This Sunday: IRS whistleblower to break his silence on LDS Church finances, will speak on ‘60 Minutes’

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Newsweek article has a interesting take on the Deseret News 60 minutes piece.

Mormon-Owned Paper Slams '60 Minutes' Episode

CBS's 60 Minutes has come under fire from a publication owned by the Mormon Church after the show aired an interview with a whistleblower who alleges the church's financial arm tried to hide billions of dollars and abuse its tax-exempt status.

In the episode aired Sunday, David Nielsen, a former investment adviser for the church, accused the church's investment arm, Ensign Peak Advisors, of acting as "a clandestine hedge fund". It was the first time he had spoken publicly since telling federal regulators in 2019 that the fund amassed $100 billion intended for charitable purposes.

https://www.newsweek.com/morman-news-cb ... ts-1800635

[Dr. Shades]

"Deseret News" wrote:

This same story plays out every few decades, despite the church’s commendable self-reliance and efficiency of its humanitarian efforts. Living stipends for full-time church leaders are estimated to be significantly less than the salary of a member of U.S Congress, and hundreds of thousands of dollars less than leaders of large public and private universities or comparable nonprofit organizations.

Lost in this all, once again, are the actual purposes and uses of funds as members and leaders of the church understand them. Simply put, Jesus will need tremendous working capital upon his return. We intend to give him some of it, with the remainder to be used for continued Church operating costs and guaranteed stipends.

Jesus needs 'tremendous working capital'? How pray tell did he make it during his first, 33-year run without tremendouse working capital?

And what happens if Jesus asks for all of the funds? Will the church say no, Jesus, we need it for the operating costs and guaranteed stipends?

Oh, and the full-time church leaders should be likened to members of Congress or the leaders of large public and private universities or nonprofit orgs? Maybe as "apostles", the standard for them should be the meager compensation (none) Jesus paid the original 12.

Moksha made that up.

...Simply put, Jesus will need tremendous working capital upon his return. We intend to give him some of it...

I am speechless. this comment is so far beyond nonsensical it is ludicrous. These are grown adults, right? I am nonplussed. What is going on in the brains of these idiots.

Although Tom essentially pointed it out after your post, Moksha made that up.

My mistake. Usually i don't fall for moksha's nonsense, but I'll be more careful in the future.

RULE OF THUMB: When Moksha quotes a source from outside this message board, he's just making it up.

[Moksha]

RULE OF THUMB: When Moksha quotes a source from outside this message board, he's just making it up.

Have you noticed how much time and effort everyone puts into arguing against things that have been made up? The part about sharing some of this vast account with Jesus seemed to flow from the preponderance of the actual quote. How do you know it was not inspired and channeled from the mind of the Church spokesman; a seeming manifestation of the cyber miracle of Internet Mormonism?

[Marcus]

RULE OF THUMB: When Moksha quotes a source from outside this message board, he's just making it up.

Have you noticed how much time and effort everyone puts into arguing against things that have been made up? The part about sharing some of this vast account with Jesus seemed to flow from the preponderance of the actual quote. How do you know it was not inspired and channeled from the mind of the Church spokesman; a seeming manifestation of the cyber miracle of Internet Mormonism?

Don't post false quotes, birdbrain.

[Kishkumen]

The Church is fined for illegally and deceptively creating shell companies to avoid responsible use of it's funds, and then asserts to its members that it's completely responsible with its fortune?

Sounds like they are doubling down on their dishonesty to me. This is really quite appalling even for the Church.

And yet it seems to work for many members.

[Kishkumen]

If he gets anything, it will mean the system worked by providing an incentive for people to come forward and shine light on bad behavior. Good for him. Shaming a whistleblower because there’s a reward is dumb. Mormons do all sorts of stuff for the promise of a future reward.

Indeed! But they have been trained to see the worst in anyone who says anything unflattering about the church. The critic is immediately morally suspect. The church is the victim.

[Dr Exiled]

RULE OF THUMB: When Moksha quotes a source from outside this message board, he's just making it up.

