New Allegations Re: Church's Stock Portfolio

[smac97]

I have previously commented on the Church's accountability for its legal errors:

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.

With that in mind, I just saw this in the Tribune: New allegations surface of federal violations in LDS Church’s stock portfolio

Quote

Independent watchdog group says Ensign Peak Advisors failed to report large stakes in publicly traded stocks at least seven times.

All right, let's see it.

Quote

Investment managers for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints face fresh allegations they dodged federal reporting laws in connection with the Utah-based faith’s mammoth stock portfolio.

The new assertions involve Ensign Peak Advisors, the church’s investment arm, and a period between 2002 and 2019, when federal regulators have previously said the two sought to obscure the breadth and depth of the faith’s portfolio by spreading it among more than a dozen separately reporting shell companies.

That behavior — which regulators say effectively let Ensign Peak avoid attention by evading a $100 million reporting threshold on its holdings — led to a $5 million settlement last year with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Ensign Peak paid $4 million; the church $1 million.

Those same securities laws enforced by the SEC also require that institutional investors report — through filings under what is known as Schedule 13G — when they hold 5% or more of outstanding shares of a publicly traded company’s stock.

Analysts with The Widow’s Mite Report website say they’ve found at least seven instances in which the combined shares held by Ensign Peak in a handful of public stocks through those shell LLCs exceeded that 5% threshold — without the firm filing 13G forms.

The investment firm’s stock trading patterns at the time, according to the site, also reveal that Ensign Peak may have been aware its ownership had climbed above the 5% reporting trigger. It appears, Widow’s Mite added, that this failure to report to regulators “was not accidental.”

I will be interested to see how the Church and EPA respond to this.

Quote

The site’s authors called Ensign Peak’s alleged violations of 13G rules “another indicator of decades of poor internal controls and a top-down policy of ‘selective compliance’ among church investment entities.”

These potential violations, it added, “exposed [Ensign Peak] to legal risk.”

When asked about the latest allegations, a church spokesperson did not provide a response, while an inquiry directed to Ensign Peak Advisors went unanswered.

In the previous SEC case, the worldwide faith of 17.2 million members stated that it relied on “legal counsel,” regretted its “mistakes” and considered the matter “closed.”

How the federal agency may be reacting to the new accusations, if at all, and whether it is again investigating remain an open question.

“The SEC,” a spokesperson told The Salt Lake Tribune, “does not comment on the existence or nonexistence of a possible investigation.”

I think we'll see various folks with experience in this area of the law weighing in over the next few days to provide more context and explanation.

Quote

The Widow’s Mite Report, launched in 2021, is produced by a cadre of unnamed current and former church members with professional backgrounds in business, finance, law, real estate, education, data science and related fields. The experts regularly publish studies on the church’s finances, landholdings, charity work, temple construction and other aspects of the faith’s estimated $265 billion in wealth, based on public documents and market data.

Its latest findings, detailed recently online, emerge more than a year after the SEC announced the $5 million settlement, stating that top church officials had authorized the creation of 13 shell companies, partly to evade public reporting laws and obscure the size of the faith’s investment portfolio.
...
According to Widow’s Mite, in late 2002, when Ensign Peak first began reporting to the SEC using the series of shell companies, one of its shells — Whitney Asset Management — held a combined stake in a Massachusetts energy firm called TC Pipelines, now owned by TC Energy, of 6.5% of all its outstanding shares.

Analysis indicates Ensign Peak officials appeared to have noticed Whitney had exceeded the 5% trigger and gradually winnowed its stake in TC Pipelines over the next six months, bringing it by the end of September 2003 to 4.999%, where it remained for at least another two quarters.

Yet none of those events, Widow’s Mite noted, prompted Ensign Peak or Whitney to file a 13G report.

Ensign Peak violated a similar reporting requirement in February 2003, the site said, after Whitney’s stake in an Atlanta-based real estate investment trust, JDN Realty, had climbed to 6.1% of that firm’s shares the previous quarter.

Even though JDN was acquired by another company less than a month before Ensign Peak’s 13G filing deadline, Widow’s Mite stated, it was still obligated to report Whitney’s stake had risen above 5%.

The website said it detected similar violations in connection with a stock buyback in 2008 and 2009 by Utah Medical Products, a Midvale medical equipment supplier, while Ensign Peak held shares in the firm through another of its shell companies, Argyll Research.

