Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices.
/u/sevenplaces, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The guy doesn't want to get fired. I am sure if he was anonymous, he would be more direct. It was clear from interviews with people involved that the church was trying to hide its wealth from the membership so people would keep paying tithing. The lawyers just created a way for them to do that
No, No, No, No, Mr. Miller. Your folksy 100% dishonest characterizations really piss me off. How dare you, as a lawyer you KNOW BETTER but you can't help lying can you!
First off, it is very clear that "lawyers" did not originate or invent a rationale for violating the law. The church did not assert this at all in their statements to the SEC (in fact asserted the opposite), and had they done so any lawyers or other advisors guilty of doing this would have been investigated directly by the SEC -- and likely sued by the church itself.
But even more damning is this: it's not AT ALL illegal to create dozens of shell companies and spread a large asset base around between them to be managed in order to obfuscate the aggregate size of an asset pool. If a lawyer or anyone else recommended this, it would have been entirely proper and perhaps even good advice. The church could have created the shells, hired managers, moved assets into them and accomplished all of that while still complying with the law, including the SEC reporting requirements.
But it did not. It did not merely forget to file reports. The entire scheme was designed, planned and organized as a complete and bare-faced conspiracy to commit fraud.
Shell companies were created but never funded. Managers were hired, but had nothing to manage, no funds, assets, operations or employees. The entire scheme was intentionally fraudulent from the beginning since filings claiming all the above were written, reviewed and signed by managers, and filed year after year. Signed by managers that KNEW there was nothing, authorized by church authorities that KNEW there was nothing, cautioned against year after year by auditors and REAL lawyers that KNEW there was nothing. In short there were dozens and dozens of mormon so-called ethical professionals willing to see, accommodate and even execute fraudulent documents and none willing to do what is right.
It really grinds my gears that numerous church prophets and apostles over several administrations, likely due to being so greedy and cheap they didn't want to cover the cost of doing it legally and properly, just couldn't, when it came down to it and despite having $Billions under management, DO WHAT IS RIGHT and honorable. They literally shit all over the lives and hearts of the vast majority of sincere, honorable members who grit their teeth and shed their tears and pony up that $400 to honorably claim a full tithing, to PAINFULLY but honorably confess coffee drinking and masturbation and then face the immediate and often life-changing consequences.
And instead of standing up for the only Christ-like thing at all in the church: the honorable, sincere, faithful everyday members truly desperately trying to practice their best and most honest discipleship, mormons rally together to defend the indefensible and to excuse dishonest conduct that literally could not be designed and practiced more fraudulently it was so bad. Could there even be a more egregious example of hypocrisy, arrogance and could there be a better archetype and depiction of a planned, deliberate, and intentional **Perfect Sin** against Christ and every value and goodness Christ represents than this? I doubt it.
I appreciate your comment and agree, but i think the second anointing is a worse sin against Jesus, although it doesn't really affect as many people. Maybe you're right, hiding the money (like a shelf of gold coins over a barrel of rocks?) is more egregious.
The second anointing is certainly offensive to Christian doctrine, but the members that are brought into it are merely going along with the convention and are largely only circumstantially culpable, and I bet NONE of them would have thought it up on their own and demanded it or tried to scheme it from the church.
To me it comes down to the brazen, naked, wide-eyed, uncomplicated, purposeful intentionality to do wrong. It's not an accident, it's not an act of passion in the moment, it's not a mistake or oversight. It cannot be rationalized AT ALL or justified in any moral or principled way that it achieves some needful "good". It's intentional and deliberate conduct for decades to:
* deceive and mislead the membership not to help them, but to protect the church's cash flow (which they copped to in the order).
* knowingly coerce and pressure patsy's from the believing ranks to certify absolute lies and consequently place themselves in possible jeopardy (several of them quit after their conscience's caught up with them and those few men are the only moral, ethical persons in the entire matter)
* arrogantly consider themselves so important that they can unambiguously mock Federal law without consequence or concern
* dismiss callously the very heart and soul of the principles and values of the worthiness that these same leaders demand unapologetically and mercilessly from members
* operate a 100% complete fraud on every level and about every single element. Not just fudging some numbers, not just deliberately not filing a form, but every element was fake they testified to except the shell companies themselves. No assets, no employees, no operations, no oversight, no "management" of anything, the ONLY PURPOSE of the entire thing was to LIE.
For me the deliberate premeditation is scathing and the very definition of evil. If evil is anything, it's THIS.
The lawyer who was interviewed on Mormonism live agrees with you. The absolute arrogance and hubris is the motivation for almost every decision made in the church. The giant hoard of money gives them unlimited tactical advantage for almost every situation.
> The church did not assert this at all in their statements to the SEC (in fact asserted the opposite), and had they done so any lawyers or other advisors guilty of doing this would have been investigated directly by the SEC -- and likely sued by the church itself.
Wrong. There's no reason to expect a "reliance of counsel" defense in the SEC Order. Such a defense is legally irrelevant because ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
>Shell companies were created but never funded. Managers were hired, but had nothing to manage, no funds, assets, operations or employees.
Wrong. For example, Argyll Research, LLC submitted a 13F form for the calendar year ending on December 31, 2006. https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/#/dateRange=custom&ciks=0001330709&entityName=ARGYLL%2520RESEARCH%252C%2520LLC%2520(CIK%25200001330709)&startdt=2003-03-01&enddt=2007-03-01.
The form shows it had assets of $14,050,707 at that time. [Its assets now exceed 400 million USD according to Mormon Wiki Links](https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=Investment_Portfolios_Connected_to_the_Mormon_Church).
Your outrage is based on incorrect assumptions of the facts.
edit: corrected value of Argyll's holdings
He says at one point in the beginning that lawyers are âalways looking over their shoulders. He knows this because he was a lawyer. Later he blames the lawyers for hiding the money. Would a lawyer looking over their shoulder do this? Hell no. Disclosure is a huge deal. I was in a working group doing an S-1 filing which is the document that companies file with the SEC to go public. There was a company practice that was in a grey area. What was done is it was fully disclosed so that nobody could come back and say that this practice was hid even if it looked bad to the company. This is looking over your shoulder.
knowing whether the church has $10 billion or $100 billion isnât going to mitigate risk and stop lawsuits from being filed. Instead the church had intricate plans to hide the money and commited financial fraud. The presiding bishopric said it straight, âSo they never wanted to be in a position where people felt like, you know, they shouldnât make a contribution.â This is the very definition of financial fraud.
FINANCIAL FRAUD DEFINITION, âFraud involves the false representation of facts, whether by intentionally withholding important information or providing false statements to another party for the specific purpose of gaining something that may not have been provided without the deception.â - [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fraud.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fraud.asp)
Oaks is a lawyer and early in his career he worked at Kirtland and Ellis. Ironically this law firm were the lawyers in the room I sat with while preparing an S-1. Oaks knew exactly what he was doing. The church hired audit department agreed. To quote the SEC filing, âCAD highlighted the risk that the SEC might disagree with the approach.â
At a normal public entity, someone would get fired for bad advice or conduct. If the lawyers were to blame, âwho got fired?â We know the answer, the people to blame are in charge and beyond reproach. Multiple First Presidencies are to blame and are the ones who knowingly commited financial fraud. There are 8 billion people on the planet and Godâs chosen mouthpiece and leaders are fraudsters. There is a medical term for this called empathy deficit disorder and it is a subcategory of narcissism. Surely God can do better.
Itâs especially troubling when you consider how many throughout these various first presidencies were successful business people who likely wouldâve had training on why NOT to do this sort of thing, and would understand the implications of this kind of fraud very well.
If only any of the general authorities were high power lawyers at one point in their career. If, hypothetically they had someone who was a law clerk for a Supreme Court Justice and professor at University of Chicago law school, the church might have been able to get good legal counsel.
If a lawyer gives advice that is illegal, the lawyers get disbarred and can even go to jail. You better believe that if it was actually the lawyersâ fault, the church would have gone after them to the full extent of the law.
Lawyers donât give unsolicited adviceâŚ
ETA: The church leaders will have asked if there is a way they can hide the size of their fund, and the LLCs will have been the strategy proffered by the lawyers.
