Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[rockpond]

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

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!

I'm sorry if you feel that I was not discussing with you in good faith. I try to always be sincere and honest in my approach on these threads. And my point is not to defeat but to understand and be understood.

The question I asked of you, that I guess ruined my reputation with you, was meant as an introspective point similar to the point I've been making with others which is: why do so many here inherently believe that disclosure of financial information will play against the church.

I'm not asking you to answer that now, I understand that you are not interested in further dialogue with me, but I wanted to explain myself.

[Stargazer]

Would it be "virtuous, lovely, of good report, and praiseworthy" for the critics to shut their mouths and mind their own business?

Good heavens! Of course not! What else would there be to do? It would get so boring to just shut up and go fishing for a change. We can't have that.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm sorry if you feel that I was not discussing with you in good faith. I try to always be sincere and honest in my approach on these threads. And my point is not to defeat but to understand and be understood.

The question I asked of you, that I guess ruined my reputation with you, was meant as an introspective point similar to the point I've been making with others which is: why do so many here inherently believe that disclosure of financial information will play against the church.

I'm not asking you to answer that now, I understand that you are not interested in further dialogue with me, but I wanted to explain myself.

Sigh.  I'm going back on my previously-announced intention to not participate further in the thread.  I hate going back on my word, about that or about anything!  With all due respect, you're now moving the goal posts.  Previously, you asked:

 

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

 

Time and time again, I have attempted to make the point with you that I do not consider Mr. Smith's book to be simply "a book about Church finances."  I might consider reading someone who has honest issues in that area and wishes to state them forthrightly.  Mr. Smith may well be such a person; my judgment of him (in the sense of attempting to determine whether his work is worth my limited time or not; I'll leave consideration of the fate of his Eternal Soul where it belongs, between him and God) may be completely mistaken.  But if he wants to be seen as someone who is completely reasonable and completely committed to the Church of Jesus Christ who simply wants its members to take an honest, hard look at its finances, he went about it in exactly the wrong way, since he couldn't even get past the title of his book (let alone into any of its substantive claims) before taking a dig at a bedrock, foundational claim of the Church.

 

P.S: And I'm not the only one who feels that way; you already conceded that Calmoriah had a good point when she said much the same thing earlier in the thread.  But since Cal is nice as a kitten and pure as the driven snow and I'm not, you apparently don't want to concede that point to me.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

Sugar and spice and all that's nice, that's me.

[Kenngo1969]

Sugar and spice and all that's nice, that's me.

Amen, Sister!  Preach it!  

[Calm]

Amen, Sister! Preach it!

Snakes and snails and puppy dogs' tails ( really?! Who comes up with these disgusting things to tell children?!), that's you! Edited August 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

Sigh. I'm going back on my previously-announced intention to not participate further in the thread. I hate going back on my word, about that or about anything! With all due respect, you're now moving the goal posts. Previously, you asked:

Time and time again, I have attempted to make the point with you that I do not consider Mr. Smith's book to be simply "a book about Church finances." I might consider reading someone who has honest issues in that area and wishes to state them forthrightly. Mr. Smith may well be such a person; my judgment of him (in the sense of attempting to determine whether his work is worth my limited time or not; I'll leave consideration of the fate of his Eternal Soul where it belongs, between him and God) may be completely mistaken. But if he wants to be seen as someone who is completely reasonable and completely committed to the Church of Jesus Christ who simply wants its members to take an honest, hard look at its finances, he went about it in exactly the wrong way, since he couldn't even get past the title of his book (let alone into any of its substantive claims) before taking a dig at a bedrock, foundational claim of the Church.

P.S: And I'm not the only one who feels that way; you already conceded that Calmoriah had a good point when she said much the same thing earlier in the thread. But since Cal is nice as a kitten and pure as the driven snow and I'm not, you apparently don't want to concede that point to me.

I do concede (to all) that the title is not flattering to the church. I haven't argued that.