Utah Medical Products’ stock purchases had the effect of pushing Ensign Peak’s stake in the company’s outstanding shares to 5.01% by late 2009, the site said, which Ensign Peak then trimmed the following quarter to 4.99%.

“It did so,” Widow’s Mite stated, “without filing the required 13G.”

However, the website added, the triggering of the 5% rule was probably accidental in this case, given it stemmed from Utah Medical Products’ buyback and not added stock purchases by Ensign Peak.

The site pointed to another stock, Rio Vista Energy, for which Ensign Peak did file Schedule 13Gs under its own name in 2009. The Rio Vista filings, it said, “demonstrate that Ensign Peak knew how to comply with SEC disclosure obligations.”

Hmm.  I wonder if there is any sort of de minimis or "materiality" provision relating to compliance with Rule 13G.

Quote

In 2014, Widow’s Mite said, Ensign Peak used three of its shell companies — Tiverton, Green Valley and Riverhead — to acquire a 6.7% total stake in Dorman Products, a Pennsylvania manufacturer of automotive products. It then sold those shares before the year ended, clearing it of 13G filing obligations, but Ensign Peak still deprived other investors of “key large-trader information.”

Widow’s Mite called the practice a form of “parking” — investor parlance for “an illegal method of hiding the true ownership of large and rapidly accumulated stakes from the market and regulators.”

Here is a fairly detailed explanation of "parking."  I will be curious to see if this accusation is apt.

Quote

Since the SEC’s settlement with Ensign Peak and the church last year, Widow’s Mite researchers have highlighted a host of additional alleged violations of securities laws that weren’t mentioned in that highly publicized document nor an accompanying news release.

These include reportedly inaccurate claims to the IRS on its portfolio size, and alleged reporting lapses by the church’s primary pension fund, Deseret Mutual Benefit Administrators, and a church-owned insurance company, Beneficial Life.

The site questions whether the SEC inquired after 13G violations at the time and if Ensign Peak reported them to federal investigators. It also speculates on whether top church leaders were informed of Ensign Peak’s reporting obligations and its “failures to comply.”

“Was there a shared concern that 13G filings would draw unwanted attention to the shell LLCs, potentially leading to an investigation of related entities, including Ensign Peak?” Widow’s Mite asked. It also noted that “competent legal counsel would never advise against complying with 13G filing obligations.”

I wonder if the Church needs improved management at EPA and better legal counsel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 2, 2024 by smac97

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have previously commented on the Church's accountability for its legal errors:

With that in mind, I just saw this in the Tribune: New allegations surface of federal violations in LDS Church’s stock portfolio

All right, let's see it.

I will be interested to see how the Church and EPA respond to this.

I think we'll see various folks with experience in this area of the law weighing in over the next few days to provide more context and explanation.

Hmm.  I wonder if there is any sort of de minimis or "materiality" provision relating to compliance with Rule 13G.

Here is a fairly detailed explanation of "parking."  I will be curious to see if this accusation is apt.

I wonder if the Church needs improved management at EPA and better legal counsel.

Thanks,

-Smac

With the money they have, it's shocking the church's attorneys or finance managers could have slipped so much.

Edited May 2, 2024 by Tacenda

[ZealouslyStriving]

Finally found it!

"... it is not said at any time that the Lord should not take when he please, and pay as seemeth him good.

29 Wherefore, as ye are agents, ye are on the Lord’s errand; and whatever ye do according to the will of the Lord is the Lord’s business.

30 And he hath set you to provide for his saints in these last days, that they may obtain an inheritance in the land of Zion." (Doctrine and Covenants 64:28-30)

** So, quite honestly it's no one's business what the Lord's agents do with the Lord's money, esp. those who have rejected the Eternal Gospel.**

[LoudmouthMormon]

I am in favor of the church following all applicable laws, and being held accountable if there are shortcomings.

I am also fairly dismissive and almost totally unimpressed by the armchair quarterbacking about what the church should or shouldn't do with it's current or future levels of wealth.  Happy to have such voices feeling free to express themselves in places like this forum, but holy crap am I unpersuaded by the arguments I tend to see from such opiners.  My response to these voices remains the same - go start your own church, we're Mormoning over here.  I am not silencing or disinviting or oppressing or repressing anyone, I'm glad y'all are here opining away about things y'all feel are important.  But I do want to continually express just how little the armchair quarterbacking means to me personally.  Other folks' mileage may vary.

