Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[CV75]

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.

No doubt lots of things are "good" in the right time, place and execution, but only a few are essential and/or expedient and always good.

[rockpond]

If you’re suggesting that “the word” and “the mysteries” do not apply to budgets, then why suggest that common consent does?

 

Mysteries are things we don't know.  Budgets are known... just not to all... and could easily be shared.  Why does common consent apply?  I've stated before but you disagreed:  D&C 104:71.

 

 

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.

 

So if you don't think that common consent is a reason for the church to disclose its finances, how about because the prophet said that the information belongs to us, the members?

 

Or to prevent issues of unrighteous dominion?

 

Or because members are asking?

[CV75]

Mysteries are things we don't know.  Budgets are known... just not to all... and could easily be shared.  Why does common consent apply?  I've stated before but you disagreed:  D&C 104:71.

 

So if you don't think that common consent is a reason for the church to disclose its finances, how about because the prophet said that the information belongs to us, the members?

 

Or to prevent issues of unrighteous dominion?

 

Or because members are asking?

Scripturally, mysteries are things that eligible saints receive from God on specific terms, and which the world rejects (both the things and the terms).

 

D&C 104:71, as part of Section 104, pertains to how things are conducted within the United Order of the Stake of Zion (which replaced the former order, vs. 47-50), within which property stewardship was given to those who had not broken the covenant (vs. 55-57) for the purpose of building up the Church (vs. 58, 59). There's nothing in there about sharing financial information with the general membership.

 

I haven’t heard the prophets teach that the members are to be privy to the Church’s financial information any more than they are to participate in the quorums at the general level.*

 

Nor have I reason to suspect that institutional unrighteous dominion is being coordinated by these quorums.*

 

I don’t think that members’ asking is sufficient reason for the church to “disclose its finances.”*

 

* It seems to me these same talking points are used in trying to get people excited about other areas in which change is desired: the prophets teach / once taught it;  unrighteous dominion / gone astray; members being inspired to raise the call to change.

[rockpond]

There's nothing in there about sharing financial information with the general membership.

 

"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."  

 

* It seems to me these same talking points are used in trying to get people excited about other areas in which change is desired: the prophets teach / once taught it;  unrighteous dominion / gone astray; members being inspired to raise the call to change.

 

True.

 

 

I haven’t heard the prophets teach that the members are to be privy to the Church’s financial information any more than they are to participate in the quorums at the general level.*

 

From his 2002 Interview:

 

REPORTER:  IN MY COUNTRY, THE…WE SAY THE PEOPLE'S CHURCHES, THE PROTESTANTS, THE CATHOLICS, THEY PUBLISH ALL THEIR BUDGETS, TO ALL THE PUBLIC.

 

President HINCKLEY:  YEAH. YEAH.

 

REPORTER:  WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOUR CHURCH?

 

HINCKLEY:  WELL, WE SIMPLY THINK THAT THE…THAT INFORMATION BELONGS TO THOSE WHO MADE THE CONTRIBUTION, AND NOT TO THE WORLD. THAT'S THE ONLY THING. YES.

 

 

And from Elder Bednar in Oct 2013 Gen Con:

 

"As the meeting progressed, I found myself wishing that all members of the Church could observe the simplicity, the clarity, the orderliness, the charity, and the power of the Lord’s own way (see D&C 104:16) for conducting the temporal affairs of His Church."

 

I stand with President Hinckley and with Elder Bednar.  Let's make it happen!

Edited September 29, 2014 by rockpond

[CV75]

"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."

Thank you: as I said, this verse has nothing to do with sharing financial information with the general membership; please consider it in relation to other verses and the section as a whole

 

True.

I don’t see getting people excited is a sufficient justification for initiating unfounded charges and claims like these latest ones you posted; if that is all you have, I'd say you are pretty well spent.

 

From his 2002 Interview:

 

And from Elder Bednar in Oct 2013 Gen Con:

I posted Elder Bednar’s link much earlier (and more than once!), and thought you would jump right on this; but it sure took a while! It is said in the spirit of “O that I were an angel…,” perhaps in our behalf, and we know how the rest of that sentiment goes (see Alma 29:3-4, 8, etc.). He refers to the principle of the Lord providing in His own way (D&C 104:16)to describe how the financial affairs are conducted with simplicity, clarity, orderliness, charity, and power within the respective quorum authorized to do so.

