Critics Accusations Of Financial Improprieties

[CV75]

#8 is interesting.

Oh that--that stopped being interesting PAGES ago! LOL

[rockpond]

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

 

Supplemental to one's faith but essential to the governance of the Church.

[CV75]

Supplemental to one's faith but essential to the governance of the Church.

The scriptures we've reviewed show that common consent is essential for the installment of those who are called of God to govern the Church, and that it was essential for those so called to manage the sacred treasury of the United Order of the Stake of Zion. I don't see anything that shows that the general distribution of Church financial reports, or even their distribution to the particularly interested, are essential.

 

The installation of prophets, seers and revelators (and those called to less general positions) and canon are essential to governance of the Church. Faith could not be fulfilled without these, for there would be no authority to provide the ordinances and covenants. But these things are certainly possible to accomplish without giving people financial reports.

[rockpond]

The scriptures we've reviewed show that common consent is essential for the installment of those who are called of God to govern the Church, and that it was essential for those so called to manage the sacred treasury of the United Order of the Stake of Zion. I don't see anything that shows that the general distribution of Church financial reports, or even their distribution to the particularly interested, are essential.

The installation of prophets, seers and revelators (and those called to less general positions) and canon are essential to governance of the Church. Faith could not be fulfilled without these, for there would be no authority to provide the ordinances and covenants. But these things are certainly possible to accomplish without giving people financial reports.

And as we've also reviewed, Section 104 requires that voice and common consent be used whenever funds are spent.

[CV75]

And as we've also reviewed, Section 104 requires that voice and common consent be used whenever funds are spent.

...you man when funds are spent specifically within the United Order of the Stake of Zion, the City of Kirkland and the United Order of the Stake of Zion, the City of Zion (see verse 48 for context)!

 

"Voice" and common consent are not required for legitimate governance to be carried out after officers are installed. I think Elder Nelson described very well what the Church needs for governance in his talk during the last conference (when the text come out I can post it). Aside from the keys, unanimity amongst those who govern the affairs of the Church results in governance (governing principles and acts being carried out), and we sustain those who have been called of God to so govern having provided our common consent.

[rockpond]

...you man when funds are spent specifically within the United Order of the Stake of Zion, the City of Kirkland and the United Order of the Stake of Zion, the City of Zion (see verse 48 for context)!

 

"Voice" and common consent are not required for legitimate governance to be carried out after officers are installed. I think Elder Nelson described very well what the Church needs for governance in his talk during the last conference (when the text come out I can post it). Aside from the keys, unanimity amongst those who govern the affairs of the Church results in governance (governing principles and acts being carried out), and we sustain those who have been called of God to so govern having provided our common consent.

 

If Section 104 only had applicability when the Saints were in Kirtland/Jackson, then why leave it in the subsequent revisions?

 

My answer:  Many of us have covenanted to live the law of consecration.  And, we still believe that we are striving for Zion.  That seemed apparent this weekend as well.

[CV75]

If Section 104 only had applicability when the Saints were in Kirtland/Jackson, then why leave it in the subsequent revisions?

 

My answer:  Many of us have covenanted to live the law of consecration.  And, we still believe that we are striving for Zion.  That seemed apparent this weekend as well.

Yes, and there are many other lessons in there as well. But just because we live the law of consecration the way we do today, and we strive for Zion (as opposed to "the United Order of the Stake of Zion, the City of Kirtland," or the "United Order of the City of Zion"), does not mean that common consent applies to financial records -- we do not bind ourselves by covenant to uphold business records. On the other hand, through common consent we bind ourselves to sustain those that make the decisions in our behalf and that you would like to see documented in a financial report format, and to the canon.

[rockpond]

Yes, and there are many other lessons in there as well. But just because we live the law of consecration the way we do today, and we strive for Zion (as opposed to "the United Order of the Stake of Zion, the City of Kirtland," or the "United Order of the City of Zion"), does not mean that common consent applies to financial records -- we do not bind ourselves by covenant to uphold business records. On the other hand, through common consent we bind ourselves to sustain those that make the decisions in our behalf and that you would like to see documented in a financial report format, and to the canon.

