All kidding aside, what they did was federal document perjury, which is fraud. It’s endlessly frustrating to see the extreme intellectual dishonesty at FAIR, trying to justify or minimize the fact that Ensign Peak committed deliberate fraud, hundreds of times for many many years, and only stopped once they were caught and threatened with proceedings (litigation).
Think about a large non-profit institution like a university. It will also take in tax-exempt donations, which will be put in a university foundation. The university will spend a portion of its money from donations and the foundation each year. The goal is to create a kind of financial perpetual motion machine in which the institution can continue to operate indefinitely. No university that wishes to operate indefinitely spends all of its donations, living hand to mouth each year. That model would create a very fragile institution, and such institutions don’t live for centuries like, say, my employer, The College of William & Mary, which is 330 years old. (Go Tribe!) Institutions also don’t want to spend at a rate that will cause their foundation to diminish in value each year. Again, an institution that pursued this strategy would eventually find itself living hand to mouth, would become fragile, and ultimately fail. So the trick is to set spending at a level that can be maintained indefinitely, drawing money from the foundation without depleting it. What is that number?
The answer for most universities is 4 to 5 percent.
It’s a little more complicated than that because the size of foundations gyrates quite a bit with background market conditions, sometimes institutions in effect borrow against their own future revenues by ramping up spending for a period and then spending less in the future, and so on. But basically, you spend at 4 to 5 percent. If you are spending at 4 to 5 percent of your foundation value, that level of spending can be maintained indefinitely.
So, how is the Church being managed? If the Church is spending $6 billion a year and has investments of $150 billion, what is its rate of spending?
4 percent. Exactly 4 percent.
I would suggest reading all of Nate Oman's essay. I've enjoyed his way of viewing things over the years.
In my opinion it is the critics that see church finances as being an insurmountable hurdle.
All kidding aside, what they did was federal document perjury, which is fraud. It’s endlessly frustrating to see the extreme intellectual dishonesty at FAIR, trying to justify or minimize the fact that Ensign Peak committed deliberate fraud, hundreds of times for many many years, and only stopped once they were caught and threatened with proceedings (litigation).
In my opinion it is the critics that see church finances as being an insurmountable hurdle.
Regards,
MG
The issue isn’t Church finances. The issue is First Presidencies committing a deliberate fraud, hundreds of times for many many years, co-opting and coercing others to be complicit in the fraud, and only stopping when caught red handed and threatened with litigation, rather than because they determined themselves that what they were doing was wrong. At no point did “The Lord” step in and correct them. They led the Church astray. Wilfully. For decades.
The First Presidency wilfully committed an act that they knew to be wrong.
It wasn’t a single rogue actor, because the wrongful act was continued by subsequent First Presidencies.
They had to be forced to do the right thing.
They coerced innocents into complicity with their financial shell game.
After being caught red handed, they didn’t apologise to the membership.
Even now they are trying to portray that Church finances are managed honourably in The Lords way, trying to whitewash the incident from the history of the Church.
If ever you needed proof that the leadership of the Church is corrupt and not to be trusted, this was it.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
In my opinion it is the critics that see church finances as being an insurmountable hurdle.
Regards,
MG
The issue isn’t Church finances. The issue is First Presidencies committing a deliberate fraud, hundreds of times for many many years, co-opting and coercing others to be complicit in the fraud, and only stopping when caught red handed and threatened with litigation, rather than because they determined themselves that what they were doing was wrong. At no point did “The Lord” step in and correct them. They led the Church astray. Wilfully. For decades.
The First Presidency wilfully committed an act that they knew to be wrong.
It wasn’t a single rogue actor, because the wrongful act was continued by subsequent First Presidencies.
They had to be forced to do the right thing.
They coerced innocents into complicity with their financial shell game.
After being caught red handed, they didn’t apologise to the membership.
Even now they are trying to portray that Church finances are managed honourably in The Lords way, trying to whitewash the incident from the history of the Church.
If ever you needed proof that the leadership of the Church is corrupt and not to be trusted, this was it.
Not me, YOU.
Again, I would recommend to others that have a bit more of an open mind to read Oman's article. I've kept up with his writings over the years and think what he has to say is worth considering.
The issue isn’t Church finances. The issue is First Presidencies committing a deliberate fraud, hundreds of times for many many years, co-opting and coercing others to be complicit in the fraud, and only stopping when caught red handed and threatened with litigation, rather than because they determined themselves that what they were doing was wrong. At no point did “The Lord” step in and correct them. They led the Church astray. Wilfully. For decades.
The First Presidency wilfully committed an act that they knew to be wrong.
It wasn’t a single rogue actor, because the wrongful act was continued by subsequent First Presidencies.
They had to be forced to do the right thing.
They coerced innocents into complicity with their financial shell game.
After being caught red handed, they didn’t apologise to the membership.
Even now they are trying to portray that Church finances are managed honourably in The Lords way, trying to whitewash the incident from the history of the Church.
If ever you needed proof that the leadership of the Church is corrupt and not to be trusted, this was it.
Not me, YOU.
Again, I would recommend to others that have a bit more of an open mind to read Oman's article. I've kept up with his writings over the years and think what he has to say is worth considering.
Regards,
MG
What does Oman (whoever he is?) have to say about the SEC finding that the Church knowingly ran a deliberate shell game in order to commit fraud, hundreds of times?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
The issue isn’t Church finances. The issue is First Presidencies committing a deliberate fraud, hundreds of times for many many years, co-opting and coercing others to be complicit in the fraud, and only stopping when caught red handed and threatened with litigation, rather than because they determined themselves that what they were doing was wrong. At no point did “The Lord” step in and correct them. They led the Church astray. Wilfully. For decades.