The Hinckley quote, especially in context of the whole interview, only means that tithing and other contributions are between the member and the Church, and are not to be published to the world. This is a similar point to what I've been making about not publishing financial reports, that our contributions are between us and the Lord, and once we consecrate them, we do not manage them. The quote is hardly a call for publishing budgets for the members to evaluate.This interview does not support your claim that the prophets are teaching the publishing of budgets.

[rockpond]

Thank you: as I said, this verse has nothing to do with sharing financial information with the general membership; please consider it in relation to other verses and the section as a whole

 

I don’t see getting people excited is a sufficient justification for initiating unfounded charges and claims like these latest ones you posted; if that is all you have, I'd say you are pretty well spent.

 

I posted Elder Bednar’s link much earlier (and more than once!), and thought you would jump right on this; but it sure took a while! It is said in the spirit of “O that I were an angel…,” perhaps in our behalf, and we know how the rest of that sentiment goes (see Alma 29:3-4, 8, etc.). He refers to the principle of the Lord providing in His own way (D&C 104:16)to describe how the financial affairs are conducted with simplicity, clarity, orderliness, charity, and power within the respective quorum authorized to do so.

The Hinckley quote, especially in context of the whole interview, only means that tithing and other contributions are between the member and the Church, and are not to be published to the world. This is a similar point to what I've been making about not publishing financial reports, that our contributions are between us and the Lord, and once we consecrate them, we do not manage them. The quote is hardly a call for publishing budgets for the members to evaluate.This interview does not support your claim that the prophets are teaching the publishing of budgets.

 

104:71 says that funds should not be spent without voice and common consent.  As I've said, I don't believe we can have that "voice and common consent" if members have no idea how those funds are being spent.

 

I brought up the Elder Bednar & President Hinckley quotes at this point in the conversation because you said that you didn't see common consent as a reason to disclose finances.  So I am providing other reasons.

 

Elder Bednar said that he wishes members could see how the temporal affairs of the church are handled.  Well, they have the ability to share that but choose not to.

 

President Hinckley said, quite clearly, that the financial information of the church belongs to tithe paying members.  Again, that information could be shared with us but they choose not to.

 

I am not surprised that you don't see members requests for financial disclosure as having any relevance.  It's consistent with your approach to this.  Whereas, I see the members BEING the church, not some subservient appendage to it.

[CV75]

104:71 says that funds should not be spent without voice and common consent.  As I've said, I don't believe we can have that "voice and common consent" if members have no idea how those funds are being spent.

 

I brought up the Elder Bednar & President Hinckley quotes at this point in the conversation because you said that you didn't see common consent as a reason to disclose finances.  So I am providing other reasons.

 

Elder Bednar said that he wishes members could see how the temporal affairs of the church are handled.  Well, they have the ability to share that but choose not to.

 

President Hinckley said, quite clearly, that the financial information of the church belongs to tithe paying members.  Again, that information could be shared with us but they choose not to.

 

I am not surprised that you don't see members requests for financial disclosure as having any relevance.  It's consistent with your approach to this.  Whereas, I see the members BEING the church, not some subservient appendage to it.

The whole of D&C 104 uses common consent in a very different context than what you have incorrectly tried to portray Elder Bednar’s and President Hinckley’s as promoting.

 

Elder Bednar “found himself wishing” (a one-time, completed action), and does not claim to wish it in the sense of making it literally happen. His wish was in relation to observing the process he was privy to by virtue of his calling and which he cannot share. This is a far cry from making financial decisions and reports subject to common consent, and would require his using your conflated understanding of common consent at that. He understands how the Church works, which is not “the members BEING the church”:

 

lds.org describes the Church in terms of a pattern of organization: https://www.lds.org/...christ?lang=eng

 

“The pattern begins when God, our Heavenly Father, calls a prophet to lead and teach the people (see Amos 3:7). From God, the prophet receives priesthood keys, which are the power and authority to direct the work of God on earth. This work includes ordinances (or religious ceremonies) necessary for salvation, such as being baptized and receiving the Holy Ghost (see John 3:5). The prophet also receives continuing revelation, or communication from God, regarding His will for the people. 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.”

 

The Lord conceptualizes the Church’s organization as both collective and individual members (D&C 130:1), and in either construct He governs it through His servants and the members sustain that pattern. Even if there was only one member, that one member would have to be a prophet.

