Deseret News Opinion Piece: Perspective: I teach tax law. This is what I wish reporters understood about church finances

[Diamondhands69]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, this seems like a copout.  You are making all sorts of claims, but are now declining to back them up.

My backup is the sec letter and personal experience in the securities field. If that is not enough for you then too bad. 
 

Just because you want to engage with large walls of text nitpicking every single little detail does not obligate anyone else to respond in- kind. You do you. I’ll stick with a much shorter format despite what you may feel I owe you. 
 

Just because fast talking lawyers secured them an out  of what amounts to the legal definition of “not guilty,” no one is fooled.

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Quote

With respect, this seems like a copout.  You are making all sorts of claims, but are now declining to back them up.

My backup is the sec letter

Much of what you have alleged in conclusory form is not in "the sec letter."  

And in any event, I decline to take the untested, unproven, unadjudicated, unadmitted-to say-so of the SEC as the unfiltered truth. 

16 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

and personal experience in the securities field. 

The unsupported "trust me, I'm an expert" say-so of an anonymous commenter doesn't do much, either.

I found this February 2023 article worth a read: ENSIGN PEAK: CLARIFYING THE SEC ANNOUNCEMENT.  Some excerpts:

Quote

Did Ensign Peak Advisors ever hide its stock holdings?

There are no allegations that they did. Each of EPA’s subsidiaries reported their holdings. So all of the fund’s holdings were disclosed through form 13F reports for each individual affiliated entity. EPA and the Church have stated that they believe all of their holdings were reported. 

Were the “shell companies” the EPA used illegal?

There’s no allegation that they were. These companies are the subsidiary LLCs that EPA used to reorganize in 2000. Most shell companies are used for legitimate purposes, particularly in the financial sector. They can be used to legitimately maintain the privacy of investors or better organize financial assets. The SEC’s claim is not that EPA’s organizational scheme was fraudulent, but that using that organization, EPA should have reported differently than they did.

If nothing was hidden and the organization was legal, why was the SEC concerned?

Because the subsidiaries were all under the control of EPA the SEC believed they needed to file one joint form 13F.

No accusations have been made that EPA abused the separate filings to gain advantage, but the separate filings could in theory have made it possible to do so.
...

Is getting fined by the SEC a big problem for an investment fund or relatively common?

Obviously, a fund never wants to be fined. But fines like this are common. About 5% of investment funds are fined by the SEC each year. Experts compare it to a traffic ticket.

These kinds of investigations are also especially common when multiple entities are involved, such as in the case of the EPA. 
...

Does the evidence suggest that Ensign Peak Advisors purposely violated the SEC’s disclosure requirements? Are Ensign Peak Advisors and/or the Church of Jesus Christ culpable for breaking the law?

The SEC’s announcement included nothing of the sort. And these regulations don’t really work that way. As this same lawyer said, “Yes, there are rules that dictate how money managers disclose the existence of funds. But there is no culpability requirement to trigger a penalty or a violation of these rules. Sometimes mistakes are made, and often inadvertently are, but that doesn’t mean there was any intention in the violation and certainly does not mean a crime has been committed. Most penalties imposed by the SEC are the result of unintentional violations.”

The regulatory systems in place by the SEC are very complex—according to one lawyer, “some of the most complex disclosure regimes found anywhere on the planet.” Even very sophisticated financial professionals don’t always fully understand the nuances of those regulations. A large number of fines take place simply because of a misunderstanding of various overlapping rules.  

The Church and EPA obviously hire experts and have to rely upon those experts to give advice regarding compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including SEC regulations. 
...

Should we expect further investigations of Ensign Peak Advisors?

It’s certainly possible. The EPA fund at issue is a large fund. As such, it will continue to be held under scrutiny.

In addition, there have been efforts by detractors to have EPA investigated by both the IRS and the Senate Finance Committee. But experts suggest that these complaints lack legal merit and are not likely to be acted on. 

The current SEC matter against EPA is completely resolved, and EPA’s current reporting practice is considered by the SEC to be in complete compliance.

If these kinds of fines are so common, why has there been so much media coverage?

We can only speculate why individual newsrooms have decided to report on the story, but as media professionals, we see that this story has several elements that would be attractive to journalists that have nothing to do with the severity or unusualness of the matter.

The Church of Jesus Christ is still a curiosity for many Americans, and as a result, articles that can refer to the Church in their headlines generate more traffic. And because of the Church’s position on moral issues, it can be used as a lightning rod in culture war debates, which can motivate both journalists and their readers. Moreover, EPA is considered a large fund and manages a large sum of money.  All these reasons taken together could generate sufficient newsworthiness. 

