JAHS

I wonder if this change might also apply to the the Sunday School General President of the Church?

Mostly the main thing a Sunday school pres does is to make sure a class has a teacher if the original one doesn't show up.

In my ward we have a woman Stake Finance auditor, which use to be only men.

Probably don't want men being Relief Society Presidents or Young Women's presidents.

Women did prepare and pass the sacrament during the war because of the lack of priesthood holders. They even collected fast offerings.

No reason why women can't be Sunday School presidents since it is not a priesthood organization. Similar to Primary and YW presidencies.

Appeals court questions timeliness of fraud class action over Mormon church tithes (CN) — Members of a class action asked a three-judge panel on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday to reconsider the statute of limitations in a fraud case that accuses the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon church, of misrepresenting its use of church tithes. The case stems from a dispute between mostly former members of the Mormon church who accuse the church leadership of creating a slush fund from charitable donations that the plaintiffs say were obscured through different accounts by its investment firm, Ensign Peak Advisors. The plaintiffs accuse the Mormon church of using tens of billions of dollars for noncharitable expenses, particularly in the development of City Creek Center, a shopping mall in Salt Lake City. The plaintiffs claim the church made false statements that their tithes would not be used for these kinds of investments. A federal judge dismissed the case in April last year for filing the class action past the three-year statute of limitations for fraud based on the widespread news reporting and public discussion of the Mormon church’s use of tithes. But the plaintiffs appealed that ruling, arguing they were unaware of these discussions. Much of the argument on Tuesday centered on whether the plaintiffs should have known about the use of the funds and filed their claims sooner. “Under the decision of the District Court, the timer on the statute of limitations was running, and my clients had no idea,” attorney Scott George, of Seeger Weiss, told the three-judge panel. But the panel was skeptical of this claim. “It’s not about whether they had an idea; it’s whether they could have or should have known,” U.S. Circuit Judge Nancy Moritz, a Barack Obama appointee, said in response. “When there’s significant media coverage nationwide, locally, that’s been sufficient, and that’s what there was here.” The origin of the fraud claims goes back to a 2019 whistleblower who leaked extensive knowledge of the Mormon church’s financial practices around tithing. The whistleblower report precipitated an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as widespread media coverage from Utah and national news outlets between 2019 and 2023. The SEC fined the church and Ensign Peak Advisors in 2023 for illegally hiding its funds. The church and Ensign agreed to pay a total of $5 million in fines. In his order dismissing the case last year, U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby, also an Obama appointee, ruled the plaintiffs should have filed the class action no later than February of 2023. The plaintiffs filed the case in October of that year. They were only made aware of the topic after a May 2023 “60 Minutes” report was published, they say in their complaint. George argued his clients did not have a legal duty to follow the news because, unlike in other cases, his clients were ordinary donors. But the panel pushed back on this. The news about the whistleblower and SEC investigation was huge in the Mormon community, Moritz said. “Tithing is a big issue for them,” she said. “People heard these reports, and they talked about them. I guess I’m not hearing you respond to that particular significant aspect to that case.” George argued that his clients are primarily former members of the church and are no longer active in the community and mostly reside outside of Utah. “This is the rare case where there is a market test as to whether people who were interested in filing a timely lawsuit could do it, based on the whistleblower report and the coverage of it,” said Paul Clement, of Clement & Murphy, representing the Mormon church. The panel also questioned Clement about whether or not a reasonable person would have known about the discussion of church tithes used in the development of the shopping center. “Does it matter how sophisticated the plaintiff was or how well read they were or what publications they subscribed to?” Moritz asked. “You can’t really conclusively determine when they would have had this constructive knowledge, or do you need to look at their individual situation to know when they would have had constructive knowledge?” Clement argued that the plaintiffs’ claim that they relied on knowledge within the Mormon community that tithes would not fund the shopping mall, while remaining unaware of the widely publicized SEC investigation until May 2023, did not hold water. “That strikes me as implausible, to be candid,” he said. It’s not clear in the plaintiffs’ complaint when they were first told the tithes would not be used for the project, which George admitted was a deficiency. Clement also told the panel that the class action was only filed after the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of a donor in a similar case in 2023. In that case, James Huntsman, a prominent former member, also sued the church for fraud after it used tithes to help the Salt Lake City shopping mall. Huntsman sought the $5 million he donated to the church while he was still a member. However, an en banc panel ruled in favor of the church, finding that no juror could conclude it misrepresented the source of the funds used for that project. Moritz was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Harris Hartz, a George W. Bush appointee, and Gregory Phillips, another Obama appointee.