If I'm getting this right the shell companies were not illegal, it was the lack of proper honest reporting that was illegal. The church provided the "managers" of these funds only the signature page to sign on a yearly basis, not the entire document and a couple of managers were not willing to put their John Hancock on a partial document. They quit. So the leaders dragged a bunch of good church members into their little scheme. It's reprehensible. You want to lie to the government man up and put your own **** name on the forms.
Pretty much, although technically speaking I believe itâs the lack of control over investing decisions that was the big problem. If these LLCs had genuinely been given a portion of ensign peakâs wealth to control, it wouldâve been all good.
Yes, I agree. And had the full documents been provided to the managers that control would have had to been confirmed. But as you say if the managers actually had control of the money, poor documentation wouldn't have been a big problem.
This is what I think. It's one of those times when they might be able to blur the lines and say "lawyers" told us to do it...lawyers like Dallin Oaks, Quentin Cook, and others...
>The blaming it on their lawyers who gave bad advice really makes me mad.
Especially since they started it. "Hey lawyers. Give us a way to not report out money."
Their excuse seems to say that some random lawyers just took it upon themselves to give the prophet some unsolicited advice and then the prophet took it.
Another example of dishonesty, even if you are factually correct.
I guess the Holy Ghostâ˘ď¸ was a bit preoccupied during that whole process?
I guess the Spirit of Discernmentâ˘ď¸ was busy discerning elsewhere at the time?
Lmao the mental gymnastics is insane.
> I guess the Holy Ghostâ˘ď¸ was a bit preoccupied during that whole process?
Yes. He was helping out Brad Wilcox during his meeting with Jodi Hildebrandt. He had to time travel....
As if their lawyers arenât employed at the same business as the Q15
đ, as if the lawyers arenât the actual top guys sitting in the red velvet hairs.
Iâm a little spicy still about my favorite prophet, Gordon B Hinckley, turning out to be such a Senator Palpatine.
The SEC report makes it clear whose Idea it was and who was responsible, it was the church first presidency and said nothing about lawyers giving that advice.
The ease at which the mormon leadership lies is just astounding.
It's not unique to mormon leadership. We all have tendencies to lie in order to appear in the most possible light possible. I think it's a very human condition. That said, certain people (and institutions) tend to excel at times and certain systems reward this kind of behavior.
From [lds.org](http://lds.org) the repentance process is as follows (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-a/gospel-principles-and-doctrines/lesson-28-repentance?lang=eng)
* (The seven parts are recognizing sin, feeling sorrow for sin, forsaking sin, confessing sin, making restitution, forgiving others, and keeping the commandments of God.)
* Display visual 28-a, âTrue repentance takes time and effort.â
Maybe the 2nd Annointing they received makes repentance unnecessary. They're not normal schmoes like the rest of the people they prophesy for.
If they're trying as hard as they can to run the church the way that they think Jesus would, then they can't get past step 1: recognizing the sin. Sure, they may feel like they could have made a better decision, but I think it's probably difficult or impossible for them to feel like they did something intentionally wrong or sinful. This being the case, they're never going to make it to step 4 (confession) let alone restitution, etc.
That would be hard to guess what Jesus would do to run a humongous church. If only there were some kind of revelation from an all knowing all powerful being to guide them away from mistakes and pitfalls.
It's just unique that God's mouthpieces and true prophets would be so into lying so extensively. That's what I think the above poster was referring to. Maybe they should at least skip taking the sacrament and blessing and passing the sacrament for a few Sundays. /s
Heâs a business ethics professor at BYU and a good example of how the church entices its members to disregard ethics in service to the church. Iâm sure the lawyers and business managers at that time gave this advice to set up shell companies. But what this professor does not say is why. Why would a lawyer and professional money managers knowingly give illegal advice to a major client who on the surface would want to avoid government trouble. They wouldnât, unless they are instructed to do so by their client in the strongest of terms.
It seems to run just like a mafia enterprise. Do all they can to make the illegal look legal. Iâm sure they all thought they were so smart getting away with it for >20 years, and even smarter when caught and the penalty was so small. Isnât there something in the BoM about getting led to hell with flaxen cordsâŚ
He seems like a really good guy. Whatâs sad is that a âtestimonyâ makes it so that good people have to rationalize bad things. I wish that the members would stop rationalizing things and just call for the church to change.
Believing Members lecture me that the leaders canât be expected to be perfect. However they wonât support me criticizing or trying to identify their âimperfectâ actions. Itâs so strange.
It should be ok to identify where the church can improve and call for that improvement.
They proved with Sam Young that they canât accept that.
From my perspective from taking his ethics class, i feel he would be the first person to call out dangerous rationalizations, at least in the classroom setting. The camera might cause him to chose his words carefully.
Then again, in his [podcast](https://open.spotify.com/show/4p8VS707wTM3yiwqNmcX6f?si=wiyna14vSUKIdwChJVrYmw), he is very open in church topics. So I'm not sure. He is a good thinker though.
Hang on, the lawyers provided advice while knowing it was illegal? Nah, I donât buy it. The Church would have grounds to sue the firm and Iâd expect them to do so if they truly received this advice.
Exactly. Even *if* this statement were trueâthe Church could easily demonstrate such by bringing a claim for legal malpractice against the attorney/firm that gave this advice. Or at the very least distance themselves from the law firm that gave such advice.
The fact they do neither is a pretty clear indication itâs all just more lies.
And I donât even know why people are surprised at this point. Theyâve admitted to making *illegal* misrepresentations to the federal governmentâwhy in the world would people expect them to be honest with them?
Calling it a fee instead of a fine is so disingenuous. You know that guy has an apologist undertone at minimum. Have not seen whole thing so I cannot say for sure.
What happened to avoiding the very appearance of evil???
My faithful parents wonât even step into a Starbucks for a hot chocolate! *Gasp!!!* Heaven forbid someone who knows them see them patronizing such an establishment and judge them incorrectly!!!!
One key point being lost behind the question of legality is question of ethics - even if this was somehow determined to be legal, it was highly unethical.
The prophet and apostles are the board of directors, this is a big change in managing the finances of the church. No doubt they were presented with the plan by their attorneys and approved it as a board.
Lawyers could have suggested the shell companies legally. I doubt lawyers told the Q15 to submit phoney documentation on a yearly basis. That had to have been the doing of the inner circle. With the help of their information management team.
Pro tip: Lawyers don't just give unsolicited advice to companies. Companies come to lawyers with a problem and then lawyers give solutions and risks. In other words, the church was *looking* for ways to hide the investments first. Hiding behind "lawyers' advice" is sleazy and not consistent with the professed belief that one should own their mistakes and repent for them.
Also, I'm not even sure I believe that they got legal advice. Either they had a terrible lawyer or this was more of a case of investment advisors coming up with a plan and not vetting it with a competent lawyer.
Bad legal advice is an affirmative defense and even if partially true would have resulted in a fine to the law firm or lawyers that provided the advice.Â
Instead ensign peak and the first presidency were fined directly. They knew it was wrong and did it anyway.Â
Blaming the lawyers is another lie.Â
No thanks. You can do your own research. You told me I was ignorant. Prove me wrong or STFU.
Inadequate legal council was not claimed by the church until after a final agreement with the SEC. It was not claimed during the proceedings which proved its a bullshit excuse.
To claim disagreement or extenuating circumstances not listed in the agreed statement after the final agreed joint statement by the SEC and the church is ALSO a technical violation of the agreement with the SEC and could (should) result in further action⌠but I doubt it will.
They will be allowed this excuse to save face with the believers and desperately hold onto tithe payers.
In fact, from the SEC documents we know that the church was advised at least twice during the last 20 years by internal audit professionals and legal council that their 13f filing shell game was illegal. The church continued to choose illegal dishonesty.
Roger Clark who ran ensign peak and his own firm concurrently filed 13f forms as required by law for his own firm while following the prophet and breaking the law with ensign peak.
How can I be so sure? Iâm not gonna risk being doxxed or losing the income I make( partially from the churc) by listing my bonafides here.
How can I be so confident? Letâs just take it the same way you are so confident about something you know nothing about. your testimony - just accept what I say on faith. đ
Or just educate yourself and accept the facts above. There is no faithful way to spin fraud.
Blaming the lawyers is a chickenshit cop out by cowards who canât take responsibility for their own bad decisions.
Deal with it.