 

But just because we live the law of consecration the way we do today, and we strive for Zion does not mean that common consent as described in Section 104 should be summarily discarded.

 

I really don't think you and I are making any reasonable progress with this discussion.  Not sure it is worth the time for either of us.

[CV75]

But just because we live the law of consecration the way we do today, and we strive for Zion does not mean that common consent as described in Section 104 should be summarily discarded.

 

I really don't think you and I are making any reasonable progress with this discussion.  Not sure it is worth the time for either of us.

In D&C 104, “common consent” is described as “of the order,” which limits its application in this particular instance to the "order" at hand. Common consent as applied in D&C 104 is thus limited to the order as described in that Section.

 

On the other hand, applying common consent to the general membership is addressed in D&C 26, where it was originally brought up in terms of “the next conference.” That it applies to callings and appointments is made clear by D&C 28: 12-13, which instructs that appointments to office are made according to the church covenants (the instructions received through the prophet). Looking at the nature of these “covenants” prior to Section 26, we see that they are full of the prophet issuing callings to quite a number of people, and so both the covenants and the appointments are to be upheld by the saints through common consent. This same early series of "covenants" also have a lot to do with the revelations and the translation of the Book of Mormon, which would similarly be binding upon the saints, again through common consent.

[rockpond]

In D&C 104, “common consent” is described as “of the order,” which limits its application in this particular instance to the "order" at hand. Common consent as applied in D&C 104 is thus limited to the order as described in that Section.

On the other hand, applying common consent to the general membership is addressed in D&C 26, where it was originally brought up in terms of “the next conference.” That it applies to callings and appointments is made clear by D&C 28: 12-13, which instructs that appointments to office are made according to the church covenants (the instructions received through the prophet). Looking at the nature of these “covenants” prior to Section 26, we see that they are full of the prophet issuing callings to quite a number of people, and so both the covenants and the appointments are to be upheld by the saints through common consent. This same early series of "covenants" also have a lot to do with the revelations and the translation of the Book of Mormon, which would similarly be binding upon the saints, again through common consent.

The "of the order" phrase doesn't change my point. Or my belief.

I agree with your second paragraph but don't see it as limiting or exclusive as you do. I see plenty of reasons for the Brethren to return to the practice of financial disclosure and no reasons at all to NOT return to that practice.

Edited October 6, 2014 by rockpond

[CV75]

The "of the order" phrase doesn't change my point. Or my belief.

I agree with your second paragraph but don't see it as limiting or exclusive as you do. I see plenty of reasons for the Brethren to return to the practice of financial disclosure and no reasons at all to NOT return to that practice.

The term “of the order” as in “the voice and common consent of the order” (verse 71) is a descriptor, irrespective of the point one is making or his belief (the order of course being the United Order of the Stake of Zion). From the section header, “Revelation given …concerning the United Order …[and] members of the order.”

 

An interesting term to me is found in verse 21 (also 36 and 64): “united consent or voice of the order,” which speaks more to unanimity among the decision-makers of the order than to the principle of common consent by the Church membership at large. Verse 71 adds another dimension with the granular application of the principle of common consent within the order, combining the principles of both unanimity and consent in their decisions and use of the treasury.

 

To me, this shows the fault in framing a call for financial reporting in order for common consent to be properly practiced by the membership at large.

 

We can find reasons to return to the practice and reasons not to, but appealing to the principle of common consent with regards to financial records is not supported by scripture. On the other hand, the duties of our leaders and how they use their keys and counsel in quorums and councils is fairly well laid out.

[rockpond]

The term “of the order” as in “the voice and common consent of the order” (verse 71) is a descriptor, irrespective of the point one is making or his belief (the order of course being the United Order of the Stake of Zion). From the section header, “Revelation given …concerning the United Order …[and] members of the order.”