I was agreeing with you.

Not sure why it should be so wrong to use the word "Jew". It is used over 260 times in the Bible.

The Old Testament scriptures don't actually command polygamy as stated in the D&C, but God allowed it without condemnation. The only situation where it was made mandatory by the existing law was when a married man died without leaving a male heir, his brother was required to marry his widow regardless of whether he already had a wife. (Deut 25:5–6)

CFR please From the Church Topics website: The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise. In limited, specific cases the Lord has commanded His followers to practice plural marriage. Some of these cases occurred in biblical times. Doctrine and Covenants 132:1, 29–40

Why do you believe that? Because God commanded it to be practiced by prophets of the Old Testament to raise up seed.

When we are sealed we are sealed into the patriarchal family of God, which in a way means everyone sealed to God and to everyone else. Somehow things will get worked out as to who finally goes with who into the eternity. This of course is mostly my opinion.

Plural marriage was a real part of the original doctrine of God and was therefore part of God's restored doctrine in these latter-days. It was never rescinded. It was and still is a doctrine of the restored church. We simply don't practice it in this life right now, but there are many who are practicing it in the next life. All those plural marriage sealings have not been voided. Blacks receiving the priesthood was never an original part of God's doctrine. It was something that was prophesied to be allowed sometime in the future. It was finally allowed through revelation from God. And it was done at the best time for this life. All people of all races living and dead can now receive it.

And if He did the Church might have fallen. There were too many who were still conditioned to believe that blacks were nothing more than to be used as slaves and that they were an inferior species. It's kind of like the word of wisdom that was not followed strictly at first. President Joseph F. Smith taught that the Lord did not insist on strict compliance in the early years in order to allow a generation addicted to noxious substances some years to discard bad habits.

Most of the nation and most church members hearts in the early days of the Church were hard about this topic. Therefore God decided it wasn't the right time for it. I didn't mean to suggest it was God's fault.

The number two is the key issue here. It never turned into fifteen. The system worked the way it should have worked. Even though those two may have had the right idea; it wasn't the right time. Maybe their prompting helped to get the rest of the church leaders and church membership in general time to study and pray about it over the next few decades to eventually lead to a real change. Kind of like the Word of wisdom not being so strict at first to give time for members to get over their addictions to certain things.

Or God decided it wasn't the right time to address it.

If all 15 apostles have been wrong how would you know it?

Even if all 15 Apostles agree on the directive? That's why there are 15 of them. If any one does or says anything wrong they will be corrected, and that has happened a few times. So far trusting them has not done me any harm.

I guess if we at least "sustain" the Apostles as the 4th temple recommend asks we are OK: "Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?" Does sustain mean we don't question everything they say? It means we support them as leaders of the Church and as prophets, seers, and revelators. For me it's easier to believe most everything they say and if it turns out they are wrong they will be held accountable for it; not me. But I still study things and receive my own witness that what they say is true. I have never had the feeling that they were ever wrong; especially if they all agree on a certain point of doctrine.

Usually the way you do it is more sneaky. You have the church buy goods or services from some legitimate business entity that the embezzler owns. Or you use Fast Offering funds to pay off bills or expenses owed to such businesses. The latter is easier generally. I am also a stake finance auditor. The auditing program flags any expense that could be suspicious and tells us to check it during the audit. The Bishop is supposed to get a copy of a persons rental contract for those who get help with rent so we know it is legitimate. All expenses must have two people in the Bishopric approve the expense and sign the check. Any Bishopric member who receives reimbursement funds can not be one of the check signers or approvers of the expense. One of the questions specifically asks if the payment is being made to a Bishop or his family and must be approved by the Stake President. After the audit there are two other people who review the audit and sign off on it. Embezzling may be possible but a very difficult things to do.

From the Handbook: "People who are not members of the Church may be called to some positions, such as organist, music director, or a calling to help plan activities. However, they should not be called as teachers, as quorum or organization presidency members, or as Primary music leaders. A person whose membership has been formally restricted or has been withdrawn may not have a calling (see 32.11.3 and 32.11.4)." When we still had the scouting program there were non-members who served there. I know some who handed out the programs at Sacrament meetings

So does "all donations" mean all or does it actually exclude Fast Offerings? I know that records are kept on how much fast offerings are donated in a ward and that a ward should not spend beyond what is donated within their ward. But is that just a numbers thing and the actual money might be used for other things once it gets to Salt Lake?

Someone I know(non-member) said they found this letter on their door step and wondered if it was legit. Anyone heard of a ward doing this?