What changes have Ensign Peak Advisors made to avoid these issues in the future?

This was a narrow issue. And the narrow issue has been fixed for more than three years now. While it is unfortunate that there was ever a misunderstanding about disclosure requirements based on the advice of counsel, it’s also probably unavoidable that in its more than 25-year history EPA would make some mistake on its disclosure requirements. Once again, its overall record on compliance is impeccable.

What do this investigation and penalty say about the Church’s priorities and values? 

Not much. The Church invests in its fund to fulfill its mission, which in addition to its religious mission, includes humanitarian aid that totaled nearly a billion dollars last year. 

While it’s appropriate that the Church expressed regrets for mistakes made, these kinds of fines are commonplace even among organizations doing their best to be in compliance because of the extraordinarily complicated nature of the regulations.

I hope you will interact with this, as it would go some way in verifying your self-declared expertise in the field.

I also provided a link to one of my assessments (here it is again).  While I am not an expert in the field of SEC regulatory compliance, I have enough background and training in the law to make a relatively informed evaluation of the SEC order and the laws and regulations pertaining to it.  And unlike you, I have laid out my evaluation for public scrutiny and critique.  And you have refused to respond to or address it in any way.  You have no obligation to do so, of course, but then we have no obligation to take your because-I-say-so conclusions seriously.

I have previously commented on the Church's obligation to obey the law:

Quote

I am not discounting all the litigation filed against the Church.  Sometimes the Church and/or its agents/representatives errs legally.  When and if that happens, and can be established through evidence and argument, the Church needs to take its legal lumps like anyone else.  So I don't begrudge anyone who has a legitimate (or at least colorable) grievance against the Church and avails himself to filing a lawsuit.

And here:

Quote

The Church and its members have a moral obligation to obey the law, but many laws don't have much in the way of a "moral" or "ethical" dimension.  They are just regulatory, malum prohibitum-style mechanisms for the State to manage the behavior of private citizens, and its interactions with them, and ensure compliance with the Constitution and other provisions of the law.

I have also noted widespread concerns about the overreach and constitutionally-unbalanced power of the Administrative State:

Quote

I do have some concerns about the current largely unelected/unaccountable law-making and law-enforcing power of what legal and political wonks sometimes call "the administrative state."  One of the core components of the U.S. Constitution is the "separation of powers."  The legislative branch is supposed to legislate, and the executive branch is supposed to execute/enforce the legislation.  In the Administrative State, however, governmental entities run by unelected (and largely unaccountable) bureaucrats to both craft and enforce administrative rules and regulations that have the same force of law, the same effect, as legislatively-enacted laws. 
...
{C}oncerns about the Administrative State are not new.  I think these issues generally don't garner much public attention or scrutiny because they aren't "sexy."  They are, instead, legally complex and obscure, and require quite a bit of context to understand.  See, e.g., here (by Michael Greve, a law professor at George Mason University School of Law) :

Quote

They’re on to me. I’m “disgruntled” with my profession (Administrative Law), says Stephen Bainbridge; the whole field is a fraud.

Sort of—but not quite. In coming months I’ll devote a number of posts to the pathologies of our administrative law. To avoid further misunderstanding and to keep me gainfully employed, let’s take this from the top.

What is the “Administrative State”?

What is its law? And why do many of us think it’s a constitutional problem?  It isn’t a lot of folks working for the gummint. The Constitution envisions and/or permits a postal service, a census bureau, a patent office, a revenue service, and a navy and an army (including a corps of engineers). Etc. Put the entire country in federal uniforms: there’d be nothing wrong with it, constitutionally speaking.

The hallmark of the administrative state is a power once known as “prerogative”—that is, the power to make binding rules without law, outside the law, or against the law, exercised by someone other than an elected legislature. John Locke understood that royal power, and was against it. The founders understood it, and they wrote an entire Constitution to suppress it. All legislative powers granted in  the Constitution are vested in the Congress, and nowhere else. Except, evidently,  when they’re vested in the Federal Communications Commission, or some other three-letter outfit. There’s the problem.

...
I am presenting this because I think a lot of people who are reading this story perhaps lack a sufficient context for understanding what is going on the the SEC regulation in view.  I think there are reasonable concerns to be had regarding unelected bureaucrats at a regulatory agency (the SEC) playing the role of (1) legislator (in crafting rules pertaining to the 13F form referenced in the various news articles), law enforcement / prosecutor (in investigating and enforcing compliance with the rules associated with the 13F form) and (3) judge and jury (in interpreting and applying the "force of law" rules associated with the 13F form).
...

