NOM

The Utah Attorney General has gone after the SEC after they charged the LDS Church. As AG Reyes put it, "We can bite back in the name of Jesus Christ, amen".

https://gephardtdaily.com/local/utah-d- ... rDyTWKuJzA

Red Ryder wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 27, 2023 7:13 pm

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:44 pm

I saw this on another forum. Thought it was brilliant: So if a person creates 13 aliases under which they commit all their sinning, can they still get a Temple recommend in their actual name?

Why not just lie? It’s the same thing.

Case Closed! (With either proposed temple recommend acquisition method.)

moksha wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 28, 2023 3:19 am

The Utah Attorney General has gone after the SEC after they charged the LDS Church. As AG Reyes put it, "We can bite back in the name of Jesus Christ, amen".

https://gephardtdaily.com/local/utah-d- ... rDyTWKuJzA

I don't have an opinion on the new rule. I don't know what it says. However, this strikes me as odd. The UT AG said:

Fund advisers are legally bound first and foremost by their duty to the investors. The voting pressures that will result from the new rule will lead to decisions that undermine the primary responsibility of maximizing investors’ return on their investments.

There are SEC rules to protect investors, but there are also SEC rules that protect the public interest. It seems to me that this argument is pretty weak. If needed, the SEC should have rules that may not result in maximizing investor returns but do maximize the public good.

Also, does this have anything to do with the SEC ruling against the church? It seems like they are just following up on concerns expressed before, though those concerns may be misplaced. Other states are joining the lawsuit. I'm not sure that I see the connection made in the article.

As a result of recent events, and the fulfillment of the prophesy that members will pay less tithing if they know how rich and greedy the church is, what should we expect to hear in upcoming conferences? Will they try to defend themselves to members with hints about God's ways not being Man's ways? Will they hit harder on the need to pay tithing in an attempt to stem the flow? Will they back off and completely avoid the topic?

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 01, 2023 12:05 pm

As a result of recent events, and the fulfillment of the prophesy that members will pay less tithing if they know how rich and greedy the church is, what should we expect to hear in upcoming conferences? Will they try to defend themselves to members with hints about God's ways not being Man's ways? Will they hit harder on the need to pay tithing in an attempt to stem the flow? Will they back off and completely avoid the topic?

I expect any talk of tithing to highlight how it's a blessing for the members to be able to pay, and that they will ignore the issue rather than defend anything.

At this point it would be unthinkable to claim that they need the money for anything. And even hell and damnation pressure would be a really bad look.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 01, 2023 12:05 pm

...
Will they hit harder on the need to pay tithing in an attempt to stem the flow? Will they back off and completely avoid the topic?

Sentence 1: Yes. Always focus on paying more to the corporation.

Sentence 2: Avoid which topic? They'd never avoid encouraging the payment of Polygamy Palace Dues, but the topic of billions of dollars of investments & SEC fines? Yes, they will completely avoid that topic.

They’ll revert back to the two great GC talk themes:

1. Obedience
2. Pornography

Turn up the guilt, dial in the shame, don’t call the church by its former name! Look at some naked bodies, and you’re to blame! Follow the prophet… he knows the way (to hide extraordinary investment gains!)

Here is the SEC press release about the case.

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-35

Near the bottom of the story is a link to the SEC Order. Here you can see the actual order, which is what was agreed upon by both parties.

No where does the church or Ensign Peak say a reason for hiding this money was a fear that people would stop paying tithing. That is an assumption that others have made. This is what they actually said:

"To prevent disclosure of the securities portfolio managed by Ensign Peak, the
Church approved Ensign Peak’s plan of using other entities, instead of Ensign Peak, to file Forms
13F. The Church was concerned that disclosure of the assets in the name of Ensign Peak, a known
Church affiliate, would lead to negative consequences in light of the size of the Church’s portfolio.
Ensign Peak did not have the authority to implement this approach without the approval of the
Church’s First Presidency."

Negative consequences in light of the size of the church's portfolio could very well mean that they thought folks might stop paying tithing, but it could also mean they feared scrutiny over what they invested in, or that they might influence Church members to invest as they were investing. What we know for SURE is that the first presidency and presiding bishopric approved of this deception over multiple years. They might claim they didn't know it was illegal, but it is very clear that nothing occurred without their ok. It's also very clear that even IF they didn't know it was illegal, it was still very deceptive. This is the antithesis of being honest in your dealings with your fellow men.