 

An interesting term to me is found in verse 21 (also 36 and 64): “united consent or voice of the order,” which speaks more to unanimity among the decision-makers of the order than to the principle of common consent by the Church membership at large. Verse 71 adds another dimension with the granular application of the principle of common consent within the order, combining the principles of both unanimity and consent in their decisions and use of the treasury.

 

To me, this shows the fault in framing a call for financial reporting in order for common consent to be properly practiced by the membership at large.

 

The order is all of us, not just the leaders or decision makers.

 

 

 

We can find reasons to return to the practice and reasons not to, but appealing to the principle of common consent with regards to financial records is not supported by scripture. On the other hand, the duties of our leaders and how they use their keys and counsel in quorums and councils is fairly well laid out.

 

As I read the scriptures, financial disclosure is supported by the law of common consent.  There are additional reasons to do it, as I've outlined, as well.  And I see no valid reasons not to return to the practice of annual disclosure.

[CV75]

The order is all of us, not just the leaders or decision makers.

Not in the case of D&C 104, which United Order does not apply today. Now there is a system in place today for taking care of the poor and needy that is suitable for our time and place that iis managed by leaders.

 

As I read the scriptures, financial disclosure is supported by the law of common consent.  There are additional reasons to do it, as I've outlined, as well.  And I see no valid reasons not to return to the practice of annual disclosure.

There are many reasons pro- and con, but I'm trying to stick to the scriptural support. The way common consent is used in the scriptures does not point to a system requiring financial disclosure--even in D&C104 (where the practice of annual reports isn't mentioned), the order is structured so that any records management would fall under the purview of the decision-makers.

 

Further, it is interesting to me that the way common consent worked in verse 72 is as follows: "any man among you say to the treasurer: I have need of this" and "the treasurer shall give unto him …[until] he be found a transgressor." This procedure is specific to the membership of the United Order and obviously cannot be transferred to the membership at large for managing General Church finances in modern times under a different system that cares for the poor and needy.

[rockpond]

Not in the case of D&C 104, which United Order does not apply today. Now there is a system in place today for taking care of the poor and needy that is suitable for our time and place that iis managed by leaders.

 

There are many reasons pro- and con, but I'm trying to stick to the scriptural support. The way common consent is used in the scriptures does not point to a system requiring financial disclosure--even in D&C104 (where the practice of annual reports isn't mentioned), the order is structured so that any records management would fall under the purview of the decision-makers.

 

Further, it is interesting to me that the way common consent worked in verse 72 is as follows: "any man among you say to the treasurer: I have need of this" and "the treasurer shall give unto him …[until] he be found a transgressor." This procedure is specific to the membership of the United Order and obviously cannot be transferred to the membership at large for managing General Church finances in modern times under a different system that cares for the poor and needy.

 

Your claim, as I understood it, was that only the "decision makers" of the order were to have voice & common consent.  But that isn't what the section says.  There is no reference limited voice & common consent to "decision makers".

 

Today, we are all in "the order" and all deserve to have a voice & common consent.

 

And yes, obviously we have to do things differently with a global church of 15 million verses how things were handled in Kirtland.  For me, an easy place to start would be to return to the practice of an annual financial disclosure during or as part of gen con.

[CV75]

Your claim, as I understood it, was that only the "decision makers" of the order were to have voice & common consent.  But that isn't what the section says.  There is no reference limited voice & common consent to "decision makers".

 

Today, we are all in "the order" and all deserve to have a voice & common consent.

 

And yes, obviously we have to do things differently with a global church of 15 million verses how things were handled in Kirtland.  For me, an easy place to start would be to return to the practice of an annual financial disclosure during or as part of gen con.

I said that there was to be unanimity (“united consent or voice”) among the decision-makers to contrast that operational process specific to the order with that of common consent as practiced by the Church membership at large, as it did not have day-to-day involvement with the order.