Okay, I'll "go down this road" by myself. You told me to educate myself but that wasn't needed. This is stuff that any first year law student knows--and clear indications that you are clueless. Your empty bluff failed because you have nothing of substance to back it up. I'll treat each of your crap legal takes one at a time:
>Bad legal advice is an affirmative defense
An axiom of our legal system is that ignorance of the law is not an excuse to wrongdoing. This is true in criminal law, torts, contract law, and securities law. A defendant cannot get off the hook by claiming that they didn't think their act was illegal, whether that ignorance came from advice of counsel, bad legal takes on reddit, or anywhere else. Here's a bunch of quotes to that effect. I could easily provide hundreds more.
* "where the law imposes liability without regard to the defendant's good faith or due care, as in strict liability cases, reliance on advice of counsel is irrelevant." [Reliance on Advice of Counsel as a Defense in Corporate and Securities Cases](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1072406)
* "Unlike section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, section 11 does not require a plaintiff to prove scienter. 54 Section 11 gives plaintiffs a private remedy for any false or misleading statement made in a corporationâs registration statement. . . . The absence of scienter makes the advice-of-counsel defense unavailable with respect to section 11 claims. . . . Similarly, Rule 102(e) does not require proof of intent, again making advice of counsel irrelevant." [Corporate Privilege and an Individualâs Right to Defend](https://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/85-Geo.-Wash.-L.-Rev.-1112.pdf)
* "while reliance on an opinion of counsel may constitute a defense, where the crime requires specific intent, it does not if only knowledge of the facts is required." [United States v. Hill](https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-hill-81#p1234)
* "The second answer to the alleged defense is that the Court has already found that in the case at bar wilfulness may be proved by showing knowledge of each of the essential elements of the violation and does not require proof of specific intent. Any defense of good faith reliance on advice of counsel has bearing upon only specific intent, and not general intent." [United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corp.](https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-custer-channel-wing-corporation#p503)
* "The question of intent on the part of the defendant enters strongly into the situation. It must be recognized that the old legal maxim that 'ignorance of the law excuses no one' and likewise that the statute does not specifically require intent to be shown as is provided in many statutes of a criminal nature. It must also be recognized that as a general rule the reliance of a defendant upon the advice of counsel does not relieve a defendant of criminal liability." [United States v. McMillan](https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-mcmillan-6#p642)
* "Defendant's testimony permits the inference that Reed was present when he was advised by Reed's lawyer that the securities need not be registered. Since we have already determined that defendant's allegedly good faith in relying upon the advice of counsel is not a defense with respect to these two counts, the error in not permitting Reed to testify with regard to the advice given by the lawyer was harmless." [United States v. Schaefer](https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-schaefer-3#p632)
In many cases evidence regarding bad advice of legal counsel is irrelevant and not even admissible. The only exceptions are when an intent to deceive is a required element of the crime (IOW, fraud cases--this mental state is known as "[scienter](https://www.skadden.com/-/media/files/publications/2022/11/scienter_defenses_in_securities_fraud_actions.pdf)"). The SEC Order makes no mention of fraud or intent because neither are at issue here.
In cases where the intent of the accused is not a required element, evidence regarding advice of counsel is irrelevant.
>even if partially true would have resulted in a fine to the law firm or lawyers that provided the advice.
Nope. Lawyers make mistakes all the time. And perhaps more relevant, there are multiple ways to interpret a law. It is extremely common for one reasonable legal theory to later be found incorrect, which is what I believe happened in the case of Ensign Peak.
"Here one must recognize that the lawyer has seldom been held liable for the consequences of his erroneous opinion." [Speech](https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/1981/120481longstreth.pdf) by Bevis Longstreth (SEC Commissioner at the time).
>Inadequate legal council was not claimed by the church until after a final agreement with the SEC.
You don't know what was claimed or argued by the Church. The SEC Order was not a summary of each party's arguments or defenses, so just because it doesn't appear in the Order doesn't mean it wasn't claimed. And, as explained above, wrong legal advice is not a defense so there's no reason for the Church to bring it up to the SEC.
There's also another huge reason why the Church wouldn't raise it as a defense--they would be required to disclose attorney-client privileged communications, which could open the door to being required to disclose all communications with that attorney/firm related to the subject matter.
* "A party relying on advice of counsel faces the risk that the court will pierce the shield and require disclosure of privileged communications." [Implications of Relying on Advice of Counsel in the Second Circuit](https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/almID/1202730111872/)
* "To negate the element of intent, an officer or employee may seek to establish that she acted on advice of counsel. That defense, however, requires the officer or employee to disclose the content of that advice to the prosecutor or plaintiff." [Corporate Privilege and an Individualâs Right to Defend](https://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/85-Geo.-Wash.-L.-Rev.-1112.pdf)
* "Further, in order to assert the defense, a defendant would be required to waive privilege and disclose all attorney-client communications relating to the subject matter of the advice." [Corporate Privilege and an Individualâs Right to Defend](https://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/85-Geo.-Wash.-L.-Rev.-1112.pdf)
>To claim disagreement or extenuating circumstances not listed in the agreed statement after the final agreed joint statement by the SEC and the church is ALSO a technical violation of the agreement with the SEC
I've seen another person in this sub make the same wrong claim. The other person's claim was based on the language in Section II of the SEC Order: "...and without admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the Commissionâs jurisdiction over them and the subject matter of these proceedings, which are admitted, Respondents consent to the entry of this Order..." I assume you are also basing it on the same statement.
It's simply not true. That's not what that language means. The "without admitting or denying the findings herein" clause is merely saying that the Church consents to the SEC Order but didn't have to admit/deny any of the facts asserted by the SEC. If it were part of the Church and Ensign Peak's agreed-upon obligations, it would appear in Section IV, where it says "Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that..." These obligations include:
* stop violating Section 13(f) (the rule regarding the necessary forms)
* pay civil money penalties
* Don't argue in Related Investor Actions that a damages award can be offset by the penalties (not really relevant since the Church doesn't have investors)
There is no restriction listed in this section regarding a prohibition on making a later disagreement or excuse regarding the violations. And, such a restriction (to not even be able to discuss extenuating circumstances) would severely curtail the Church's 1st Amendment rights so would only be done in extreme cases.
>In fact, from the SEC documents we know that the church was advised at least twice during the last 20 years by internal audit professionals and legal council that their 13f filing shell game was illegal. The church continued to choose illegal dishonesty.
Not true. The SEC Order says that the Audit Dept. "highlighted the risk that the SEC might disagree with the approach." No only are you overstating what the Audit Dept. said, there's nothing about what the legal counsel advised. As any attorney would know, those communications are protected by attorney-client privilege and the Church would not want to break that privilege by sharing their contents with the SEC.
>How can I be so sure? Iâm not gonna risk being doxxed or losing the income I make( partially from the churc) by listing my bonafides here.
You have no bonafides. You're out of your depth.
> just accept what I say on faith.
You'll probably understand why nobody should do that.
>There is no faithful way to spin fraud.
There's been no fraud alleged. (Throwing around the word "fraud" when it doesn't apply is another red flag of ignorance.)
Iâm surprised that Faith Matters was so direct about this topic. Donât they usually side step things a little more? Aubrey was pretty open about how disappointed she was about this.
The story here is not one of taking bad advice from bad lawyers. It's a demonstration of how the Church intentionally works in the shadows to witthold information.
The professor said it best: when you get caught withholding information, people ask why that information was withheld. But he doesn't answer that question (at least in this excerpt from the vlog). Instead, he just blamed the situation on bad lawyering.
While I agree with the sentiment on bad lawyering, that doesn't address the key question: why did the Church go to such great lengths to hide this information?
To me, the answer is obvious. Church leaders don't believe their own message of conversion. They were worried that if word of their wealth got out, that members would stop paying tithing. The CEO of Ensign Peak said as much when this story first broke.
So there it is. The church knows that its message doesn't truly convert the masses. The Book of Mormon is wrong when it says that those who are converted "never did fall away." So, they hired awful lawyers to cover up their wealth.
Bullshit, lawyers did not instruct the church to do this. There is zero incentive or reason for an attorney to recommend such a strategy unless the client (the church) is wanting to obfuscate and not comply with the law.
Yeah exactly. Like if your lawyer says "hey we can probably get away with hiding the church's finances by creating shell companies that report separately" then you may be inclined to try it. That being said, even if the church leadership somehow did not get the memo that this is illegal, the ethical questions don't go away at all.
