Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[CV75]

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?

Maybe you’re not receiving the direct answers (or have forgotten them from the week before)!

Yes, we do sustain the Lord when we accept His revelations:

 

“…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… https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng”

 

“…additions, as well as occasional official clarifications and translations, are made to the standard works in the dual process of presentation through living leaders and, in accord with the law of common consent, acceptance by members of the Church. In this way, Latter-day Saints bind themselves by covenant [between them and the Lord] to uphold them as scripture [the will, the mind the word, the voice of the Lord]… http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Scriptures”

 

The same principle operates for financial decisions, but from the guidance we have this is only exercised by those engaged in the particulars according to the nature and scope of their stewardship (D&C 104). Naturally the membership also exercises the principle to sustain them in carrying out these activities.

 

I don't approach sustaining the Brethren from the angle of how will I ever know if they do something I cannot abide, including with respect to finance. Each person decides for himself whether he has sufficient faith and/or knowledge to join in exercising the principle of common consent with the saints. Speaking for myself, I have already done the right thing in contributing my funds to the Church and have faith that their use is being directed by the Lord through servants I have sustained to use them.

[rockpond]

Maybe you’re not receiving the direct answers (or have forgotten them from the week before)!

Yes, we do sustain the Lord when we accept His revelations:

“…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… https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng”

“…additions, as well as occasional official clarifications and translations, are made to the standard works in the dual process of presentation through living leaders and, in accord with the law of common consent, acceptance by members of the Church. In this way, Latter-day Saints bind themselves by covenant [between them and the Lord] to uphold them as scripture [the will, the mind the word, the voice of the Lord]… http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Scriptures”

The same principle operates for financial decisions, but from the guidance we have this is only exercised by those engaged in the particulars according to the nature and scope of their stewardship (D&C 104). Naturally the membership also exercises the principle to sustain them in carrying out these activities.

I don't approach sustaining the Brethren from the angle of how will I ever know if they do something I cannot abide, including with respect to finance. Each person decides for himself whether he has sufficient faith and/or knowledge to join in exercising the principle of common consent with the saints. Speaking for myself, I have already done the right thing in contributing my funds to the Church and have faith that their use is being directed by the Lord through servants I have sustained to use them.

In that broad context, yes, we are sustaining the Lord. My point was that the law of common consent is more than just sustaining leaders, it also includes accepting new scripture into our cannon and ratifying new policy.

If your preference is to place a blind trust in the church leaders with respect to finances, that's fine. But you said that if they do something we "cannot abide" than we should decline to sustain them -- when it comes to church finances, you don't have the ability to do that.

My position is simply that we cannot consent to that which we don't know.

p.s. Try reading that first quote your provided above (about the king allowing his subjects to accept or reject his proposals) from my point of view. Don't you think that supports the idea of financial disclosure? How else would we accept or reject a proposed budget?

Edited September 1, 2014 by rockpond

[ERayR]

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.

 

What do you consider a "nice" stipend?

[Thinking]

The leaders don't receive a "salary", just a very nice "stipend".

 

Why does the LDS Church have this aversion to calling received money a salary? Money is transferred to the leaders' bank accounts. Maybe the transfer is by check. Perhaps it is a direct deposit. Money is money.

[captainoutofhere]

You must be kidding. I know that money us money and the church is deceiving people.

 

I lost count of how often you have used the word liar. We don't allow that word and deceive isn't any better. If you are unable to have a civil conversation you will be banned.

[ERayR]

You must be kidding. I know that money us money and the church is deceiving people.

 

How? 

 

Again What do you consider a "nice" stipend?

[CV75]

p.s. Try reading that first quote your provided above (about the king allowing his subjects to accept or reject his proposals) from my point of view. Don't you think that supports the idea of financial disclosure? How else would we accept or reject a proposed budget?

Some things the Lord directs and some He proposes. Common consent has to do with the latter, which has to do with sustaining persons He has called to act under His direction pending our sustaining vote. In the case of the King, we sustain Him as our King and either accept His proposals by way of common consent or receive His direction by way of faith and obedience, whichever the case may be.

 

Your point of view doesn't seem to distinguish between direction and proposal or between following direction and giving common consent to proposal. In financial matters, He has given the individual saint a set of directions (tithe, offerings, charity, self-reliance, etc.) that we obey, and He gives a set of directions to His servants who follow them. The time for proposing to establish these servants in their various offices takes place when they are sustained by common consent, both prior to their originally being set apart and then periodically thereafter in the conferences of the Church.

