MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[halconero]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I recall reading about this in The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

 

 

Interestingly, the notion that sacrifice will exist in the Millennium isn't purely a notion by Joseph Smith. It's biblical and a number of other Christian denominations, some of them Evangelical, believe it as well:

https://gracethrufaith.com/end-times-prophecy/animal-sacrifice-in-the-millennium-2/

https://www.gotquestions.org/millennial-sacrifices.html

http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/why-sacrifices-in-millennium

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/revelation/related-topics/millennial-sacrifices.html

[ERayR]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That's what I was thinking, but are we sure none are paid?  Can we safely say, in terms of general church leaders, those who are worth enough to get paid are only men?  Women leaders aren't so paid?  If so, I'm disappointed all the more. 

No we can not safely say that.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't read it that way.  I think the reference of finances being part of common consent clarifies what was meant earlier by "all things".

The scripture you quoted said that it would be done by 'common consent of the Order.'  If the Order doesn't exist anymore how can they consent?  

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The scripture you quoted said that it would be done by 'common consent of the Order.'  If the Order doesn't exist anymore how can they consent?  

An order in which everyone has consecrated all of their resources does exist today.

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Without transparency (i.e. knowledge of what is happening with the finances), common consent is pointless.  One cannot consent to that which they have no knowledge of.

You keep saying that, but transparency is not knowledge. It is openness and accountability. Requisite knowledge can be obtained without these when faith is exercised, especially in a spiritual or religious context.

When speaking of spiritual principles like faith, knowledge, common consent, and covenants, “consent,” especially as used in the times these revelations were given, means: accordance, agreement, unity and harmony, all of which in the context of a religious community are reflected in attitude and not so much by procedure (the “agreement of the mind to what is proposed or stated by another; accord; hence, a yielding of the mind or will to that which is proposed”). http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/consent

We have knowledge of the terms under which a prophet is to operate with the saints (D&C 26): The Lord makes known to him what to do, and the saints consent to these things. Both the prophet and the saints act with spiritual faith and spiritual knowledge. The prophet has the knowledge of the Lord and the keys to act on it in faith. This is the proposal the saints consent to, also in faith.

The covenants of sacrifice and consecration and the terms proposed therein are administered to the saints under the prophetic/apostolic keys in faith. The saints are to act on this knowledge when they willingly enter those covenants, and practice common consent accordingly.

What you are talking about is control, not consent.

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

An order in which everyone has consecrated all of their resources does exist today.

It is a spiritual order presided by a prophet with the keys to do so, and the consent implicit therein is spiritual (and by covenant) as well, as it always has been!

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

An order in which everyone has consecrated all of their resources does exist today.

There are certainly some members who have done such, but we aren't organized into an Order, are we?  And we don't live the law of consecration right now even though we have made covenants, right?  Sincere questions. 

[halconero]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

An order in which everyone has consecrated all of their resources does exist today.

From my most recent experience in the temple, I disagree. Of all the covenants we make there, all of them we promise to live and keep except for consecration. In that covenant we only promise to accept it as laid out in the scriptures.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, halconero said:

From my most recent experience in the temple, I disagree. Of all the covenants we make there, all of them we promise to live and keep except for consecration. In that covenant we only promise to accept it as laid out in the scriptures.

Good point. I didn't think of that. 

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There are certainly some members who have done such, but we aren't organized into an Order, are we?  And we don't live the law of consecration right now even though we have made covenants, right?  Sincere questions. 

Liberally speaking we enter an order by our temple covenants: Joseph Smith "taught men and women that by receiving temple ordinances, culminating in the sealing ordinance, they entered into an “order of the priesthood.” https://www.lds.org/topics/joseph-smiths-teachings-about-priesthood-temple-and-women?lang=eng

We live the law of consecration spiritually (in attitude), and someday we may live it "naturally upon the face of the earth," as with the Creation. We sort of live it now in principle with tithing and offerings and every time we make a selfless choice.

The only way for things to be made transparent to us is in the Lord's hands, and it is to "strip yourselves from jealousies and fears, and humble yourselves before me, for ye are not sufficiently humble, the veil shall be rent and you shall see me and know that I am—not with the carnal neither natural mind, but with the spiritual." (D&C 67:10).