My question was not about the book. It was about you. What makes *you*... It was meant to be introspective. Like I said, I'm wondering what makes members on this board feel that our finances would inherently be used against us.

[Scott Lloyd]

I do concede (to all) that the title is not flattering to the church. I haven't argued that.

My question was not about the book. It was about you. What makes *you*... It was meant to be introspective. Like I said, I'm wondering what makes members on this board feel that our finances would inherently be used against us.

I suppose I could leave my doors unlocked for weeks on end and odds are I wouldn't experience a burglary or home invasion. My question: Why risk it when there is no appreciable benefit to leaving them unlocked?

[Tacenda]

I suppose I could leave my doors unlocked for weeks on end and odds are I wouldn't experience a burglary or home invasion. My question: Why risk it when there is no appreciable benefit to leaving them unlocked?

What would you have named the book? You don't have to answer, just real curious. I wholeheartedly agree it was poorly named. Lucky for the church, members were probably afraid to buy such a book with a title that appears to mock the BoM.

[Calm]

So I read his appendix in his book on his sources and as far as I can tell from their his documentation is "trust me".

[rockpond]

I suppose I could leave my doors unlocked for weeks on end and odds are I wouldn't experience a burglary or home invasion. My question: Why risk it when there is no appreciable benefit to leaving them unlocked?

As I've stated, I believe that there is appreciable benefit to a return to disclosure.

[rodheadlee]

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.

What's wrong is non tithe paying anonymous posters think it's their business to know our business.

Edited August 18, 2014 by rodheadlee

[rockpond]

What's wrong is non tithe paying anonymous posters think it's their business to know our business.

 

How do you know that those on here asking for disclosure are non-tithe paying?

[ERayR]

Sugar and spice and all that's nice, that's me.

 

Watch out it is just a disguise.  She can bite if it is necessary.

[Calm]

Watch out it is just a disguise.  She can bite if it is necessary.

I sharpen my teeth daily just to make sure they sink in deep.

[ERayR]

I do concede (to all) that the title is not flattering to the church. I haven't argued that.

My question was not about the book. It was about you. What makes *you*... It was meant to be introspective. Like I said, I'm wondering what makes members on this board feel that our finances would inherently be used against us.

 

I don't think it makes much difference in this area.  I simply think, like I assume the GA's think, even if a financial statement is published it will never be enough until it includes a detail(down to the penny) statement complete with donor lists.  Since it solves nothing to publish the decision seems to be to use the resources in a more productive way.

[ERayR]

What would you have named the book? You don't have to answer, just real curious. I wholeheartedly agree it was poorly named. Lucky for the church, members were probably afraid to buy such a book with a title that appears to mock the BoM.

 

I don't think fear had anything to do with it.

[Calm]

Reading the first pages does it for me and the sources don't appear to be ones I would find useful except for speculating. The book appears to be less about actual finances and more about how the church corporation operates though given how it is written as fiction, it is hard to see why someone would assume a description is accurate or not. Perhaps he gives indications in the book itself.

[Scott Lloyd]

As I've stated, I believe that there is appreciable benefit to a return to disclosure.

You're entitled to your belief. But a dubious and non-normative interpretation of scripture does not accord with my understanding of appreciable.

[CV75]

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.

As described in Section 104, the sustaining of actions our leaders manage the use of the sacred treasury is inherent in our sustaining of them as leaders when they are appointed in the general conferences.

 

Our changing canon is different in that the principle of common consent is applied to the action of the members as a whole binding themselves by covenant to uphold the revealed word of God as scripture. The Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon: Another Testament, Doctrines and Covenants, etc. are all covenants between God and His children (e.g. D&C 84:57; Moroni 10:3).

 

This is a similar action as that of the people of King Benjamin who “all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men” and subsequently received the word or scripture that the king would give them (Mosiah 4:1-4; 5:6).

 

To sustain the prophets in the administration of the Church does not entail covenanting to believe the covenants the Lord reveals through them. Both are inspired actions, but the Lord wants us to covenant to uphold His revelations. These revelations are available for all to see before adopting them by common consent.