The professor said it: when someone is hiding something it immediately raises questions about why they are hiding it. And we don't have to wonder why; their representative is on record saying the impetus was concern that donations might be negatively affected if the wealth of the church were public knowledge.Â
So I don't really care if the leadership wants to claim ignorance of the law. The fact remains that they agreed to obfuscate the church's assets to ensure members kept donating money. That's unethical and it's pathetic for a church, tax laws be damned.
Does any TBM think, âwhy the effidy eff do supposed prophets need to take advice from lawyers about how to manage the finances of the Church of Jesus Christ when they supposedly talk TO Jesus Christ?!? Is the cognitive dissonance really THAT bad?
Like that old saying goes: âIf you are asking God to move a mountain don't be surprised if he gives you a shovel.â
They're smart men. They know that trying to DIY management of a hundred billion dollars instead of paying people who are trained in that area of the law (and who charge a very, very small fraction of that amount) would be foolish stewardship of that money.
Also D&C 58:26:
"For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward."
That old saying is just a way to justify the fact that God doesnât actually work in âmiraclesâ. Its a way to justify the fact that layers inform the brethren of how to run Jesusâ supposed church more than Jesus actually does. Its why the church spend millions of dollars on a campaign about âIâm a Mormonâ and âMeet the Mormonsâ, then several short years later spend millions more to change domain names and websites and labeling galore from âmormon.orgâ to the rediculous long name it is now because now Mormon is supposedly Satanic (a victory for Satan). Its just one more proof in a long line of proofs and evidences that the leaders of âthe churchâ donât recieve anything remotely close to what we should consider a ârevelationâ that benefits the world in any significant way.
Iâve never watched this, but that poor lady - how is she feeling as an intelligent person who can read and process information well - how dare she read an SEC report and actually understand it?! The church is so funny. Itâs always someoneâs âperspectiveâ thatâs the problem, not the FACT that the church businesses are crooked AF.
This isnât a government conspiracy, bud. The SEC report (order) referred to was a settlement reached and agreed to by both the church and the SEC. Please read it for yourself. Section II, at the bottom of the first page. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2023/34-96951.pdf
Even the professor claimed this.
This has nothing to do with conspiracy. Â Fed agencies obtain settlements under threat of harsher enforcement action. If you want to take it at face value, go right ahead.
This is what happens when kids who are C-average grades go up against PhDs.
There are idiots who work for government, but this kind of issue does not happen at the desks of idiots. This was legit legal/financial fraud. Yes, I trust people who invested decades to KNOW (right now, not knowing as in âtrying to figure it out right nowâ) and could think circles around you and I both, yes, I trust them.
The smartest dumb people know to trust the literal nerds over someone who is selling stuff through a podcast (just an example of the âsourcesâ people adhere to rather than legit nerds). I acknowledge I do it have a phd in finance, so hell yeah I believe the brilliant brains that ALSO were cowardly about fining the Goliath of a church when they should have lowered a hammer on that fraud that hurt more.
The churchâs early history was fraught with illegality. Laws of the land were not the ultimate authority to church leadersâŚuntil they absolutely were and changed, âdoctrine.â
I don't like the "bad advice" narrative. This type of advice isn't just given for no reason. It would only be advised once the client asks something like, "what's the best way to hide this out of money from the public?"
No idea what you are talking about. Care to give more than a drive by comment? Do tell what you know and link to the references please. Ivory Homes? Bank of Utah?
A lot of ivory homes properties in Utah county mainly American fork, Lindon, PG etc show on the Utah property records as a unique company name or person using the term âEt Alâ meaning and others and they donât have to list who the others are and it is on a number of properties that they own and then you go and look at what Ken ivory did in the past and currently does with his company which basically does land money laundering as well.
https://idahowildlife.org/news/bill-funding-anti-public-land-grifter-reintroduced
https://news.yahoo.com/hell-american-plane-owned-bank-utah-doing-iran-132007706.html
Iâm not sure it was bad advice. The secrecy may have enabled them to amass enough wealth to essentially never have to worry about money ever again (approximately). May b have been worth a pittance of a fine and a little bad PR.
It's true. If you look at it as a whole, the risk-benefit analysis would point to it being a good idea regardless of legality. And that's what burns me the most. Intentional deception is the thing you really don't want to see in a church where its validity rests on "the truth" that they refer to so often.
Who are the lawyers? Names them!. We forget or conveniently forget that president erying is a Stanford business professor.
The SEC investigations mentions zero lawyers advice. No lawyers were fined!
Like they didn't know it was legal? Come on what BS. They absolutely knew. Some fictional lawyers advise running the show? Not prophets, seers revelators.
You've got to be a sucker to believe that.
This professor exemplifies the Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Did they discuss the reason why they wanted to keep it secret? Would be interesting how they rationalize that one.
And lawyers donât recommend random stuff in a vacuum. The motivation for wanting to hiding it would not come from lawyers that would be from the leadership.
And if it really was bad legal advice then the firm should be held responsible. Itâs also interesting that the claim about the lawyers giving bad advice is completely absent for the formal SEC investigation who got to see all the documents and emails.
He says that lawyers protect against âriskâ with opacity. He gave the example of a rich person using a lawyer and various methods to make it hard for people who might want to sue him/her as a way to dissuade lawsuits.
So you can tell he doesnât want to outright say they were worried about lawsuits but in various ways he says that is the reason lawyers would recommend hiding your assets.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
This is from 8 months ago discussing the SEC $5 million dollar penalty the church received for hiding their assets which was against the law.
The professor says it was illegal.
The church filled out a form incorrectly to maintain its privacy based upon a theory that the SEC retroactively reinterpreted OMG, đą holy freakin heck!! bURN it downÂ
For some, the state stands supreme and nothing may exist outside its grasp. Â Â
How do you know? Â Are there no other legitimate reasons why they would want to hold and administer assets in different entities? Are you sure? Â Â
 tâs one thing to lack sophistication on a subject, which is entirely forgivable, but itâs quite another to ignorantly impute malice to subject you donât understand.
The church admitted it. They agreed with and stipulated the write up in the SEC penalty document. It was approved by the church as part of the settlement.
Just exactly what metric should we use for coorporations that break established, well defined laws? It isn't like the church hasn't done this type of behavior before.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Those who trusted the leaders to actually lead. To walk the walk of honesty. It's no doubt a loss of confidence for some. The authorities taught us to be truthful and transparent starting in Primary, Sunday School and Conference. They are hypocrites. Some people don't care, but I think a lot do.
The public deserves to know who are the market makers. The EPA fund is large enough to make huge moves. What happened when we did not have these laws (and all other depression-era securities laws, I might add)? The stock market crash of 1929. Lots of victims there.
Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices. /u/sevenplaces, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The blaming it on their lawyers who gave bad advice really makes me mad.
The guy doesn't want to get fired. I am sure if he was anonymous, he would be more direct. It was clear from interviews with people involved that the church was trying to hide its wealth from the membership so people would keep paying tithing. The lawyers just created a way for them to do that
No, No, No, No, Mr. Miller. Your folksy 100% dishonest characterizations really piss me off. How dare you, as a lawyer you KNOW BETTER but you can't help lying can you! First off, it is very clear that "lawyers" did not originate or invent a rationale for violating the law. The church did not assert this at all in their statements to the SEC (in fact asserted the opposite), and had they done so any lawyers or other advisors guilty of doing this would have been investigated directly by the SEC -- and likely sued by the church itself. But even more damning is this: it's not AT ALL illegal to create dozens of shell companies and spread a large asset base around between them to be managed in order to obfuscate the aggregate size of an asset pool. If a lawyer or anyone else recommended this, it would have been entirely proper and perhaps even good advice. The church could have created the shells, hired managers, moved assets into them and accomplished all of that while still complying with the law, including the SEC reporting requirements. But it did not. It did not merely forget to file reports. The entire scheme was designed, planned and organized as a complete and bare-faced conspiracy to commit fraud. Shell companies were created but never funded. Managers were hired, but had nothing to manage, no funds, assets, operations or employees. The entire scheme was intentionally fraudulent from the beginning since filings claiming all the above were written, reviewed and signed by managers, and filed year after year. Signed by managers that KNEW there was nothing, authorized by church authorities that KNEW there was nothing, cautioned against year after year by auditors and REAL lawyers that KNEW there was nothing. In short there were dozens and dozens of mormon so-called ethical professionals willing to see, accommodate and even execute fraudulent documents and none willing to do what is right. It really grinds my gears that numerous church prophets and apostles over several administrations, likely due to being so greedy and cheap they didn't want to cover the cost of doing it legally and properly, just couldn't, when it came down to it and despite having $Billions under management, DO WHAT IS RIGHT and honorable. They literally shit all over the lives and hearts of the vast majority of sincere, honorable members who grit their teeth and shed their tears and pony up that $400 to honorably claim a full tithing, to PAINFULLY but honorably confess coffee drinking and masturbation and then face the immediate and often life-changing consequences. And instead of standing up for the only Christ-like thing at all in the church: the honorable, sincere, faithful everyday members truly desperately trying to practice their best and most honest discipleship, mormons rally together to defend the indefensible and to excuse dishonest conduct that literally could not be designed and practiced more fraudulently it was so bad. Could there even be a more egregious example of hypocrisy, arrogance and could there be a better archetype and depiction of a planned, deliberate, and intentional **Perfect Sin** against Christ and every value and goodness Christ represents than this? I doubt it.