[rockpond]

Some things the Lord directs and some He proposes. Common consent has to do with the latter, which has to do with sustaining persons He has called to act under His direction pending our sustaining vote. In the case of the King, we sustain Him as our King and either accept His proposals by way of common consent or receive His direction by way of faith and obedience, whichever the case may be.

Your point of view doesn't seem to distinguish between direction and proposal or between following direction and giving common consent to proposal. In financial matters, He has given the individual saint a set of directions (tithe, offerings, charity, self-reliance, etc.) that we obey, and He gives a set of directions to His servants who follow them. The time for proposing to establish these servants in their various offices takes place when they are sustained by common consent, both prior to their originally being set apart and then periodically thereafter in the conferences of the Church.

You keep repeating yourself as if it changes my point. I've got your interpretation loud and clear.

The law of common consent is about more than just sustaining leaders in their called positions. Our own church history shows this.

But even if common consent were exclusively about sustaining leaders in callings and offices it still wouldn't change the fact that you cannot possibly consent to that which you don't know. Period. So regarding church finances, it's blind trust or disclosure. I know which one you choose and I think you know my preference.

Is there any more to actually discuss?

[CV75]

You keep repeating yourself as if it changes my point. I've got your interpretation loud and clear.

 

I think you may be ignoring the first paragraph--I'm introducing a completely new consideration for you.

 

The law of common consent is about more than just sustaining leaders in their called positions. Our own church history shows this.

Not when you look closely at how it is actually carried out and applied in the three D&C references.

 

But even if common consent were exclusively about sustaining leaders in callings and offices it still wouldn't change the fact that you cannot possibly consent to that which you don't know. Period. So regarding church finances, it's blind trust or disclosure. I know which one you choose and I think you know my preference.

There is no requirement in the Church to consent to something you do not “know” whether that knowledge is intellectual, spiritual, or both, or a form of faith or belief.

 

In addition, there is no principle that the Lord’s direction requires or is subject to common consent; He gives His commandments and covenants regardless of what we have to say about them. Only His proposals, which turn out to be the assignment of individuals to govern the saints and the Church, are subject to common consent because that is how He governs as well. Those who do not sustain Him are free to live by lesser laws.

 

The Lord’s directions are given to us within the scope of what we are authorized to govern. We govern ourselves without anyone’s consent, common or otherwise. Church-wide financial matters fall under the purview of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve, and the Lord gives them pertinent direction, not the general membership.

 

So regarding Church finances, “it” (whatever that is – is that supposed to convey there is one right way to go?) is neither about blind trust nor disclosure because common consent does not apply; it is irrelevant to direction; direction from the higher/highest authority does not require anyone's permission.

[rockpond]

I think you may be ignoring the first paragraph--I'm introducing a completely new consideration for you.

 

Not when you look closely at how it is actually carried out and applied in the three D&C references.

 

There is no requirement in the Church to consent to something you do not “know” whether that knowledge is intellectual, spiritual, or both, or a form of faith or belief.

 

In addition, there is no principle that the Lord’s direction requires or is subject to common consent; He gives His commandments and covenants regardless of what we have to say about them. Only His proposals, which turn out to be the assignment of individuals to govern the saints and the Church, are subject to common consent because that is how He governs as well. Those who do not sustain Him are free to live by lesser laws.

 

The Lord’s directions are given to us within the scope of what we are authorized to govern. We govern ourselves without anyone’s consent, common or otherwise. Church-wide financial matters fall under the purview of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve, and the Lord gives them pertinent direction, not the general membership.

 

So regarding Church finances, “it” (whatever that is – is that supposed to convey there is one right way to go?) is neither about blind trust nor disclosure because common consent does not apply; it is irrelevant to direction; direction from the higher/highest authority does not require anyone's permission.

Yeah, I guess I missed your assertion that with respect to common consent, there is a difference between what The Lord proposes and what He directs. The problem I see with that interpretation is that there is no such distinction in the D&C scriptures on common consent.

I have not suggested that common consent has anything to do with "requiring anyone's permission" so I fail to see the relevance of the rest of your post. Except to say that you have not changed my opinion that one cannot provide any form of consent to that which they don't know. One can, and I do, sustain my leaders without knowledge of church finances but I cannot be providing any form of valid consent with regard to their financial decisions.

[CV75]

I cannot be providing any form of valid consent with regard to their financial decisions.

As well you are not supposed or asked to.

 

Yeah, I guess I missed your assertion that with respect to common consent, there is a difference between what The Lord proposes and what He directs. The problem I see with that interpretation is that there is no such distinction in the D&C scriptures on common consent.

