Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 (edited) I don't think Teancum's tithing status should be brought into the discussion.It seems germane to me if he continues to find fault with how tithing proceeds are expended.He, of course, is free to refuse to disclose that information. Edited February 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
ERayR Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 I recognize this as the current policy of our church. And I acknowledge that I don't get to know what happens to my tithes and offerings after giving them to the church. But I believe that financial transparency serves to protect both the church and the leaders. That is why I continue to state my opinion as being in favor of such disclosure.I don't think Teancum's tithing status should be brought into the discussion.No not the current policy of the Church but rather a fact of law. I am not an attorney but I believe once you have given a gift to a charity it is irrevocable. Once you relinquish control to the charity of your choice it belongs to them. There is a "select" few who seem to think just because they give a gift they have the right to a voice in how that gift is spent. Not so whether it is to the LDS Church, the Baptist Church, any other church, the Boy Scouts Goodwill, etc. The voice you have is to give or NOT give.
ERayR Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 I don't think Teancum's tithing status should be brought into the discussion.It is a matter of transparency. While we are at it how about you? Are you willing to disclose your contribution status in the interest of transparency? 1
rockpond Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 No not the current policy of the Church but rather a fact of law. I am not an attorney but I believe once you have given a gift to a charity it is irrevocable. Once you relinquish control to the charity of your choice it belongs to them. There is a "select" few who seem to think just because they give a gift they have the right to a voice in how that gift is spent. Not so whether it is to the LDS Church, the Baptist Church, any other church, the Boy Scouts Goodwill, etc. The voice you have is to give or NOT give.Agreed. You'll note that I did not claim that I had a right to financial transparency. As a member of the church, I am of the opinion that financial transparency is called for under the principle of common consent. I also happen to believe it would be in the best interest of the church. But I certainly do not feel that I have a right to it. And I continue to donate to the church, without that disclosure, for all the good that it does in my life and the lives of many millions of others. And because I believe it to be a commandment from God.
rockpond Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 It is a matter of transparency. While we are at it how about you? Are you willing to disclose your contribution status in the interest of transparency?I don't think that is an adequate comparison but I have no problem disclosing it for myself: I am a full tithe payer. I have been my entire working life.
ERayR Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 (edited) Our day indeed...You think maybe that "very racy" ad featuring a very homely young woman came directly from President Monson's office.Edited to add: Nice back and shoulders. Edited February 4, 2013 by ERayR
ERayR Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 I don't think that is an adequate comparison but I have no problem disclosing it for myself: I am a full tithe payer. I have been my entire working life.Congratulations I sincerely respect you for your dedication. 1
ERayR Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 Agreed. You'll note that I did not claim that I had a right to financial transparency. As a member of the church, I am of the opinion that financial transparency is called for under the principle of common consent. I also happen to believe it would be in the best interest of the church. But I certainly do not feel that I have a right to it. And I continue to donate to the church, without that disclosure, for all the good that it does in my life and the lives of many millions of others. And because I believe it to be a commandment from God.I don't think you really understand common consent.
Calm Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 You think maybe that "very racy" ad featuring a very homely young woman came directly from President Monson's office.Edited to add: Nice back and shoulders.Good muscle tone.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 I don't think you really understand common consent.I agree that rockpond's application of it here constitutes a mighty stretch.But I would be interested in hearing more of his reasoning.As a point of reference, I cite this Church News "Viewpoint" article written back in October 2004. By its nature as a house editorial, it is unsigned, as it is intended to express the position of the publication. But I am reasonably certain of its accuracy, because I wrote it, and I can attest that, like all Church News "Viewpoint" articles, it was scrutinized by the First Presidency and by Correlation. 2
ERayR Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 I agree that rockpond's application of it here constitutes a mighty stretch.But I would be interested in hearing more of his reasoning.As a point of reference, I cite this Church News "Viewpoint" article written back in October 2004. By its nature as a house editorial, it is unsigned, as it is intended to express the position of the publication. But I am reasonably certain of its accuracy, because I wrote it, and I can attest that, like all Church News "Viewpoint" articles, it was scrutinized by the First Presidency and by Correlation.Good article. Well put.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 Must have gym in the mallhttp://www.thegymatcitycreek.com/contact/
Calm Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 http://www.thegymatcitycreek.com/contact/Wonder what his back looks like.