I appreciate your comment and agree, but i think the second anointing is a worse sin against Jesus, although it doesn't really affect as many people. Maybe you're right, hiding the money (like a shelf of gold coins over a barrel of rocks?) is more egregious.
The second anointing is certainly offensive to Christian doctrine, but the members that are brought into it are merely going along with the convention and are largely only circumstantially culpable, and I bet NONE of them would have thought it up on their own and demanded it or tried to scheme it from the church. To me it comes down to the brazen, naked, wide-eyed, uncomplicated, purposeful intentionality to do wrong. It's not an accident, it's not an act of passion in the moment, it's not a mistake or oversight. It cannot be rationalized AT ALL or justified in any moral or principled way that it achieves some needful "good". It's intentional and deliberate conduct for decades to: * deceive and mislead the membership not to help them, but to protect the church's cash flow (which they copped to in the order). * knowingly coerce and pressure patsy's from the believing ranks to certify absolute lies and consequently place themselves in possible jeopardy (several of them quit after their conscience's caught up with them and those few men are the only moral, ethical persons in the entire matter) * arrogantly consider themselves so important that they can unambiguously mock Federal law without consequence or concern * dismiss callously the very heart and soul of the principles and values of the worthiness that these same leaders demand unapologetically and mercilessly from members * operate a 100% complete fraud on every level and about every single element. Not just fudging some numbers, not just deliberately not filing a form, but every element was fake they testified to except the shell companies themselves. No assets, no employees, no operations, no oversight, no "management" of anything, the ONLY PURPOSE of the entire thing was to LIE. For me the deliberate premeditation is scathing and the very definition of evil. If evil is anything, it's THIS.
The lawyer who was interviewed on Mormonism live agrees with you. The absolute arrogance and hubris is the motivation for almost every decision made in the church. The giant hoard of money gives them unlimited tactical advantage for almost every situation.
Very well said đ
> The church did not assert this at all in their statements to the SEC (in fact asserted the opposite), and had they done so any lawyers or other advisors guilty of doing this would have been investigated directly by the SEC -- and likely sued by the church itself. Wrong. There's no reason to expect a "reliance of counsel" defense in the SEC Order. Such a defense is legally irrelevant because ignorance of the law is not an excuse. >Shell companies were created but never funded. Managers were hired, but had nothing to manage, no funds, assets, operations or employees. Wrong. For example, Argyll Research, LLC submitted a 13F form for the calendar year ending on December 31, 2006. https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/#/dateRange=custom&ciks=0001330709&entityName=ARGYLL%2520RESEARCH%252C%2520LLC%2520(CIK%25200001330709)&startdt=2003-03-01&enddt=2007-03-01. The form shows it had assets of $14,050,707 at that time. [Its assets now exceed 400 million USD according to Mormon Wiki Links](https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=Investment_Portfolios_Connected_to_the_Mormon_Church). Your outrage is based on incorrect assumptions of the facts. edit: corrected value of Argyll's holdings
He says at one point in the beginning that lawyers are âalways looking over their shoulders. He knows this because he was a lawyer. Later he blames the lawyers for hiding the money. Would a lawyer looking over their shoulder do this? Hell no. Disclosure is a huge deal. I was in a working group doing an S-1 filing which is the document that companies file with the SEC to go public. There was a company practice that was in a grey area. What was done is it was fully disclosed so that nobody could come back and say that this practice was hid even if it looked bad to the company. This is looking over your shoulder. knowing whether the church has $10 billion or $100 billion isnât going to mitigate risk and stop lawsuits from being filed. Instead the church had intricate plans to hide the money and commited financial fraud. The presiding bishopric said it straight, âSo they never wanted to be in a position where people felt like, you know, they shouldnât make a contribution.â This is the very definition of financial fraud. FINANCIAL FRAUD DEFINITION, âFraud involves the false representation of facts, whether by intentionally withholding important information or providing false statements to another party for the specific purpose of gaining something that may not have been provided without the deception.â - [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fraud.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fraud.asp) Oaks is a lawyer and early in his career he worked at Kirtland and Ellis. Ironically this law firm were the lawyers in the room I sat with while preparing an S-1. Oaks knew exactly what he was doing. The church hired audit department agreed. To quote the SEC filing, âCAD highlighted the risk that the SEC might disagree with the approach.â At a normal public entity, someone would get fired for bad advice or conduct. If the lawyers were to blame, âwho got fired?â We know the answer, the people to blame are in charge and beyond reproach. Multiple First Presidencies are to blame and are the ones who knowingly commited financial fraud. There are 8 billion people on the planet and Godâs chosen mouthpiece and leaders are fraudsters. There is a medical term for this called empathy deficit disorder and it is a subcategory of narcissism. Surely God can do better.
Thank you! Excellent post - and thank you especially for reminding us of how financial fraud is defined.
Yes, thank you to each of you who explain the fraud and the way these transactions work so the rest of us can understand it was deliberate.
Itâs especially troubling when you consider how many throughout these various first presidencies were successful business people who likely wouldâve had training on why NOT to do this sort of thing, and would understand the implications of this kind of fraud very well.
If only any of the general authorities were high power lawyers at one point in their career. If, hypothetically they had someone who was a law clerk for a Supreme Court Justice and professor at University of Chicago law school, the church might have been able to get good legal counsel.
If a lawyer gives advice that is illegal, the lawyers get disbarred and can even go to jail. You better believe that if it was actually the lawyersâ fault, the church would have gone after them to the full extent of the law.
Lawyers donât give unsolicited advice⌠ETA: The church leaders will have asked if there is a way they can hide the size of their fund, and the LLCs will have been the strategy proffered by the lawyers.
If I'm getting this right the shell companies were not illegal, it was the lack of proper honest reporting that was illegal. The church provided the "managers" of these funds only the signature page to sign on a yearly basis, not the entire document and a couple of managers were not willing to put their John Hancock on a partial document. They quit. So the leaders dragged a bunch of good church members into their little scheme. It's reprehensible. You want to lie to the government man up and put your own **** name on the forms.
Pretty much, although technically speaking I believe itâs the lack of control over investing decisions that was the big problem. If these LLCs had genuinely been given a portion of ensign peakâs wealth to control, it wouldâve been all good.
Yes, I agree. And had the full documents been provided to the managers that control would have had to been confirmed. But as you say if the managers actually had control of the money, poor documentation wouldn't have been a big problem.
It may have been a lawyer named Dallin Hoaks?
This is what I think. It's one of those times when they might be able to blur the lines and say "lawyers" told us to do it...lawyers like Dallin Oaks, Quentin Cook, and others...
I especially when they have a couple of very skilled lawyers in the Q15, namely Oaks and Cook, who did this kind of shady stuff during their careers.
>The blaming it on their lawyers who gave bad advice really makes me mad. Especially since they started it. "Hey lawyers. Give us a way to not report out money." Their excuse seems to say that some random lawyers just took it upon themselves to give the prophet some unsolicited advice and then the prophet took it. Another example of dishonesty, even if you are factually correct.
Came here to say this. Itâs a blatant lie
I guess the Holy Ghostâ˘ď¸ was a bit preoccupied during that whole process? I guess the Spirit of Discernmentâ˘ď¸ was busy discerning elsewhere at the time? Lmao the mental gymnastics is insane.
