Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[ERayR]

Are you suggesting that there is an entity apart from the church that takes those donations?

 

I am saying it is not deposited in 15 million different accounts.

[rockpond]

I am saying it is not deposited in 15 million different accounts.

 

Of course not.

 

Tithes and offerings should be given as such, with no thought of how one might benefit from donation.

 

Once those tithes and offerings are accepted by the church and become a part of the church budget, then they belong the the church... the body of Christ... the membership... all of us.  So while only a relative few have stewardship for the use of those funds, it is not incorrect for the Sunstone session to refer to them as "our money".

[Tacenda]

Of course not.

Tithes and offerings should be given as such, with no thought of how one might benefit from donation.

Once those tithes and offerings are accepted by the church and become a part of the church budget, then they belong the the church... the body of Christ... the membership... all of us. So while only a relative few have stewardship for the use of those funds, it is not incorrect for the Sunstone session to refer to them as "our money".

I added to my post about the Sunstone session and summarized the parts I liked best, if your interested or prefer to read what some of it entailed.

[rockpond]

I added to my post about the Sunstone session and summarized the parts I liked best, if your interested or prefer to read what some of it entailed.

Thanks!

[CV75]

it is not incorrect for the Sunstone session to refer to them as "our money".

I disagree. The funds, like the saints and the Church, ultimately belong to Christ. We can rightly call it “our” Church within certain semantic limits, but we must recognize that Christ is King and the Church is Christ’s, and that it is only by His grace that we remain members and participate as members, which includes the privilege of paying tithes and offerings and practicing common consent to sustain “our” leaders.

 

More importantly I think is that all things are ultimately subject to Christ’s will. “Our” Church, “our” money, “our” body of Christ (an oxymoron) and “our” membership do not rightly translate into “our” will and the resulting contest of wills.

[rockpond]

I disagree. The funds, like the saints and the Church, ultimately belong to Christ. We can rightly call it “our” Church within certain semantic limits, but we must recognize that Christ is King and the Church is Christ’s, and that it is only by His grace that we remain members and participate as members, which includes the privilege of paying tithes and offerings and practicing common consent to sustain “our” leaders.

More importantly I think is that all things are ultimately subject to Christ’s will. “Our” Church, “our” money, “our” body of Christ (an oxymoron) and “our” membership do not rightly translate into “our” will and the resulting contest of wills.

I agree. Ultimately, it all belongs to Christ. We belong to Christ. I'm not suggesting a "contest of wills". We should seek to do His will as he has entrusted us with both the church and the sacred funds used to run it.

[CV75]

I agree. Ultimately, it all belongs to Christ. We belong to Christ. I'm not suggesting a "contest of wills". We should seek to do His will as he has entrusted us with both the church and the sacred funds used to run it.

I think this gets into the idea that “our” can indicate both possessing something or belonging to something.

 

When speaking of “our” money, does it convey that we possess the money, that the money possesses us, that the money belongs to us or that we belong to the money? Where money possesses us or we belong to the money suggests the love of money and hence a contest of wills with the Lord’s. Where we possess the money or the money belongs to us indicates we haven’t let it go, also suggesting the love of money and hence a contest of wills with the Lord’s.

 

It would not be a contest of wills if we mean it to convey “our” Lord’s money, to be used under His direction through His authorized servants whom we have sustained into office by common consent.

 

The Lord has not entrusted us with the Church – only those with the keys, and He has not entrusted us with the sacred funds, only those with the keys. He does entrust us with the covenants He has given us, but we do not covenant to run the Church or to manage the sacred funds, only to belong to the Church and contribute our wherewithal (including tithes and offerings when it comes to funds).

 

Some examples of what has been “entrusted”:

Answers to prayers: (“My brothers and sisters, the Lord’s purposes are often accomplished as we pay heed to the guidance of the Spirit. I believe that the more we act upon the inspiration and impressions which come to us, the more the Lord will entrust to us His errands.”) https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/consider-the-blessings?lang=eng

 

Bearing the priesthood: (“As bearers of the priesthood, let us never become hardened to the wonder and awe of what the Lord has entrusted to us.”) https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/your-potential-your-privilege?lang=eng

 

A ministry or calling: (“Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.” -- Alma 39:4; and “Behold, I speak unto you, and also to all those who have desires to bring forth and establish this work; And no one can assist in this work except he shall be humble and full of love, having faith, hope, and charity, being temperate in all things, whatsoever shall be entrusted to his care.” – D&C 12: 7-.

