MormonLeaks publishes docs on GA pay, meetings

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

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. 

The answer to your question (that I bolded) is "no".  If that's the impression you got, I apologize.

I also don't equate trusting leaders with thinking of them as infallible.  I also trust them!

[rockpond]

56 minutes ago, cdowis said:

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.

I'm not demanding anything.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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?

There are no female GA's. GA's are only the Q15, Presiding Bishopric, Presidency of the 70 and first 2 quorums of 70. No auxiliary leader is a GA. Therefore, no pay.

[rockpond]

54 minutes ago, amo said:

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

 

I don't have a link for where to access them.  You'll have to research that on your own and see if they raise any questions for you.

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

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. 

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

 

Quote

It will be necessary here to make a few observations on the doctrine set forth in the above quotation, and 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 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. We frequently have mention made of the offering of sacrifice by the servants of the Most High in ancient days, prior to the law of Moses; which ordinances will be continued when the Priesthood is restored with all its authority, power and blessings.…

All Ordinances Restored

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.

It may be asked by some, what necessity for sacrifice, since the Great Sacrifice was offered? In answer to which, if repentance, baptism, and faith existed prior to the days of Christ, what necessity for them since that time? The Priesthood has descended in a regular line from father to son, through their succeeding generations. 

 

[rockpond]

52 minutes ago, amo said:

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

I'm not sure what you are saying but my point was that there is a covenant that many of us have made that still makes section 104 relevant.  Aside from just the fact that it was left in the D&C (that, IMO, also makes it relevant).

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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

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".

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There are no female GA's. GA's are only the Q15, Presiding Bishopric, Presidency of the 70 and first 2 quorums of 70. No auxiliary leader is a GA. Therefore, no pay.

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. 

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

Can you share what the serious questions were for you? 

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure what you are saying but my point was that there is a covenant that many of us have made that still makes section 104 relevant.  Aside from just the fact that it was left in the D&C (that, IMO, also makes it relevant).

D&C 104 does mention money, and an order in which it is managed, and the principle of consent that applies in that order (but consent is only procedural according to the decisions of the president), but nowhere is there a requirement for transparency!

So if you want to approach controlling Church finances through transparency and common consent this as like unto the Unite Order, you need to get past teh fct that the United order was not transparent; information was not shared with the members at large.

The first revelation for the United Order (D&C 76) and all subsequent revelations (including 104) pertaining to the United Order and its transactions used substitute code names and terms (these were not removed until the 1981 edition), so there was no transparency of the kind you seem to be wanting.

27 minutes 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".

But the reference in D&C 104 was limited to those in the order, and did not entail transparency. Likewise, whatever covenant makes D&C 104 relevant today (which one are you talking about, anyway?) does not entail transparency.

 

ETA: 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. But transparency is not even a spiritual principle, and how narrowly a mater is defined for procedural consent is at the President’s inspired discretion.

Edited January 11, 2017 by CV75

[Calm]

27 minutes 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. 

Well, missionary presidents' wives could be said to be paid as the money goes to supporting both of them in their work.

No women leader has a lifetime or until age 70 calling (General Authority), they get the same as the men who are called for a comparable time (General Officers).

Edited January 11, 2017 by Calm

[cdowis]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not demanding anything.

ask ,request, plead. implore, beseech, importune

 

[RevTestament]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

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

Yep, you can read about it in the Bible and the BoM as well. I differ from the modern church teaching on the subject. It is a misunderstanding of the BoM passage where Jesus commanded them to cease their [animal] sacrifices. 

Jesus goes on to make clear in 3 Nephi that sacrifice is not done away. It is also apparent in D & C.

I wonder what Peter thought about Jesus' comment to him:

John 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Well, missionary presidents' wives could be said to be paid as the money goes to supporting both of them in their work.

No women leader has a lifetime or until age 70 calling, they get the same as the men who are called for a comparable time.