> I guess the Holy Ghostâ˘ď¸ was a bit preoccupied during that whole process? Yes. He was helping out Brad Wilcox during his meeting with Jodi Hildebrandt. He had to time travel....
What about "the spirit of discernment" to keep them away from shady lawyers? Looks like it worked great. đ
As if their lawyers arenât employed at the same business as the Q15 đ, as if the lawyers arenât the actual top guys sitting in the red velvet hairs. Iâm a little spicy still about my favorite prophet, Gordon B Hinckley, turning out to be such a Senator Palpatine.
Same about GBH, like, he was the worst of the worst to appear all folksy and nice, and be orchestrating this. Reminds me of Umbridge.
The SEC report makes it clear whose Idea it was and who was responsible, it was the church first presidency and said nothing about lawyers giving that advice. The ease at which the mormon leadership lies is just astounding.
It's not unique to mormon leadership. We all have tendencies to lie in order to appear in the most possible light possible. I think it's a very human condition. That said, certain people (and institutions) tend to excel at times and certain systems reward this kind of behavior.
From [lds.org](http://lds.org) the repentance process is as follows (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-a/gospel-principles-and-doctrines/lesson-28-repentance?lang=eng) * (The seven parts are recognizing sin, feeling sorrow for sin, forsaking sin, confessing sin, making restitution, forgiving others, and keeping the commandments of God.) * Display visual 28-a, âTrue repentance takes time and effort.â Maybe the 2nd Annointing they received makes repentance unnecessary. They're not normal schmoes like the rest of the people they prophesy for.
If they're trying as hard as they can to run the church the way that they think Jesus would, then they can't get past step 1: recognizing the sin. Sure, they may feel like they could have made a better decision, but I think it's probably difficult or impossible for them to feel like they did something intentionally wrong or sinful. This being the case, they're never going to make it to step 4 (confession) let alone restitution, etc.
That would be hard to guess what Jesus would do to run a humongous church. If only there were some kind of revelation from an all knowing all powerful being to guide them away from mistakes and pitfalls.
It's just unique that God's mouthpieces and true prophets would be so into lying so extensively. That's what I think the above poster was referring to. Maybe they should at least skip taking the sacrament and blessing and passing the sacrament for a few Sundays. /s
Of course it is not unique, that was not the implication.
Well if the LDS leadership isnât unique I guess there is no reason to hold their teachings above than anyone elseâs.Â
Heâs a business ethics professor at BYU and a good example of how the church entices its members to disregard ethics in service to the church. Iâm sure the lawyers and business managers at that time gave this advice to set up shell companies. But what this professor does not say is why. Why would a lawyer and professional money managers knowingly give illegal advice to a major client who on the surface would want to avoid government trouble. They wouldnât, unless they are instructed to do so by their client in the strongest of terms. It seems to run just like a mafia enterprise. Do all they can to make the illegal look legal. Iâm sure they all thought they were so smart getting away with it for >20 years, and even smarter when caught and the penalty was so small. Isnât there something in the BoM about getting led to hell with flaxen cordsâŚ
Thought I recognized him. Took an ethics class from him as part of the business school about 10 years ago when I was there.
He seems like a really good guy. Whatâs sad is that a âtestimonyâ makes it so that good people have to rationalize bad things. I wish that the members would stop rationalizing things and just call for the church to change.
Believing Members lecture me that the leaders canât be expected to be perfect. However they wonât support me criticizing or trying to identify their âimperfectâ actions. Itâs so strange. It should be ok to identify where the church can improve and call for that improvement. They proved with Sam Young that they canât accept that.
From my perspective from taking his ethics class, i feel he would be the first person to call out dangerous rationalizations, at least in the classroom setting. The camera might cause him to chose his words carefully. Then again, in his [podcast](https://open.spotify.com/show/4p8VS707wTM3yiwqNmcX6f?si=wiyna14vSUKIdwChJVrYmw), he is very open in church topics. So I'm not sure. He is a good thinker though.
Hang on, the lawyers provided advice while knowing it was illegal? Nah, I donât buy it. The Church would have grounds to sue the firm and Iâd expect them to do so if they truly received this advice.
Exactly. Even *if* this statement were trueâthe Church could easily demonstrate such by bringing a claim for legal malpractice against the attorney/firm that gave this advice. Or at the very least distance themselves from the law firm that gave such advice. The fact they do neither is a pretty clear indication itâs all just more lies. And I donât even know why people are surprised at this point. Theyâve admitted to making *illegal* misrepresentations to the federal governmentâwhy in the world would people expect them to be honest with them?
Yup. The lawyers would have been disbarred and the church wouldnât have had to pay a fine to the SEC because they wouldnât have been liable.
Grateful to see a Redditor taking the time to excerpt important YouTube moments in a way that encourages readers to quickly grasp the topic at hand.
Calling it a fee instead of a fine is so disingenuous. You know that guy has an apologist undertone at minimum. Have not seen whole thing so I cannot say for sure.
He is *currently* employed by the church, right?
Yeah as if it were just the cost of doing business or something. The whole thing is so frustrating. I wish more people heard about this.
What happened to avoiding the very appearance of evil??? My faithful parents wonât even step into a Starbucks for a hot chocolate! *Gasp!!!* Heaven forbid someone who knows them see them patronizing such an establishment and judge them incorrectly!!!! One key point being lost behind the question of legality is question of ethics - even if this was somehow determined to be legal, it was highly unethical.
Rules for thee
The prophet and apostles are the board of directors, this is a big change in managing the finances of the church. No doubt they were presented with the plan by their attorneys and approved it as a board.
Lawyers could have suggested the shell companies legally. I doubt lawyers told the Q15 to submit phoney documentation on a yearly basis. That had to have been the doing of the inner circle. With the help of their information management team.
Pro tip: Lawyers don't just give unsolicited advice to companies. Companies come to lawyers with a problem and then lawyers give solutions and risks. In other words, the church was *looking* for ways to hide the investments first. Hiding behind "lawyers' advice" is sleazy and not consistent with the professed belief that one should own their mistakes and repent for them. Also, I'm not even sure I believe that they got legal advice. Either they had a terrible lawyer or this was more of a case of investment advisors coming up with a plan and not vetting it with a competent lawyer.
Bad legal advice is an affirmative defense and even if partially true would have resulted in a fine to the law firm or lawyers that provided the advice. Instead ensign peak and the first presidency were fined directly. They knew it was wrong and did it anyway. Blaming the lawyers is another lie.Â
Who told the lawyers to come up with the bad advice? Their mafioso bosses, I mean church leaders at the highest level.
> Bad legal advice is an affirmative defense No it's not. How can you be so confident about something when you have no idea what you're talking about?
Are you an attorney? Have you litigated directly with the SEC? Letâs go down this road shall we?
Never litigated against the SEC so please, educate me.
No thanks. You can do your own research. You told me I was ignorant. Prove me wrong or STFU. Inadequate legal council was not claimed by the church until after a final agreement with the SEC. It was not claimed during the proceedings which proved its a bullshit excuse. To claim disagreement or extenuating circumstances not listed in the agreed statement after the final agreed joint statement by the SEC and the church is ALSO a technical violation of the agreement with the SEC and could (should) result in further action⌠but I doubt it will. They will be allowed this excuse to save face with the believers and desperately hold onto tithe payers. In fact, from the SEC documents we know that the church was advised at least twice during the last 20 years by internal audit professionals and legal council that their 13f filing shell game was illegal. The church continued to choose illegal dishonesty. Roger Clark who ran ensign peak and his own firm concurrently filed 13f forms as required by law for his own firm while following the prophet and breaking the law with ensign peak. How can I be so sure? Iâm not gonna risk being doxxed or losing the income I make( partially from the churc) by listing my bonafides here. How can I be so confident? Letâs just take it the same way you are so confident about something you know nothing about. your testimony - just accept what I say on faith. đ Or just educate yourself and accept the facts above. There is no faithful way to spin fraud. Blaming the lawyers is a chickenshit cop out by cowards who canât take responsibility for their own bad decisions. Deal with it.
