Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[ERayR]

The example I cited (my sister & her husband) was for the Newport CA temple.

 

I just remembered I have been in three new temple construction areas and in one we were asked for a temple construction donation.  When the Boise Idaho temple was built we were asked for $200 as I remember it.

[cdowis]

I seem to remember that someone said (sigh) concerning the Atlanta temple,  that tithing money was not being used to build temple, but from contributions specifically for the temple.

[CV75]

For the record, the scriptures on common consent do not say that we sustain a leader in doing all things relative to their stewardship (though I understand that to be your interpretation).  It says that all things are done by common consent in the church.

 

I sustain the Brethren.  But I can't sustain their actions relative to church finances because I have absolutely no idea what those are.

"For the record," that is your interpretation! D&C 26 is very simple. Joseph Smith is given instructions and he is do them by common consent (or with the sustaining covenant of the members in relation to his office), the pattern in the church.

 

Again, if you are trying to justify your belief on the principle of common consent, the principle  is not about sustaining actions but the brethren. Otherwise, one would be holding his spiritual right, privilege, responsibility and testimony hostage to financial information, or disabling hsi partnership with the arm of the Lord for reliance upon the arm of flesh.

[rockpond]

"For the record," that is your interpretation! D&C 26 is very simple. Joseph Smith is given instructions and he is do them by common consent (or with the sustaining covenant of the members in relation to his office), the pattern in the church.

Again, if you are trying to justify your belief on the principle of common consent, the principle is not about sustaining actions but the brethren. Otherwise, one would be holding his spiritual right, privilege, responsibility and testimony hostage to financial information, or disabling hsi partnership with the arm of the Lord for reliance upon the arm of flesh.

We are actually both applying our interpretations since the D&C doesn't provide a lot of detail on common consent. If there is something in the scriptures that clarifies common consent as being exclusively about sustaining leaders, please let me know.

With reference to your second paragraph, as I've stated: I do sustain the Brethren. Financial information has been kept a secret during my entire life and I've never hesitated to sustain them. But sustaining is not an approval of every action nor every decision they ever make.

[ERayR]

But sustaining is not an approval of every action nor every decision they ever make.

 

Of course not but it does mean supporting them.  My bishop doesn't do everything the way I would but I support what he does because he has that mantle but were I the bishop I just might do things differently..  Then again maybe not.

[CV75]

We are actually both applying our interpretations since the D&C doesn't provide a lot of detail on common consent. If there is something in the scriptures that clarifies common consent as being exclusively about sustaining leaders, please let me know.

With reference to your second paragraph, as I've stated: I do sustain the Brethren. Financial information has been kept a secret during my entire life and I've never hesitated to sustain them. But sustaining is not an approval of every action nor every decision they ever make.

D&C 26 is exclusively about sustaining Joseph Smith, D&C 104 is exclusively about sustaining those responsible for the sacred treasury in the United Order (which Section allows for “otherwise”—verse 85), and D&C 28 is exclusively about sustaining those who are appointed to receive revelation in behalf of the Church.

 

This sustaining / common consent is not agreement dependent on our limited, personal lens and interests but a balance of support and submission to the Lord’s will by way of spiritual covenant. For example, one can disagree that a certain individual is a capable prophet and still sustain him as a prophet. I see in your posts a conflating of the principles by equating common consent with agreement.

 

So if you disagree with what those who you sustain do, and want to know more about what they do before agreeing with their actions, one resolution would be to sustain them in their decision as to what to share. Otherwise, as with most other issues of disagreement over the brethren’s decisions, there a way that works and a way that doesn’t.

[Thinking]

Please explain why?

 

"We always need to remember that transparency and openness keep us clear of the negative side effects of secrecy or the cliché of faith-promoting rumors."

[ERayR]

"We always need to remember that transparency and openness keep us clear of the negative side effects of secrecy or the cliché of faith-promoting rumors."

 

I could agree to that if it were actually true but I do not think it is.

[yootaw]

I remember when the ward budget was presented to the priesthood annually for a sustaining vote. This was in the early eighties and was maybe unique to our ward. I'm curious if anyone else experienced this?

[rockpond]

D&C 26 is exclusively about sustaining Joseph Smith

 

Let's start with this one... CFR that D&C 26 is "exclusively about sustaining Joseph Smith".

 

This sustaining / common consent is not agreement dependent on our limited, personal lens and interests but a balance of support and submission to the Lord’s will by way of spiritual covenant. For example, one can disagree that a certain individual is a capable prophet and still sustain him as a prophet. I see in your posts a conflating of the principles by equating common consent with agreement.

 

You might find this interesting... Here's a link to the 1828 Webster's Dictionary definition of "consent".  I think you might be conflating sustaining with common consent.  My understanding is that sustaining is just one part of common consent.