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I'm not really interested in delving into that here.  If it is of interest to you, you can study it out.

If you are not interested, then why did you mention it?

You made the accusation.  Back it up or withdraw it.

[rockpond]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There are certainly some members who have done such, but we aren't organized into an Order, are we?  And we don't live the law of consecration right now even though we have made covenants, right?  Sincere questions. 

 

37 minutes ago, halconero said:

From my most recent experience in the temple, I disagree. Of all the covenants we make there, all of them we promise to live and keep except for consecration. In that covenant we only promise to accept it as laid out in the scriptures.

I believe we do actually live the law of consecration (lower case l and c).  And I disagree with Halconero's interpretation.  But this just isn't something we can discuss here.  Sorry.

[CV75]

Just now, rockpond said:

 

I believe we do actually live the law of consecration (lower case l and c).  And I disagree with Halconero's interpretation.  But this just isn't something we can discuss here.  Sorry.

But we can discuss your concerns with the Canadian financial reports.

 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

If you are not interested, then why did you mention it?

You made the accusation.  Back it up or withdraw it.

It wasn't an accusation.

I can't withdraw it... what I have heard and seen of the Church's Canadian financials raises questions for me.  You want me to deny that it does?

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The scripture you quoted said that it would be done by 'common consent of the Order.'  If the Order doesn't exist anymore how can they consent?  

 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

An order in which everyone has consecrated all of their resources does exist today.

 

Sorry to jump into the middle of this conversation, but I just wanted to point out that the law of common consent is first found in D/C Section 26 - an 1830 revelation at Colesvile that has nothing to do with the United Order.

 

1 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.

 2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But we can discuss your concerns with the Canadian financial reports.

 

They aren't concerns that you or others on this board can answer so I see no reason to bring them up.

Further, most participants here are quite content with their belief that the Brethren know best and that there is no point in questioning them.  So, I don't see a reason to spend the time on it.

[rongo]

Just now, rockpond said:

It wasn't an accusation.

I can't withdraw it... what I have heard and seen of the Church's Canadian financials raises questions for me.  You want me to deny that it does?

You're talking in a circle in an attempt not to have to answer the CFR without looking lame.

You say that the Church's Canadian financials raise questions for you. When asked, "Like what?" you say " I'm not really interested in delving into that here.  If it is of interest to you, you can study it out."

When pressed on this, you come full circle and say, "Hey, it just does, okay? I don't want to talk about specifics, but I can't deny that I think there are problems there that concern me, and they should concern you, too." When asked to give some examples, round and round you go.

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

You're talking in a circle in an attempt not to have to answer the CFR without looking lame.

You say that the Church's Canadian financials raise questions for you. When asked, "Like what?" you say " I'm not really interested in delving into that here.  If it is of interest to you, you can study it out."

When pressed on this, you come full circle and say, "Hey, it just does, okay? I don't want to talk about specifics, but I can't deny that I think there are problems there that concern me, and they should concern you, too." When asked to give some examples, round and round you go.

It sounds like rockpond has been pretty consistent in saying that he will not provide details as to her personal concerns. That's not talking in circles, it's just declining to answer. And that's perfectly fine. The board rules require information for factual objective statements (e.g., the discontinued polygamy in 1890), but the rule do not require support for personal convictions. What would that even look like? 

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

If you are not interested, then why did you mention it?

You made the accusation.  Back it up or withdraw it.

Danzo, this has already been posted previously by Gray but I'll post it again. I'm assuming your unofficial CFR was about the Canadian info, not Rockponds opinions on it, right? Well, that has already been answered.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/t3010form22QuickView-eng.action?b=826344632RR0001&fpe=2015-12-31&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cra-arc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Fbasicsearchresult-eng.action%3Fk%3Dlatter%2Bday%26amp%3Bs%3Dregistered%26amp%3Bp%3D1%26amp

And Rongo- That goes for you too. If you've been reading the thread you would have seen this. So maybe you should check before piling on with this...

Quote

You're talking in a circle in an attempt not to have to answer the CFR without looking lame.