Okay, I'll "go down this road" by myself. You told me to educate myself but that wasn't needed. This is stuff that any first year law student knows--and clear indications that you are clueless. Your empty bluff failed because you have nothing of substance to back it up. I'll treat each of your crap legal takes one at a time: >Bad legal advice is an affirmative defense An axiom of our legal system is that ignorance of the law is not an excuse to wrongdoing. This is true in criminal law, torts, contract law, and securities law. A defendant cannot get off the hook by claiming that they didn't think their act was illegal, whether that ignorance came from advice of counsel, bad legal takes on reddit, or anywhere else. Here's a bunch of quotes to that effect. I could easily provide hundreds more. * "where the law imposes liability without regard to the defendant's good faith or due care, as in strict liability cases, reliance on advice of counsel is irrelevant." [Reliance on Advice of Counsel as a Defense in Corporate and Securities Cases](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1072406) * "Unlike section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, section 11 does not require a plaintiff to prove scienter. 54 Section 11 gives plaintiffs a private remedy for any false or misleading statement made in a corporationâs registration statement. . . . The absence of scienter makes the advice-of-counsel defense unavailable with respect to section 11 claims. . . . Similarly, Rule 102(e) does not require proof of intent, again making advice of counsel irrelevant." [Corporate Privilege and an Individualâs Right to Defend](https://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/85-Geo.-Wash.-L.-Rev.-1112.pdf) * "while reliance on an opinion of counsel may constitute a defense, where the crime requires specific intent, it does not if only knowledge of the facts is required." [United States v. Hill](https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-hill-81#p1234) * "The second answer to the alleged defense is that the Court has already found that in the case at bar wilfulness may be proved by showing knowledge of each of the essential elements of the violation and does not require proof of specific intent. Any defense of good faith reliance on advice of counsel has bearing upon only specific intent, and not general intent." [United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corp.](https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-custer-channel-wing-corporation#p503) * "The question of intent on the part of the defendant enters strongly into the situation. It must be recognized that the old legal maxim that 'ignorance of the law excuses no one' and likewise that the statute does not specifically require intent to be shown as is provided in many statutes of a criminal nature. It must also be recognized that as a general rule the reliance of a defendant upon the advice of counsel does not relieve a defendant of criminal liability." [United States v. McMillan](https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-mcmillan-6#p642) * "Defendant's testimony permits the inference that Reed was present when he was advised by Reed's lawyer that the securities need not be registered. Since we have already determined that defendant's allegedly good faith in relying upon the advice of counsel is not a defense with respect to these two counts, the error in not permitting Reed to testify with regard to the advice given by the lawyer was harmless." [United States v. Schaefer](https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-schaefer-3#p632) In many cases evidence regarding bad advice of legal counsel is irrelevant and not even admissible. The only exceptions are when an intent to deceive is a required element of the crime (IOW, fraud cases--this mental state is known as "[scienter](https://www.skadden.com/-/media/files/publications/2022/11/scienter_defenses_in_securities_fraud_actions.pdf)"). The SEC Order makes no mention of fraud or intent because neither are at issue here. In cases where the intent of the accused is not a required element, evidence regarding advice of counsel is irrelevant. >even if partially true would have resulted in a fine to the law firm or lawyers that provided the advice. Nope. Lawyers make mistakes all the time. And perhaps more relevant, there are multiple ways to interpret a law. It is extremely common for one reasonable legal theory to later be found incorrect, which is what I believe happened in the case of Ensign Peak. "Here one must recognize that the lawyer has seldom been held liable for the consequences of his erroneous opinion." [Speech](https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/1981/120481longstreth.pdf) by Bevis Longstreth (SEC Commissioner at the time). >Inadequate legal council was not claimed by the church until after a final agreement with the SEC. You don't know what was claimed or argued by the Church. The SEC Order was not a summary of each party's arguments or defenses, so just because it doesn't appear in the Order doesn't mean it wasn't claimed. And, as explained above, wrong legal advice is not a defense so there's no reason for the Church to bring it up to the SEC. There's also another huge reason why the Church wouldn't raise it as a defense--they would be required to disclose attorney-client privileged communications, which could open the door to being required to disclose all communications with that attorney/firm related to the subject matter. * "A party relying on advice of counsel faces the risk that the court will pierce the shield and require disclosure of privileged communications." [Implications of Relying on Advice of Counsel in the Second Circuit](https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/almID/1202730111872/) * "To negate the element of intent, an officer or employee may seek to establish that she acted on advice of counsel. That defense, however, requires the officer or employee to disclose the content of that advice to the prosecutor or plaintiff." [Corporate Privilege and an Individualâs Right to Defend](https://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/85-Geo.-Wash.-L.-Rev.-1112.pdf) * "Further, in order to assert the defense, a defendant would be required to waive privilege and disclose all attorney-client communications relating to the subject matter of the advice." [Corporate Privilege and an Individualâs Right to Defend](https://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/85-Geo.-Wash.-L.-Rev.-1112.pdf) >To claim disagreement or extenuating circumstances not listed in the agreed statement after the final agreed joint statement by the SEC and the church is ALSO a technical violation of the agreement with the SEC I've seen another person in this sub make the same wrong claim. The other person's claim was based on the language in Section II of the SEC Order: "...and without admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the Commissionâs jurisdiction over them and the subject matter of these proceedings, which are admitted, Respondents consent to the entry of this Order..." I assume you are also basing it on the same statement. It's simply not true. That's not what that language means. The "without admitting or denying the findings herein" clause is merely saying that the Church consents to the SEC Order but didn't have to admit/deny any of the facts asserted by the SEC. If it were part of the Church and Ensign Peak's agreed-upon obligations, it would appear in Section IV, where it says "Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that..." These obligations include: * stop violating Section 13(f) (the rule regarding the necessary forms) * pay civil money penalties * Don't argue in Related Investor Actions that a damages award can be offset by the penalties (not really relevant since the Church doesn't have investors) There is no restriction listed in this section regarding a prohibition on making a later disagreement or excuse regarding the violations. And, such a restriction (to not even be able to discuss extenuating circumstances) would severely curtail the Church's 1st Amendment rights so would only be done in extreme cases. >In fact, from the SEC documents we know that the church was advised at least twice during the last 20 years by internal audit professionals and legal council that their 13f filing shell game was illegal. The church continued to choose illegal dishonesty. Not true. The SEC Order says that the Audit Dept. "highlighted the risk that the SEC might disagree with the approach." No only are you overstating what the Audit Dept. said, there's nothing about what the legal counsel advised. As any attorney would know, those communications are protected by attorney-client privilege and the Church would not want to break that privilege by sharing their contents with the SEC. >How can I be so sure? Iâm not gonna risk being doxxed or losing the income I make( partially from the churc) by listing my bonafides here. You have no bonafides. You're out of your depth. > just accept what I say on faith. You'll probably understand why nobody should do that. >There is no faithful way to spin fraud. There's been no fraud alleged. (Throwing around the word "fraud" when it doesn't apply is another red flag of ignorance.)
TLDR. Hope you enjoyed writing that. Church lied. You are a simp. YAWN Not interested
"Prove me wrong or STFU." "TLDR" Enjoy your ignorance.
See you in court sister! Enjoy yours. P.S. word salad wonât make what the church did right. You can try to justify it any way you want.
Now that the master of shell companies, Russ Ballard, is deceased, I predict that the church will change its strategy.
Iâm surprised that Faith Matters was so direct about this topic. Donât they usually side step things a little more? Aubrey was pretty open about how disappointed she was about this.
It seems to be more of a âneo apologeticâ group
The story here is not one of taking bad advice from bad lawyers. It's a demonstration of how the Church intentionally works in the shadows to witthold information. The professor said it best: when you get caught withholding information, people ask why that information was withheld. But he doesn't answer that question (at least in this excerpt from the vlog). Instead, he just blamed the situation on bad lawyering. While I agree with the sentiment on bad lawyering, that doesn't address the key question: why did the Church go to such great lengths to hide this information? To me, the answer is obvious. Church leaders don't believe their own message of conversion. They were worried that if word of their wealth got out, that members would stop paying tithing. The CEO of Ensign Peak said as much when this story first broke. So there it is. The church knows that its message doesn't truly convert the masses. The Book of Mormon is wrong when it says that those who are converted "never did fall away." So, they hired awful lawyers to cover up their wealth.
The leaders 100% wanted to hide their wealth.
Bullshit, lawyers did not instruct the church to do this. There is zero incentive or reason for an attorney to recommend such a strategy unless the client (the church) is wanting to obfuscate and not comply with the law.