The First Presidency wilfully committed an act that they knew to be wrong.
It wasn’t a single rogue actor, because the wrongful act was continued by subsequent First Presidencies.
They had to be forced to do the right thing.
They coerced innocents into complicity with their financial shell game.
After being caught red handed, they didn’t apologise to the membership.
Even now they are trying to portray that Church finances are managed honourably in The Lords way, trying to whitewash the incident from the history of the Church.
If ever you needed proof that the leadership of the Church is corrupt and not to be trusted, this was it.
Not me, YOU.
Again, I would recommend to others that have a bit more of an open mind to read Oman's article. I've kept up with his writings over the years and think what he has to say is worth considering.
Regards,
MG
Respectfully MG, as you appear to me to be a believing Mormon, this is failure to engage with the substance of an argument.
No one is arguing about the propriety of a rainy day fund, or any other financial tactic. What is being argued against here is purposeful fraud. Which is what the LDS Church admits to by paying the monetary fine listed in the SEC documents to avoid criminal prosecution.
The point still holds. Per the United States Federal Government the LDS Church hierarchy across multiple First Presidencies committed deliberate fraud against the US Government. None of them lost temple recommends, none of them were honest enough to admit what they were doing, none of them will receive any consequence either from the church and in fact they continued to drone on about honesty and integrity to the lower ranks.
All of this while preaching to be the only true church on earth.
Again, I would recommend to others that have a bit more of an open mind to read Oman's article. I've kept up with his writings over the years and think what he has to say is worth considering.
Regards,
MG
Respectfully MG, as you appear to me to be a believing Mormon, this is failure to engage with the substance of an argument.
No one is arguing about the propriety of a rainy day fund, or any other financial tactic. What is being argued against here is purposeful fraud. Which is what the LDS Church admits to by paying the monetary fine listed in the SEC documents to avoid criminal prosecution.
The point still holds. Per the United States Federal Government the LDS Church hierarchy across multiple First Presidencies committed deliberate fraud against the US Government. None of them lost temple recommends, none of them were honest enough to admit what they were doing, none of them will receive any consequence either from the church and in fact they continued to drone on about honesty and integrity to the lower ranks.
All of this while preaching to be the only true church on earth.
This.
The new Church essay states that The Lord is ultimately behind all the financial decisions that the FP makes. That’s the FP throwing The Lord under the bus for the frauds they and their predecessors committed.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
What does Oman (whoever he is?) have to say about the SEC finding that the Church knowingly ran a deliberate shell game in order to commit fraud, hundreds of times?
Nothing in the link mg posted. It's just a derailment of the topic.
Respectfully MG, as you appear to me to be a believing Mormon, this is failure to engage with the substance of an argument.
No one is arguing about the propriety of a rainy day fund, or any other financial tactic. What is being argued against here is purposeful fraud. Which is what the LDS Church admits to by paying the monetary fine listed in the SEC documents to avoid criminal prosecution.
The point still holds. Per the United States Federal Government the LDS Church hierarchy across multiple First Presidencies committed deliberate fraud against the US Government. None of them lost temple recommends, none of them were honest enough to admit what they were doing, none of them will receive any consequence either from the church and in fact they continued to drone on about honesty and integrity to the lower ranks.
All of this while preaching to be the only true church on earth.
This.
The new Church essay states that The Lord is ultimately behind all the financial decisions that the FP makes. That’s the FP throwing The Lord under the bus for the frauds they and their predecessors committed.
Exactly. You have to really have gigantic egos and very little integrity to say your financial crimes are your god's fault, not yours.
The point still holds. Per the United States Federal Government the LDS Church hierarchy across multiple First Presidencies committed deliberate fraud against the US Government. None of them lost temple recommends, none of them were honest enough to admit what they were doing, none of them will receive any consequence either from the church and in fact they continued to drone on about honesty and integrity to the lower ranks.
All of this while preaching to be the only true church on earth.
Do you think the Church is secretly or perhaps unintentionally DezNat? It is interesting that people with the second anointing are given immunity from anything except blatant apostasy, in other words betraying the US government’s laws are fine but not betraying the Church. So long as it supports the institution of the Church it is justified in one way or another.
I am called Ego because that is what I seek to overcome in myself.
The point still holds. Per the United States Federal Government the LDS Church hierarchy across multiple First Presidencies committed deliberate fraud against the US Government. None of them lost temple recommends, none of them were honest enough to admit what they were doing, none of them will receive any consequence either from the church and in fact they continued to drone on about honesty and integrity to the lower ranks.
All of this while preaching to be the only true church on earth.
Do you think the Church is secretly or perhaps unintentionally DezNat? It is interesting that people with the second anointing are given immunity from anything except blatant apostasy, in other words betraying the US government’s laws are fine but not betraying the Church. So long as it supports the institution of the Church it is justified in one way or another.
Gonna be honest, I have no idea what DezNat is. However I do believe that the Mormon church within the Utah bubble believe themselves to be inviolable even against the US Federal Government. Currently it’s advantageous to the Mormon church to go along to get along, but the moment it’s not, who knows?
Of course it is possible to be a believing Mormon and think that the Lord does not micromanage but leaves lots of space for free decisions and the learning experiences that result. I believe Joseph taught that, at least it makes far more sense than micromanaging even if it allows errors and some poor decisions.