 

The order was comprised of those who were called from the general membership to participate in it (1, 5, 10, 48-50). Each member of the order had a stewardship and was accountable (11-13). They are listed in verses 20-45. The decision-makers were the “stewards over mine house (57).” The ones appointed over the treasuries (61, 67) were decision-makers with the rest of the “accord” (62). The point is that those in the order were the decision-makers, not the general membership. If you object to the term “decision-maker,” we can use “steward.” But the stewards made decisions: “as you obtain a chance to loan money …it is your privilege …as it shall seem good unto you.” (84, 85).

 

The Church is not an order. In the D&C, the term is reserved for various aspects of priesthood organization and in specialized arrangements where members are bound to each other by covenant to manage stewardships to care for the poor and fund the activities of the Church. That arrangement doesn’t exist today, so “united consent or voice of the order, which dwell [across the globe],” where no order exists, cannot be “deserved.” The closest thing to an “order” might be a quorum, and quorum business subject to sustaining doesn’t apply to financial matters, so it is somewhat of a stretch.

 

Your case to subject financial reporting to common consent has to be built on something other than what the D&C actually says about orders and the function of common consent within them. Like I said, there are good and bad reasons for going either way, but common consent isn’t relevant to the process. Not doing it isn’t an affront to common consent.

[rockpond]

I said that there was to be unanimity (“united consent or voice”) among the decision-makers to contrast that operational process specific to the order with that of common consent as practiced by the Church membership at large, as it did not have day-to-day involvement with the order.

 

The order was comprised of those who were called from the general membership to participate in it (1, 5, 10, 48-50). Each member of the order had a stewardship and was accountable (11-13). They are listed in verses 20-45. The decision-makers were the “stewards over mine house (57).” The ones appointed over the treasuries (61, 67) were decision-makers with the rest of the “accord” (62). The point is that those in the order were the decision-makers, not the general membership. If you object to the term “decision-maker,” we can use “steward.” But the stewards made decisions: “as you obtain a chance to loan money …it is your privilege …as it shall seem good unto you.” (84, 85).

 

The Church is not an order. In the D&C, the term is reserved for various aspects of priesthood organization and in specialized arrangements where members are bound to each other by covenant to manage stewardships to care for the poor and fund the activities of the Church. That arrangement doesn’t exist today, so “united consent or voice of the order, which dwell [across the globe],” where no order exists, cannot be “deserved.” The closest thing to an “order” might be a quorum, and quorum business subject to sustaining doesn’t apply to financial matters, so it is somewhat of a stretch.

 

Your case to subject financial reporting to common consent has to be built on something other than what the D&C actually says about orders and the function of common consent within them. Like I said, there are good and bad reasons for going either way, but common consent isn’t relevant to the process. Not doing it isn’t an affront to common consent.

 

As we covenant to live the law of consecration, we are all part of that order.

 

But if you don't support financial disclosure based on the law of common consent, you can support it for the other reasons I've noted.

 

Out of curiousity, what are your reasons for not wanting financial disclosure?

[CV75]

As we covenant to live the law of consecration, we are all part of that order.

 

But if you don't support financial disclosure based on the law of common consent, you can support it for the other reasons I've noted.

 

Out of curiousity, what are your reasons for not wanting financial disclosure?

I think I’ve stated several times that I’m neither for nor against. I have absolutely no preference, and there isn’t a sound basis to go either way in scripture, except to say that it would be the prophets’ call. You are arguing for it on the basis of the law of consecration, the united order, and common consent, but the scriptures don’t align that way.

 

We’ve discussed the united order and common consent as used in the order, but there is no reference to common consent at all in relation to the law of consecration (Section 42 for example). We do know that the officers that manage the storehouse must be sustained by common consent for them to be set apart and act as such, whether we consecrate in the same way the saints did in the earlier years or as we do today:

 

  31 And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose…

  33 And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop…

  34 Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council...