 

I already explained what President Hinckley was saying: that information about contributions is between the member and the Church, just as it is between the member and the Lord. This is consistent with the overarching vision expressed in this article (and related articles which get into the irrelevance of using financial information to assess the Church’s work of salvation) on lds.org: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Finances_of_the_Church

[rockpond]

The whole of D&C 104 uses common consent in a very different context than what you have incorrectly tried to portray Elder Bednar’s and President Hinckley’s as promoting.

 

Elder Bednar “found himself wishing” (a one-time, completed action), and does not claim to wish it in the sense of making it literally happen. His wish was in relation to observing the process he was privy to by virtue of his calling and which he cannot share. This is a far cry from making financial decisions and reports subject to common consent, and would require his using your conflated understanding of common consent at that. He understands how the Church works, which is not “the members BEING the church”:

 

lds.org describes the Church in terms of a pattern of organization: https://www.lds.org/...christ?lang=eng

 

“The pattern begins when God, our Heavenly Father, calls a prophet to lead and teach the people (see Amos 3:7). From God, the prophet receives priesthood keys, which are the power and authority to direct the work of God on earth. This work includes ordinances (or religious ceremonies) necessary for salvation, such as being baptized and receiving the Holy Ghost (see John 3:5). The prophet also receives continuing revelation, or communication from God, regarding His will for the people. 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.”

 

The Lord conceptualizes the Church’s organization as both collective and individual members (D&C 130:1), and in either construct He governs it through His servants and the members sustain that pattern. Even if there was only one member, that one member would have to be a prophet.

 

I already explained what President Hinckley was saying: that information about contributions is between the member and the Church, just as it is between the member and the Lord. This is consistent with the overarching vision expressed in this article (and related articles which get into the irrelevance of using financial information to assess the Church’s work of salvation) on lds.org: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Finances_of_the_Church

 

I didn't say that Elder Bednar had to agree with my understanding of common consent.  Elder Bednar said that he found himself wishing that members could see how the temporal affairs are handled.  I'm just saying that it is possible to share some of that with the members.  And I think it would be great. 

 

I disagree with your interpretation of President Hinckley's statement.  He said quite clearly that the financial information belongs to the members.  If it does, than we ought to be able to see it.

[CV75]

I didn't say that Elder Bednar had to agree with my understanding of common consent.  Elder Bednar said that he found himself wishing that members could see how the temporal affairs are handled.  I'm just saying that it is possible to share some of that with the members.  And I think it would be great.

Of course it is “possible” and you think it would be great that members could sit in on the Council. This wishful thinking is a far cry from sharing the minutes, budgets or reports which would not convey the goal or the sentiments Elder Bednar was expressing and which shed no further light on the two “basic and fixed” principles governing the process.

 

I disagree with your interpretation of President Hinckley's statement.  He said quite clearly that the financial information belongs to the members.  If it does, than we ought to be able to see it.

President Hinckley was asked why it was “impossible” for the Church to do as other churches in Germany, to “publish all their budgets, to all the public.” There are a myriad of problems arising from the reporter’s use of “impossible,” “all,” and “my country,” yet my read is that President Hinckley chose to answer it on two levels without quibbling about whether it was possible or not or reminding the reporter that it is a global Church, and at the same time accommodating both general and individual scopes without getting into “all” or nothing.

 

In the sense of general membership (“those who made the contribution”), “all” the budgets are not for “all the world” and so are not published. That is why he adds the emphasis, “and not to the world.” The Church manages and safeguards the information in behalf “all” those who made the contribution, in relation to “all the world.” In the sense of individual membership, annual contribution statements, receipts, reimbursement documentation, and the like belong to the  member and are not published to “all the public.”

 

This is what he said, "quite clearly."

[rockpond]

Of course it is “possible” and you think it would be great that members could sit in on the Council. This wishful thinking is a far cry from sharing the minutes, budgets or reports which would not convey the goal or the sentiments Elder Bednar was expressing and which shed no further light on the two “basic and fixed” principles governing the process.

 

President Hinckley was asked why it was “impossible” for the Church to do as other churches in Germany, to “publish all their budgets, to all the public.” There are a myriad of problems arising from the reporter’s use of “impossible,” “all,” and “my country,” yet my read is that President Hinckley chose to answer it on two levels without quibbling about whether it was possible or not or reminding the reporter that it is a global Church, and at the same time accommodating both general and individual scopes without getting into “all” or nothing.