Cnsl1 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 02, 2023 1:15 am

Negative consequences in light of the size of the church's portfolio could very well mean that they thought folks might stop paying tithing, but it could also mean they feared scrutiny over what they invested in, or that they might influence Church members to invest as they were investing. What we know for SURE is that the first presidency and presiding bishopric approved of this deception over multiple years. They might claim they didn't know it was illegal, but it is very clear that nothing occurred without their ok. It's also very clear that even IF they didn't know it was illegal, it was still very deceptive. This is the antithesis of being honest in your dealings with your fellow men.

I agree. The two most important things to remember while discussing this are deception and concealment.

This clearly doesn’t reconcile with their own handbook of instructions. Everyone should see the hypocrisy in this yet the members are quick to defend. Everyone who has ever given money to the church should be furious with the lack of financial transparency and institutional dishonesty.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 02, 2023 9:04 am

Cnsl1 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 02, 2023 1:15 am

Negative consequences in light of the size of the church's portfolio could very well mean that they thought folks might stop paying tithing, but it could also mean they feared scrutiny over what they invested in, or that they might influence Church members to invest as they were investing. What we know for SURE is that the first presidency and presiding bishopric approved of this deception over multiple years. They might claim they didn't know it was illegal, but it is very clear that nothing occurred without their ok. It's also very clear that even IF they didn't know it was illegal, it was still very deceptive. This is the antithesis of being honest in your dealings with your fellow men.

I agree. The two most important things to remember while discussing this are deception and concealment.

This clearly doesn’t reconcile with their own handbook of instructions. Everyone should see the hypocrisy in this yet the members are quick to defend. Everyone who has ever given money to the church should be furious with the lack of financial transparency and institutional dishonesty.

So the whistleblower was in compliance with the Handbook. For the First Presidency to remain in compliance with the Handbook, they must face a disciplinary council, be given appropriate punishment (excommunication of disfellowship), confess their sins, and make restitution for them. That would mean actually using all of that money for charitable purposes. Once they have done that, there could be an evaluation to determine if they are worthy to return to full fellowship in the church.

Mormonism Live has a great podcast that will explain everything in sufficient depth. The Church was used to getting away with deceitfulness and it failed in this instance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81zb4ZQx6gM

Cnsl1 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 02, 2023 1:15 am

...
No where does the church or Ensign Peak say a reason for hiding this money was a fear that people would stop paying tithing. That is an assumption that others have made. ...

Meanwhile, somewhere else on the internet:

I stand corrected.

Roger Clarke from EPA said exactly that, Just no one from the 1st presidency said it, and they were careful to NOT say that, and then disingenuous in their press release to Deseret News about the event.

I wonder if Clarke will get thrown under the bus. Probably not.

As momentous and blatant as this SEC violation was, I don't think it's going to grow very big legs. I'm not hearing members even mention it.

So what happens at conference time? Do you think the audit report will read the same as always? I guess funds were used and accounted for according to church policy. The policy was just illegal. Some have suggested that they skip the audit report altogether. Maybe they'll move it to the newsroom like the membership statistics.

I would not be surprised to see some grand announcement at or close to conference to call attention away from the SEC. My money is a big expenditure, more than $10 million but less than $100 million, around rescuing the Great Salt Lake. It will only be symbolic, but it will likely be enough to keep the faithful from paying attention to the opposed votes. Obviously, I mean "big" compared to what an individual could do. They won't want to make a big impact to their funds. The GSL may be too much of a local issue to get a mention in conference, but I could imagine it getting a note in the news between sessions.

Cnsl1 wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 04, 2023 7:08 am

I stand corrected.
...

Cnsl1: I hope I didn't "offend" you with my post. I wasn't necessarily trying to call you out. I have seen several posts elsewhere asking "who" stated that the fraud was committed to hide tithing funds from members.

I literally randomly found that screenshot over on that other website that might focus on "exMORmON" type stuff.


If true, I wonder how long "Brother" Clarke will remain "head of Ensign Peak Advisors" ?

blazerb wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 04, 2023 8:37 am

So what happens at conference time? Do you think the audit report will read the same as always? I guess funds were used and accounted for according to church policy. The policy was just illegal. Some have suggested that they skip the audit report altogether. Maybe they'll move it to the newsroom like the membership statistics.

