DiscussMormonism.com

Below is a link to an article in the Trib about Val Southwick, an Ogden con man who fleeced investors of up to $180 million all the while flouting his LDS connections and worthiness (apparently Pres. Monson is a close family friend).

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9587492

Here is the most telling passage:

Some members of the faith even supported Southwick when he was facing sentencing last week. Members of his ward, two former bishops and a former stake president wrote letters of support to the judge.
"In a particular church responsibility of mine over many years I observed with first-hand knowledge Val's Christ-like attributes in making other lives much better through his teaching, service and sharing of his means many times over," said one letter.

Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, members will still trust their "spiritual" feelings over self evident information. The fact that those in support include two bishops and a stake president should put an end to the idea that these fellows have a higher degree of spiritual discernment.

Hey, as long as he paid tithing on his "earnings" and didn't drink coffee, or watch R-rated movies, or wear a colored shirt while passing the sacrament he is morally clean. I am not aware of any official doctrine on scamming people out of money. How could the bishops and SPs know if his scams were wrong if there was no official letter from SLC on First Presidency letterhead?

On a personal level and through the interconnectedness of the LDS community, Southwick's standing in the church was solid as recently as last year. Thomas S. Monson, who today is the president of the church, presided over the marriage of the Southwick's son, John David, on March 21, when Monson was a counselor to the late church president Gordon B. Hinckley. Monson also met with the family before John David Southwick's mission in 2004.

Gee I wonder how much money he has money stolen from others and donated to the Church?
No doubt the Church will return it ..

SatanWasSetUp wrote:Hey, as long as he paid tithing on his "earnings" and didn't drink coffee, or watch R-rated movies, or wear a colored shirt while passing the sacrament he is morally clean. I am not aware of any official doctrine on scamming people out of money. How could the bishops and SPs know if his scams were wrong if there was no official letter from SLC on First Presidency letterhead?

I wonder how he answered the "are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man" temple recommend question, or is that not a question anymore? It amazes how much members put more stock in not drinking coffee than in swindling others out of their hard earned money. Their perspectives and priorities are all mixed up.

John Larsen wrote:Here is the most telling passage:

Some members of the faith even supported Southwick when he was facing sentencing last week. Members of his ward, two former bishops and a former stake president wrote letters of support to the judge.
"In a particular church responsibility of mine over many years I observed with first-hand knowledge Val's Christ-like attributes in making other lives much better through his teaching, service and sharing of his means many times over," said one letter.

Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, members will still trust their "spiritual" feelings over self evident information. The fact that those in support include two bishops and a stake president should put an end to the idea that these fellows have a higher degree of spiritual discernment.

Should friends not provide letters of support at sentencing hearings?

I've been asked to be a witness in the sentencing phase for a friend of mine who will likely be convicted of a heinous first degree murder. Should I not? What if I don't believe in the death penalty? Doesn't it seem to you that the Christian motif is to help even the convict in prison?

rcrocket wrote:

John Larsen wrote:Here is the most telling passage:

Some members of the faith even supported Southwick when he was facing sentencing last week. Members of his ward, two former bishops and a former stake president wrote letters of support to the judge.
"In a particular church responsibility of mine over many years I observed with first-hand knowledge Val's Christ-like attributes in making other lives much better through his teaching, service and sharing of his means many times over," said one letter.

Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, members will still trust their "spiritual" feelings over self evident information. The fact that those in support include two bishops and a stake president should put an end to the idea that these fellows have a higher degree of spiritual discernment.

Should friends not provide letters of support at sentencing hearings?

I've been asked to be a witness in the sentencing phase for a friend of mine who will likely be convicted of a heinous first degree murder. Should I not? What if I don't believe in the death penalty? Doesn't it seem to you that the Christian motif is to help even the convict in prison?

It depends on what a letter of support is and what their intent in writing it is. I am curious how the report found it is was two bishops and a stake president. I guess that is still a currency worth trading in. This guy is scum. Short of a heinous violent crime, this guy did the unthinkable. I don't know why anybody would want to show their support.

John Larsen wrote:Here is the most telling passage:

Some members of the faith even supported Southwick when he was facing sentencing last week. Members of his ward, two former bishops and a former stake president wrote letters of support to the judge.
"In a particular church responsibility of mine over many years I observed with first-hand knowledge Val's Christ-like attributes in making other lives much better through his teaching, service and sharing of his means many times over," said one letter.

Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, members will still trust their "spiritual" feelings over self evident information. The fact that those in support include two bishops and a stake president should put an end to the idea that these fellows have a higher degree of spiritual discernment.

It's just amazing how much a person can ignore and deny isn't it. Especially where feelings and/or religion is involved.

TygerFang wrote:It's just amazing how much a person can ignore and deny isn't it. Especially where feelings and/or religion is involved.

Reminds me of how Mark Hofmann's father said he had a spiritual witness that his son was innocent -- he was not the bomber behind the Salamander letter fiasco. Then a couple days later, Mark confessed. So much for that witness.

This is another sad tale of Mormons being too trusting of other Mormons. We have had two similar situations in our stake in the past 20 years though not to this extent. LDS people are just too naïve when it comes to these things. I recall two people who came to me for advice after they put money into some mining LPs. They had blown up with IRS. Because of my background they hoped I could help them. I had an idea of their income level. I told them that they had no business investing in such high risk and tax aggressive investments based on their income. Well they came to me too late. I could not help them. They lost their money, had to pay IRS for back taxes plus penalties and interest. I was so furious but the person who sold them the deal, the good LDS member that everyone trusted, had long since moved away... and yes he had been prosecuted and had lost his license to practice as a CPA in the process.

If it sounds too good to be true it almost always is. Most investors should stick to investing in solid stock mutual funds from a reputable family of funds with a good historical track record. That is all most people will need. If they are not comfortable with asset allocation and selecting the funds there are lots of advisor's out there that are good and will help them for not a large fee typically. I always tell people if you do not understand how the investment vehicle works you have no business being in it.