{N}otably absent from this allegation is any reference to Ensign Peak having "received and relied upon legal counsel regarding how to comply with its reporting obligations."  Instead, the SEC alleges that the LLC strategy was "Ensign Peak's plan."  I find this to be pretty significant.  Even assuming the legal advice Ensign Peak received was wrong, the fact that Ensign Peak was acting based on legal advice speaks to its motives.  Ensign Peak and the Church are certainly obligated to comply with legal technicalities, and they are - at the end of the day - obligated to bear the consequences of noncompliance.  "I was following my attorney's legal advice" is generally not a sufficient basis for being excused from the consequences of noncompliance.  However, "I was following my attorney's legal advice" can well be a reasonable and equitable consideration.

Also, that the First Presidency initially approved "this approach," I think we can reasonably assume that they were assuming that the legal advice given to Ensign Peak was accurate and correct, and on that basis approved the approach.  "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  (AoF 1:12.)  This is our doctrine, and it seemingly applies to even obscure and arcane "laws" such as 13F compliance.

I think these and other points we have raised previously are pretty salient to conclusions about the ethics of EPA, the Brethren, and so on.

You are refusing to respond to any of these points, instead insisting that we take your anonymous say-so about your supposed experience and training in the field as an alternative and sufficient and superior basis to justify your hostile (and markedly unprofessional) denigrations against the leaders of the Church.  No thanks.

16 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

If that is not enough for you then too bad. 

Your conclusory denigrations don't do much, both because you are now refusing to back them up, and because we have had ample comparable discussions about the facts and the law on this topic.  Some folks here agree with your assessment, some do not.

16 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Just because you want to engage with large walls of text nitpicking every single little detail does not obligate anyone else to respond in- kind. You do you. I’ll stick with a much shorter format despite what you may feel I owe you. 

How convenient.

16 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Just because fast talking lawyers secured them an out of what amounts to the legal definition of “not guilty,” no one is fooled.

Again, we've discussed this topic a lot.  That you are refusing to respond to any of what we have previously laid out is A) quite within your right, as you have no obligation to respond, but B) indicative - to me, anyway - that you lack both familiarity with the facts and the substantive law to speak competently on this subject.  The guys who come along and, in essence, say (always anonymously), "Hey, I'm an expert in this, so I don't have to explain or demonstrate the merits of my conclusions" don't get far here. 

To be sure, there are plenty of folks who have reached conclusions similar to yours.  Some have even done what you refuse to do, which is to lay out argument, reasoning, evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by smac97

[Diamondhands69]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Much of what you have alleged in conclusory form is not in "the sec letter."  

And in any event, I decline to take the untested, unproven, unadjudicated, unadmitted-to say-so of the SEC as the unfiltered truth. 

Anonymous and unsupported "trust me, I'm an expert" say-so of an anonymous commenter doesn't do much, either.

I found this February 2023 article worth a read: ENSIGN PEAK: CLARIFYING THE SEC ANNOUNCEMENT.  Some excerpts:

I hope you will interact with this, as it would go some way in verifying your self-declared expertise in the field.

I also provided a link to one of my assessments (here it is again).  While I am not an expert in the field of SEC regulatory compliance, I have enough background and training in the law to make a relatively informed evaluation of the SEC order and the laws and regulations pertaining to it.  And unlike you, I have laid out my evaluation for public scrutiny and critique.  And you have refused to respond to or address it in any way.  You have no obligation to do so, of course, but then we have no obligation to take your because-I-say-so conclusions seriously.

I have previously commented on the Church's obligation to obey the law:

And here:

I have also noted widespread concerns about the overreach and constitutionally-unbalanced power of the Administrative State:

I think these and other points we have raised previously are pretty salient to conclusions about the ethics of EPA, the Brethren, and so on.

You are refusing to respond to any of these points, instead insisting that we take your anonymous say-so about your supposed experience and training in the field as an alternative and sufficient and superior basis to justify your hostile (and markedly unprofessional) denigrations against the leaders of the Church.  No thanks.

Your conclusory denigrations don't do much, both because you are now refusing to back them up, and because we have had ample discussion about them.  Some folks here agree with your assessment, some do not.

How convenient.

Again, we've discussed this topic a lot.  That you are refusing to respond to any of what we have previously laid out is A) quite within your right, as you have no obligation to respond, but B) indicative - to me, anyway - that you lack both familiarity with the facts and the substantive law to speak competently on this subject.  The guys who come along and, in essence, say (always anonymously), "Hey, I'm an expert in this, so I don't have to explain or demonstrate the merits of my conclusions" don't get far here. 