 

D&C 26:1 direction to the Prophet, “Behold, I say unto you that you shall let your time be devoted to the studying of the scriptures, and to preaching, and to confirming the church at Colesville, and to performing your labors on the land, such as is required, until after you shall go to the west to hold the next conference; and then it shall be made known what you shall do.” Verse 2 of course brings up common consent, not in terms of studying, preaching, confirming, other labors, and holding the next conference, but in terms of acting in these duties by common consent.

 

Count the number of times “shall” in all its forms is used in D&C 28 in relation to what the Lord’s servants are to do. Also note who is appointed to do what, and how he does it in relation to common consent (including the voice of the conferees in verse 10).

 

Likewise in D&C 104 (count the number of times the Lord directs the affairs of His servants). In addition, even Joseph Smith has power to direct (verse 26) as well as the council (verse 53). Those who direct these decisions are upheld by common consent (verses 71, 72, 85), but common consent is not required of the decisions themselves. No common consent for these financial decisions, directives or directions is being sought or asked for.

 

As far as I can tell the "common consent" of the scriptures is not the same thing as the "valid consent" you appeal to. So the parameters of common consent have nothing to do with whatever it is you're describing.

Edited September 3, 2014 by CV75

[rockpond]

As well you are not supposed or asked to.

D&C 26:1 direction to the Prophet, “Behold, I say unto you that you shall let your time be devoted to the studying of the scriptures, and to preaching, and to confirming the church at Colesville, and to performing your labors on the land, such as is required, until after you shall go to the west to hold the next conference; and then it shall be made known what you shall do.” Verse 2 of course brings up common consent, not in terms of studying, preaching, confirming, other labors, and holding the next conference, but in terms of acting in these duties by common consent.

Count the number of times “shall” in all its forms is used in D&C 28 in relation to what the Lord’s servants are to do. Also note who is appointed to do what, and how he does it in relation to common consent (including the voice of the conferees in verse 10).

Likewise in D&C 104 (count the number of times the Lord directs the affairs of His servants). In addition, even Joseph Smith has power to direct (verse 26) as well as the council (verse 53). Those who direct these decisions are upheld by common consent (verses 71, 72, 85), but common consent is not required of the decisions themselves. No common consent for these financial decisions, directives or directions is being sought or asked for.

As far as I can tell the "common consent" of the scriptures is not the same thing as the "valid consent" you appeal to. So the parameters of common consent have nothing to do with whatever it is you're describing.

I was not appealing to something termed "valid consent" (noun) I was putting an adjective in front of the principle of common consent. I believe that when we participate in common consent, it must be a valid consent which can only happen if we are aware as to the subject of the consent. And of course, we are not, when it comes to church finances.

I have no argument that we use common consent to sustain our leaders (which you continue to explain above). All I'm saying is that we are told to use common consent in all things in the church. I believe that should include church finances. You obviously disagree, which is fine. But continuing to expand on your interpretation is not convincing me since I disagree with your fundamental approach.

So to be clear in my position before I cease responding to the same repetition: I believe that common consent is required in all things in the church. Our historical use shows that it applies to more than just sustaining leaders in their callings. We regularly disclosed general church finances up until the late 1950's and then stopped without explanation. I believe we need to restore that practice.

Edited September 4, 2014 by rockpond

[CV75]

So to be clear in my position before I cease responding to the same repetition: I believe that common consent is required in all things in the church. Our historical use shows that it applies to more than just sustaining leaders in their callings. We regularly disclosed general church finances up until the late 1950's and then stopped without explanation. I believe we need to restore that practice.

I too believe the scriptures that say, “all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith” and “all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.” Note that “prayer” and “faith” are key elements of the process, and that the context of these revelations is what the Church leaders are directed to do by the Lord as they are sustained in their appointments by Him to do them.

 

These scriptures do not say, “all things shall be done by common consent in the church, after physical disclosure of information concerning them to the body of saints, for all things you shall receive by report of the information necessary to make an autonomous decision regarding each thing” nor that “all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by comprehension of disclosed information about each of all the things the Lord's servants do by the body of saints.”

 

The one-time practice of disclosing “general church finances up until the late 1950's” had nothing to do with common consent as the scriptures reveal the principle to be. That you would like the practice resumed is "nice," but let's not tie it to common consent.

 

It could be said that the practice was stopped because it became sufficiently misinterpreted as a matter for common consent when it isn't!

[rockpond]

I too believe the scriptures that say, “all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith” and “all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.” Note that “prayer” and “faith” are key elements of the process, and that the context of these revelations is what the Church leaders are directed to do by the Lord as they are sustained in their appointments by Him to do them.

 

No disagreement here.

