JLHPROF Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Excellent point. Church finances are published for Canada and they raise some serious questions. Only for the faithless. Accusations of Church leaders misappropriating funds have existed since day one. Calling Joseph a fallen prophet in Kirtland because of money issues led to a huge apostasy and created some of the worst spirit of perdition the Church ever dealt with. Just keeps the old truth going - you want to upset people, do anything that involves their money or their family. Unfortunately, God doesn't have to follow that since it's all his money, and we're all his family first and each other's family second. 2
rockpond Posted January 11, 2017 Author Posted January 11, 2017 42 minutes ago, bluebell said: Yes, they could be mistaken on every issue. I agree. And I think we both agree that it's unlikely they are mistaken on every issue. 1
rockpond Posted January 11, 2017 Author Posted January 11, 2017 42 minutes ago, bluebell said: The order doesn't exist anymore does it? Not in that form but there is a reason it is still part of our canon, right? Consider some of the covenants we make and it still seems to apply.
rockpond Posted January 11, 2017 Author Posted January 11, 2017 40 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Is it possible that you are? Always. Though highly improbably.
rockpond Posted January 11, 2017 Author Posted January 11, 2017 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Only for the faithless. Accusations of Church leaders misappropriating funds have existed since day one. Calling Joseph a fallen prophet in Kirtland because of money issues led to a huge apostasy and created some of the worst spirit of perdition the Church ever dealt with. Just keeps the old truth going - you want to upset people, do anything that involves their money or their family. Unfortunately, God doesn't have to follow that since it's all his money, and we're all his family first and each other's family second. Not sure what your point is in relation to my comment since I didn't accuse them of misappropriating funds. Curious that you'd jump to that.
Calm Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 9 minutes ago, rockpond said: Not in that form but there is a reason it is still part of our canon, right? Consider some of the covenants we make and it still seems to apply. Animal sacrifice procedures and how to construct the Tabernacle for the Ark are still part of our canon. 3
Danzo Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: So the only non paid leaders in the church are Bishops and Stake Presidents? Elders quorum presidencies, relief society presidencies, ward mission leaders are also not paid.
Danzo Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 2 hours ago, rockpond said: Excellent point. Church finances are published for Canada and they raise some serious questions. What serious questions?
Calm Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) VGJ, there are only a few who get paid....I believe it is: Mission presidents (around 420) get a living allowance which amount depends on where they are assigned 1st quorum of 70/General Authority Seventies (around 90)...these get to retire at 70, don't know about retirement package, hope there is one. Apostles and 1st presidency (15) get a lifetime stipend since they never retire. So total around 525 get paid in some way. Someone should correct me if my memory is off on this. http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_church_finances/No_paid_ministry/General_Authorities_living_stipend Who are not paid...temple presidencies and their wives who serve as matrons (155 x 6), Area Authority Seventies (over 250), General Officers of the Auxiliaries (15), don't know about Presiding Bishopric, Stake Presidents and their counselors (3174x 3), their High Councilmen (3274 x 12), Bishops/Branch Presidents and their counselors (30,016 x 3), all the missionaries full time and service (around 100,000), all the EQ, HP, RS, SS, YM, YW, P and other ward and stake leaders). I am sure there are some I have missed. So 525 paid compared to probably over 250,000 not including the last group I cited which is likely that number or more so...maybe 500,000 unpaid leaders. Edited January 11, 2017 by Calm 3
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 17 minutes ago, rockpond said: Always. Though highly improbably. Cool, though I'm assuming you can at least begin to understand why, when assessing whether how the Lord wishes currently to manage the affairs of His Church is better understood (a) by the 15 prophets whom He has called to be his authorised agents upon the earth and who collectively hold and exercise all priesthood keys or (b) by an anonymous internet poster who (whether accurate or not!) appears to take his talking points from John Dehlin's Church of the Holy Podcast, other Church members may be inclined to the first option? 3
Kenngo1969 Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 2 hours ago, rockpond said: Is it possible that the apostles are mistaken on this issue? 1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Is it possible that you are? 26 minutes ago, rockpond said: Always. Though highly improbably. Let's see: If I were a betting man, which side would I put my money on in this particular bet? Gee, that's a toughie ... 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Let's see: If I were a betting man, which side would I put my money on in this particular bet? Gee, that's a toughie ... Jinx! 1
rockpond Posted January 11, 2017 Author Posted January 11, 2017 6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Cool, though I'm assuming you can at least begin to understand why, when assessing whether how the Lord wishes currently to manage the affairs of His Church is better understood (a) by the 15 prophets whom He has called to be his authorised agents upon the earth and who collectively hold and exercise all priesthood keys or (b) by an anonymous internet poster who (whether accurate or not!) appears to take his talking points from John Dehlin's Church of the Holy Podcast, other Church members may be inclined to the first option? Your option "a" sounds like a retreat back to the prophetic infallibility argument... right after it seemed like we had avoided it. Le sigh. Regardging "b": not at all accurate. But a good solid ad hominem on your part.