You say that the Church's Canadian financials raise questions for you. When asked, "Like what?" you say " I'm not really interested in delving into that here.  If it is of interest to you, you can study it out."

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It wasn't an accusation.

I can't withdraw it... what I have heard and seen of the Church's Canadian financials raises questions for me.  You want me to deny that it does?

Yes, it is an accusation.

is English your primary language? 

I deal with law and financial information all the time. If an attorney were to say "this financial statement raises serious questions"  he would be making an accusation.

I someone were to make such a statement at a budget committee meeting, it would be interpreted as an accusation of something being seriously wrong.

If an IRS agent were to make such a statement it would be an accusation.

In Oregon, financial reports for 501(c)(3) organizations must report to the department of Justice, If I got a such a statement from them, it would be an accusation.

There is no context that I can think of where such a statement would not be an accusation.

You have stated that the Church's Canadian Financials raises serious questions.

You are either accusing the church of reporting false or incomplete financial statements, or you are are accusing the church of misusing funds, based on the financial statements.

It is a serious accusation.  

In my line of work such an accusation, if it were true could have very serious consequences.  

 

I would hate to think that you make accusations like this without being able to back them up.  I would hate think you would make baseless accusations for the only purpose of slander.

 

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Danzo, this has already been posted previously by Gray but I'll post it again. I'm assuming your unofficial CFR was about the Canadian info, not Rockponds opinions on it, right? Well, that has already been answered.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/t3010form22QuickView-eng.action?b=826344632RR0001&fpe=2015-12-31&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cra-arc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Fbasicsearchresult-eng.action%3Fk%3Dlatter%2Bday%26amp%3Bs%3Dregistered%26amp%3Bp%3D1%26amp

And Rongo- That goes for you too. If you've been reading the thread you would have seen this. So maybe you should check before piling on with this...

 

I want to know what his serious questions are.  

The statement he made is an accusation.  There is no context which I can think of where the statement would not be interpreted as an accusation.

Right now it looks like he is saying "I know a secret about the church, its bad, but I won't tell you".  Which is kind of lame.

[Danzo]

15 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

It sounds like rockpond has been pretty consistent in saying that he will not provide details as to her personal concerns. That's not talking in circles, it's just declining to answer. And that's perfectly fine. The board rules require information for factual objective statements (e.g., the discontinued polygamy in 1890), but the rule do not require support for personal convictions. What would that even look like? 

He made an accusation, a Secret, Mysterious, accusation.  

It appears to baseless accusation.  He is saying

1.  The financial statements are incomplete

2.  The financial statements are fraudulent

3.  The financial statements show misuse of funds

 

But he won't say which.

That makes it a baseless, unfounded accusation.   If you can't even describe your concern, you shouldn't make it.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Danzo

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

I believe we do actually live the law of consecration (lower case l and c).  And I disagree with Halconero's interpretation.  But this just isn't something we can discuss here.  Sorry.

Just asking for clarification-

Are you saying that my two questions (There are certainly some members who have done such, but we aren't organized into an Order, are we?  And we don't live the law of consecration right now even though we have made covenants, right?) can't be discussed here? 

 

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 

 

Sorry to jump into the middle of this conversation, but I just wanted to point out that the law of common consent is first found in D/C Section 26 - an 1830 revelation at Colesvile that has nothing to do with the United Order.

 

1 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.

 2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

Thanks.  

Rockpond and i previously discussed this scripture and one interpretation of it offered by BRM,  but it's a good one and relevant.  I only mentioned the United Order specifically because rockpond used a verse talking about the Order as evidence to support his beliefs about the brethren not following the Law of Consent. 

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

They aren't concerns that you or others on this board can answer so I see no reason to bring them up.

Unless you are more transparent, I cannot consent.

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Further, most participants here are quite content with their belief that the Brethren know best and that there is no point in questioning them.  So, I don't see a reason to spend the time on it.

For the sake of the few who are not content, let's spend some time on it. I don't think contentment believing the Brethren know best, certitude in understanding how the principle of common consent works should interfere with that.

I do invite you to spend some time on this, not to nag: Posted 1 hour ago