Have you noticed how much time and effort everyone puts into arguing against things that have been made up? The part about sharing some of this vast account with Jesus seemed to flow from the preponderance of the actual quote. How do you know it was not inspired and channeled from the mind of the Church spokesman; a seeming manifestation of the cyber miracle of Internet Mormonism?

Yes, it makes sense. Jesus wants us to be sunbeams earning capital for him each day. Well done channeling what's really going on here. #Trillions for Jesus.

ETA: I just had some inspiration for the BYU accountant program - a new combined major of creative accountancy! The church needs accountants to wade through the morass of disclosure requirements and creativity will be progressively needed. Also, the church's accountants will be called on to take the hint more and more as more scrutiny may besiege the brethren. Hence, add in some creative writing and perhaps get the accountant students to play poker against some pre-med students so the accountant students can learn how to signal each other. That will come in handy when these students are later faced with SEC disclosures and stock trading. #Trillions for Jesus

[Dr Exiled]

Newsweek article has a interesting take on the Deseret News 60 minutes piece.

Mormon-Owned Paper Slams '60 Minutes' Episode

CBS's 60 Minutes has come under fire from a publication owned by the Mormon Church after the show aired an interview with a whistleblower who alleges the church's financial arm tried to hide billions of dollars and abuse its tax-exempt status.

In the episode aired Sunday, David Nielsen, a former investment adviser for the church, accused the church's investment arm, Ensign Peak Advisors, of acting as "a clandestine hedge fund". It was the first time he had spoken publicly since telling federal regulators in 2019 that the fund amassed $100 billion intended for charitable purposes.

https://www.newsweek.com/morman-news-cb ... ts-1800635

From the above article:

Deseret News, which is ultimately owned by the church but editorially independent, on Tuesday, accused 60 Minutes of having "recycled" old complaints to raise questions that "already have rather banal answers."

Sorry Newsweek but the DN is certainly not editorially independent. It's like the person that claims independence but always votes for the same party, year in and year out. There may be a veneer of independence because cojcolds doesn't review what goes in, but, if someone on the editorial staff wrote a column supporting more financial disclosure, it would be door meet the newly unemployed.

[Dr Moore]

Indeed! But they have been trained to see the worst in anyone who says anything unflattering about the church. The critic is immediately morally suspect. The church is the victim.

Henry B. Eyring was an expert on organizational behavior. He would know, more than anyone in the Q15, that whether in business, government, or religion, leaders who will not suffer critics ultimately preside over decay and ruin. That church leaders have acclimatized members to instantly reject critics is a sure sign of a failing leadership model.

https://hbr.org/2022/12/how-leaders-sho ... -criticism
https://hbr.org/2014/01/find-the-coaching-in-criticism
https://hbr.org/2020/03/a-subordinates- ... e-creative
https://hbr.org/2020/10/todays-leaders- ... Old Testament-bravado

I asked the following question to Google's Bard (ChatGPT challenger): "What does history tell us about the outcome when organizational leaders in business, government or religion, refuse to tolerate critics? Give 2 examples each from business, government and religious history."

Pretty good answer.

History tells us that when organizational leaders refuse to tolerate critics, it can lead to a number of negative outcomes, including:

Loss of trust and credibility. When leaders refuse to listen to criticism, it sends a message that they are not interested in hearing different perspectives or learning from their mistakes. This can erode trust and credibility with employees, customers, and other stakeholders.

Increased dissent and conflict. When leaders refuse to tolerate dissent, it can create a climate of fear and intimidation. This can lead to increased conflict and tension within the organization, making it difficult to achieve goals.

Poor decision-making. When leaders are surrounded by yes-men and women, they are more likely to make poor decisions. This is because they are not getting the benefit of different perspectives and are not being challenged to think critically about their decisions.

Damage to the organization's reputation. When an organization's leaders are known for being intolerant of criticism, it can damage the organization's reputation. This can make it difficult to attract and retain top talent, customers, and investors.

Here are two examples of each from business, government, and religious history:

Business

In 2018, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick was forced to resign after a series of scandals, including allegations of sexual harassment and a culture of sexism within the company. Kalanick was known for his aggressive management style and his intolerance of criticism.