 

Most of the other scriptural references to “entrusting” (per the scripture word search) have to do with what the Lord formally assigns to His servants, or through His servants who have the keys to do it.

[CV75]

Exactly.  And who is the COJCOLDS?  Well, that's us.  All 15 million members.

The Church is not the members. It is the organization into which membership is received:

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/church-organization/the-church-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

 

“Under the authority and direction of the prophet, the people are organized into a church, where they can be taught God’s truths and receive ordinances.”

 

“During Jesus Christ’s mortal ministry—as well as during His visit to the ancient Americas after His Resurrection—He established His Church. It was called the Church of Jesus Christ (see 3 Nephi 27:8 ), and the members were called Saints (see Ephesians 2:19-20). Like the prophets who had preceded Him and testified of Him, Jesus received His instructions and His authority from God, our Heavenly Father (see Hebrews 1:1-2;5:4-6).”

 

“On April 6, 1830, the Savior again directed the organizing of His Church (see D&C 20:1). Having received the priesthood keys, Joseph Smith now had authority to do this.”

 

If the Church were the members, there would be no need for the authority and direction of a prophet possessing priesthood keys.

[rockpond]

The Church is not the members. It is the organization into which membership is received:

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/church-organization/the-church-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

 

“Under the authority and direction of the prophet, the people are organized into a church, where they can be taught God’s truths and receive ordinances.”

 

“During Jesus Christ’s mortal ministry—as well as during His visit to the ancient Americas after His Resurrection—He established His Church. It was called the Church of Jesus Christ (see 3 Nephi 27:8 ), and the members were called Saints (see Ephesians 2:19-20). Like the prophets who had preceded Him and testified of Him, Jesus received His instructions and His authority from God, our Heavenly Father (see Hebrews 1:1-2;5:4-6).”

 

“On April 6, 1830, the Savior again directed the organizing of His Church (see D&C 20:1). Having received the priesthood keys, Joseph Smith now had authority to do this.”

 

If the Church were the members, there would be no need for the authority and direction of a prophet possessing priesthood keys.

 

1 Corinthians 12:12

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

 

Romans 12:5

5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

 

[CV75]

1 Corinthians 12:12

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

 

Romans 12:5

5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Yes, many members are organized into a body, each member having a role. Yet, the body is not defined by its members, because while it adds membership indeterminably, and roles can multiply, yet the body is still the same Church, and is of Christ (not of the membership). The body is defined by Christ and His means of organizing it.

 

Romans 12 and Corinthians 12 are about spiritual gifts, heritage, class, honor, office, and callings. I don’t see where they say that being an apostle or managing Church funds to be “best gifts” to covet (1 Corinthians 12:31).

 

Plus, if we’re talking about the Restored Church, it makes sense to use the modern revelations and definitions I provided, and not in a way that suggests that deceased members from the first century were brought back to form the Church today (other than the three that laid their hands on Joseph Smith -- LOL).

Edited September 18, 2014 by CV75

[rockpond]

 Plus, if we’re talking about the Restored Church, it makes sense to use the modern revelations and definitions I provided, and not in a way that suggests that deceased members from the first century were brought back to form the Church today (other than the three that laid their hands on Joseph Smith -- LOL).

That seems consistent with your perspective of prioritizing whatever the Brethren (living today) want to do.

[CV75]

That seems consistent with your perspective of prioritizing whatever the Brethren (living today) want to do.

Well, it's not what they want to do, but what the Lord instructs them to do. A related point is that the members of the body of Christ are subject (with the whole body) to the mind of Christ, not their own will. This means that proper common consent is the reflection of the mind of Christ as He guides each member in the gifts, offices, positions, records, resources, etc. that He has entrusted to them to carry our His will in specific areas of the Church.

[rockpond]

Well, it's not what they want to do, but what the Lord instructs them to do. A related point is that the members of the body of Christ are subject (with the whole body) to the mind of Christ, not their own will. This means that proper common consent is the reflection of the mind of Christ as He guides each member in the gifts, offices, positions, records, resources, etc. that He has entrusted to them to carry our His will in specific areas of the Church.

