Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[ERayR]

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

I understand, I just don't agree with your interpretation of common consent.

[rockpond]

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.

 

Great editorial!

 

Here's a quote from the lesson you linked above...

 

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–67; 26:2; 28; 38:34–35; 41:9–11; 42:11; 102:9; 124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.)

 

Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2).

 

This explains clearly that common consent is about more than just the sustaining of church officers.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Great editorial!

 

Here's a quote from the lesson you linked above...

 

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–67; 26:2; 28; 38:34–35; 41:9–11; 42:11; 102:9; 124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.)

 

Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2).

 

This explains clearly that common consent is about more than just the sustaining of church officers.

 

But it doesn't entail micromanaging every single decision made by the leadership. That's where faith and prayer come in. And reasonable checks and safeguards, such as the annual audit announced at general conference.

 

Note the phrase "major decisions" in the wording from the manual.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

But it doesn't entail micromanaging every single decision made by the leadership. That's where faith and prayer comes in. And reasonable checks and safeguards, such as the annual audit announced at general conference.

 

Note the phrase "major decisions" in the wording from the manual.

 

A multi-billion dollar budget seems like a major decision.

 

And the audit doesn't provide any insight into how the money is being used... just that it is being handled in accordance with correct legal and accounting rules & regulations.

[Scott Lloyd]

A multi-billion dollar budget seems like a major decision.

 

Day-to-day determinations on expenditure of funds are not major decisions, relatively speaking.

 

By continuing to the sustain the Brethren, the membership of the Church signifies its collective trust in the leadership to make wise decisions in the course of the administration of the Church -- including the decision not to publicize detailed account ledgers.

 

If any individual members ceased to have such trust, they would be free to cast a negative vote during sustainings.

 

 

And the audit doesn't provide any insight into how the money is being used... just that it is being handled in accordance with correct legal and accounting rules & regulations.

 

 

It guards against mismanagement and the illegal appropriation of funds -- which would properly be within the province of the Church members to know about.

[rockpond]

Day-to-day determinations on expenditure of funds are not major decisions, relatively speaking.

 

By continuing to the sustain the Brethren, the membership of the Church signifies its collective trust in the leadership to make wise decisions in the course of the administration of the Church -- including the decision not to publicize detailed account ledgers.

 

If any individual members ceased to have such trust, they would be free to cast a negative vote during sustainings.

 

 

It guards against mismanagement and the illegal appropriation of funds -- which would properly be within the province of the Church members to know about.

 

As you know, I've never suggested that day-to-day determinations be disclosed or subjected to common consent.

 

I believe the audits protect against illegal appropriation of funds.  I'm not sure how they would protect against "mismanagement" nor what definition of that they use.  And since they don't disclose audit standards, we can't know.

 

But, again, I'm focused on providing knowledge to members of how funds are being used within the church to allow for valid common consent.

[Scott Lloyd]

As you know, I've never suggested that day-to-day determinations be disclosed or subjected to common consent.

 

Then I don't know why you would need a detailed ledger of expenditures.

[rockpond]

Then I don't know why you would need a detailed ledger of expenditures.

 

I've never asked for such.

[ERayR]

As you know, I've never suggested that day-to-day determinations be disclosed or subjected to common consent.

 

 

You personally may not be but there are many who are.  As I stated it is a never ending cacophony and never enough.

[rockpond]

You personally may not be but there are many who are.  As I stated it is a never ending cacophony and never enough.

 

None that I've seen on this thread.  So it's just a strawman within the context of this discussion.

[Gervin]

You personally may not be but there are many who are.  As I stated it is a never ending cacophony and never enough.

 

run, forrest, run

[ERayR]

run, forrest, run

 

Huh.

[Scott Lloyd]

Huh.

It's a reference to Forrest Gump.

 

And I don't see how it applies either.

[ERayR]

It's a reference to Forrest Gump.

 

And I don't see how it applies either.

 

Oh that explains it.  I only saw that movie once and really didn't think it was all that good despite the accolades heaped upon it.  But then what do I know.

[ERayR]

None that I've seen on this thread.  So it's just a strawman within the context of this discussion.

 

I thought the context of this discussion was further reaching than just about your position.  The cry for financial reports from critics and antis who will never be satisfied is real IMNSHO.

[Gervin]

I thought the context of this discussion was further reaching than just about your position.  The cry for financial reports from critics and antis who will never be satisfied is real IMNSHO.