But yeah, if we've run afoul or this or that reporting rule or tax law, we need to clean up our act and live in compliance with the law.  Even if I'm not impressed by various tax laws, the law is the law.  Render unto Caesar and all that.

Edited May 2, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Smiley McGee]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if there is any sort of de minimis or "materiality" provision relating to compliance with Rule 13G.

There is: it's 5% of a company's covered securities. It's about as bright of a bright line that you can get from the SEC. Materiality is relative to the investee since they use beneficial ownership filings to calculate figures disclosed in 10K and proxy filings. If you want to keep your portfolio a secret, don't purchase large amounts of publicly traded securities.  

Edited May 2, 2024 by Smiley McGee

[Calm]

On 5/2/2024 at 10:15 AM, Tacenda said:

With the money they have, it's shocking the church's attorneys or finance managers could have slipped so much.

Mostly speculation alert….

The Church has had the habit in the past of hiring tech people who are just out of college from what I heard (that with its high turnover was the explanation for the rotten search function and other website issues) and then there is the fact that they don’t pay as well as comparable companies/universities from what I hear. I may be wrong or out of date on this as it’s been awhile since my husband was interested in working at BYU and tracking their salaries.  The salary offered back then was not a bad salary, just not one that would usually be used to attract the best and the brightest.  

Maybe they are shelling out high end salaries to ensure the best employees rather than trusting the desire to work for the Church or to contribute to the building of the Kingdom it is in some people’s minds (the for profit stuff I don’t see in the category as it would need to be a very different type of stewardship if it was) to be part of the ‘benefit package’ to bring in top notch employees.  It is possible, however, that they are not getting consistently the best advisors because of a practice of lowballing salaries though it would surprise me if they did at least when it came to finances.  That is something they seem to be very careful with, if conservative.

I can see them relying on the same employees at upper levels though rather than bringing in new blood to ensure any new and better practices are incorporated whenever possible.   This is just projection from what happens on the Church side of things as well as comments from acquaintances who were long time employees of one of the Church’s businesses (mostly Deseretbook).

Edited May 4, 2024 by Calm

[LoudmouthMormon]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

I may be wrong or out of date on this as it’s been awhile since my husband was interested in working at BYU and tracking their salaries.  The salary offered back then was not a bad salary, just not one that would usually be used to attract the best and the brightest.  

It's been 2 decades since I heard this, but someone once told me that church HQ specifically offered salaries in the bottom quarter of the generally acceptable salary ranges. A general notion I've heard expressed was "nobody gets a church job to get rich, they all do it to forward the work of the kingdom."  I've also gathered a lot of personal anecdotes about how this or that church employee would confuse their priesthood office for management authority.  I haven't heard anything in 15 years, but these stories used to reach me several times a year.  

Does anyone have any current contacts or info about jobs and careers at church HQ?  I'd be interested to hear if the environment has changed since I was hearing about in the 2000's.

Edited May 3, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

It's been 2 decades since I heard this, but someone once told me that church HQ specifically offered salaries in the bottom quarter of the generally acceptable salary ranges. A general notion I've heard expressed was "nobody gets a church job to get rich, they all do it to forward the work of the kingdom."  I've also gathered a lot of personal anecdotes about how this or that church employee would confuse their priesthood office for management authority.  I haven't heard anything in 15 years, but these stories used to reach me several times a year.  

Does anyone have any current contacts or info about jobs and careers at church HQ?  I'd be interested to hear if the environment has changed since I was hearing about in the 2000's.

My daughter makes good money at her job in the real estate arm of the church. 

[ksfisher]

29 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

It's been 2 decades since I heard this, but someone once told me that church HQ specifically offered salaries in the bottom quarter of the generally acceptable salary ranges.

My wife works for the church.  I have in the past, albeit part time.  The church tries to be middle of the road pay-wise.  If you get too low you have a hard time retaining employees and attracting new ones.  Keeping an existing employee is better than continually retraining.  Health insurance and time off benefits are good.

29 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Does anyone have any current contacts or info about jobs and careers at church HQ?  I'd be interested to hear if the environment has changed since I was hearing about in the 2000's.

Every business has their share of people who are a joy to work with, as well as those who are a challenge.  I don't think the church is any different.

The only anecdotal thing I'll pass on is that I've been told that the Quorum of the Twelve as well as other general officers are fantastic people to work with.  My wife has had nothing but positive experiences with people at that level.