 

I agree.

 

And none of that precludes sharing the decisions that result from their following the Lord's will with respect to finances.

[CV75]

I agree.

 

And none of that precludes sharing the decisions that result from their following the Lord's will with respect to finances.

It does in that the body is not homogenous, with every member having exactly the same circumstance, gift, office, calling, etc. The imagery is about everyone doing their part with the wherewithal the Lord has given them, which by design is varied. The Lord calls and appoints certain members through whom He reveals His will with respect to decisions in behalf of the body, hence the Church organization (as described in pervious links). This was the case even in the days of Abraham 3:23. The imagery is exactly the opposite of each member having or taking a part in making and carrying out every decision the Lord wants made.

[rockpond]

It does in that the body is not homogenous, with every member having exactly the same circumstance, gift, office, calling, etc. The imagery is about everyone doing their part with the wherewithal the Lord has given them, which by design is varied. The Lord calls and appoints certain members through whom He reveals His will with respect to decisions in behalf of the body, hence the Church organization (as described in pervious links). This was the case even in the days of Abraham 3:23. The imagery is exactly the opposite of each member having or taking a part in making and carrying out every decision the Lord wants made.

 

And when He reveals his will to the leaders they should keep that to themselves?  No need to inform the sheep of how church funds are being spent because that's not their calling, right?

[CV75]

And when He reveals his will to the leaders they should keep that to themselves?  No need to inform the sheep of how church funds are being spent because that's not their calling, right?

That is a shift to a shepherd/sheep imagery, which certainly doesn't support your case. The shepherd simply leads the sheep and they follow, knowing far less than He. This is still valuable imagery in relation to the body imagery.

 

With regards to the body of Christ, it is appropriate that every member not share every thing he does in his calling with every other member. The Lord distributes the blessings to the whole as each member performs his part: “...there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord ...there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all… dividing to every man severally as he will. … as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body?”

 

So we are not sharing in that the Lord "[divides] to every man severally" his role; we are sharing on a higher level of course ("a more excellent way") , which is revealed to be charity (1 Corinthians 13) and other spiritual gifts (Ch. 14).

[rockpond]

That is a shift to a shepherd/sheep imagery, which certainly doesn't support your case. The shepherd simply leads the sheep and they follow, knowing far less than He. This is still valuable imagery in relation to the body imagery.

 

With regards to the body of Christ, it is appropriate that every member not share every thing he does in his calling with every other member. The Lord distributes the blessings to the whole as each member performs his part: “...there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord ...there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all… dividing to every man severally as he will. … as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body?”

 

So we are not sharing in that the Lord "[divides] to every man severally" his role; we are sharing on a higher level of course ("a more excellent way") , which is revealed to be charity (1 Corinthians 13) and other spiritual gifts (Ch. 14).

 

You just can't answer a question can you?  Your position is so fragile that all you can do is talk at me rather than dialogue.

 

Consider also the fear that is so often expressed by members with respect to disclosing church finances (you don't need to go further than reviewing this thread)...  So convinced that that the leaders are doing what God wants done with sacred funds and yet so scared that anyone actually pull back the curtain.

 

I've studied Joseph Smith, I've taught Joseph Smith, and I don't believe for a moment that he would agree with your interpretation of common consent.  I think that there was great wisdom and revelation in how the church was organized and set up to be governed.  I pray that we will move back towards that.

[CV75]

You just can't answer a question can you?  Your position is so fragile that all you can do is talk at me rather than dialogue.

 

Consider also the fear that is so often expressed by members with respect to disclosing church finances (you don't need to go further than reviewing this thread)...  So convinced that that the leaders are doing what God wants done with sacred funds and yet so scared that anyone actually pull back the curtain.

 

I've studied Joseph Smith, I've taught Joseph Smith, and I don't believe for a moment that he would agree with your interpretation of common consent.  I think that there was great wisdom and revelation in how the church was organized and set up to be governed.  I pray that we will move back towards that.

Yes, I can answer a question!

 

Many of your questions seem rhetorical to me; I try to address them anyway. I may even answer the ones that seem to have been answered for yourself already.  And  I see no basis for your assertion that my position is fragile, especially by virtue of supposedly not answering questions.