To be sure, there are plenty of folks who have reached conclusions similar to yours.  Some have even done what you refuse to do, which is to lay out argument, reasoning, evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

When you put the name of a business manager on a form 13f and that “manager” does nothing in terms of managing the llc other than forwarding voicemail from the sec to EP supervisors you are lying about the manager’s role since he/she is not managing the company. 
 

when the same manager signs the 13f each quarter while sitting at their desk in salt lake as opposed to the city the llc is registered in the signing manager is lying. The form has a statement at the signature block which is an attestation the person signing is signing it in the city the llc is registered in.

when the manager checks the box on the form stating they have 100% control of the trading of the stock positions and votes the shares when he/ she does not trade the portfolio and does not vote they are lying

when the 1st presidency approves of this scam along with scattering funds about so the members and outsiders cannot see the funds, the investments and otherwise hides the money….  They are hiding the tithing from the membership 

when the 1st presidency makes it policy for them to approve of the plan each year they are approving of lying about the funds and who controls them

no one needs to be any kind of expert to figure all this out. Roger Clark CEO of ensign peak owns his own RIA. His forms for his company have been filed in a timely and proper manner for decades. He knows how to do them, yet couldn’t get any of them right at EP for 22 yrs. Hmmmm

Edited September 18, 2023 by Diamondhands69

[Stormin' Mormon]

27 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

When you put the name of a business manager on a form 13f and that “manager” does nothing in terms of managing the llc other than forwarding voicemail from the sec to EP supervisors you are lying about the manager’s role since he/she is not managing the company. 
 

when the same manager signs the 13f each quarter while sitting at their desk in salt lake as opposed to the city the llc is registered in the signing manager is lying. The form has a statement at the signature block which is an attestation the person signing is signing it in the city the llc is registered in.

when the manager checks the box on the form stating they have 100% control of the trading of the stock positions and votes the shares when he/ she does not trade the portfolio and does not vote they are lying

when the 1st presidency approves of this scam along with scattering funds about so the members and outsiders cannot see the funds, the investments and otherwise hides the money….  They are hiding the tithing from the membership 

when the 1st presidency makes it policy for them to approve of the plan each year they are approving of lying about the funds and who controls them

no one needs to be any kind of expert to figure all this out. Roger Clark CEO of ensign peak owns his own RIA. His forms for his company have been filed in a timely and proper manner for decades. He knows how to do them, yet couldn’t get any of them right at EP for 22 yrs. Hmmmm

If it was such a slam-dunk obvious case, why didn't the SEC file charges?  I have zero doubt the SEC would have spent any amount necessary If they knew they could win. They didn’t have a win so they offered the deal. 

(See: that kind of "logic" swings both ways).  

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

When you put the name of a business manager on a form 13f and that “manager” does nothing in terms of managing the llc other than forwarding voicemail from the sec to EP supervisors you are lying about the manager’s role since he/she is not managing the company. 

Again, we have addressed this at some length.

Again, you are refusing to interact with any of it.

24 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

when the same manager signs the 13f each quarter while sitting at their desk in salt lake as opposed to the city the llc is registered in the signing manager is lying.  The form has a statement at the signature block which is an attestation the person signing is signing it in the city the llc is registered in.

Yes, we've seen that.  This is, I suspect, one of the "mistakes" that the Church has previously acknowledged.

I found this February 2022 Opinion piece in the Deseret News to be helpful: Opinion: Making sense of the settlement between the church and the SEC over a technical violation

An excerpt:

Quote

None of the limited utility of Form 13F data to the SEC, the potentially distorted information provided by Form 13F, or the intrusive nature of the reporting requirement, however, excuses the conduct by Ensign Peak alleged in the SEC administrative proceeding. There can be a fine line between designing a regime in an effort to comply with the law and engaging in a deliberate effort to evade the law, and the SEC clearly believes that Ensign Peak crossed that line.

Still, in the pantheon of federal securities law violations, failure to file Form 13F is largely regarded as a technical violation.

Several elements of the settled administrative proceeding support the conclusion that the alleged violation was largely technical.

