MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Elders quorum presidencies, relief society presidencies, ward mission leaders are also not paid.

Nor are Young Men and Young Women presidencies or Sunday School presidencies. Or other local officers and teachers.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour 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. 

Regardging "b":  not at all accurate.  But a good solid ad hominem on your part.  

 

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So a careful and thoughtful assessment that doesn't lead to your preferred option is a 'retreat'??? Le sigh indeed.

Seems to be a favorite false dichotomy among critics of Mormonism: You either must believe the prophet is infallible, or you must believe he is no more competent or knowledgeable on things of the Spirit than anybody else.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Church of the Holy Podcast" -- I like that. I may be tempted to steal it.

Steal away! Though the denomination I had in mind is specifically 'John Dehlin's Church of the Holy Podcast'.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Steal away! Though the denomination I had in mind is specifically 'John Dehlin's Church of the Holy Podcast'.

That's what makes it so apt!

 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, ERayR said:

Yikes

Yeah really.  I have the same reaction. 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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. )

Not once in the quote you speak of does the prophet Joseph Smith use the word 'animal' in connection with sacrifice. In holy places, we are taught the atoning sacrifice of Christ ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood. So to what was the prophet referring? I believe what he may have been pointing to are the bloodless sacrifices that go on in the temples. Prior to the changes made to the endowment in the late 80's, it was very obvious bloodless sacrifices were part of temple worship. But even now it's clear, to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear, that a strong element of bloodless sacrifice remains. 

Now the following may be "far out" but here goes: I think it's possible that if animal sacrifices are continued they will be done to poimt to the eternal reality that atoning sacrifices like Christ's will continue throughout all eternity. 

Edited January 11, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Actually, I believe Joseph Smith also taught that animal sacrifice would be restored as a part of the restoration of all things.

“It is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e.,] the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in the future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets.

“The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation. …

“These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the powers of the Melchizedek Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the Holy Prophets be brought to pass. It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses’ day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued.” (Teachings, pp. 172–73.)

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-10-to-20/section-13-the-restoration-of-the-aaronic-priesthood?lang=eng

Edited January 11, 2017 by cdowis

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

“It is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e.,] the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in the future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets.

“The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation. …

“These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the powers of the Melchizedek Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the Holy Prophets be brought to pass. It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses’ day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued.” (Teachings, pp. 172–73.)

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-10-to-20/section-13-the-restoration-of-the-aaronic-priesthood?lang=eng

CDowis FTW!  

Thanks, Dude!  

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So a careful and thoughtful assessment that doesn't lead to your preferred option is a 'retreat'??? Le sigh indeed.

No, that's not why I called it a "retreat".

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

Yes.  Just not the parts that apply to covenants we are still under today.

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

"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.

That's where I disagree... We, as church members, are to participate in common consent.  To say "it's none of their business" is to ignore that law.

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Danzo said:

You said there were serious questions about the church's Canadian financial statements. Can you give me an example? Or were you mistaken?

I'm not mistaken and I won't give you an example.  They raised serious questions for me.  Whether those are serious questions for you is something you'll have to study.

[rockpond]

7 hours 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.  If my recollection is correct, such a procedure would be good enough for me.  Your mileage likely varies (I wouldn't be surprised ).

That's great.  There's also this:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things...

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

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

On the contrary, as a tithe paying member of the church I have certainly placed confidence in the leaders.

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Seems to be a favorite false dichotomy among critics of Mormonism: You either must believe the prophet is infallible, or you must believe he is no more competent or knowledgeable on things of the Spirit than anybody else.

Interesting.  Can you give an example of a critic that supports that dichotomy?

Also, is there scriptural support for the idea that the prophet is "more competent or knowledgeable on things of the Spirit"?  I thought that the Holy Ghost was given to all of us, equally.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

71 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.

That is well and good, but has nothing to do with transparency, especially to those not part of the order, and especially when the first revelation for the United Order (D&C 76) and then subsequent revelations (including 104) pertaining to the United Order and its transactions used substitute code names and terms: not at all transparent!

Now if there was a scriptural call for making Church financial matters public as you claim, I’m sure you can find it. But there just ain’t any! The only basis for it would the President’s call under the terms of his holding office (revelation, the common consent that keeps him in office, and of course the Lord’s will that keeps him in office).

[Rain]

9 hours 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. 

Regardging "b":  not at all accurate.  But a good solid ad hominem on your part.  

No. I really try to listen to both sides and understand,  but I get really tired of this kind of thing.  

