Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[sunstoned]

Matthew 10:16.

The church takes donations and requires members to give 10% plus to the the organization. But it does not even guarantee that it will honor the requests on the donors to where their money is to be allocated. Unlike most traditional churches, The LDS church is not transparent in any sense of the word. No one really knows what is going on. It now requires members to be the janitors at ward buildings and wants members to pony up and board missionaries for a poultry on 75 bucks a month, while at the same time making 535 million land purchases. Something is wrong, really wrong.

[Kenngo1969]

Because we're in the midst of wolves? That's not an answer to the question I asked:

Why would you assume that a book about church finances would be antipathetic to the church? It's as if you assume that there is something inappropriate there.

Are you always this obtuse, or is it something you're doing for my benefit? Call me crazy, but yes, I think there's a difference between Mr. Smith's work and, say, provisions regarding the financial operations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the latest edition of the Church Handbook of Instructions. If you don't think Mr. Smith has an agenda or any axes to grind, I guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree about that.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

The church takes donations and requires members to give 10% plus to the the organization. But it does not even guarantee that it will honor the requests on the donors to where their money is to be allocated. Unlike most traditional churches, The LDS church is not transparent in any sense of the word. No one really knows what is going on. It now requires members to be the janitors at ward buildings and wants members to pony up and board missionaries for a poultry on 75 bucks a month, while at the same time making 535 million land purchases. Something is wrong, really wrong.

Your post is not responsive to the point I was making, but I hope you feel better now that you've vented your spleen.  Poultry?!  Oh, noes!  Anything but poultry!

[rockpond]

Are you always this obtuse, or is it something you're doing for my benefit? Call me crazy, but yes, I think there's a difference between Mr. Smith's work and, say, provisions regarding the financial operations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the latest edition of the Church Handbook of Instructions. If you don't think Mr. Smith has an agenda or any axes to grind, I guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree about that.

I pointed out that you avoided answering a question and I'm the obtuse one? Alright.

If you believe that Mr. Smith has an ax to grind or an agenda against the church, kindly provide some evidence. I thought we had higher standards here than baseless accusations.

You want me to be less obtuse? How's this... As far as I can tell you seem to believe that the brethren who handle church finances do so in a manner that is above reproach. And yet, you also seem to fear any information on those finances getting out into the public. It's an interesting position and one that seems to be shared by a number of others here.

I strikes me as untenable to claim that finances are handled so perfectly in the church that disclosure to members is absolutely not necessary while simultaneously claiming that if the public got hold of our financial information we'd be attacked mercilessly.

Edited August 17, 2014 by rockpond

[cdowis]

rockpoond,

 

Now look, let's get to the bottom line ==>>  Now tell me again WHY the church should disclose its finances.  

 

The church is free to say "No" and is not impelled to justify that decision.  The burden is upon those who demand disclosure to give a compelling reason to do it.  

 

If you argue that we are under suspicion, that we are criticized because of that decision, that it demonstrates that "we have something to hide"...... well, I am really not impressed by that argument for obvious reasons.

 

Let's see if we can wrap up this thread.

Edited August 17, 2014 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

The church takes donations and requires members to give 10% plus to the the organization. But it does not even guarantee that it will honor the requests on the donors to where their money is to be allocated. Unlike most traditional churches, The LDS church is not transparent in any sense of the word. No one really knows what is going on. It now requires members to be the janitors at ward buildings and wants members to pony up and board missionaries for a poultry on 75 bucks a month, while at the same time making 535 million land purchases. Something is wrong, really wrong.

My friend and former ward member and her husband are heading to Missouri for a mission in the car department. Something about him selling older missionary cars and her in the office, or something like that. I'm surprised she's going, another mission in England had her doing some kind of clerical work in a basement office building. She complained out loud about that, maybe it's just her husband that is excited. Is the church taking advantage of free labor, I wonder. Edited August 17, 2014 by Tacenda

[rockpond]

rockpoond,

Now look, let's get to the bottom line ==>> Now tell me again WHY the church should disclose its finances.

The church is free to say "No" and is not impelled to justify that decision. The burden is upon those who demand disclosure to give a compelling reason to do it.

If you argue that we are under suspicion, that we are criticized because of that decision, that it demonstrates that "we have something to hide"...... well, I am really not impressed by that argument for obvious reasons.

Let's see if we can wrap up this thread.

If you look through my posts here, you'll see I've explained my position multiple times. And to be clear, I haven't "demanded" anything. My reasoning is based on the requirement in Section 26 (for common consent in all things) further clarified by Section 104 and the fact that we used to disclose our finances to the members in general conference. That practice was stopped without explanation.