• First, the settlement alleges only violations of section 13(f) of the Exchange Act and rule 13f-1 thereunder, and not any of the broad anti-fraud provisions under the federal securities laws often cited by the SEC in settled administrative proceedings.
• Second, the settlement does not impose a requirement to disgorge any improper financial benefits from the failure to file Forms 13F. The absence of a disgorgement requirement supports the conclusion that the SEC did not identify any financial impropriety or improper conduct that resulted in a financial benefit to Ensign Peak. Otherwise, one can assume that the SEC would have imposed a disgorgement requirement in addition to the penalty.
• Finally, apart from the requirement to cease and desist and pay an administrative penalty, the settlement does not impose any additional undertakings or remedial steps common in settled SEC administrative proceedings, likely because Ensign Peak corrected its Forms 13F.

The settled administrative proceeding is a painful and expensive reminder that even the most technical requirements of the federal securities laws matter.

The key bit: "The absence of a disgorgement requirement supports the conclusion that the SEC did not identify any financial impropriety or improper conduct that resulted in a financial benefit to Ensign Peak. Otherwise, one can assume that the SEC would have imposed a disgorgement requirement in addition to the penalty."

24 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

when the 1st presidency approves of this scam

Your embellishment.  Your editorializing.  Your gloss.

24 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

along with scattering funds about so the members and outsiders cannot see the funds, the investments and otherwise hides the money….  They are hiding the tithing from the membership 

You are "hiding" your IRL name right now.  And your address.  And your employer.  And your SSN.  And your bank account numbers and logins.

Can bystanders disparage your integrity on that basis?  Nope.  Why?  Because absent a duty to disclose, there is no misconduct in withholding, or even "hiding," information.

24 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

when the 1st presidency makes it policy for them to approve of the plan each year they are approving of lying about the funds and who controls them

Your embellishment.  Your editorializing.  Your gloss.

24 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

no one needs to be any kind of expert to figure all this out. 

Again, from the above DesNews piece: "The absence of a disgorgement requirement supports the conclusion that the SEC did not identify any financial impropriety or improper conduct that resulted in a financial benefit to Ensign Peak. Otherwise, one can assume that the SEC would have imposed a disgorgement requirement in addition to the penalty."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Diamondhands69]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

If it was such a slam-dunk obvious case, why didn't the SEC file charges?  I have zero doubt the SEC would have spent any amount necessary If they knew they could win. They didn’t have a win so they offered the deal. 

(See: that kind of "logic" swings both ways).  

Sec budget is limited… easier to get a “plea” than it is to go to trial for more money. Govt is also reluctant to go crazy on churches as it gets the masses in an uproar from time to time. Why you think they don’t go try and clear out Colorado city again?

[Stormin' Mormon]

28 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Sec budget is limited… easier to get a “plea” than it is to go to trial for more money. Govt is also reluctant to go crazy on churches as it gets the masses in an uproar from time to time. Why you think they don’t go try and clear out Colorado city again?

So an organization can make decisions about going to trial that are based on factors completely unrelated to the strength of their case? Perhaps the Church, too, made a decision to not go to trial based on factors completely unrelated to the strength of their case? 

I'm not sure you can hold the one position and not the other without getting mired in a special pleading fallacy.

[Diamondhands69]

23 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

So an organization can make decisions about going to trial that are based on factors completely unrelated to the strength of their case? Perhaps the Church, too, made a decision to not go to trial based on factors completely unrelated to the strength of their case? 

I'm not sure you can hold the one position and not the other without getting mired in a special pleading fallacy.

Yes they can… the church probably just wants to avoid public exposure of the whole thing. No matter how “ legal” everything is. The concept of hiding money so the members will continue to pay tithing doesn’t sit well with people. 

[Diamondhands69]

FEBRUARY 2020

Roger Clarke, the head of Ensign Peak, tells The Wall Street Journal that LDS leaders wanted to keep the church’s $100 billion reserve a secret because they were afraid, upon seeing the church’s amassed wealth, some members might stop paying tithing. “[Paying tithing] is more of a sense of commitment than it is the church needing the money,” said Clarke “So they never wanted to be in a position where people felt like, you know, they shouldn’t make a contribution.”
 

https://www.saltlakemagazine.com/sec-fines-lds-church/
 

this is all we really need to know about the sec debacle. If Roger Clarke was lying the church would have had him metaphorically crucified. He just knows too much. 

[JustAnAustralian]

10 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

“[Paying tithing] is more of a sense of commitment than it is the church needing the money,” said Clarke “So they never wanted to be in a position where people felt like, you know, they shouldn’t make a contribution.”

And?

In Elder Bednar's address to the National Press Club last hear he openly said the church doesn't need their money of people in poverty, but "needing it" isn't the reason for paying it. (Video below should be cued up to the right place) That kind of comment isn't anything special.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by JustAnAustralian

[Diamondhands69]

24 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

And?