 

 

These scriptures do not say, “all things shall be done by common consent in the church, after physical disclosure of information concerning them to the body of saints, for all things you shall receive by report of the information necessary to make an autonomous decision regarding each thing” nor that “all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by comprehension of disclosed information about each of all the things the Lord's servants do by the body of saints.”

 

Nor do the scriptures say or imply that church members should be kept in the dark with regard to the workings of the church.  The D&C gives quite a different impression in my opinion.

 

 

The one-time practice of disclosing “general church finances up until the late 1950's” had nothing to do with common consent as the scriptures reveal the principle to be. That you would like the practice resumed is "nice," but let's not tie it to common consent.

 

What you describe as a "one-time practice" was an ongoing part of the general conference.  Something that stopped without explanation or clarification.  And I predict that if we don't manage to turn things around, we'll soon see an end to the reporting of membership figures (just as the almanac was pulled from annual publication).

 

 

It could be said that the practice was stopped because it became sufficiently misinterpreted as a matter for common consent when it isn't!

 

I doubt that.  It could also be said (and has been) that the practice was stopped because our finances started to look bad.  So let's clear up that misconception.

[CV75]

Nor do the scriptures say or imply that church members should be kept in the dark with regard to the workings of the church.  The D&C gives quite a different impression in my opinion.

I see no evidence that there is an effort underway to keep Church members in the dark. Not putting something up for common consent is not the same as keeping folks in the dark. Not announcing it in conference is a matter of priority and salvatory efficacy of the information. This is under the purview of those who we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators.

 

What you describe as a "one-time practice" was an ongoing part of the general conference.

Correct—I meant it to convey “erstwhile.” Just like the almanacs and even as you say (conceivably) membership statistics (and so what?) -- Live the gospel at home and in your everyday life without crutches. That is about as prepared as the saints will need to be in most of the world.

 

I doubt that.  It could also be said (and has been) that the practice was stopped because our finances started to look bad.  So let's clear up that misconception.

In any case, it has nothing to do with common consent – and no misconception does! I'm clearing up the misconception that the the Lord directed that the aforementioned reports are the subjects of common consent.

[rockpond]

I see no evidence that there is an effort underway to keep Church members in the dark. Not putting something up for common consent is not the same as keeping folks in the dark. Not announcing it in conference is a matter of priority and salvatory efficacy of the information. This is under the purview of those who we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators.

 

Choosing to cease publication of finances and deny requests for publication is most certainly keeping members in the dark regarding finances.  You are welcome to agree with the decision but it doesn't change the fact that we are kept in the dark with respect to the church's financial decisions.

 

 

Correct—I meant it to convey “erstwhile.” Just like the almanacs and even as you say (conceivably) membership statistics (and so what?) -- Live the gospel at home and in your everyday life without crutches. That is about as prepared as the saints will need to be in most of the world.

 

Agreed.

 

 

In any case, it has nothing to do with common consent – and no misconception does! I'm clearing up the misconception that the the Lord directed that the aforementioned reports are the subjects of common consent.

 

That's your opinion/interpretation.  Mine is that since our scripture calls for common consent "in all things" in the church, that disclosure of finances allowing for common consent to those financial decisions (as opposed to blind trust) is appropriate.

[CV75]

Choosing to cease publication of finances and deny requests for publication is most certainly keeping members in the dark regarding finances.

I disagree. To keep people in the dark is to intentionally and deliberately withhold essential information from them, information that they have the need and right to possess, in order to harm them, to take advantage them, or gain from their lack of the information. I really don’t think this this what is going on by our leaders not presenting regular financial reports for common consent while at the same time giving the auditing report at General Conference (which report is not held up for common consent).

 

 

since our scripture calls for common consent "in all things" in the church, that disclosure of finances allowing for common consent to those financial decisions (as opposed to blind trust) is appropriate.

The scripture that calls for common consent “in all things” has nothing to do with blind faith but with prayer and faith. Nothing in the scripture speaks to disclosure, only to that which the Church leaders are directed by the Lord to do in their appointed offices, and their appointment is appropriately subject to common consent.

 

When you speak of disclosure of Church records, there are plenty of scriptures about tangible record keeping in the Church (“record of all things”—DC 85:1), but nothing either of their “disclosure” or being subject to common consent. Some records are kept in the archives of the temple (D&C 127), hardly accessible to the general membership. Some records have been taken up to heaven!

[rockpond]

I really don’t think this this what is going on by our leaders...

But then again, you have no way of knowing. Because you are relying on blind trust when it comes to church finances. You're "in the dark" since we have no disclosure.

p.s. The annual audit is irrelevant to my point since my request for disclosure is not driven by a concern over financial malfeasance (the purpose of the audit).