Edited May 3, 2024 by ksfisher

[rpn]

My take is that if it took Widow's Mite such a longtime to figure this out,  then it could represent "thought we got all of it": we stopped looking a while ago.   Are we now completely square or is someone holding back some more concerns that they'll publicize down the road?

[The Nehor]

On 5/2/2024 at 6:22 PM, Calm said:

Mostly speculation alert….

The Church has had the habit in the past of hiring tech people who are just out of college from what I heard (that with its high turnover was the explanation for the rotten search function and other website issues) and then there is the fact that they don’t pay as well as comparable companies/universities from what I hear. I may be wrong or out of date on this as it’s been awhile since my husband was interested in working at BYU and tracking their salaries.  The salary offered back then was not a bad salary, just not one that would usually be used to attract the best and the brightest.  

Maybe they are shelling out high end salaries to ensure the best employees rather than trusting the desire to work for the Church or to contribute to the building of the Kingdom it is in some people’s minds (the for profit stuff I don’t see in the category as it would need to be a very different type of stewardship if it was) to be part of the ‘benefit package’ to bring in top notch employees.  It is possible, however, that they are not getting consistently the best advisors because of a practice of lowballing salaries though it would surprise me if they did. 

I can see them relying on the same employees at upper levels though rather than bringing in new blood to ensure any new and better practices are incorporated whenever possible.   This is just projection from what happens on the Church side of things as well as comments from acquaintances who were long time employees of one of the Church’s businesses (mostly Deseretbook).

I inquired with the church about a contract they were trying to fill to create something in my wheelhouse. I sold them on my qualifications and they offered a pittance for the job. Seriously, it was barely above minimum wage in terms of payout to hours it would take. I almost sarcastically asked if I could write off the actual real value of my work against my tithing. No idea if that is a pattern or not.

[bluebell]

On 5/2/2024 at 5:22 PM, Calm said:

Mostly speculation alert….

The Church has had the habit in the past of hiring tech people who are just out of college from what I heard (that with its high turnover was the explanation for the rotten search function and other website issues) and then there is the fact that they don’t pay as well as comparable companies/universities from what I hear. I may be wrong or out of date on this as it’s been awhile since my husband was interested in working at BYU and tracking their salaries.  The salary offered back then was not a bad salary, just not one that would usually be used to attract the best and the brightest.  

Maybe they are shelling out high end salaries to ensure the best employees rather than trusting the desire to work for the Church or to contribute to the building of the Kingdom it is in some people’s minds (the for profit stuff I don’t see in the category as it would need to be a very different type of stewardship if it was) to be part of the ‘benefit package’ to bring in top notch employees.  It is possible, however, that they are not getting consistently the best advisors because of a practice of lowballing salaries though it would surprise me if they did. 

I can see them relying on the same employees at upper levels though rather than bringing in new blood to ensure any new and better practices are incorporated whenever possible.   This is just projection from what happens on the Church side of things as well as comments from acquaintances who were long time employees of one of the Church’s businesses (mostly Deseretbook).

My friend's husband was headhunted by the church and what they were wanting to pay him was abysmal.  He's a high level senior vice president in a large facilities management company and they wanted him to use all of those skills to help manage something for them (I don't remember exactly what it was). He politely declined because it would have been such a huge pay decrease (more than 50% less than he was currently making) and no chance for advancement.  They told him outright that they were hoping his testimony and desire to support the church would be enough to get him to consider the offer.

This was probably a year ago.  2 at the most.

Edited May 4, 2024 by bluebell

[bluebell]

On 5/3/2024 at 10:33 AM, ksfisher said:

My wife works for the church.  I have in the past, albeit part time.  The church tries to be middle of the road pay-wise.  If you get too low you have a hard time retaining employees and attracting new ones.  Keeping an existing employee is better than continually retraining.  Health insurance and time off benefits are good.

Every business has their share of people who are a joy to work with, as well as those who are a challenge.  I don't think the church is any different.

The only anecdotal thing I'll pass on is that I've been told that the Quorum of the Twelve as well as other general officers are fantastic people to work with.  My wife has had nothing but positive experiences with people at that level.

I was good friends with a woman who was a secretary in the building and sometimes interacted with apostles.  She had only glowing things to say about them, including how they remembered her name and went out of their way to ask about her well being and even once counsel with her privately.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My friend's husband was headhunted by the church and what they were wanting to pay him was abysmal.  He's a high level senior vice president in a large facilities management company and they wanted him to use all of those skills to help manage something for them (I don't remember exactly what it was). He politely declined because it would have been such a huge pay decrease (more than 50% less than he was currently making) and no chance for advancement.  They told him outright that they were hoping his testimony and desire to support the church would be enough to get him to consider the offer.