 

When you put on the appearance that the church has to operate on a shoestring to survive. You hide the books. Minuscule budgets for youth activities, making members bring their own copy paper, cleaning the buildings etc what you effectively do is make the membership feel like the church needs their money to survive   This is manipulative behavior. If they truly didn’t need the money then why not open the books and show everyone how rich the church is and that it literally never ever needs a red cent from anyone. Once all members know that, then if they still pay tithing then and only then is it truly a free-will offering. 
 

by hiding these funds and being deceptive the 1st presidency is effectively taking some agency from people in that they don’t have the information necessary to make a completely informed decision on whether or not they should contribute. 
 

even worse. This just shows how little the 1st presidency thinks of the membership in general. We need to be manipulated into paying tithing to the church. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Diamondhands69

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Minuscule budgets for youth activities

Budget is based on Sunday attendance numbers. 

2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

making members bring their own copy paper,

Never seen that happen here.

2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

cleaning the buildings etc

Using church supplied cleaning products.

2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

If they truly didn’t need the money then why not open the books and show everyone how rich the church is and that it literally never ever needs a red cent from anyone.

Because everyone would moan that they knew how to spend the money better than the church is.

 

2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

by hiding these funds and being deceptive

Shares are not "funds", property is not "funds", you can not buy a ream of copy paper with a share.

 

2 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Once all members know that, then if they still pay tithing then and only then is it truly a free-will offering. 

Tithing is a commandment. It's not "10 percent of your increase if you think the church is rich enough to not need it".

[Diamondhands69]

7 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Budget is based on Sunday attendance numbers. 
 

I’m aware- they need to allocate much more per kid. My ward is well-to- do and our kids go do cool stuff and not get crazy expensive. Most wards don’t have members able to foot the bill for the additional cost, so the kids get one lame activity per year because the allocation won’t even cover the gas.

7 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Never seen that happen here.

ok

7 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

 

7 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Using church supplied cleaning products.

and free labor after they fired all the janitors who were then put out on the economy to fend for themselves. I don’t know where you are from but janitorial staff for the ward buildings where I have lived has been primarily mentally deficient individuals and that was the best job they ever had. Then the church fires all of em to save a buck. Sad

7 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Because everyone would moan that they knew how to spend the money better than the church is.

So what else is new? They can do what they do now which is ignore it. 

7 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

 

Shares are not "funds", property is not "funds", you can not buy a ream of copy paper with a share.

shares is what I’m talking about and that is better than money. It grows, sometimes pays a dividend and you can sell it and get cash in T+2 days and go spend it on whatever. Even copy paper. 

7 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

 

Tithing is a commandment. It's not "10 percent of your increase if you think the church is rich enough to not need it".

I don’t know why you are throwing up a quote I didn’t say. May want to check who said it and attribute it to them and not me. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Diamondhands69
Fat finger

[JustAnAustralian]

15 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

I don’t know why you are throwing up a quote I didn’t say. May want to check who said it and attribute it to them and not me. 

You said it would only be a free-will offering if the members know that the church doesn't need the money but pay it anyway.

That's not how the tithing commandment works though.

As to the other comments, they all seem like local issues that aren't suitable for fixing at the global level.

[Diamondhands69]

8 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

That's not how the tithing commandment works though.

I agree.
 

Would you agree that the 1st presidency hiding funds with the intent to keep members paying tithing is also not in the spirit of the commandment? That isn’t leadership- it is deception. 
 

Withholding information in order to influence a decision by creating a false reality is lying. It is also satans plan when you take away agency. Misinforming and withholding information makes it so members possibly will make a decision based on what they know.  If they knew all the facts, they may take another course of action (exercise agency). Sue it is on the member if they decide that the church has too much money, but shouldn’t they be able to make that decision? 
 

Kinda like lying about church history then publishing gospel topics essays decades later because people found out the truth and were leaving the church. People do not appreciate being deceived. 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Diamondhands69

[Benjamin McGuire]

17 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Would you agree that the 1st presidency hiding funds with the intent to keep members paying tithing is also not in the spirit of the commandment? That isn’t leadership- it is deception.

I don't think that this has anything to do with the subject of this discussion though. The main reason why I can make this claim with some certainty is that this process of 'hiding' begins in the 1990s - long before these funds had accumulated wealth to the levels we see today. This idea that they were expecting these kinds of returns and were taking steps so early to deal with that future seems rather nonsensical to me.