[Calm]

My friend and former ward member and her husband are heading to Missouri for a mission in the car department. Something about him selling older missionary cars and her in the office, or something like that. I'm surprised she's going, another mission in England had her doing some kind of clerical work in a basement office building. She complained out loud about that, maybe it's just her husband that is excited. Is the church taking advantage of free labor, I wonder.

Quite possibly, but it is a wise decision for all involved. Seniors who have purpose, who have work, feel they are making an contribution, tend to be healthier and live longer. Iirc as it has been awhile since I looked at stats, retirement increases mortality rate significantly. My own grandfather died shortly after he retired, had just gotten all his patriarchal blessings typed up, sent off and the files all in order and then having no more work required, he died walking home that day of a heart attack. He was 65ish.

[cdowis]

If you look through my posts here, you'll see I've explained my position multiple times. And to be clear, I haven't "demanded" anything. My reasoning is based on the requirement in Section 26 (for common consent in all things) further clarified by Section 104 and the fact that we used to disclose our finances to the members in general conference. That practice was stopped without explanation.

 

OK, as I understand your position, the church has failed to comply with the scriptural requirement that all things must be done by "common consent".  

 

"All things" includes every decision by the Prophet of the Lord and the Q12.

 

Just curious, do you think we should have voted on the change in the age requirement for missionaries, where specifically we should build a temple, whether we should do missionary work in Israel.  Perhaps, at the very least, the church should submit a detailed  budget to the church membership for a vote -- item by item, or just the entire budget as a whole.

 

No need to answer if you don't want to, but we need to understand your argument.

Edited August 17, 2014 by cdowis

[rodheadlee]

Since the modern church previously disclosed financials in general conference, I don't think that returning to that practice would put us on the path to apostasy.

Pre internet hacking, thieving. Didn't the Russian mob steal a billion passwords last week? You want to put our finances online for every evil person in the world to take a crack at us?

[ERayR]

Quite possibly, but it is a wise decision for all involved. Seniors who have purpose, who have work, feel they are making an contribution, tend to be healthier and live longer. Iirc as it has been awhile since I looked at stats, retirement increases mortality rate significantly. My own grandfather died shortly after he retired, had just gotten all his patriarchal blessings typed up, sent off and the files all in order and then having no more work required, he died walking home that day of a heart attack. He was 65ish.

 

Yep I am a total wreck but I have four grandkids that I provide for.  It keeps me going.  I tell myself 10 more years when they are out of school.

[rockpond]

OK, as I understand your position, the church has failed to comply with the scriptural requirement that all things must be done by "common consent".

"All things" includes every decision by the Prophet of the Lord and the Q12.

Just curious, do you think we should have voted on the change in the age requirement for missionaries, where specifically we should build a temple, whether we should do missionary work in Israel. Perhaps, at the very least, the church should submit a detailed budget to the church membership for a vote -- item by item, or just the entire budget as a whole.

No need to answer if you don't want to, but we need to understand your argument.

I haven't suggested that we *vote* on anything.

Common consent is not the same as voting. And to consent, one must have some amount of knowledge as to what is being presented. It won't be a perfect knowledge but I think we should make an attempt to provide some reasonable amount of financial disclosure so that the membership at large can appropriately consent to the handling of consecrated funds.

[rockpond]

Pre internet hacking, thieving. Didn't the Russian mob steal a billion passwords last week? You want to put our finances online for every evil person in the world to take a crack at us?

What are you worried about them finding?

Edited August 17, 2014 by rockpond

[Gervin]

You want to put our finances online for every evil person in the world to take a crack at us?

Checking in on this thread and I see this dead horse, beaten to an unrecognizable form.  

 

You have all the factual data and information - why this fear of evil people attacking, or destroying or "taking a crack at"?  

 

The EFCA was referenced a few times in this thread and they've got about 2,000 members signed up.  How many of these organizations are crippled by naysayers (or "evil people") as a result of opting for financial disclosure?  And there may be a majority of relatively small organizations, but there are organizations that are plenty large enough to draw heightened scrutiny, opinionated critics, and disgruntled former employees/associates (I noticed on the charter member page Young Life - total assets of $342M, Moody Bible Institute - $361M total assets, and Wheaton College - $724 / same). http://www.ecfa.org/CharterMembers.aspx

 

A Church that is truly worried about the world's reaction to its actions could be seen as not having much claim for authority in the world.

[cdowis]

I haven't suggested that we *vote* on anything.

Common consent is not the same as voting. And to consent, one must have some amount of knowledge as to what is being presented. It won't be a perfect knowledge but I think we should make an attempt to provide some reasonable amount of financial disclosure so that the membership at large can appropriately consent to the handling of consecrated funds.