In 2008, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy after years of risky lending practices. The company's CEO, Richard Fuld, was known for his arrogance and his refusal to listen to criticism.

Government

In 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned after the Watergate scandal. Nixon was known for his paranoia and his intolerance of dissent.

In 1939, Adolf Hitler invaded Poland, sparking World War II. Hitler was a dictator who was intolerant of any opposition to his rule.

Religion

In 1637, the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay Colony executed Anne Hutchinson for heresy. Hutchinson was a religious dissenter who challenged the Puritans' authority.

In 1593, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church for heresy. Bruno was a philosopher who challenged the Church's teachings on cosmology and religion.

These are just a few examples of the negative outcomes that can occur when organizational leaders refuse to tolerate critics. It is important for leaders to be open to criticism and to listen to different perspectives. This is essential for making sound decisions and for building a healthy and productive organization.

[Marcus]

Indeed! But they have been trained to see the worst in anyone who says anything unflattering about the church. The critic is immediately morally suspect. The church is the victim.

Henry B. Eyring was an expert on organizational behavior. He would know, more than anyone in the Q15, that whether in business, government, or religion, leaders who will not suffer critics ultimately preside over decay and ruin. That church leaders have acclimatized members to instantly reject critics is a sure sign of a failing leadership model.

https://hbr.org/2022/12/how-leaders-sho ... -criticism
https://hbr.org/2014/01/find-the-coaching-in-criticism
https://hbr.org/2020/03/a-subordinates- ... e-creative
https://hbr.org/2020/10/todays-leaders- ... Old Testament-bravado

I asked the following question to Google's Bard (ChatGPT challenger): "What does history tell us about the outcome when organizational leaders in business, government or religion, refuse to tolerate critics? Give 2 examples each from business, government and religious history."

Pretty good answer.

History tells us that when organizational leaders refuse to tolerate critics, it can lead to a number of negative outcomes, including:

Loss of trust and credibility. When leaders refuse to listen to criticism, it sends a message that they are not interested in hearing different perspectives or learning from their mistakes. This can erode trust and credibility with employees, customers, and other stakeholders.

Increased dissent and conflict. When leaders refuse to tolerate dissent, it can create a climate of fear and intimidation. This can lead to increased conflict and tension within the organization, making it difficult to achieve goals.

Poor decision-making. When leaders are surrounded by yes-men and women, they are more likely to make poor decisions. This is because they are not getting the benefit of different perspectives and are not being challenged to think critically about their decisions.

Damage to the organization's reputation. When an organization's leaders are known for being intolerant of criticism, it can damage the organization's reputation. This can make it difficult to attract and retain top talent, customers, and investors.

Here are two examples of each from business, government, and religious history:

Business

In 2018, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick was forced to resign after a series of scandals, including allegations of sexual harassment and a culture of sexism within the company. Kalanick was known for his aggressive management style and his intolerance of criticism.

In 2008, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy after years of risky lending practices. The company's CEO, Richard Fuld, was known for his arrogance and his refusal to listen to criticism.

Government

In 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned after the Watergate scandal. Nixon was known for his paranoia and his intolerance of dissent.

In 1939, Adolf Hitler invaded Poland, sparking World War II. Hitler was a dictator who was intolerant of any opposition to his rule.

Religion

In 1637, the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay Colony executed Anne Hutchinson for heresy. Hutchinson was a religious dissenter who challenged the Puritans' authority.

In 1593, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church for heresy. Bruno was a philosopher who challenged the Church's teachings on cosmology and religion.

These are just a few examples of the negative outcomes that can occur when organizational leaders refuse to tolerate critics. It is important for leaders to be open to criticism and to listen to different perspectives. This is essential for making sound decisions and for building a healthy and productive organization.

Extremely informative post, thank you.

I have wondered for years why the lds church fails so miserably at PR, even when hiring the most prestigious firms. Who knew chatbots could do it better? Of course, they still have to take the advice, which appears to be the real problem.