rockpond Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 I agree that rockpond's application of it here constitutes a mighty stretch.But I would be interested in hearing more of his reasoning.As a point of reference, I cite this Church News "Viewpoint" article written back in October 2004. By its nature as a house editorial, it is unsigned, as it is intended to express the position of the publication. But I am reasonably certain of its accuracy, because I wrote it, and I can attest that, like all Church News "Viewpoint" articles, it was scrutinized by the First Presidency and by Correlation.I agree... very good article.My reasoning? I believe in stewardship and accountability. And D&C 104:71. While we no longer live the United Order, we do still believe in the law of consecration. Further, my reasoning is that if we don't know what we are consenting to, than the consent isn't worth as much.I'm not aware of much scriptural clarity with respect to common consent, beyond Section 104 and the verses that Scott has in his viewpoint, so I respect the different understandings of the principle.
Teancum Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 To reiterate: Once you give your money to the Church (or any other charity or business) it is theirs and you have relinquished the right to question how they use it. The time to question is before the contribution is given. If you don't get answers that satisfy you then don't contribute but once given it is no longer yours to control.Somehow I get the impression you do not contribute to the LDS Church anyway.1: Well sure E Ray. Once I give to the Red Cross, United Way, American Cancer Society, a local food pantry, etc sure it is their money and they can do what thay want. Difference is I can see what they do with it because they publish financial statements and if I object what they do with it I can stop giving. See that is what I did with the United Way at one point. But I cannot do this with the Church. 2: Your impression that I do not contribute to the Church is wrong. I do. I hold a TR which guess what...means I pay tithing. And since you are accusing me of not giving I also give a generous fast because I think it is a great program. And I give to the humanitarian fund because I think that is a great program too. My contributions over my life to the LDS Church are well into a 6 figure amount. 1
Teancum Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 It seems germane to me if he continues to find fault with how tithing proceeds are expended.He, of course, is free to refuse to disclose that information.As noted in my response to E Ray I am a full tithe payor. Does that make any difference on how you all view my simple wish for financial transparancy? And please Mr Lloyd CFR for where I find fault with how tithing per say is expended. My only complaint on the mall is that I really don't think it is an investment in line with what the Church that claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ. I have never complained about investments per say and even said in this modern world the church would be foolish not to invest in prudent reasonable investments in order to continue to fill its mission when income may be tight.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 (edited) As noted in my response to E Ray I am a full tithe payor. Does that make any difference on how you all view my simple wish for financial transparancy? And please Mr Lloyd CFR for where I find fault with how tithing per say is expended.Perhaps I should amend that to how tithing is administered. Complaining about "transparency" does strike me as fault finding, as does complaining about the Church electing to spend its business (non-tithing) income on urban revitalization in the environs of some of its sacred spaces. Edited February 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd 2
Teancum Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 Perhaps I should amend that to how tithing is administered. Complaining about "transparency" does strike me as fault finding, as does complaining about the Church electing to spend its business (non-tithing) income on urban revitalization in the environs of some of its sacred spaces.All NFPs are transparent to their donors as well as many Churches. You find that fault finding? I am not sure why ours feels a need to be so secretive. They uses to publish such info up to 1959. And really Scott anything at all that challanges the LDS Church status quo is too much criticism for you. 1
Teancum Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 And by the way the Church is you and the Church is me and all its members. Those leading the Church are stewards. They don't own it, well legally I think the president of the Church does, but i am not an attorney so I am not sure. But it simply amazes me that asking for accountability to the members that give their hard earned funds to the Church by those who manage is sets so many members off. My guess is if the Church disclosed these things and someone argued they shouldn't you all would be just as annoyed about it. Financial transparancy helps people behave better when managing money. It does not guarentee it of course. But it does help avoid abuse. Now don't accuse my of saying the LDS leaders are abusing things. I don't think they are. Perhaps they made a poor investment choice on this mall. I think they did. I could be wrong. We know in the past they over spend on buildings and that is likely a reason they closed the books in the defecit years of the late 50s and early 60s. But the reason for transparancy in organizations like the Church is really so painfully obvious to most people I just cannot believe anyone would argue against it. Check out online how many churches do this.