I would not be surprised to see some grand announcement at or close to conference to call attention away from the SEC. My money is a big expenditure, more than $10 million but less than $100 million, around rescuing the Great Salt Lake. It will only be symbolic, but it will likely be enough to keep the faithful from paying attention to the opposed votes. Obviously, I mean "big" compared to what an individual could do. They won't want to make a big impact to their funds. The GSL may be too much of a local issue to get a mention in conference, but I could imagine it getting a note in the news between sessions.

My money is on a big announcement to distract from the bad news also. They have done it before, some scandal or other and they make an announcement for people to talk about instead. Humanitarian aid to Ukraine would be a good one. I agree that trying to fix GSL is too local and besides, they probably expect the drought to work itself out because they don’t really comprehend global warming. Or some change in policy or temple…oh, they just did that didn’t they. New temple are not exciting enough, too many of them already announced. I can’t think of an exciting change to the missionary program, making it mandatory for girls too? Raising the age back up to almost adult instead of stupid kid? Hmmmm, most exciting I can think of is a big chunk of money to aid humanitarian efforts for Ukraine, most likely settling refugees because it is too soon for rebuilding in country.

alas wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 04, 2023 2:46 pm

My money is on a big announcement to distract from the bad news also. They have done it before, some scandal or other and they make an announcement for people to talk about instead. Humanitarian aid to Ukraine would be a good one. I agree that trying to fix GSL is too local and besides, they probably expect the drought to work itself out because they don’t really comprehend global warming. Or some change in policy or temple…oh, they just did that didn’t they. New temple are not exciting enough, too many of them already announced. I can’t think of an exciting change to the missionary program, making it mandatory for girls too? Raising the age back up to almost adult instead of stupid kid? Hmmmm, most exciting I can think of is a big chunk of money to aid humanitarian efforts for Ukraine, most likely settling refugees because it is too soon for rebuilding in country.

I think helping Ukraine would be great. Do you think that RMN might be afraid of pissing off the Russians, though? The church is already on shaky ground in Russia. I wonder if the church might get completely kicked out. This is the sort of thinking that keeps church work very small.

Are the poor suckers who where duped into being figureheads for the shell corporations in potential danger of legal consequences? I guess that falls under covenanting to giving everything to the church.

blazerb wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 04, 2023 7:35 pm

alas wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 04, 2023 2:46 pm

My money is on a big announcement to distract from the bad news also. They have done it before, some scandal or other and they make an announcement for people to talk about instead. Humanitarian aid to Ukraine would be a good one. I agree that trying to fix GSL is too local and besides, they probably expect the drought to work itself out because they don’t really comprehend global warming. Or some change in policy or temple…oh, they just did that didn’t they. New temple are not exciting enough, too many of them already announced. I can’t think of an exciting change to the missionary program, making it mandatory for girls too? Raising the age back up to almost adult instead of stupid kid? Hmmmm, most exciting I can think of is a big chunk of money to aid humanitarian efforts for Ukraine, most likely settling refugees because it is too soon for rebuilding in country.

I think helping Ukraine would be great. Do you think that RMN might be afraid of pissing off the Russians, though? The church is already on shaky ground in Russia. I wonder if the church might get completely kicked out. This is the sort of thinking that keeps church work very small.

I had not considered that the church might be afraid to anger Russia because we have missionaries in Russia. I just thought of “what’s something that most American church members would find inspirational?” The church values PR above humanitarian aid, so of course the church won’t be openly helping Ukrainian refugees. PR for Russia’s elite (war criminals) is more important than the survival of poor children displaced by war. I wonder when the church will lose its ability to disgust me.

wtfluff wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 02, 2023 4:03 pm

Cnsl1 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 02, 2023 1:15 am

...
No where does the church or Ensign Peak say a reason for hiding this money was a fear that people would stop paying tithing. That is an assumption that others have made. ...

Meanwhile, somewhere else on the internet:
EPA.jpg

I think the leadership is giving general members way too much credit. True believers won’t think for themselves, they’ll keep giving money regardless of how much wealth the church has, because of their mindless obedience.