 

OK, I am using the word "vote" to mean that a proposal is presented to us and we then raise our hand to consent or oppose that proposal.  That is common consent, but you don't like that word.

 

SORRY!  I can fix that.  Let's call it "give consent", or do you have some other word or phrase.  good grief!

 

If you don't like that word, please put it here in the space provided ___________________________________________

 

Should we be given the opportunity to  "give consent" (or whatever word you put into the space provided) on changing the age of missionaries, the specific location of new temples, the individual budget items or the budget as a whole, where new chapels will be built, the location of a new mission -- on "all things", on every decision that the church leaders make.  We can have it on Twitter on a daily basis and give our consent electronically.  Common consent is not just giving information but the raising of the hand to give approval.  

 

Do you want common consent on individual budget items, or are you willing to allow the church to get common consent on the budget as a whole?  

Edited August 17, 2014 by cdowis

[ERayR]

OK, I am using the word "vote" to mean that a proposal is presented to us and we then raise our hand to consent or oppose that proposal.  That is common consent, but you don't like that word.

 

SORRY!  I can fix that.  Let's call it "give consent", or do you have some other word or phrase.  good grief!

 

If you don't like that word, please put it here in the space provided ___________________________________________

 

Should we be given the opportunity to  "give consent" (or whatever word you put into the space provided) on changing the age of missionaries, the specific location of new temples, the individual budget items or the budget as a whole, where new chapels will be built, the location of a new mission -- on "all things", on every decision that the church leaders make.  We can have it on Twitter on a daily basis and give our consent electronically.  Common consent is not just giving information but the raising of the hand to give approval.  

 

Do you want common consent on individual budget items, or are you willing to allow the church to get common consent on the budget as a whole?  

 

Too me Rockpond's interpretation of the common consent scripture is incorrect.

[cdowis]

Too me Rockpond's interpretation of the common consent scripture is incorrect.

 

Let's give rockpond a chance to explain. Don't make sense to me but he/ she can clarify.

[rockpond]

Deleted. Accidentally posted too early (responding on my phone).

Edited August 17, 2014 by rockpond

[rockpond]

OK, I am using the word "vote" to mean that a proposal is presented to us and we then raise our hand to consent or oppose that proposal. That is common consent, but you don't like that word.

SORRY! I can fix that. Let's call it "give consent", or do you have some other word or phrase. good grief!

If you don't like that word, please put it here in the space provided ___________________________________________

Should we be given the opportunity to "give consent" (or whatever word you put into the space provided) on changing the age of missionaries, the specific location of new temples, the individual budget items or the budget as a whole, where new chapels will be built, the location of a new mission -- on "all things", on every decision that the church leaders make. We can have it on Twitter on a daily basis and give our consent electronically. Common consent is not just giving information but the raising of the hand to give approval.

Do you want common consent on individual budget items, or are you willing to allow the church to get common consent on the budget as a whole?

I wasn't trying to be annoying, the distinction between voting and giving consent is critical.

To vote on something implies that we are presented with two or more options and then decide which will prevail.

In contrast, common consent is when a body of church members is informed of an action, or policy, or doctrine, etc that has already been performed/identified by priesthood leaders and we either indicate our consent or opposition.

Common consent does not look like the way the secular world votes.

To answer your questions, I think that the missionary age change could have been presented for common consent. I think it would have been a beautiful thing to see the Conf Center full of members with their hands uplifted in support. New temples and missions as well. A new chapel might only be presented for common consent in the appropriate geographical area.

I think the spirit of the law here is to give members as much knowledge as is reasonable and possible and let them show their consent and support.

Since general church financial statements were once provided to members, it seems that doing so still falls into the reasonable and possible category.

[cdowis]

Since general church financial statements were once provided to members, it seems that doing so still falls into the reasonable and possible category.

 

OK, so It's now "We used to do it and it is reasonable to do it again."

 

I guess my response would be,  "Well the world certainly has changed, hasn't it.  I guess it just didn't work out for the church even then."

[rockpond]

OK, so It's now "We used to do it and it is reasonable to do it again."

I guess my response would be, "Well the world certainly has changed, hasn't it. I guess it just didn't work out for the church even then."

Not at all. As I explained, my reasoning is the principle of common consent (as given in the D&C) that I outlined in my previous responses to you. And then I subsequently clarified it in the part of my last response that you redacted when responding here.

[CV75]

I think the D&C uses the term “common consent” in the sense that it is sustaining those that the Lord has authorized to conduct the affairs (“all things”) of the Church. In Section 104, it shows how this relates to the management of the sacred treasury.

