Church comments on SEC settlement

[malkie]

Not just the Church as an entity - as the OP points out, the top Prophets, Seers, and Revelators are dishonest.

Still, faithful members will find a way to deny and deflect - it's what they do - it's what I used to do

Yep. Just go over to Mormon Dialogue and read the thread on this.

I'm surprised at pogi's comments - or perhaps I'm just misremembering pogi? I had always understood that s/he was a faithful member, and defender of the church, pretty much no matter what.

But see, for example:
https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75 ... 1210137639

[Morley]

And he still hasn’t read the entire order - although he did skim it until para 13 so he could pull a tidbit out of context in order to shill for his cult.

You lie again. Have you no shame?

MG, in your reading of the document, can you show where the First Presidency has wiggle room to claim the deception was unintentional?

[MG 2.0]

The Warren Jeffs compound raid was also a real "wheat and chaff episode."

Only the true believers and koolaid drinkers are still strong in the church. Surely they'll be blessed.

No doubt the wheat and chaff analogy can be applied elsewhere other than in LDS parlance. I suppose it then becomes a matter of trust in regards to the leaders of an organization.

Do you trust a Warren Jeffs? Do you trust a Joseph Smith and/or his successors? Do you a trust David Miscavige? And on and on.

I would also look very carefully at the so called ‘truth claims’ when determining whether or not the wheat vs. tares analogy fits in the way Jesus meant it to be applied.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

And he still hasn’t read the entire order - although he did skim it until para 13 so he could pull a tidbit out of context in order to shill for his cult.

You lie again. Have you no shame?

MG, in your reading of the document, can you show where the First Presidency has wiggle room to claim the deception was unintentional?

I think it was intentional. I really don’t see much wiggle room to claim otherwise. The SEC document makes it rather clear that church leaders at the highest level were signing off in regards to the actions that were being taken by Ensign Peak and their advisors. I’m sure they probably knew the twelve or thirteen advisors (or whatever they called them, I can’t remember) in each of the shell companies/entities by name.

Until I read the SEC complaint I didn’t realize the extent to which church leaders were involved in each step along the way. The Deseret News article I linked to really didn’t make that clear.

Regards,
MG

[Dr Moore]

It is not in dispute. The church cannot ever dispute the facts as stated in the SEC’s order. That means they have agreed as part of the settlement, that church leaders and Ensign Peak knowingly deceived the public in this clone LLC scheme. No apologetic can get around that fact.

[MG 2.0]

It is not in dispute. The church cannot ever dispute the facts as stated in the SEC’s order. That means they have agreed as part of the settlement, that church leaders and Ensign Peak knowingly deceived the public in this clone LLC scheme. No apologetic can get around that fact.

In essence I I agree with you.

Now the question is, “What do you do with that?”

I think we’ve both expressed our thoughts/feelings on that count.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

The Warren Jeffs compound raid was also a real "wheat and chaff episode."

Only the true believers and koolaid drinkers are still strong in the church. Surely they'll be blessed.

No doubt the wheat and chaff analogy can be applied elsewhere other than in LDS parlance. I suppose it then becomes a matter of trust in regards to the leaders of an organization.

Do you trust a Warren Jeffs? Do you trust a Joseph Smith and/or his successors? Do you a trust David Miscavige? And on and on.

I would also look very carefully at the so called ‘truth claims’ when determining whether or not the wheat vs. tares analogy fits in the way Jesus meant it to be applied.

Regards,
MG

I believe that's why this has been big news about the leadership of the LDS church committing financial crimes.

By their fruits and all that. The LDS church's primary fruit is green paper.

[MG 2.0]

No doubt the wheat and chaff analogy can be applied elsewhere other than in LDS parlance. I suppose it then becomes a matter of trust in regards to the leaders of an organization.

Do you trust a Warren Jeffs? Do you trust a Joseph Smith and/or his successors? Do you a trust David Miscavige? And on and on.

I would also look very carefully at the so called ‘truth claims’ when determining whether or not the wheat vs. tares analogy fits in the way Jesus meant it to be applied.

Regards,
MG

I believe that's why this has been big news about the leadership of the LDS church committing financial crimes.

By their fruits and all that. The LDS church's primary fruit is green paper.

As I’ve said a number of times recently, that’s an over simplification.

Regards,
MG

[Dr Moore]

I don't traffic on MormonDialogue, but surfed over there becuase it was mentioned. SMAC is saying some really uninformed and wrong things (and with spectacular arrogance). He's setting people up for disappointment.

Paying the fines does not come with any admission of liability or wrongdoing. Paying the fines allows the Church to avoid the risks and uncertainties, and the expenditures of time, effort and money, of the litigation process.

This happens all the time, including in situations where the settling party thinks it has done nothing wrong, or else that what it has done wrong is minor or is being blown out of proportion.

Not with the SEC. What SMAC fails to understand is that the church is legally forbidden from ever denying wrongdoing in this settlement. Make sure this is clear. It is certainly possible to settle a court case and profess innocence - in principle. But that is not what the church did here. And there IS a reason for that. Talk to experts. Inform yourselves people. Being unable to deny wrongdoing is optically just as bad as admitting wrongdoing. It absolutely shows the church knew it would lose the recommended enforcement action.

Also, if the church believed it would win, the cost of defending itself would be peanuts relative to the long-term social cost of having to settle for deliberate obfuscation of legally required disclosures. They lied, were caught lying, and it doesn't matter why. They lied and can NOT deny having lied. Watch what the church writes and says about this. You will not see a denial of the allegations as stated in the SEC judgment document. If they do, the SEC will come down the the hammer of justice and it will be ugly.

by the way, Sam Brunson is out there, an LDS legal scholar, arguing some new apologetic standard that since there was no obvious harm, there is no foul to be worried about. WHAT. THE. HELL?. Is that Jesus' new standard? No harm, no foul, law be damned? Oh my. Is he going the distance to advocate for gay marriage and transgender rights?

The double standards on display as apologists twist themselves in knots to protect the privileged status of the Brethren is really astonishing.

[drumdude]

I believe that's why this has been big news about the leadership of the LDS church committing financial crimes.

By their fruits and all that. The LDS church's primary fruit is green paper.

As I’ve said a number of times recently, that’s an over simplification.

Regards,
MG

It was pretty simple when Jesus confronted the moneychangers at the temple. Do you think the Mormons who install the cash registers in the temples ever think about that particular part of the Gospel?