 

So if you disagree with what those who you sustain do, and want to know more about what they do before agreeing with their actions, one resolution would be to sustain them in their decision as to what to share. Otherwise, as with most other issues of disagreement over the brethren’s decisions, there a way that works and a way that doesn’t.

 

Neither you nor I can agree or disagree with the Brethren's actions regarding finances because we don't know what they are.  I sustain them and I believe you when you say that you sustain them.  But, we can't agree with something that we don't know.  The thought makes reason stare (to quote a favorite hymn).

[CV75]

Let's start with this one... CFR that D&C 26 is "exclusively about sustaining Joseph Smith".

From the header, “Revelation given to Joseph Smith…” That we can apply the principles more broadly to his immediate instructions doesn't make it any less exclusive to the Lord affirming the principle as it applied to him.

 

You might find this interesting... Here's a link to the 1828 Webster's Dictionary definition of "consent".  I think you might be conflating sustaining with common consent.  My understanding is that sustaining is just one part of common consent.

There is no problem with that as far as I can see. We use the terms interchangeably when it comes to sustaining leaders: “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.)” https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng Now we have the word "vote" as well...

 

That the same principle operates for other matters such as decisions made within the United Order and approving canon (which sometimes includes policy, such as OD1 and OD2!) as well does not mean that anything that a member wants to sustain or support or agree with is subject to a “formal sustaining vote.”

 

Neither you nor I can agree or disagree with the Brethren's actions regarding finances because we don't know what they are.  I sustain them and I believe you when you say that you sustain them.  But, we can't agree with something that we don't know.  The thought makes reason stare (to quote a favorite hymn).

Speak for yourself! Here are a couple of examples of what I know on the Church-wide level:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/the-windows-of-heaven?lang=eng (see Lesson #2)

 

https://www.lds.org/church/news/changes-in-senior-missionary-rules (see the comments on housing costs).

 

(I'll be on vacation for a week+ and so won't be commenting on this thread over that period, after today).

[rockpond]

From the header, “Revelation given to Joseph Smith…” That we can apply the principles more broadly to his immediate instructions doesn't make it any less exclusive to the Lord affirming the principle as it applied to him.

 

That doesn't answer the CFR for your claim that D&C 26 is "exclusively about sustaining Joseph Smith".  And you might want to re-read the definition of exclusive.

 

There is no problem with that as far as I can see. We use the terms interchangeably when it comes to sustaining leaders: “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.)” https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng Now we have the word "vote" as well...

 

That the same principle operates for other matters such as decisions made within the United Order and approving canon (which sometimes includes policy, such as OD1 and OD2!) as well does not mean that anything that a member wants to sustain or support or agree with is subject to a “formal sustaining vote.”

 

From that lesson that you linked to:  "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." (bold added by me)

 

It looks like you and I agree on this... We are supposed to use the law of common consent for more than just sustaining leaders.  But I think we are just down to word choice now.  Do we sustain the addition of new scripture or do we accept it into the canon through common consent.

 

Honestly, I think we are close enough on this point that we don't need to keep debating it.  Aren't we just quibbling over semantics?  My real concern with what you are saying is your claim that D&C 26 is exclusively about sustaining the Prophet Joseph.  It applies to much more than that.

 

 

Speak for yourself! Here are a couple of examples of what I know on the Church-wide level:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/the-windows-of-heaven?lang=eng (see Lesson #2)

 

https://www.lds.org/church/news/changes-in-senior-missionary-rules (see the comments on housing costs).

 

Neither of those tell us how the funds of the church are being used.  According to the lesson you referenced above, common consent is to be used with respect to things that affect the lives of the saints.  How church funds are allocated definitely affects our lives.  The missionary age change affected our lives.

 

 

(I'll be on vacation for a week+ and so won't be commenting on this thread over that period, after today).

 

That's fine.  I think I've said as much as I need to on the subject.  I hope you have a wonderful and relaxing time!

[CV75]

That doesn't answer the CFR for your claim that D&C 26 is "exclusively about sustaining Joseph Smith".  And you might want to re-read the definition of exclusive.

The D&C 26 revelation was “restricted or limited to the person [Joseph Smith], group [arguably his companions in the ministry], or area [Colesville] concerned.” https://www.google.com/search?q=exclusive+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb The lesson and pattern can be applied more broadly, but this revelation was concerned with (exclusive to) sustaining Joseph in all things he was to do under the Lord’s instruction, and is how common consent is used in it.

 

 

From that lesson that you linked to:  "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." (bold added by me)

 

It looks like you and I agree on this... We are supposed to use the law of common consent for more than just sustaining leaders.  But I think we are just down to word choice now.  Do we sustain the addition of new scripture or do we accept it into the canon through common consent.