This was probably a year ago.  2 at the most.

My dad was asked to volunteer as a mission to run the physical facilities plant (I am not sure that is what it was, but close if not) for BYU…what amounted to a full time job (he used to run the United Air Lines San Francisco plant where they repaired and serviced the planes).  He had retired early because he was tired of having to live by someone else’s rules, so he refused.  As far as I know there was no pressure outside of serving the Lord through a mission kind of thing.  That would have been 15 years ago.

The Church has done really well at keeping expenses down.  I suppose one could say why change something that has worked well enough for them in the past.  Maybe there will be enough who feel the personal sacrifice is not too much to ask even when they know the Church has enough and more to cover their yearly expenses.

[let’s roll]

The Church invites retired attorneys to use their skills as missionaries outside of North America.  The opportunity cost of doing so can approach, or for some, exceed, a million dollars.  As I pondered the decision, I was moved by the opportunity to consecrate that part of my skill set.  For me, the benefits of the experience far outweighed the costs.

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

The Church invites retired attorneys to use their skills as missionaries outside of North America.  The opportunity cost of doing so can approach, or for some, exceed, a million dollars.  As I pondered the decision, I was moved by the opportunity to consecrate that part of my skill set.  For me, the benefits of the experience far outweighed the costs.

I think being retired and being asked to do something like that is different than being asked to sacrifice in that way when one is at the beginning or middle of their careers, with families to support.

But I also am sure that there would be blessings for anyone who felt called to sacrifice like that.  I just doubt the benefits of sacrificing for sacrifice’s sake in general.

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think being retired and being asked to do something like that is different than being asked to sacrifice in that way when one is at the beginning or middle of their careers, with families to support.

But I also am sure that there would be blessings for anyone who felt called to sacrifice like that.  I just doubt the benefits of sacrificing for sacrifice’s sake in general.

Understood.  Each situation presents its own calculus.  Some positions in the Church may have benefits that counterbalance any financial trade off one makes by taking the position.  Others, perhaps, not so much.
 

My son is a therapist.  He had a thriving private practice, a small part of which was counseling members referred by Church leaders as a contractor for Family Services.  Because he could use a much wider spectrum of tools during that counseling, including gospel principles, he found that small part of his practice much more fulfilling than his other counseling and made the decision, in mid career, to work full time for Family Services.  He is happy with his choice in spite of the financial sacrifices.  

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, let’s roll said:

The Church invites retired attorneys to use their skills as missionaries outside of North America.  The opportunity cost of doing so can approach, or for some, exceed, a million dollars.  As I pondered the decision, I was moved by the opportunity to consecrate that part of my skill set.  For me, the benefits of the experience far outweighed the costs.

This is kind of bothersome to me, and with Calm's dad being asked to do that after he was retired like these attorneys. The church should just hire attorneys and other qualified people to do it and give people jobs. 

[let’s roll]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This is kind of bothersome to me, and with Calm's dad being asked to do that after he was retired like these attorneys. The church should just hire attorneys and other qualified people to do it and give people jobs. 

To be clear these missionaries don’t practice law. The Church utilizes licensed and qualified outside counsel in all these countries.  In addition each Area outside North America has an Area Legal Counsel who is a paid Church employee.  Legal missionaries (AALCs) assist both outside counsel and the ALC, with a focus on helping outside counsel understand issues unique to the Church and helping Church leaders understand the advice provide by in country outside counsel.

Additionally, the only outreach done by the Church is listing AALC opportunities on the website for Senior Missionary service opportunities, there are no personal invitations or recruiting that I am aware of.  Interested members list the opportunity when submitting their mission application.

[ttribe]

[quote]The site’s authors called Ensign Peak’s alleged violations of 13G rules “another indicator of decades of poor internal controls and a top-down policy of ‘selective compliance’ among church investment entities.”These potential violations, it added, “exposed [Ensign Peak] to legal risk.”[/quote]

My initial reaction to this news was similar to this quote. There are some internal controls problems at EP which need to be addressed.

[smac97]

20 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This is kind of bothersome to me, and with Calm's dad being asked to do that after he was retired like these attorneys. The church should just hire attorneys and other qualified people to do it and give people jobs. 