The reason why I believe that they began concealing the size of these funds from the public is because in that same time frame we started to see the extreme escalation of abuse lawsuit damages (it was not long after the first lawsuit asking for a multi-billion dollar payout). The effort to make the LDS Church less of a target for these kinds of lawsuits does not seem unreasonable to me (even if they share some liability in some of these cases).

[ksfisher]

49 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Would you agree that the 1st presidency hiding funds with the intent to keep members paying tithing is also not in the spirit of the commandment?

I don't see any conditions set forth in the commandment to pay tithing, do you?  We are asked to pay 10% of our income.  I don't see anything saying that this changes based on the balance of the church's bank account or value of any stocks the church might hold.

[Diamondhands69]

17 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't think that this has anything to do with the subject of this discussion though. The main reason why I can make this claim with some certainty is that this process of 'hiding' begins in the 1990s - long before these funds had accumulated wealth to the levels we see today. This idea that they were expecting these kinds of returns and were taking steps so early to deal with that future seems rather nonsensical to me.

when ensign peak was incepted, they were managing $7bn at that point. Not a nominal sum of money and it is 70x the minimum required for the filing of a form 13f. Roger Clarke knew that and communicated that to the senior leadership ( 1st presidency) . They wanted to hide it and being the loyal high priest that he is he engaged in the deception and lies. 

17 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The reason why I believe that they began concealing the size of these funds from the public is because in that same time frame we started to see the extreme escalation of abuse lawsuit damages (it was not long after the first lawsuit asking for a multi-billion dollar payout). The effort to make the LDS Church less of a target for these kinds of lawsuits does not seem unreasonable to me (even if they share some liability in some of these cases).

I agree. Yet another consequence of dishonesty, concealing crimes, not reporting, and doing all one can do to put the best foot forward. Now the tithe payers are on the hook for all this man/ boy rape because no one had enough courage to stomp out the abuse when found. This is a problem which won’t go away anytime soon. 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Diamondhands69

[Diamondhands69]

41 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't see any conditions set forth in the commandment to pay tithing, do you?  We are asked to pay 10% of our income.  I don't see anything saying that this changes based on the balance of the church's bank account or value of any stocks the church might hold.

I do agree with that. 
 

That said- are you approving of the first pres hiding money because they feel it will bring in more revenue or may compel people to pay tithing who otherwise wouldn’t?

Are those the types of people we should be following?

 

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 minute ago, Diamondhands69 said:

That said- are you approving of the first pres hiding money because they feel it will bring in more revenue or may compel people to pay tithing who otherwise wouldn’t?

You keep asserting this. I think it's nonsense. How do you defend this opinion of yours? Or is this something that you are simply pulling out of thin air based on your personal opinion?

[Diamondhands69]

12 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You keep asserting this. I think it's nonsense. How do you defend this opinion of yours? Or is this something that you are simply pulling out of thin air based on your personal opinion?

“Latter-day Saint officials kept the size of the church’s $100 billion investment reserves secret for fear that public knowledge of the fund’s wealth might discourage members from paying tithing, according to the top executive who oversees the account.

For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, tithing — donating 10% of one’s income to the faith — “is more of a sense of commitment than it is the church needing the money,” Roger Clarke, head of Ensign Peak Advisors, which manages the denomination’s investing holdings, told The Wall Street Journal.

“So they never wanted to be in a position where people felt like, you know, they shouldn’t make a contribution,” Clarke said.”

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/02/08/lds-church-kept-lid-its-b/

 

 

[Vanguard]

25 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

That said- are you approving of the first pres hiding money because they feel it will bring in more revenue or may compel people to pay tithing who otherwise wouldn’t?

Are those the types of people we should be following?

Could you clarify what you think should be concluded and what actions should therefore be taken? From your few posts I gather you are an active believer. Have you concluded you will no longer follow these "types of people"?

[Diamondhands69]

5 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Could you clarify what you think should be concluded and what actions should therefore be taken? From your few posts I gather you are an active believer. Have you concluded you will no longer follow these "types of people"?

Pretty much. I refuse to pay tithing at this point as I know they have and will engage in deceptive behavior with no good reason. If the reason is good then they need to be public with it and announce that they lie to us… for our own good of course. 
 

I also refuse to take callings at this point as I don’t currently support the brethren. 
 

The gospel is true but they are not prophets

[Benjamin McGuire]

@Diamondhands69

But this doesn't work in the context of the beginning of this fund management. You mentioned an initial dollar amount of 7 billion. But at that point in time, the Church's annual revenue from tithing was just under 6 billion. There isn't any expectation in that context that this would be an issue. I can see this argument being raised later (much later) once the Church was making more on their investments every year than they were bringing in, in tithing dollars. But this is only a relatively recent development, isn't it ... there is no question that in more recent years, tithing concerns may have played a role - but it seems unlikely that this is the entirety of the "negative consequences" that the SEC filing discusses.