I think that might be the only useful purpose of designating General Authorities as I think about it.  They are the ones that get paid, for sure.  But you bring up another interesting point, caveat here, some that are in leadership are not general authorities and get paid.  In my experience, I'm pretty sure there were those given positions of director that were not general authorities because they weren't in the first quorum of the 70 but were in other quorums and were paid.  As their time expired and they weren't moved into the first quorum they retired and left to do other things.  Kind of like that Burton guy seemed to have done.  There are a lot of leaders in the Church.  I'm sure why or who does what though. 

In the end it's a shame that those ladies called and given great responsibility aren't paid, like many men--even if there are some men who arent' paid as well. So it seems some men who are called for comparable time as the women do get paid.  But none of the women do. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In my experience, I'm pretty sure there were those given positions of director that were not general authorities because they weren't in the first quorum of the 70 but were in other quorums and were paid.... So it seems some men who are called for comparable time as the women do get paid.  But none of the women do. 

Please demonstrate that some men called for a comparable time get paid (CFR).

[Nemesis]

59 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't have a link for where to access them.  You'll have to research that on your own and see if they raise any questions for you.

It doesn't work that way.  You made a claim back it up.

Nemesis

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please demonstrate that some men called for a comparable time get paid (CFR).

I don't have a link to their pay stubs if that's what you're asking for.  All I know, in my experience, is that some men have been called as Managing directors of departments being pulled from the pool of those who were in quorums but not the first quorum--but they remained in their called position while also working in their paid position.  On the other hand, I don't think any women who were holding the callings in the general leadership were also holding paid positions directing departments. 

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

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...

I don't know how that's, in any way, at odds with Joseph Smith's teaching.  Simple minds, I guess.  

[Gray]

2 hours ago, amo said:

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

 

You can see them here. 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%3Bb%3Dtrue

Not sure what serious questions Rockpond had in mind. 

[JAHS]

10 hours ago, cdowis said:

 

11 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.

“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

 

Many are of the opinion, however, that the sacrifice will not be an actual burnt offering. They reason that the earlier sacrifices were in similitude of the coming sacrifice of Jesus Christ and that the coming of Christ ended the Mosaic law and the reason for performing the sacrifices. So they propose another type of sacrifice which is suggested in the Doctrine and Covenants:

"For he is like a refiner's fire, and like fuller's soap; and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as old and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness; and let us present in his holy temple, when it is finished, a book containing the records of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation. (D. & C. 128:24)

The "offering in righteousness" is here identified with temple work for the salvation of the dead, which encompasses all the principles of the plan of salvation. If understood in this sense, the offering is already being made in temples across the world by members of the Church. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

D&C 104 does mention money, and an order in which it is managed, and the principle of consent that applies in that order (but consent is only procedural according to the decisions of the president), but nowhere is there a requirement for transparency!

So if you want to approach controlling Church finances through transparency and common consent this as like unto the Unite Order, you need to get past teh fct that the United order was not transparent; information was not shared with the members at large.

The first revelation for the United Order (D&C 76) and all subsequent revelations (including 104) pertaining to the United Order and its transactions used substitute code names and terms (these were not removed until the 1981 edition), so there was no transparency of the kind you seem to be wanting.

But the reference in D&C 104 was limited to those in the order, and did not entail transparency. Likewise, whatever covenant makes D&C 104 relevant today (which one are you talking about, anyway?) does not entail transparency.

 

ETA: 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. But transparency is not even a spiritual principle, and how narrowly a mater is defined for procedural consent is at the President’s inspired discretion.

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.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't know how that's, in any way, at odds with Joseph Smith's teaching.  Simple minds, I guess.  

I didn't say it was at odd's with Joseph Smith's teaching.  You'll note that I used the word "also".

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Nemesis said:

It doesn't work that way.  You made a claim back it up.

Nemesis

I said it raised serious questions for me.  That's hardly a claim.

ETA:  It's also off topic for this thread.  If someone wants to start a thread on it, I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts and would likely participate.

Edited January 11, 2017 by rockpond

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

ask ,request, plead. implore, beseech, importune

 

I have no access to the prophet and apostles so I can't ask, request, plead, implore, beseech, or importune anything of them.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Can you share what the serious questions were for you? 

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