 

But the law of consecration is not an order, and the way it is observed (then and now) does not involve common consent for individual decisions of the officers (for example, distributions to the poor) and reporting. While there had to be unanimity to make the stewardship assignments in the united order, this was only exercised amongst those of the order, and not of the general membership. In the law of consecration, it’s not even a consideration.

[rockpond]

I think I’ve stated several times that I’m neither for nor against. I have absolutely no preference, and there isn’t a sound basis to go either way in scripture, except to say that it would be the prophets’ call. You are arguing for it on the basis of the law of consecration, the united order, and common consent, but the scriptures don’t align that way.

 

We’ve discussed the united order and common consent as used in the order, but there is no reference to common consent at all in relation to the law of consecration (Section 42 for example). We do know that the officers that manage the storehouse must be sustained by common consent for them to be set apart and act as such, whether we consecrate in the same way the saints did in the earlier years or as we do today:

 

  31 And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose…

  33 And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop…

  34 Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council...

 

But the law of consecration is not an order, and the way it is observed (then and now) does not involve common consent for individual decisions of the officers (for example, distributions to the poor) and reporting. While there had to be unanimity to make the stewardship assignments in the united order, this was only exercised amongst those of the order, and not of the general membership. In the law of consecration, it’s not even a consideration.

 

If you are not against disclosure - why have you spent so many pages arguing against it?

[cdowis]

Are you guys actually taking this "common consent" argument seriously?

 

Sigh.  If you think the church is in apostasy by not following your concept of this doctrine, you need to make a decision.  You need to decide whether you will continue to counsel the Brethren on how they should run the church.

Edited October 8, 2014 by cdowis

[CV75]

If you are not against disclosure - why have you spent so many pages arguing against it?

I'm not arguing against it, just against the faulty appeal to scripture (starting with common consent, then united order and the law of consecration) to defend and sell it.

[rockpond]

Are you guys actually taking this "common consent" argument seriously?

 

Sigh.  If you think the church is in apostasy by not following your concept of this doctrine, you need to make a decision.  You need to decide whether you will continue to counsel the Brethren on how they should run the church.

 

Nah... I don't consider the church to be in apostasy over this.

[rockpond]

I'm not arguing against it, just against the faulty appeal to scripture (starting with common consent, then united order and the law of consecration) to defend and sell it.

 

You've argued against every point (scriptural and non-scriptural) I've made to support disclosure.  So it sure seems like you are against it.

 

But if you aren't against it.  Great.  We agree on that.

[cdowis]

Nah... I don't consider the church to be in apostasy over this.

 

Wonderful!  Just one of those "church allows members to eat meat and drink caffeine" kind of issue.

[CV75]

You've argued against every point (scriptural and non-scriptural) I've made to support disclosure.  So it sure seems like you are against it.

 

But if you aren't against it.  Great.  We agree on that.

If I argued against your non-scriptural points, it must have been because I saw them as outgrowths of the faulty scriptural points. If you would reference the posts where I argued against a non-scriptural point, I'll be happy to clarify--maybe they were simply so bad that I argued against them too!

 

If our leaders were to present a financial report (other than the audit report) at the next General Conference, or publish them in an annual report to the general public, I would be fine with that--not that I'm particularly interested or desiring it now.

[rockpond]

If I argued against your non-scriptural points, it must have been because I saw them as outgrowths of the faulty scriptural points. If you would reference the posts where I argued against a non-scriptural point, I'll be happy to clarify--maybe they were simply so bad that I argued against them too!

 

If our leaders were to present a financial report (other than the audit report) at the next General Conference, or publish them in an annual report to the general public, I would be fine with that--not that I'm particularly interested or desiring it now.

 

I'm not really inclined to go back through all those discussions again.  I am strongly in favor of financial disclosure and think it would be good for the church.  Since you are neither for nor against, then you have no reason to continue debating it with me.