 

In D&C 26, “all things shall be done by common consent in the church”) has to do with “confirming the church” in a geographic location (in this instance, Colesville, but in general, branches, wards, districts, stakes, etc.), which means appointing the leadership. This is a key purpose for the conferences, where leaders are announced and sustained by the membership and take on their appointments by setting apart. At the same time, all that the prophet does is sustained by the membership, also “by much prayer and faith.”

 

D&C 28 speaks to the church covenants respective to leadership. These covenants are made in the form of the sustaining action by the members (common consent) which upholds those who are appointed to lead by proper authority.

 

In some cases this principle is more specific to the council of the United Order which managed the treasury (D&C 104), but in either case the membership of the body (whether the church or the order) sustains the leaders. If a member sustains the prophet, he will also be sustaining the council that manages the treasury, even though every decision is not passed by that member.

[Kenngo1969]

Why would you assume that a book about church finances is antipathetic to the church?

 

 

Matthew 10:16.

 

 

Because we're in the midst of wolves? That's not an answer to the question I asked:

Why would you assume that a book about church finances would be antipathetic to the church? It's as if you assume that there is something inappropriate there.

 

[in response to Calmoriah's point about the title.]

 

Ha. Excellent point. But not the whole story. Don't judge a book by its cover and all that...

It was written by an active believing member. Who remained so after writing the book (as far as I am aware).

 

 

Are you always this obtuse, or is it something you're doing for my benefit? Call me crazy, but yes, I think there's a difference between Mr. Smith's work and, say, provisions regarding the financial operations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the latest edition of the Church Handbook of Instructions. If you don't think Mr. Smith has an agenda or any axes to grind, I guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree about that.

 

 

I pointed out that you avoided answering a question and I'm the obtuse one? Alright.

If you believe that Mr. Smith has an ax to grind or an agenda against the church, kindly provide some evidence. I thought we had higher standards here than baseless accusations. ...

 

This will be my last post to you on the subject, because I strongly suspect that you're not dealing with me in good faith. I have lost respect for you, because, formerly, I believed that whatever disagreements you may have had with me or with anyone else here, you hold the positions you hold in good faith. (I'll cross you off of that list.) Hereafter, if you wish to crow how you soundly defeated me rhetorically because I allegedly refused to defend my position, have it it.

 

If you want to believe that someone who can't even write the title of his book (let alone any of its contents) without taking a dig at a book that millions hold sacred is actually part of “the loyal opposition”; if you want to believe that, notwithstanding the fact that he couldn't resist taking a dig – not at any of the financial practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but at something that is foundational to the faith in that title (he apparently produced the book on Createspace, so, more than likely, he's responsible for the title); if you want to believe that, in his heart of hearts, he thinks that the convictions of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sincere but misguided”; if you want to believe that he has a burning testimony of the Church's foundational claims, and that's what compels him to be “a lone voice crying in the wilderness” about its financial practices, and that all he wants is for all of us to keep our faith while simply ensuring that whatever is done that is necessary to ensure that the Church obtains and maintains sound financial footing; if you want to believe that the intended audience of his book is faithful Latter-day Saints and that no one would (or should) be turned off by his approach ...

 

Have at it! More power to you!

[Tacenda]

Respectfully Ken, if you really want the truth from the author himself and are willing to do that please listen to Daymon on MS, in the 3rd podcast at the very beginning he explains how he came up with the title and how it wasn't to take a dig at the BoM.

[rockpond]

I think the D&C uses the term “common consent” in the sense that it is sustaining those that the Lord has authorized to conduct the affairs (“all things”) of the Church. In Section 104, it shows how this relates to the management of the sacred treasury.

In D&C 26, “all things shall be done by common consent in the church”) has to do with “confirming the church” in a geographic location (in this instance, Colesville, but in general, branches, wards, districts, stakes, etc.), which means appointing the leadership. This is a key purpose for the conferences, where leaders are announced and sustained by the membership and take on their appointments by setting apart. At the same time, all that the prophet does is sustained by the membership, also “by much prayer and faith.”

D&C 28 speaks to the church covenants respective to leadership. These covenants are made in the form of the sustaining action by the members (common consent) which upholds those who are appointed to lead by proper authority.

In some cases this principle is more specific to the council of the United Order which managed the treasury (D&C 104), but in either case the membership of the body (whether the church or the order) sustains the leaders. If a member sustains the prophet, he will also be sustaining the council that manages the treasury, even though every decision is not passed by that member.

But the principle of common consent cannot apply exclusively to sustaining leaders because we use it in other ways as well... Bringing new scripture into our canon for example.