It's a strawman that you (and the church) are running from (ergo, the reference).  There is no hue and cry from anti-s, there is no "never ending cacophony" for disclosure to the last cent.  No one has shown that disclosure saps resources, leads to ruin, or gives critics motivation for even more disclosure.  The argument is hollow.

[rodheadlee]

Hey Gervin I can't respond directly to you with this browser bit I just want to say I've already had my ID stolen and my bank account cleaned out right before Christmas so I don't believe anyone should disclose any of their finances/books/ or any type of financial info they are not required to by law.

[rockpond]

Hey Gervin I can't respond directly to you with this browser bit I just want to say I've already had my ID stolen and my bank account cleaned out right before Christmas so I don't believe anyone should disclose any of their finances/books/ or any type of financial info they are not required to by law.

Ha. Nobody is suggesting that the Church disclose account numbers, EIN's, its Zion's Bank login/password, or President Monson's Mother's maiden name.

Though you do have my sincere sympathy. My in-laws recently had their identity stolen and accounts hacked. It was a painful experience... As bad if not worse than a physical robbery. I'm very sorry.

Edited August 19, 2014 by rockpond

[ERayR]

Hey Gervin I can't respond directly to you with this browser bit I just want to say I've already had my ID stolen and my bank account cleaned out right before Christmas so I don't believe anyone should disclose any of their finances/books/ or any type of financial info they are not required to by law.

Sorry you got hit and such bad timing too.

[cdowis]

It's a strawman that you (and the church) are running from (ergo, the reference).  There is no hue and cry from anti-s, there is no "never ending cacophony" for disclosure to the last cent.  No one has shown that disclosure saps resources, leads to ruin, or gives critics motivation for even more disclosure.  The argument is hollow.

 

OK, so you agree there is no compelling reason for disclosure, and the church does not need to explain its policies.

 

Why don't you go to court and sue the church for non-disclosure.  Let's hear your hollow arguments in court.

Edited August 20, 2014 by cdowis

[Gervin]

Sue the church for non-disclosure?

<sigh>

I'm hereby banned from this thread; I have to stop the madness ...

[rockpond]

OK, so you agree there is no compelling reason for disclosure, and the church does not need to explain its policies.

Why don't you go to court and sue the church for non-disclosure. Let's hear your hollow arguments in court.

I think that is part of Gervin's point. The request is not coming from anti-Mormons. There's no indication of endless demands for more detail from outside the church. It's not a legal issue. This is an internal matter.

[cdowis]

I think that is part of Gervin's point. The request is not coming from anti-Mormons. There's no indication of endless demands for more detail from outside the church. It's not a legal issue. This is an internal matter.

 

OK, so we can all agree, including Gervin, that there is no compelling reason to disclose its finances, and the church doesn't have to explain the reason for its policy (short of a lawsuit).

 

Anything else?!

Edited August 20, 2014 by cdowis

[rockpond]

OK, so we can all agree, including Gervin, that there is no compelling reason to disclose its finances, and the church doesn't have to explain the reason for its policy (short of a lawsuit).

Anything else?!

No. We're saying that this strawman of "antis" attacking over finances and demanding more and more hasn't been shown to exist. So you need to come up with another argument to not disclose.

I still stand by my common consent case for financial disclosure.

[CV75]

OK, so we can all agree, including Gervin, that there is no compelling reason to disclose its finances, and the church doesn't have to explain the reason for its policy (short of a lawsuit).

 

Anything else?!

 

No. We're saying that this strawman of "antis" attacking over finances and demanding more and more hasn't been shown to exist. So you need to come up with another argument to not disclose.

I still stand by my common consent case for financial disclosure.

I think as with most other questions, discussing disclosing/reporting/sharing (the term of choice would reflect one’s bias) the Church’s financial information with our leaders requires an open mind, heart and real intent.

 

As Elder Oaks pointed out, “The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng I would say financial reporting falls into this category, and that whether and to what extent to report would be a balance between  the requirements of law (which, while black and white are also to be addressed strategically); the effect of reporting on carrying out the key mission of the Church (prolonged emphasis on mammon and lucre isn’t worthwhile); and the relevant spiritual values as outlined in scripture.

 

We don't manage by common consent, just sustain those who do. For example, we are not managing the Lord when we approve canon by common consent, but we are sustaining Him in receiving these covenants that He extends to us.