Your question in this context seems to me to be just as problematic - the suggestion that the only reason why the LDS Church was hiding its investments was because of this fear of repercussions relative to tithing. This seems to me to be misleading on the face - but then you go further - and ask if we approve of their hiding the funds because of their concern over tithing. And this isn't as much a question as it is an assertion - that the reason (and the only reason) for hiding the funds was tithing.

So, I might answer the question by suggesting that if this was the only reason for the concealment of the funds, then it would be a concern. But, the reality is that this likely wasn't a concern when the funds were set up, and it isn't the only concern behind the persistence of the practice until the recent change. And I am far less concerned over the issue for these reasons. So how should I answer the question without looking like I am being evasive in my response? And how should you be asking the question so that it wouldn't appear to be quite so misleading ...

[smac97]

On 9/18/2023 at 11:07 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

When you put on the appearance that the church has to operate on a shoestring to survive.

The Church isn't doing this.

On 9/18/2023 at 11:07 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

You hide the books.

Says the guy "hiding" his personal information by posting anonymously.

Absent a duty to disclose, the Church is not obligated to disclose its finances.

On 9/18/2023 at 11:07 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

Minuscule budgets for youth activities,

I actually appreciate this about the Church.  Youth activities ought not be profligate, particularly when there are so many members of the Church outside of the United States who live on far less.

On 9/18/2023 at 11:07 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

making members bring their own copy paper,

I've never heard of this.

On 9/18/2023 at 11:07 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

cleaning the buildings

Eliminating an avoidable expense and giving the Latter-day Saints an opportunity to serve their community by spending a few minutes every few months to clean the buildings they use.

This is . . . bad?

On 9/18/2023 at 11:07 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

etc

Not sure the "etc" is warranted.

On 9/18/2023 at 11:07 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

what you effectively do is make the membership feel like the church needs their money to survive  

Nope.  No informed member of the Church thinks that the Church's finances are in poor shape (such that it needs continuing tithes "to survive").

Tithing is a commandment.  And, it seems, a permanent one:

Quote

Tithing is the basic contribution by which Latter-day Saints fund the activities of the Church. By revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord stated that members should pay "one-tenth of all their interest [increase] annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever" (D&C 119:4).

If the Church is what it claims to be, and if it needed continued tithes to survive, I would happily contribute to it.  Covenants and all that.

If the Church is what it claims to be, and if it is in fantastic financial shape, I would still happily contribute to it.  Again, covenants and all that.

On 9/18/2023 at 11:07 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

This is manipulative behavior.

No, it's not.

On 9/18/2023 at 11:07 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

If they truly didn’t need the money

Who is this "they"?

And how do you account for D&C 119:4?

On 9/18/2023 at 11:07 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

then why not open the books and show everyone how rich the church is

You first.  

Why not publish all *your* financial information to strangers on the Internet?  As an example of "transparency" for the Church to follow?

On 9/18/2023 at 11:07 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

and that it literally never ever needs a red cent from anyone.

I don't know what you are saying here.

And how do you account for D&C 119:4?

On 9/18/2023 at 11:07 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

Once all members know that, then if they still pay tithing then and only then is it truly a free-will offering. 

I respectfully disagree.

Nobody is compelled or coerced to pay tithing.  It is "a free-will offering" now.

On 9/18/2023 at 11:07 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

by hiding these funds

Absent a duty to disclose, accusations like this carry no weight or legitimacy.

If and when you voluntarily publish your private finances to the world, I'll give your criticism a bit more credence (as it won't be hypocritical at that point).  Until then...

On 9/18/2023 at 11:07 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

and being deceptive the 1st presidency is effectively taking some agency from people in that they don’t have the information necessary to make a completely informed decision on whether or not they should contribute. 

The First Presidency is doing nothing of the sort.

On 9/18/2023 at 11:07 PM, Diamondhands69 said:

even worse. This just shows how little the 1st presidency thinks of the membership in general. We need to be manipulated into paying tithing to the church. 

I disagree with these accusations.  Strongly.  I find them devoid of supporting evidence.

I am surmising that A) you are a currently disaffected or former member of the Church, and B) you are really angry at the Church.  I'm sorry about that.  I encourage you to read this 1987 article by then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks regarding how to address criticism and disagreement in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 20, 2023 by smac97