 

In the sense of general membership (“those who made the contribution”), “all” the budgets are not for “all the world” and so are not published. That is why he adds the emphasis, “and not to the world.” The Church manages and safeguards the information in behalf “all” those who made the contribution, in relation to “all the world.” In the sense of individual membership, annual contribution statements, receipts, reimbursement documentation, and the like belong to the  member and are not published to “all the public.”

 

This is what he said, "quite clearly."

 

Interesting take on President Hinckley's comments.

 

And I do think it would be great if members could sit in on the council.  Of course there are obvious logistical issues with that.  But sharing the budgets produced and followed by that council would provide insight into how the temporal affairs of the church are handled.  I think it would be great for members to see how church assets are used to benefit people across the globe.

[CV75]

Interesting take on President Hinckley's comments.

 

And I do think it would be great if members could sit in on the council.  Of course there are obvious logistical issues with that.  But sharing the budgets produced and followed by that council would provide insight into how the temporal affairs of the church are handled.  I think it would be great for members to see how church assets are used to benefit people across the globe.

That's one thing, tying it to the law of common consent as an eternal right is another!

 

Budgets do not provide insight, only a substrate upon which any number of insights of variable quality might be developed. So the insight a member develops from it would only be as useful as his capacity to develop insight from budgets. And we seem to do that without budgets as well. So some might enjoy the exercise, but I'm not sure if that alone would show how church assets are used to benefit people across the globe--that was the message of at least one of articles (the newsroom one for example) in the link I provided.

[rockpond]

That's one thing, tying it to the law of common consent as an eternal right is another!

 

That's fine.  As I've pointed out, there are other ways to look at it.

 

 

Budgets do not provide insight, only a substrate upon which any number of insights of variable quality might be developed. So the insight a member develops from it would only be as useful as his capacity to develop insight from budgets. And we seem to do that without budgets as well. So some might enjoy the exercise, but I'm not sure if that alone would show how church assets are used to benefit people across the globe--that was the message of at least one of articles (the newsroom one for example) in the link I provided.

 

Budgets.  Profit & Loss statements.  Balance Sheets.  These provide a great deal of insight.  Corporations share them routinely.  Other churches do as well.  I agree that the exercise of reviewing such things would not be for everyone but it is something I am quite comfortable with.

[bjw]

That's fine.  As I've pointed out, there are other ways to look at it.

 

 

 

Budgets.  Profit & Loss statements.  Balance Sheets.  These provide a great deal of insight.  Corporations share them routinely.  Other churches do as well.  I agree that the exercise of reviewing such things would not be for everyone but it is something I am quite comfortable with.

Prior to becoming LDS, I was an accountant for a large Presbyterian Church for several years. We published a balance sheet, income statement, etc, the usual packet of financials for each of the members. It didn't help much because most members didn't understand them unless they had a basic high school or college accounting class. For instance, one employee was fired for spending money unethically and tighter controls had to be put in place, yet the statements would not have reflected this, and we wouldn't have caught it except my secretary caught it accidentally.

If the church does publish financials they should publish a report to give an explanation. That could be what is on our leader's minds when they give the annual report during conference. In a sense saying, "You trusted us with your money, here's how we spent it." I think in most people's minds they want more transperancy though. For instance, the way the anti video mentioned in the op claims the apostles hire family members for jobs, then overpay them. This type of thing would involve a huge conspiracy, so I don't see how it's possible.

[CV75]

That's fine.  As I've pointed out, there are other ways to look at it.

 

 

 

Budgets.  Profit & Loss statements.  Balance Sheets.  These provide a great deal of insight.  Corporations share them routinely.  Other churches do as well.  I agree that the exercise of reviewing such things would not be for everyone but it is something I am quite comfortable with.

But this does not apply to the general membership, whose insight (accurate and deep intuitive understanding) on essential matters is based on other evidences than “Budgets.  Profit & Loss statements.  Balance Sheets.”

 

I do like the concept of a communal (versus personal) insight, which is where I think common consent takes us and why it is applied in the general sense only to accepting cannon and callings.

[rockpond]

But this does not apply to the general membership, whose insight (accurate and deep intuitive understanding) on essential matters is based on other evidences than “Budgets.  Profit & Loss statements.  Balance Sheets.”