When I retire, I would be happy to consecrate my legal skills to help advance the Church in its efforts.  Years ago I had a bishop who, upon retirement, was called to serve in Nauvoo, where his responsibilities included caring for horses used to draw carriages and wagons.  He had spent his life working with horses, so he was thrilled with this assignment.  I had a great-uncle, a retired physician, who served with his wife as missionaries working with healthcare.  My mother-in-law obtained her degree in nursing, and later served a mission with my FIL as a "mission nurse" in Texas.  My parents spent their second (and final) mission together working in public relations in Zimbabwe.  My dad had previously done substantial public relations work, and so was happy to use these skillsets to help the Church.

I could give several more examples.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

When I retire, I would be happy to consecrate my legal skills to help advance the Church in its efforts.  Years ago I had a bishop who, upon retirement, was called to serve in Nauvoo, where his responsibilities included caring for horses used to draw carriages and wagons.  He had spent his life working with horses, so he was thrilled with this assignment.  I had a great-uncle, a retired physician, who served with his wife as missionaries working with healthcare.  My mother-in-law obtained her degree in nursing, and later served a mission with my FIL as a "mission nurse" in Texas.  My parents spent their second (and final) mission together working in public relations in Zimbabwe.  My dad had previously done substantial public relations work, and so was happy to use these skillsets to help the Church.

I could give several more examples.  

Thanks,

-Smac

My only problem with using willing volunteers is the short term nature of much of their service.  There are some jobs that are better served by having someone with longterm experience in it, especially if they are over a lot of short term employees.

[LoudmouthMormon]

As I start to think about eventual retirement, I keep hearing how common it is to get a shock from moving from employment to unemployment.  My wife and I make a good team, but both of us hear repeated stories about how couples struggle with a bored spouse suddenly in close proximity for an extra 10 hours a day, and we can absolutely see it needing to be dealt with for me.  (The operative phrase I keep encountering is "I promised to be with you forever, but not all the time."  )  

Volunteering my skills and experience (such as they are) 2-4 days a week, even long-term, is a highly attractive option.  If the church doesn't want me, I might end up doing something with United Way, or some other large charity that could put an old guy who knows a lot to good use.

Judging by the endless articles on the subject in endless retirement magazines and blogs and whatnot, I'm thinking tens, if not hundreds of thousands of folks are like me.

Edited May 6, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Judging by the endless articles on the subject in endless retirement magazines and blogs and whatnot, I'm thinking tens, if not hundreds of thousands of folks are like me.

One of the reasons suggested that LDS are longer lived is the fact we have meaningful work for our seniors to do.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

As I start to think about eventual retirement, I keep hearing how common it is to get a shock from moving from employment to unemployment.  My wife and I make a good team, but both of us hear repeated stories about how couples struggle with a bored spouse suddenly in close proximity for an extra 10 hours a day, and we can absolutely see it needing to be dealt with for me.  (The operative phrase I keep encountering is "I promised to be with you forever, but not all the time."  )  

Volunteering my skills and experience (such as they are) 2-4 days a week, even long-term, is a highly attractive option.  If the church doesn't want me, I might end up doing something with United Way, or some other large charity that could put an old guy who knows a lot to good use.

Judging by the endless articles on the subject in endless retirement magazines and blogs and whatnot, I'm thinking tens, if not hundreds of thousands of folks are like me.

I know for a fact of what you speak is true, with couples that suddenly have their spouse who becomes retired or my friends' retired at the same time, and then spend nearly 24/7 of their time together and it's not easy to deal with at all. I don't have a problem with retired people going on missions. My friends do and currently one friend and her husband have started doing a service mission while still living at home.

I guess it just bothers me that the church that may have once hired paid lawyers etc. now make it a mission instead, if so. If that's the case, thought I saw missions for this and other job skills. Here's a link: https://seniormissionary.churchofjesuschrist.org/srsite/catalog-sub-item/13/133?lang=eng

And a link to show the monthly fees that they would pay to donate their expertise: https://seniormissionary.churchofjesuschrist.org/srsite/ft/search?lang=eng

But I have no room to talk. Especially if someone that was a lawyer would love to be of service in the church they love and want to support, becomes available with their expertise. 

My friend's parents did similar to your bishop and served in Nauvoo. The husband worked on things needing fixing. He's a retired rock installer for homes or landscaping. 

But now, I'm starting to feel a bit embarrassed and feel like I'm butting in where I don't belong.

 

Edited May 6, 2024 by Tacenda