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 All NFPs are transparent to their donors as well as many Churches. You find that fault finding? I am not sure why ours feels a need to be so secretive.I distinguish between the Church of Jesus Christ and man-made organizations, even churches.They uses to publish such info up to 1959. And really Scott anything at all that challanges the LDS Church status quo is too much criticism for you.Maybe you have that impression because when you see me react to criticism, the criticism is generally always misplaced. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 (edited) And by the way the Church is you and the Church is me and all its members. Those leading the Church are stewards.As President Harold B. Lee said in a quote in the article I cited in a prior post, the Church is not a democracy. President Lee called it a theocracy. The "stewards" you speak of are anointed prophets and apostles who receive revelation from Jesus Christ and govern accordingly. But it simply amazes me that asking for accountability to the members that give their hard earned funds to the Church by those who manage is sets so many members off.It's because the membership of the Church have grown accustomed to trusting the leaders, whom they regard as anointed servants of God. It is a system that works and has done so for the entire 182-year history of the Church.My guess is if the Church disclosed these things and someone argued they shouldn't you all would be just as annoyed about it.If I were, it would be because of the principle I have explained above.Financial transparancy helps people behave better when managing money. It does not guarentee it of course. But it does help avoid abuse.There is already a check against abuse built into the Church of Jesus Christ. It is what Richard Bushman called "the routinization of charisma," which is defined in a theological sense as a divinely directed gift, grace or talent, such as prophecy or revelation.He explained it this way:"How can we account for the success of this lay-led Church, which seems to run against all expectations?" Brother Bushman asked. He said that its genius can be largely explained in the fact that the expectation of divine revelation has been built into the very administrative structure and offices of the Church, an expectation attributable to the Prophet himself."Latter-day Saints know in their bones that only leadership based on righteousness and spirituality will work," Brother Bushman said, every new office holder knows it, and that, in itself, provides a check on the abuse of power within the Church. Now don't accuse my of saying the LDS leaders are abusing things. I don't think they are.I think you are unduly suspicious and cynical about them, and that has given rise to a spirit of faultfinding. Perhaps they made a poor investment choice on this mall. I think they did. I could be wrong.I submit that you are. We know in the past they over spend on buildings and that is likely a reason they closed the books in the defecit years of the late 50s and early 60s. You say that so matter-of-factly. I don't know it to be true. And no, I'm not interested in having you dredge up any past accusations.But the reason for transparancy in organizations like the Church is really so painfully obvious to most people I just cannot believe anyone would argue against it.I have explained it in terms of what Bushman called "the routinization of charisma." Check out online how many churches do this.Again, this is the Church of Jesus Christ. It is not just an ordinary church. Edited February 5, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
Teancum Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 I distinguish between the Church of Jesus Christ and man-made organizations, even churches.Maybe you have that impression because when you see me react to criticism, the criticism is generally always misplaced.1: So the Church is infallible when is suits your defense and not when it helps defend something awful a leader said that we want to back off from? And the man made organizations have better practices than the non man made one? And the Church was mistaken when it opened the books and now it is not mistaken keeping them secret?2: No there is often good criticism and the fact that you seem blinded to this is telling really.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 (edited) 1: So the Church is infallible when is suits your defense and not when it helps defend something awful a leader said that we want to back off from? And the man made organizations have better practices than the non man made one? And the Church was mistaken when it opened the books and now it is not mistaken keeping them secret?Briefly stated, I trust the judgment of Church leaders more than I do yours and I don't accept your jaundiced view of history.I'm funny that way, I guess.2: No there is often good criticism and the fact that you seem blinded to this is telling really.That's a matter of opinion -- and I don't find yours very persuasive. Edited February 5, 2013 by Scott Lloyd 1
Recommended Posts