 

I’m not sure what I haven’t answered from your question in #940, but I’ll try again:

 

Q: “And when He reveals his will to the leaders they should keep that to themselves?” A: Why not, as occasion requires? Q: “No need to inform the sheep of how church funds are being spent because that's not their calling, right?” A: No need to inform the flock, only members as occasion requires (see below).

 

The Shepherd does not inform the sheep at all; they hear His voice and follow as a flock (shepherd/sheep imagery). In some ways we function as a flock, regardless of our position or gifts.

 

But the body of Christ “is not one member” as the flock is. The Mind or Head only informs the members of the body of that which He would have them do in their respective functions, and He has many members with many different functions. Furthermore, the parts of the body (in this imagery) do not inform each other, they are coordinated by the Lord to care for each other, most excellently in charity expressed in the context of what they do with their gifts, callings, offices, etc.

 

I see no imagery that calls for the members of the body of Christ to behave in the way you are proposing.

 

I don’t care if anyone were to “pull back the curtain.” Your posts seem to convey as much fear (I wasn't going to say anything) as it seems you are putting on others. I‘m surprised the information hasn’t been hacked into or leaked or sold long ago; and that should be easy enough to do.

 

Whatever you’ve studied, taught and concluded about Joseph Smith hasn’t translated very effectively (to me) in support of your claim that he would disagree with my interpretation of common consent. You do, but I'm not sure how he would referee that. In any case, I don’t see where common consent applies to the operations of the flock as a whole or of the members of the body accepting each others' gifts and offices charitably and working together accordingly.

[rockpond]

Yes, I can answer a question!

Many of your questions seem rhetorical to me; I try to address them anyway. I may even answer the ones that seem to have been answered for yourself already. And I see no basis for your assertion that my position is fragile, especially by virtue of supposedly not answering questions.

I’m not sure what I haven’t answered from your question in #940, but I’ll try again:

Q: “And when He reveals his will to the leaders they should keep that to themselves?” A: Why not, as occasion requires? Q: “No need to inform the sheep of how church funds are being spent because that's not their calling, right?” A: No need to inform the flock, only members as occasion requires (see below).

The Shepherd does not inform the sheep at all; they hear His voice and follow as a flock (shepherd/sheep imagery). In some ways we function as a flock, regardless of our position or gifts.

But the body of Christ “is not one member” as the flock is. The Mind or Head only informs the members of the body of that which He would have them do in their respective functions, and He has many members with many different functions. Furthermore, the parts of the body (in this imagery) do not inform each other, they are coordinated by the Lord to care for each other, most excellently in charity expressed in the context of what they do with their gifts, callings, offices, etc.

I see no imagery that calls for the members of the body of Christ to behave in the way you are proposing.

I don’t care if anyone were to “pull back the curtain.” Your posts seem to convey as much fear (I wasn't going to say anything) as it seems you are putting on others. I‘m surprised the information hasn’t been hacked into or leaked or sold long ago; and that should be easy enough to do.

Whatever you’ve studied, taught and concluded about Joseph Smith hasn’t translated very effectively (to me) in support of your claim that he would disagree with my interpretation of common consent. You do, but I'm not sure how he would referee that. In any case, I don’t see where common consent applies to the operations of the flock as a whole or of the members of the body accepting each others' gifts and offices charitably and working together accordingly.

Thanks for answering my questions. Typically on these boards, if I ask something that is just rhetorical, I'll identify it as such.

I am opposed to the idea that there are things that leaders should keep from members. It seems to be leading to quite a bit of discord within the church. I suspect that you will feel that those members should find more humility and submission. But I tend to think some of those concerns have proven to be valid.

Additionally, when it comes to the revealed will of the Lord, I think that keeping such from the general membership should be an ever rarer occurrence. If ever.

[Tacenda]

I'm re-listening to the 2014 Sunstone Symposium podcast about church finances.  I didn't catch before that Quinn's book about church finances will be out in 2015.  It will cover from 1830 to 2012, and is very in depth look.  One of the attenders said it was a tomb of information, so we'll have to see.   

[CV75]

Thanks for answering my questions.

Hopefully you will recognize how many times I answered them! You once complained that I kept repeating myself!