 

I do like the concept of a communal (versus personal) insight, which is where I think common consent takes us and why it is applied in the general sense only to accepting cannon and callings.

 

Publishing financial reports would not replace the members' "insight on essential matters", just supplement it.

 

I don't think that the practice of publishing church finances prior to 1960 was an indication of less insight or faith of the general membership back then.

[CV75]

Publishing financial reports would not replace the members' "insight on essential matters", just supplement it.

 

I don't think that the practice of publishing church finances prior to 1960 was an indication of less insight or faith of the general membership back then.

I didn't suggest that publishing reports would replace insight, but neither would it supplement it for the same reasons I described; further,  it isn't essential for the general membership (or individual members, as far as I can tell).

 

I wouldn't suggest that earlier practices indicate that anyone was less insightful; the decision to report or not is unrelated to an assessment of the general membership's insight.

 

If the reports have nothing to do with promoting the membership's essential insight, and are merely of individual supplemental interest, then they are just a "nice to have" sort of thing for one person and a "why bother?" sort of thing for someone else. Kind of like the difference between a hobby and a vital life function.

[CV75]

I think in most people's minds they want more transperancy though.

Are you saying here that you think the global membership, especially from where the general membership stands today, wants more transparency? Or that in general, people tend to favor transparency in principle (meaning that they may not care about it in specific situations or may view it differently in consideration of other principles that come into play over any given situation)?

[rockpond]

I didn't suggest that publishing reports would replace insight, but neither would it supplement it for the same reasons I described; further,  it isn't essential for the general membership (or individual members, as far as I can tell).

 

I wouldn't suggest that earlier practices indicate that anyone was less insightful; the decision to report or not is unrelated to an assessment of the general membership's insight.

 

If the reports have nothing to do with promoting the membership's essential insight, and are merely of individual supplemental interest, then they are just a "nice to have" sort of thing for one person and a "why bother?" sort of thing for someone else. Kind of like the difference between a hobby and a vital life function.

 

Well for me (and others) it is an important part of the way the Lord has taught that the church should be governed.  But you disagree with me on that point.

[bjw]

Are you saying here that you think the global membership, especially from where the general membership stands today, wants more transparency? Or that in general, people tend to favor transparency in principle (meaning that they may not care about it in specific situations or may view it differently in consideration of other principles that come into play over any given situation)?

I think there are a lot of people that don't even think about these issues, like the people I mentioned earlier that received financial statements but didn't care what they mean. For most people the annual report played between the conferences that shows charity work, disaster relief, temple openings, etc, is sufficient.

I think members that are on sites like this, as well as other apologetic and lds community forumsnare probably more likely to care, especially if they've had doubts in the past. I suppose I should have been a little more specific about who wants more transperancy. In my mind, just judging from lds I have met I would say about half probably would like numbers to go with the annual report or some kind of budget, especially when antis throw in our face the stuff about ministries like Billy Graham and Pcusa publishing their statements.

[CV75]

I think there are a lot of people that don't even think about these issues, like the people I mentioned earlier that received financial statements but didn't care what they mean. For most people the annual report played between the conferences that shows charity work, disaster relief, temple openings, etc, is sufficient.

I think members that are on sites like this, as well as other apologetic and lds community forumsnare probably more likely to care, especially if they've had doubts in the past. I suppose I should have been a little more specific about who wants more transperancy. In my mind, just judging from lds I have met I would say about half probably would like numbers to go with the annual report or some kind of budget, especially when antis throw in our face the stuff about ministries like Billy Graham and Pcusa publishing their statements.

Thank you—I thought that was where you were coming from / going: for most people, whatever the Church doing is sufficient. The explanation given on http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-financial-independence, in my mind, is a sufficient response to “antis”, if they warrant any at all:

 

“From time to time, some people ...try to attach a monetary value to the Church in the same way they would assess the assets of a commercial corporation. Such comparisons simply do not hold up.” [Many examples follow]

 

“On occasion someone will try to estimate the Church’s income and determine how much of that is used to care for the poor and needy. Again, they rarely capture the whole picture. The bedrock principles [are something else entirely].”

 

“The Church exists to improve the lives of people across the world by bringing them closer to Jesus Christ. … What is important is not the cost but the outcome. As former Church President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “The only true wealth of the Church is in the faith of its people.”

