few, actually.

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

One need not be guilty of bad faith to find this stuff troubling. 

I didn't say she was writing in "bad faith."  To the contrary, I think she's quite sincere in what she is saying.  It just happens that what she is saying is a screed of pure emotion.  No reasoning.  No assessment of the evidence.  No substantiation.  Just anger and vituperation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Who is "they" in this instance?

You know who the they are. Come on.

19 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

 

 

 

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. 

The FP was totally involved in this. So you think they are stupid and did not know what they were doing?

Edited March 29, 2023 by Teancum

[Teancum]

On 3/29/2023 at 3:42 AM, Meadowchik said:

I think in this case, you have a point. As my friend points out in her blog, as LDS we're supposed to not criticise our leaders even when they're wrong. That's not a culture that has worked out a healthy accountability process for its leadership.

Criticizing church leaders is very frowned upon.  Do it too much and it will get you kicked out more than anything else.

On 3/29/2023 at 3:42 AM, Meadowchik said:

BUT I think it's possible. I think the church could change and be better. I do think accountability of leadership can exist in religion.

I won't hold my breath to see the lds Church adopt such accountability from their leaders. I loved your friends blog and her comments.  I think she is an outlier. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Teancum

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

They were acting on the advise of counsel and had an articulable (albeit, in my view, flimsy) justification for their course of action.

So?  They were still ultimately responsible.  They cannot blame legal council.  They had the final responsibility.

 

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

And they weren't hiding assets from the SEC -

Yes they were. That is why they were fined.

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

 

\they were merely obscuring the allocation of those assets from the public in a way that runs afoul of the SEC's desired reporting methods. But nothing they were doing was actually fraudulent or designed to manipulate the market / take advantage of investors which is what the SEC exists to guard against. That's why they settled for a slap on the wrist - because what they were doing just wasn't that big of a deal.

 

Good lord.  Really? You really think this?  I guess you do not care about your leaders being honest, like they expect out of you.

Edited March 29, 2023 by Teancum

[ttribe]

22 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

“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?"

Except none of this had anything to do with taxes. But, please, don't let that get in the way of your deflection.