[Scott Lloyd]

I do concede (to all) that the title is not flattering to the church. I haven't argued that.

My question was not about the book. It was about you. What makes *you*... It was meant to be introspective. Like I said, I'm wondering what makes members on this board feel that our finances would inherently be used against us.

 

 

I suppose I could leave my doors unlocked for weeks on end and odds are I wouldn't experience a burglary or home invasion. My question: Why risk it when there is no appreciable benefit to leaving them unlocked?

 

 

What would you have named the book? You don't have to answer, just real curious. I wholeheartedly agree it was poorly named. Lucky for the church, members were probably afraid to buy such a book with a title that appears to mock the BoM.

I haven't seen the book, nor am I interested in it.

 

My post was in response to rockpond's question.

[rockpond]

You're entitled to your belief. But a dubious and non-normative interpretation of scripture does not accord with my understanding of appreciable.

 

Well, Scott, I certainly have no problem wearing the title "non-normative".  But dubious?  Now you've hurt my feelings.  

 

How do you interpret the idea of "common consent in all things"?  What does it mean to you?

[rockpond]

I don't think it makes much difference in this area.  I simply think, like I assume the GA's think, even if a financial statement is published it will never be enough until it includes a detail(down to the penny) statement complete with donor lists.  Since it solves nothing to publish the decision seems to be to use the resources in a more productive way.

 

I think that's a reasonable position to take.  I just hope at this point that you understand why I disagree.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, Scott, I certainly have no problem wearing the title "non-normative".  But dubious?  Now you've hurt my feelings.  

 

How do you interpret the idea of "common consent in all things"?  What does it mean to you?

My understanding and belief is consistent with what's in this lesson from the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual used in the Church Educational System.

 

Beyond that, I would offer this editorial that I wrote back in 2004.

 

Though it is an unsigned institutional editorial -- intended to express the viewpoint of the publication -- the words are mine.

[rockpond]

As described in Section 104, the sustaining of actions our leaders manage the use of the sacred treasury is inherent in our sustaining of them as leaders when they are appointed in the general conferences.

 

Our changing canon is different in that the principle of common consent is applied to the action of the members as a whole binding themselves by covenant to uphold the revealed word of God as scripture. The Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon: Another Testament, Doctrines and Covenants, etc. are all covenants between God and His children (e.g. D&C 84:57; Moroni 10:3).

 

This is a similar action as that of the people of King Benjamin who “all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men” and subsequently received the word or scripture that the king would give them (Mosiah 4:1-4; 5:6).

 

To sustain the prophets in the administration of the Church does not entail covenanting to believe the covenants the Lord reveals through them. Both are inspired actions, but the Lord wants us to covenant to uphold His revelations. These revelations are available for all to see before adopting them by common consent.

 

I'm not really sure how to apply most of what you wrote here but I think your last sentence is important.  We consent to adopt new scripture.  To do so, that scripture must be available to us.  Valid common consent has to require some knowledge of what is happening.  For example (another example) we also use common consent when new members move into our ward.  Just yesterday, our ward participated in this form of common consent when I read the names of a new family into our ward.  Obviously we don't know everything about the family (they've only been here 5 days) but we ask them to stand, so at least we all know who they are, and we read their names - introducing them to the ward family.  The full procedure is noted in the handbook (quote below) and it is just one more beautiful example of common consent at work in our church.

 

"When membership records are received in a ward and when converts are baptized and confirmed, a member of the bishopric introduces and welcomes the members in the next sacrament meeting. He reads each person’s name, invites the person to stand, and asks members of the congregation to show by the uplifted hand that they accept the members in full fellowship in the ward. Records of family members are read together. If a member knows any reason why a person may not be entitled to full fellowship, he or she should talk to the bishop privately.

 

After children who are members of record are baptized and confirmed, a member of the bishopric announces each child’s baptism and confirmation in sacrament meeting. These children are not presented for acceptance into the ward because they are already members."

 

-- From Handbook 2, Section 18.2.2