rockpond Posted January 11, 2017 Author Posted January 11, 2017 7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Let's see: If I were a betting man, which side would I put my money on in this particular bet? Gee, that's a toughie ... I imagine you'd bet on the 15. But there is a third option. The one the scriptures tell you to follow.
rockpond Posted January 11, 2017 Author Posted January 11, 2017 23 minutes ago, Danzo said: What serious questions? Those would be for you to determine, if it is of interest.
rockpond Posted January 11, 2017 Author Posted January 11, 2017 27 minutes ago, Calm said: Animal sacrifice procedures and how to construct the Tabernacle for the Ark are still part of our canon. You know that I can't speak of certain covenants here, Cal. However, if we are ever in a global flood or pre-messiah dispensation those parts of the canon could come in handy.
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: Your option "a" sounds like a retreat back to the prophetic infallibility argument... right after it seemed like we had avoided it. Le sigh. So a careful and thoughtful assessment that doesn't lead to your preferred option is a 'retreat'??? Le sigh indeed. 2
Calm Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, rockpond said: You know that I can't speak of certain covenants here, Cal. However, if we are ever in a global flood or pre-messiah dispensation those parts of the canon could come in handy. Ark of the Covenant, not Noah's...considering it is covered in gold, not useful in a flood...except perhaps for pushing the waters back and keeping dry ground under one's feet. So we both agree that somethings in the scriptures are obsolete? Edited January 11, 2017 by Calm
JLHPROF Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 54 minutes ago, rockpond said: Not sure what your point is in relation to my comment since I didn't accuse them of misappropriating funds. Curious that you'd jump to that. "Church finances are published and they raise some serious questions." If all tithing funds are being used appropriately not sure what "serious questions" you feel are being raised. And any lay member who has "serious questions" about the use of tithing funds needs to stop looking at the Church finances. It's none of their business.
Danzo Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 36 minutes ago, rockpond said: Those would be for you to determine, if it is of interest. You said there were serious questions about the church's Canadian financial statements. Can you give me an example? Or were you mistaken?
Kenngo1969 Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 49 minutes ago, rockpond said: I imagine you'd bet on the 15. But there is a third option. The one the scriptures tell you to follow. I don't have a reference, but I believe Joseph Smith taught that, in the event of a future schism in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we would not be led astray if we cast our lot with the Prophet and with the majority of the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. If my recollection is correct, such a procedure would be good enough for me. Your mileage likely varies (I wouldn't be surprised ). Edited January 11, 2017 by Kenngo1969
Kenngo1969 Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 49 minutes ago, rockpond said: You know that I can't speak of certain covenants here, Cal. However, if we are ever in a global flood or pre-messiah dispensation those parts of the canon could come in handy. Actually, I believe Joseph Smith also taught that animal sacrifice would be restored as a part of the restoration of all things. (Nope, still don't have a reference: Sue me; I will accept service via e-mail of a scanned copy of your complaint [I'll be happy to PM you my e-mail address], and tell your attorney to contact me directly, as I will be representing myself. )
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: I don't have a reference, but I believe Joseph Smith taught that, in the event of a future schism in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we would not be led astray if we cast our lot with the Prophet and with the majority of the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It's a reported quote: Quote William G. Nelson reported: “I have heard the Prophet speak in public on many occasions. In one meeting I heard him say: ‘I will give you a key that will never rust,—if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.’ The history of the Church has proven this to be true.” I find a few of the direct quotes from the prophet available at the same link even more instructive. Edited January 11, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan
cdowis Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Your option "a" sounds like a retreat back to the prophetic infallibility argument... No, it sounds very much like "losing confidence in the leaders of the church" argument, the road leading to apostasy. Sigh. "The very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy. " https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-27?lang=eng Edited January 11, 2017 by cdowis 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Cool, though I'm assuming you can at least begin to understand why, when assessing whether how the Lord wishes currently to manage the affairs of His Church is better understood (a) by the 15 prophets whom He has called to be his authorised agents upon the earth and who collectively hold and exercise all priesthood keys or (b) by an anonymous internet poster who (whether accurate or not!) appears to take his talking points from John Dehlin's Church of the Holy Podcast, other Church members may be inclined to the first option? "Church of the Holy Podcast" -- I like that. I may be tempted to steal it.
Recommended Posts