 

I am opposed to the idea that there are things that leaders should keep from members. It seems to be leading to quite a bit of discord within the church. I suspect that you will feel that those members should find more humility and submission. But I tend to think some of those concerns have proven to be valid.

You are clearly opposed to the idea, but that is a burden leaders must bear, along with being watchmen.

 

Additionally, when it comes to the revealed will of the Lord, I think that keeping such from the general membership should be an ever rarer occurrence. If ever.

See Alma 12:9. D&C 84:85.

 

It is good to apply general principles to specific situations, but when the general principle allows for varying applications, everything you've said here does not apply to publishing Church budgets.

[rockpond]

You are clearly opposed to the idea, but that is a burden leaders must bear, along with being watchmen.

 

See Alma 12:9. D&C 84:85.

 

It is good to apply general principles to specific situations, but when the general principle allows for varying applications, everything you've said here does not apply to publishing Church budgets.

 

Keeping church finances is not a burden that the leaders must bear.   They could share those finances with us just as was done in times past.

 

I don't see how church finances are a "mystery of God" (Alma 12) and Section 84 is less applicable.

 

Common consent is not a general principle.  Some church published sources (linked already on this thread) refer to it as a law.

 

But, go ahead, keep arguing against it.  I assume you are in favor of the Brethren's decision to no long require that money you donate to tithes, fast offering, PEF, missionary fund, etc actually be used for those purposes.  And, as I noted earlier, I imagine you'll be in favor as they continue to withhold more and more information from church members.  And since you disagree with my interpretation of common consent, you'll be comfortable with its continued use solely for the annual process of sustaining them in their callings.  All will be well in Zion.

 

Until it's not.

[Teancum]

48 pages!!!  All about what most organizations believe is a proper thing to do.  But hey, not the One and Only True Church.  It's leaders are above the need to be financially transparent.  

 

Ok cynicism aside.

 

I am not sure why those who are solid LDS beleivers are opposed to this. Even when I was in your camp I thought financial disclosure a very good thing.  And yes I felt even the top leader should be accountable to their flock.  I believe that power can corrupt and the LDS leaders are men subject to temptation like you and like me.

 

Financial transparency helps avoid things which are not good and it lets those contributing know what is being done with sacred funds.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Teancum

[rockpond]

I'm re-listening to the 2014 Sunstone Symposium podcast about church finances. I didn't catch before that Quinn's book about church finances will be out in 2015. It will cover from 1830 to 2012, and is very in depth look. One of the attenders said it was a tomb of information, so we'll have to see.

I'm about halfway through it. It's been interesting so far. Thanks for sharing it!

[CV75]

Keeping church finances is not a burden that the leaders must bear.   They could share those finances with us just as was done in times past.

 

I don't see how church finances are a "mystery of God" (Alma 12) and Section 84 is less applicable.

 

Common consent is not a general principle.  Some church published sources (linked already on this thread) refer to it as a law.

 

But, go ahead, keep arguing against it.  I assume you are in favor of the Brethren's decision to no long require that money you donate to tithes, fast offering, PEF, missionary fund, etc actually be used for those purposes.  And, as I noted earlier, I imagine you'll be in favor as they continue to withhold more and more information from church members.  And since you disagree with my interpretation of common consent, you'll be comfortable with its continued use solely for the annual process of sustaining them in their callings.  All will be well in Zion.

 

Until it's not.

Simply refuting without clear backup does not present your case very well at all.

 

“Principle” is synonymous with “law.” The scriptures I provided teach the principle that God renders only a portion at times. Others teach that He reveals a fullness in time. A budget pales in comparison with other mysteries, but the principle of how much and when He apportions things to the world and to the saints through His servants is the same.

 

If you’re suggesting that “the word” and “the mysteries” do not apply to budgets, then why suggest that common consent does? I say it doesn’t apply for the reasons you asked me to stop repeating. But the principle of revealing a portion of things does.

 

As I’ve said before, I’m not arguing against publishing the budget, I just know demanding publication on the grounds of common consent is a misapplication of the law and an invalid justification.

 

Assuming and imagining requires that you don’t really know what you’re talking about! And common consent is simply what the scriptures say it is, which you have also asked me to stop explaining,

 

Asking someone to stop repeating and explaining is certainky one way to make all seem well--it's called "denial"! LOL!