 

“…the Church’s purpose is to bring people to Christ and to follow His example by lifting the burdens of those who are struggling. The key to understanding the Church is to see it not as a worldwide corporation, but as millions of faithful members in thousands of congregations across the world following Christ and caring for each other and their neighbors.”

 

Granted, not everyone sees things this way, but it is a very helpful viewpoint guided by the revelations (the "bedrock principles").

 

I don’t think people necessarily need to justify their personal interests and preferences—there usually isn’t much validity to them anyway as far as application to the world or the Church in general. But people sure like to have them and express them, and sometimes enforce them!

[CV75]

Well for me (and others) it is an important part of the way the Lord has taught that the church should be governed.  But you disagree with me on that point.

You said that reporting is a supplemental function, but “supplemental” cannot be on a par with “essential.” I don’t see where the Lord ever taught and restored “supplemental” principles. The Lord does simultaneously provide insight to the individual member and to the general membership, but that is through means other than paperwork.

[rockpond]

Thank you—I thought that was where you were coming from / going: for most people, whatever the Church doing is sufficient. The explanation given on http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-financial-independence, in my mind, is a sufficient response to “antis”, if they warrant any at all:

 

“From time to time, some people ...try to attach a monetary value to the Church in the same way they would assess the assets of a commercial corporation. Such comparisons simply do not hold up.” [Many examples follow]

 

“On occasion someone will try to estimate the Church’s income and determine how much of that is used to care for the poor and needy. Again, they rarely capture the whole picture. The bedrock principles [are something else entirely].”

 

“The Church exists to improve the lives of people across the world by bringing them closer to Jesus Christ. … What is important is not the cost but the outcome. As former Church President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “The only true wealth of the Church is in the faith of its people.”

 

“…the Church’s purpose is to bring people to Christ and to follow His example by lifting the burdens of those who are struggling. The key to understanding the Church is to see it not as a worldwide corporation, but as millions of faithful members in thousands of congregations across the world following Christ and caring for each other and their neighbors.”

 

Granted, not everyone sees things this way, but it is a very helpful viewpoint guided by the revelations (the "bedrock principles").

 

I don’t think people necessarily need to justify their personal interests and preferences—there usually isn’t much validity to them anyway as far as application to the world or the Church in general. But people sure like to have them and express them, and sometimes enforce them!

 

I agree with bjw that "most" probably do not think about it, but if you were to poll church members and ask if they would like the church to do an annual financial report, I think you'd get a majority in favor of disclosure.

 

Who are the "antis" you reference?  I actually don't see much of a push from outside the church for financial disclosure.

[rockpond]

You said that reporting is a supplemental function, but “supplemental” cannot be on a par with “essential.” I don’t see where the Lord ever taught and restored “supplemental” principles. The Lord does simultaneously provide insight to the individual member and to the general membership, but that is through means other than paperwork.

 

You know I've been clear in my belief that the law of common consent requires financial disclosure so I did not mean to suggest that the Lord taught/restored something supplemental as opposed to essential.  I was just responding to your comment that some likely prefer to have faith in how the finances are being handled, like you.  That some feel that way, does not diminish the need for financial disclosure to allow for voice and common consent ...and to be good stewards.

[cinepro]

#8 is interesting.

[CV75]

I agree with bjw that "most" probably do not think about it, but if you were to poll church members and ask if they would like the church to do an annual financial report, I think you'd get a majority in favor of disclosure.

That doesn't make it the essential and/or inspired thing to do. But if it were ever to be taught as essential and/or inspired, I'd be OK with it and want to learn more. I'm not seeing where it has ever been taught as essential and/or inspired.

 

Who are the "antis" you reference?  I actually don't see much of a push from outside the church for financial disclosure.

Whoever bjw thinks they are (it is the term he sued in the post to which I replied). I don't care who they are; but he knows who they are from his own experience, perspective and understanding and I'm going along with it for the sake of discussion.

 

your comment that some likely prefer to have faith in how the finances are being handled, like you.

Is this in reference to my post #970? I used the word "see" not "faith" -- faith and knowledge are a compound in one ("see"). Paperwork for example requires faith and knowledge for one to develop some insight, but if paperwork is supplemental, it is not essential 9and neither is the resulting insight).

 

 the need for financial disclosure to allow for voice and common consent ...and to be good stewards.

Since you've shown that financial disclosure is only "supplemental," it cannot be an essential element for common consent (voice?), an essential principle.