These leaders not only have the authority and responsibility over these things,  but a much more thorough knowledge of them. It's early in the morning and my blood sugar is low so I can't remember the exact quote,  but Sister Beck's quote about how information leads to inspiration comes to mind. You have some mysterious knowledge about Canada so that means we think leaders who have more in depth knowledge and authority infallible, when we believe they have more inspiration than you over the things they have responsibilities? 

Yes, the leaders could be wrong, but I've had enough experience as a cub scout leader and parents being irritated with me because I did things a certain way, but they had not enough information as to why that at some point I have to be ok with the fact that I don't have the full information for everone's callings. 

So I can see someone saying now that if we published the finances then we would have the info needed to make those kind of determinations. 

No. We wouldn't. I can tell you every cent I spent on my cub scouts this year and really it would tell you nothing.  I have 3 cub scouts. I spent 29 dollars on donuts one day. Knowing only that might give someone the wrong impression that I was doing my job wrong, but they would get a very poor picture of the whole thing. 

I don't agree with calling you a member of the podcast church, but please stop it with the idea that those of us who are trusting leaders think of them as infallible. 

Edited January 11, 2017 by Rain
Trying to word it to make sense

[CV75]

It seems that the issue with one's demand for greater transparency and more narrow points of consent on the subject of using Church finances is control, and how much transparency he requires for consent when transparency is not even a spiritual principle, and how narrow he requires his consent to be when the spiritual principle had given the President a wide scope of action and all discretion for seeking procedural consent.

[cdowis]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

On the contrary, as a tithe paying member of the church I have certainly placed confidence in the leaders.

OK, so perhaps I am misunderstanding this whole issue.  Are you demanding full disclosure of the church's finances -- so called transparency?  If so, why do you suppose that the church leaders ignoring this demand.  I have not read thru this topic.

Edited January 11, 2017 by cdowis

[amo]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

Excellent point.  Church finances are published for Canada and they raise some serious questions. 

Really ?  Where are they published ? What "serious" questions do they raise ?

 

[amo]

10 hours 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. 

Well, so much for your point, then. You said it well : "some of the covenants", not ALL...

Edited January 11, 2017 by amo

[bluebell]

11 hours 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. 

Yes, but if the order doesn't exist anymore then any commandments dealing specifically with the Order seem irrelevant to this discussion.

[Gray]

16 hours ago, cacheman said:

 

Here's something for you to ponder... 

"Could a man be a better husband if he spent every evening at home with his wife? Could he be a better husband if he had no children, thereby having all of his spare time to dedicate to her? The answer is a resounding no! No one—husband, wife, children, or church—has claim on the full time of someone else. Children, given their parents’ full-time attention, would be overshadowed and become dependent. The Church, with full-time bishops, would have a paid ministry and become an end in itself rather than a divine organization designed to help perfect the individual children of God. "

-F. Burton Howard, 1st Quorum of the Seventy 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/09/the-gift-of-knowing?lang=eng 

Bishops used to be paid. I guess the organization wasn't divine back then?

You can't be a parent to your children if you're never around. 

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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. )

I don't believe that is correct. He said sacrifice was written in the law, and is not done away. That doesn't mean "animal sacrifice." Yeshua did away with animal sacrifice. It was only a foreshadow to teach the people. 

[stemelbow]

Quote

Doctrine and Covenants 70:5–18 teaches that the men entrusted to be stewards over the revelations and commandments were to make the printing and distribution of Church publications their employment. In our day, General Authorities of the Church give up their livelihoods to serve full-time, so they receive a modest living allowance—enough for them to support themselves and their families.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-study-guide-for-home-study-seminary-students-2014/section-03/unit-15-day-4-doctrine-and-covenants-69-71?lang=eng

I don't care that they get paid and taken care of (as in their bills are resolved for them and they get all sorts of benefits probably near enough to cover any conceivable expense they have outside of getting paid).  But I think we can put to rest the notion that is in many church publications and has been told to us time and again, that they get a modest living allowance, making it seem they only get enough to live off of.  I grant they don't get paid as much as leaders of orgs that are as large and deal with as much money.  Fine pay them.  But leave it at that.  Don't mislead us when you tell us about it.  At least be honest. 

BTW, having worked for the Church I can say, as far as I know, in nearly every corner of Church business and operation missionaries are crucial.  That is free volunteers make the Church run.  That's probably no secret, but to me, there's something a little wrong with that.  They can't afford to pay a modest living expense to volunteers in general, not even something silly like 500 bucks a month, but they can afford to take care of any GA and his family for forever.

Also, does anyone know?  Since some women leaders were elevated to the status of GA some years ago, are any women leaders paid?  Or is it just men?