 

Honestly, I think we are close enough on this point that we don't need to keep debating it.  Aren't we just quibbling over semantics?  My real concern with what you are saying is your claim that D&C 26 is exclusively about sustaining the Prophet Joseph.  It applies to much more than that.

Word choice and semantics are important when they suggest a misapplication of a principle. In this case, that we are denied our right / privilege / responsibility to exercise common consent in how church funds are used. Our only right is to exercise control over our own funds before we give them away.

 

Neither of those tell us how the funds of the church are being used.  According to the lesson you referenced above, common consent is to be used with respect to things that affect the lives of the saints.  How church funds are allocated definitely affects our lives.  The missionary age change affected our lives.

Once given to the Church, the funds are being used to a) “spiritually bless individuals and families by constructing and maintaining temples and houses of worship, supporting missionary work, translating and publishing scriptures, fostering family history research, funding schools and religious education, and accomplishing many other Church purposes as directed by the Lord’s ordained servants […things that affect the lives of the Saints]” in the first example; and b) to cap senior missionaries’ housing costs in the second. These decisions are made without general membership’s sustaining votes on each decision made and each action taken.

 

That's fine.  I think I've said as much as I need to on the subject.  I hope you have a wonderful and relaxing time!

Thank you!

[rockpond]

The D&C 26 revelation was “restricted or limited to the person [Joseph Smith], group [arguably his companions in the ministry], or area [Colesville] concerned.” https://www.google.com/search?q=exclusive+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb The lesson and pattern can be applied more broadly, but this revelation was concerned with (exclusive to) sustaining Joseph in all things he was to do under the Lord’s instruction, and is how common consent is used in it.

 

You haven't cited anything in the scripture that says it was restricted solely to Joseph Smith.  You're just stating your opinion which is not an answer to a CFR.  But then your second sentence here says it can be applied more broadly which is the opposite of something being exclusive.  You're contradicting yourself.  So honestly, I have no idea what your point is anymore.

 

When the Lord says:  "And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith."  It sure seems like He is talking to more than just Joseph.  And there's nothing in there that restricts it to just sustaining someone in a calling.  Which is also supported by the lesson you linked to earlier... the law of common consent applies to "policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints".  (quoting from that lesson)

 

So I don't think we're that far apart on this.  It seems like we're just differing in whether or not finances should be disclosed as part of a requirement of proper common consent.  You would say "no".  But I would say "yes".  Right?

[CV75]

You haven't cited anything in the scripture that says it was restricted solely to Joseph Smith.  You're just stating your opinion which is not an answer to a CFR.  But then your second sentence here says it can be applied more broadly which is the opposite of something being exclusive.  You're contradicting yourself.  So honestly, I have no idea what your point is anymore.

 

When the Lord says:  "And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith."  It sure seems like He is talking to more than just Joseph.  And there's nothing in there that restricts it to just sustaining someone in a calling.  Which is also supported by the lesson you linked to earlier... the law of common consent applies to "policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints".  (quoting from that lesson)

 

So I don't think we're that far apart on this.  It seems like we're just differing in whether or not finances should be disclosed as part of a requirement of proper common consent.  You would say "no".  But I would say "yes".  Right?

Something that originates as an exclusive can be used hereafter as the pattern. While originally exclusive to Joseph Smith, the revelation can be subsequently applied to the Lord’s servants within their appointments.

 

Section 26 is about Joseph (in relation to various tasks), 28 is also about him (in relation to receiving revelations), and 104 is about the treasurer (in relation to the United Order). It is clear that the context of common consent is in sustaining appointed persons in carrying out “all” their assigned, instructed or commanded duties and decisions, whatever they may be.

 

My understanding is that Church financial disclosure is not a subject of “proper common consent,” and that the requirements of “proper common consent” are that: 1) the Lord counsels what should be done; and 2) He allows the counseled to accept or reject His proposals according to their stewardship. Sometimes He counsels the First Presidency and Twelve within their stewardship, and sometimes (such as with general callings and canon) He counsels the general membership through His authorized servants, within our stewardship as saints.

[rockpond]

Something that originates as an exclusive can be used hereafter as the pattern.

 

You're cracking me up.

 

Have a great vacation.  Safe travels!

[Thinking]

I could agree to that if it were actually true but I do not think it is.

 

Dieter F. Uchtdorf thinks that it is true.

[CV75]

You're cracking me up.

 

Have a great vacation.  Safe travels!

Inasmuch as we are to liken all scriptures unto ourselves, and as they are good for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction, etc., and as they are very often about specific people and their revelations or God's dealings with them, originally exclusive matters indeed serve as the pattern for us to follow.

 

The exclusivity of D&C 26, 28 and 104 to the persons indicated does not establish a pattern that the Church’s financial affairs are subject to common consent, but it does establish the pattern that the persons authorized to conduct all of the Church’s affairs are so subject.