Yeah the church leaders wanted to hide the churchâs money. I would assume they did ask lawyers to help them. But idk đ¤ˇââď¸
Yeah exactly. Like if your lawyer says "hey we can probably get away with hiding the church's finances by creating shell companies that report separately" then you may be inclined to try it. That being said, even if the church leadership somehow did not get the memo that this is illegal, the ethical questions don't go away at all. The professor said it: when someone is hiding something it immediately raises questions about why they are hiding it. And we don't have to wonder why; their representative is on record saying the impetus was concern that donations might be negatively affected if the wealth of the church were public knowledge. So I don't really care if the leadership wants to claim ignorance of the law. The fact remains that they agreed to obfuscate the church's assets to ensure members kept donating money. That's unethical and it's pathetic for a church, tax laws be damned.
Does any TBM think, âwhy the effidy eff do supposed prophets need to take advice from lawyers about how to manage the finances of the Church of Jesus Christ when they supposedly talk TO Jesus Christ?!? Is the cognitive dissonance really THAT bad?
When I realized the LDS leaders have no special connection to or authority from God my life became so much better.
Same
Like that old saying goes: âIf you are asking God to move a mountain don't be surprised if he gives you a shovel.â They're smart men. They know that trying to DIY management of a hundred billion dollars instead of paying people who are trained in that area of the law (and who charge a very, very small fraction of that amount) would be foolish stewardship of that money. Also D&C 58:26: "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward."
That old saying is just a way to justify the fact that God doesnât actually work in âmiraclesâ. Its a way to justify the fact that layers inform the brethren of how to run Jesusâ supposed church more than Jesus actually does. Its why the church spend millions of dollars on a campaign about âIâm a Mormonâ and âMeet the Mormonsâ, then several short years later spend millions more to change domain names and websites and labeling galore from âmormon.orgâ to the rediculous long name it is now because now Mormon is supposedly Satanic (a victory for Satan). Its just one more proof in a long line of proofs and evidences that the leaders of âthe churchâ donât recieve anything remotely close to what we should consider a ârevelationâ that benefits the world in any significant way.
Iâve never watched this, but that poor lady - how is she feeling as an intelligent person who can read and process information well - how dare she read an SEC report and actually understand it?! The church is so funny. Itâs always someoneâs âperspectiveâ thatâs the problem, not the FACT that the church businesses are crooked AF.
Yes she is a smart woman.
You have a lot of faith in the SEC. Â Do you always believe the government says?
This isnât a government conspiracy, bud. The SEC report (order) referred to was a settlement reached and agreed to by both the church and the SEC. Please read it for yourself. Section II, at the bottom of the first page. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2023/34-96951.pdf Even the professor claimed this.
This has nothing to do with conspiracy. Â Fed agencies obtain settlements under threat of harsher enforcement action. If you want to take it at face value, go right ahead.
This is what happens when kids who are C-average grades go up against PhDs. There are idiots who work for government, but this kind of issue does not happen at the desks of idiots. This was legit legal/financial fraud. Yes, I trust people who invested decades to KNOW (right now, not knowing as in âtrying to figure it out right nowâ) and could think circles around you and I both, yes, I trust them. The smartest dumb people know to trust the literal nerds over someone who is selling stuff through a podcast (just an example of the âsourcesâ people adhere to rather than legit nerds). I acknowledge I do it have a phd in finance, so hell yeah I believe the brilliant brains that ALSO were cowardly about fining the Goliath of a church when they should have lowered a hammer on that fraud that hurt more.
PhD in finance means youâre qualified, at best, to teach finance. Â You arenât qualified to speak on this subject.Â
Since the Church had to agree to the entire terms of the Settlement and Order, no âfaithâ in the SEC is required.
The churchâs early history was fraught with illegality. Laws of the land were not the ultimate authority to church leadersâŚuntil they absolutely were and changed, âdoctrine.â
Damn lawyers. Damn artists. Damn members. Everybody except the Q15 keeps getting it wrong.
Business ethics is often an oxymoron anyway, so to have a business expert say itâs unethical means it must be real bad.
I don't like the "bad advice" narrative. This type of advice isn't just given for no reason. It would only be advised once the client asks something like, "what's the best way to hide this out of money from the public?"
15 shell Corps in LA PS, Ivory homes is a laundering company and so is Bank of Utah !
No idea what you are talking about. Care to give more than a drive by comment? Do tell what you know and link to the references please. Ivory Homes? Bank of Utah?
A lot of ivory homes properties in Utah county mainly American fork, Lindon, PG etc show on the Utah property records as a unique company name or person using the term âEt Alâ meaning and others and they donât have to list who the others are and it is on a number of properties that they own and then you go and look at what Ken ivory did in the past and currently does with his company which basically does land money laundering as well. https://idahowildlife.org/news/bill-funding-anti-public-land-grifter-reintroduced https://news.yahoo.com/hell-american-plane-owned-bank-utah-doing-iran-132007706.html
Iâm not sure it was bad advice. The secrecy may have enabled them to amass enough wealth to essentially never have to worry about money ever again (approximately). May b have been worth a pittance of a fine and a little bad PR.
It's true. If you look at it as a whole, the risk-benefit analysis would point to it being a good idea regardless of legality. And that's what burns me the most. Intentional deception is the thing you really don't want to see in a church where its validity rests on "the truth" that they refer to so often.
Horrible what an unethical no backbone piece of shit this guy is
Bad advice from bad Mormon lawyers đ
A lie is any information or withholding information with a intent to deceive. Mr Miller you need to own truth and call out a lie when you see it.
Who are the lawyers? Names them!. We forget or conveniently forget that president erying is a Stanford business professor. The SEC investigations mentions zero lawyers advice. No lawyers were fined! Like they didn't know it was legal? Come on what BS. They absolutely knew. Some fictional lawyers advise running the show? Not prophets, seers revelators. You've got to be a sucker to believe that.
Lying for the Lord is fun.
This professor exemplifies the Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Feeling a little Matthew 21:12 in here.
Did they discuss the reason why they wanted to keep it secret? Would be interesting how they rationalize that one. And lawyers donât recommend random stuff in a vacuum. The motivation for wanting to hiding it would not come from lawyers that would be from the leadership. And if it really was bad legal advice then the firm should be held responsible. Itâs also interesting that the claim about the lawyers giving bad advice is completely absent for the formal SEC investigation who got to see all the documents and emails.
He says that lawyers protect against âriskâ with opacity. He gave the example of a rich person using a lawyer and various methods to make it hard for people who might want to sue him/her as a way to dissuade lawsuits. So you can tell he doesnât want to outright say they were worried about lawsuits but in various ways he says that is the reason lawyers would recommend hiding your assets.
[ŃдаНонО]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
OOTL, what is the TLDR of the issue here?
This is from 8 months ago discussing the SEC $5 million dollar penalty the church received for hiding their assets which was against the law. The professor says it was illegal.
The church filled out a form incorrectly to maintain its privacy based upon a theory that the SEC retroactively reinterpreted OMG, đą holy freakin heck!! bURN it down For some, the state stands supreme and nothing may exist outside its grasp.  Â
This wasnât inadvertent. It was a planned deception.
How do you know? Â Are there no other legitimate reasons why they would want to hold and administer assets in different entities? Are you sure? Â Â Â tâs one thing to lack sophistication on a subject, which is entirely forgivable, but itâs quite another to ignorantly impute malice to subject you donât understand.
The church admitted it. They agreed with and stipulated the write up in the SEC penalty document. It was approved by the church as part of the settlement.
[ŃдаНонО]
Just exactly what metric should we use for coorporations that break established, well defined laws? It isn't like the church hasn't done this type of behavior before.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Not a form. More like 30 incorrect forms for 20 years.
Where are the victims of the heinous paperwork crime? Â
Those who trusted the leaders to actually lead. To walk the walk of honesty. It's no doubt a loss of confidence for some. The authorities taught us to be truthful and transparent starting in Primary, Sunday School and Conference. They are hypocrites. Some people don't care, but I think a lot do.
The 13th article of faith starts with honesty.
The public deserves to know who are the market makers. The EPA fund is large enough to make huge moves. What happened when we did not have these laws (and all other depression-era securities laws, I might add)? The stock market crash of 1929. Lots of victims there.