[ERayR]

But then again, you have no way of knowing. Because you are relying on blind trust when it comes to church finances. You're "in the dark" since we have no disclosure.

p.s. The annual audit is irrelevant to my point since my request for disclosure is not driven by a concern over financial malfeasance (the purpose of the audit).

 

If the Church published a general financial statement what useful (for your purposes) do you expect to get?  What would you do with the information?

Edited September 6, 2014 by ERayR

[rockpond]

If the Church published a general financial statement what useful (for your purposes) do you expect to get? What would you do with the information?

I would know how we, as a church, are using the consecrated funds. And, when I raised my hand to sustain the Brethren, I would be doing so with more knowledge.

Edited September 6, 2014 by rockpond

[Jeanne]

I would know how we, as a church, are using the consecrated funds. And, when I raised my hand to sustain the Brethren, I would be doing so with more knowledge.

And you have a right to that knowledge and I believe that God believes in that right.  Whatever the reasons, you would think that the brethren would realize that it looks like hiding..smells like hiding..and what are they hiding???

[Vookman]

You would have to be an idiot to not see the wisdom of not publishing the investments and revenues of the Church.  On the investment side, just look at the attacks on Israel by liberal nut jobs and anti-Semitics.  The state of Israel has far more money than the LDS Church, yet they are being hurt by those crazies attacks.

 

Secondly, there is a sense some people inside and outside the Church will take if they hear a specific number:  "Oh, they don't need any of my money."  or "Why don't they spend more on 'X'?  They are not really very giving."  We already hear this from people who calculate how much money they think the Church makes.

 

At the FAIRMormon Conference, the sister over the LDS Humanitarian department noted that they would give much more if they could find appropriate vehicles to give to the Iraqi refugees.  But then the crazies would say "You could give more and find a way if you really want to."  It is never enough no matter what for critics.  It is what defines them.

 

All members of the 2nd Quorum and other 70's quorums, except maybe the 1st, serve without compensation, as do many in the 1st Quorum.  My source was a stake conference talk by a member of the Presidency of the 1st Quorum of the 70.  Since the finances for mission presidents has been exposed, it is clear such compensation is minimal by comparison to the private or even public sector compensation for professional people taking 3-years out of their professional careers.

 

Lastly, I was told by a high placed person who sat at the time on the financial coordinating board of the private businesses owned by the Church that as of 1996 President Hinckley's compensation was in the mid-six figures.  And I don't know what percent of that is considered "in kind", such as the drivers, transport, or use of the apartment in downtown SLC.  It is still a lot.  But if you have ever made several hundred thousand dollars, a huge chunk goes to taxes, and your actual disposable income is maybe $25,000 per month.  Still sounds good, and it is.  But this was also the time when members of the leadership served on boards of the various businesses the Church was invested in.  That is gone now for extra income.  Which is why many GA's publish, because they aren't getting rich from their salaries.  Whatever it is, it is certainly not obscene.  Now compare it to any fortune 1,000 company with tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in assets and multi-billions in revenues.  Or for that matter any of the major "ministries" out there, who have a fraction of the membership of the LDS Church.  Joyce Meyers ($59 million), Joel Osteen (doesn't report), Creflow Dollar, even Billy Graham Ministries and his son ($500 million).  Or Hank Hannegraf, defender of the non-LDS Christian faith.  LDS president's families don't retire to a $20 million home on vast acreage.  

 

If you really think LDS leaders make a lot of money, look at what they leave their families when they die.  Basically, just the modest estates of typical executives, but nothing close to the type of trans-generational wealth created by business dynasties.

Nice links explaining real life ministry accountability and big money makers.  Most members of the ECFA don't report publicly their indepth spending, and they then have their own, confidential auditors go in then come out and say "Nothing to see here.  Everything is OK."  But critics are OK with that.  Because...well that is what critics do.

[ERayR]

And you have a right to that knowledge and I believe that God believes in that right.  Whatever the reasons, you would think that the brethren would realize that it looks like hiding..smells like hiding..and what are they hiding???

 

Not to me.  I can think of some valid reasons for not publishing financial statement that do not involve nefarious motives. 

[Jeanne]

Not to me.  I can think of some valid reasons for not publishing financial statement that do not involve nefarious motives. 

I am sure you can.  But I am also sure that any other organization that pays any taxes prepare statements that are visible.

[ERayR]

I am sure you can.  But I am also sure that any other organization that pays any taxes prepare statements that are visible.

 

 

 

That is a matter of law.  Publicly traded companies are required to but privately held companies have no such requirement and charitable organizations file a 5500 with the IRS but churches have no such requirement.  The Churches commercial holdings are separate and do file tax returns and pay taxes but tax returns are not public documents, again by law.