[rockpond]

Inasmuch as we are to liken all scriptures unto ourselves, and as they are good for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction, etc., and as they are very often about specific people and their revelations or God's dealings with them, originally exclusive matters indeed serve as the pattern for us to follow.

 

The exclusivity of D&C 26, 28 and 104 to the persons indicated does not establish a pattern that the Church’s financial affairs are subject to common consent, but it does establish the pattern that the persons authorized to conduct all of the Church’s affairs are so subject.

"All things shall be done by common consent in the church."

"And there shall not any part of it be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by the voice and common consent of the order."

Sustaining our leaders is a critical piece of the law of common consent. On that, you and I seem to agree. But are you suggesting that common consent is ONLY about sustaining leaders? Because I feel like we already covered that but maybe it was with someone else.

[cdowis]

"All things shall be done by common consent in the church."

"And there shall not any part of it be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by the voice and common consent of the order."

Sustaining our leaders is a critical piece of the law of common consent. On that, you and I seem to agree. But are you suggesting that common consent is ONLY about sustaining leaders? Because I feel like we already covered that but maybe it was with someone else.

 

Did you answer my questions on specific items that you would say needed "common consent"?  Perhaps I missed it.

 

Specific temple and chapel locations, the age limit for missionaries, specific budget allocations, which countries should have missions, etc etc etc.  According to your interpretation the church is in total and complete apostasy since it is not in compliance with your interpretation of  "common consent".

[Jeanne]

I have been taught that in contributing tithing, to put that trust in the Lord.  Okay...but the Lord has entrusted his servants to distribute and be accountable for what is given to the Lord.  Then, of course, we are all accountable for the truth of our tithes. Does anyone see a link that is missing here?  We are ALL accountable, but if we don't know where the tithes and offerings go, to what are we accountable for?

 

Jeanne

[CV75]

"All things shall be done by common consent in the church."

"And there shall not any part of it be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by the voice and common consent of the order."

Sustaining our leaders is a critical piece of the law of common consent. On that, you and I seem to agree. But are you suggesting that common consent is ONLY about sustaining leaders? Because I feel like we already covered that but maybe it was with someone else.

Yes, it is directly about sustaining leaders. It is not a requirement for their being called by revelation from the Lord through those with the keys, nor for proposing or presenting leaders for sustaining vote. It is only used for proceeding to set them apart and authorize them to act in our behalf as leaders. This is not a one-time thing; we do it on a regular basis in the general and unit conferences of the Church.

 

So, common consent is not a requirement for our leaders to proceed to act once they are set apart to act within their stewardship. We can always withhold our consent if they have done anything we cannot abide, or if we feel we haven’t sufficient faith or knowledge to do so every six months or so. In the case of proposed canon, we are sustaining the Lord in the covenants and revelations He is offering us.

 

Common consent is not the same as informed consent, and this may be where some of the confusion lies. Common means it is a group process. No permission is being sought for specific interventions on individual members. It is fundamentally a spiritual process, not a legal process, and involves faith in the truth above the weighing of facts.

[rockpond]

Yes, it is directly about sustaining leaders. It is not a requirement for their being called by revelation from the Lord through those with the keys, nor for proposing or presenting leaders for sustaining vote. It is only used for proceeding to set them apart and authorize them to act in our behalf as leaders. This is not a one-time thing; we do it on a regular basis in the general and unit conferences of the Church.

So, common consent is not a requirement for our leaders to proceed to act once they are set apart to act within their stewardship. We can always withhold our consent if they have done anything we cannot abide, or if we feel we haven’t sufficient faith or knowledge to do so every six months or so. In the case of proposed canon, we are sustaining the Lord in the covenants and revelations He is offering us.

Common consent is not the same as informed consent, and this may be where some of the confusion lies. Common means it is a group process. No permission is being sought for specific interventions on individual members. It is fundamentally a spiritual process, not a legal process, and involves faith in the truth above the weighing of facts.

We're kinda talking in circles now and you don't want to seem to answer the question directly. If the law of common consent is exclusively about sustaining leaders than what have we used to accept new scripture into our canon? You want to call that "sustaining the Lord"? Okay, but you're really stretching to make it fit your interpretation.

You say that if the Brethren do something we cannot abide than we are to decline to sustain them next time. Alight. So how will we ever know if they do something we cannot abide with respect to finances?

[Rain]

I remember when the ward budget was presented to the priesthood annually for a sustaining vote. This was in the early eighties and was maybe unique to our ward. I'm curious if anyone else experienced this?

I've had this happen once. About 5 years ago. Same bishop didn't do it the next year. I don't know why.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Rain

[captainoutofhere]

The leaders don't receive a "salary", just a very nice "stipend". So do mission presidents. Not that I don't think they should, but members are under the exact opposite impression. I know that is what I was told under 14 of activity.