JulieM Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, bluebell said: This is a sincere question and not meant to be snarky and i honestly don't know the answer. Your post makes me question, is there anything in the scriptures that supports the idea that members of the Kingdom are shareholders with the prophets and that the prophets are accountable to the members. I imagine that HJW was speaking symbolically. The church is a corporate sole owned by one person (currently that is Presiden Monson). Are there even any share holders? Edited January 10, 2017 by JulieM
bluebell Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: Church members and users of this board in particular are often quick to profess our belief in the prophets/apostles as fallible. But this is one more example where we don't actually put that belief into practice when we insist that there is no need for transparency. I see it a bit differently. My thinking is, I don't need transparency, not because the leaders are infallible but because if they mess up with tithing, it's God that they are responsible to, not me. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, CV75 said: Oh my goodness. He took all that into account when He set up presidencies, common consent, and covenants. What does this have to do with presidencies, common consent, and covenants, and accountability as a principle described in the scriptures? How do we practice common consent without transparency? How is it possible to consent to something of which we are purposely kept unaware? Quote BlueBell- This is a sincere question and not meant to be snarky and i honestly don't know the answer. Your post makes me question, is there anything in the scriptures that supports the idea that members of the Kingdom are shareholders with the prophets and that the prophets are accountable to the members. Good question. The law of common consent certainly applies, as Rockpond said. It is hard to have a law like common consent where there is neither transparency or accountability. Also, in the early days of the church members were actually legal "members" (or shareholders) of the organization with the legal rights associated with membership in a legal organization. A member had voting rights, for example. That changed at some point, I believe in the late 19th- early 20th century when the church adopted the corporation sole structure. This was in part due to the serious problems of succession and financial transfer. For example, when Brigham Young died there was a crisis because all of his personal wealth was tied together with church wealth, thus some in his family felt they had a right to all church wealth. Now the corporation sole means the President is in sole control of all church funds which are then transferred upon death to the new president of the corporation sole. Edited January 10, 2017 by HappyJackWagon 1
HappyJackWagon Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: I see it a bit differently. My thinking is, I don't need transparency, not because the leaders are infallible but because if they mess up with tithing, it's God that they are responsible to, not me. But if you are committed to building the kingdom of God and you see error in the way funds are used, or at least recognize there is no common consent in church finances, wouldn't it be your covenant duty to hold leaders accountable to correct the error and choose a better path? Edited January 10, 2017 by HappyJackWagon
bluebell Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 5 minutes ago, JulieM said: I imagine that HJW was speaking symbolically. The church is a corporate sole owned by one person (currently that is Presiden Monson). Are there even any share holders? If he was speaking symbolically, then it's a weird statement to make. 1
bluebell Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: But if you are committed to building the kingdom of God and you see error in the way funds are used, or at least recognize there is no common consent in church finances, wouldn't it be your covenant duty to hold leaders accountable to correct the error and choose a better path? I don't personally believe so. 1
RevTestament Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 18 hours ago, rockpond said: I haven't bothered to actually open the docs, not worth my time right now. But I did think it could be of interest to some. I don't, however, consider transparency to be "unwholesome". Those who would be apostles should seek to be the most transparent of all. They are after all called to be our examples - a huge responsibility. I too have reservations about the church's current lack of transparency, and I believe it may have something to do with the Church becoming "Mormon, Inc." Transparency tends to keep people honest, which is why capitalism requires it of our public companies, why the church requires minutes, etc.
RevTestament Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 18 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I don't see much here. I'm a bit surprised apostle compensation isn't higher. This biggest problem I have is that there is no financial transparency. We shouldn't have to see this through leaks. 1- I would really like more information on decisions that are affecting missionaries. If there is a change in approach to how problem missionaries are treated- "desirability" of sending them home so they can' influence others I think it should be well known. I've seen many more missionaries come home early over the past 5 years and it would be great to know what kind of policy determines whether or not they'll be sent home early. Being sent home can be an emotionally traumatic experience that can be difficult for a missionary to bounce back from. 2- I just find this interesting. Is the ability to touch a temple really some kind of a holy privilege? This line of thinking sounds like idol worship. Yes- I do believe the temple can be an idol. Also, I wonder who they blame for the increasing disrespect; parents or ward leaders not teaching the kids? Groundskeepers or missionaries? I suppose they could put up a gated perimeter so that children don't touch the temple disrespectfully. Personally, I am somewhat encouraged by the desire of visitors to "touch the temple." They can certainly freely touch most temples by walking up to the doors. Not sure why the SLC temple should be different. I believe there is a certain tendency in the Church to think of the temple as a building rather than as the body of the Church. An earthly temple merely helps us see the order of heaven, which we are. My thoughts about apostle "compensation" are different - thoughts of congressional pay and benefits come to my mind. 1
bluebell Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 I haven't read this entire thread so i apologize if this has already been shared. This article is interesting because it looks like it gives some further information, such as how all those who receive the stipend receive the same amount whether they are an apostle or a member of the quorum of the 70. How much do top Mormon leaders make 1
Duncan Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 Just now, Danzo said: Nothing in the Bible about cars, airplanes or hospitals or nursing homes. Speaking of nursing homes. Elder Marion D. Hanks who was a salt of the earth brother as they ever come got called to be a GA at age 31. something like that. Then he spent the next 39 years in service as a General Authority. I think he had alzheimers and his memory was gone but he was in a nursing home before he died. I would hope to God above the Church forked out the money to pay for his stay, he gave them his life and the least they can do is give him that care he needed is his declining days
rockpond Posted January 10, 2017 Author Posted January 10, 2017 2 hours ago, CV75 said: Th law of common consent only requires faith, and that faith has commensurate spiritual knowledge. A call for common consent is determined by the presidency of the body. The "law of presidency" first shows up in the D&C in April 1830 (Section 20); the "law of common consent" the following July (D&C 26). In D&C 26, Joseph presided over the Church and the conference where the saints would be called to sustain what was to be made known for him to do. According to D&C 28, God appoints the prophets (verse 2, which teaches that common consent is a function of prayer and faith), commands the saints to follow and sustain him (verses 3-6) for the simple reason he has the keys (verse 7). Verse 13 sums up the relationship described in those verses as common consent, which principle also upholds the covenants of the church, which in this instance refers to agreements, arrangements, rules, policies, etc. necessary for ecclesiastic governance and include the administration of tithes (D&C 120). All things to be done by common consent. Section 104 makes it clear that the Lord doesn't exclude finances from the "all things" statement. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 Just now, bluebell said: I don't personally believe so. Do you have covenant obligation to try to fix any error in or out of the church in establishing His kingdom? What if the youth are going on a high adventure trip you consider to be dangerous, and without proper leadership: Would you have a responsibility to make your concerns known to the bishop or other leaders or would you just leave it to those who were called and hope for the best? What if you became aware of child abuse occurring within a family in your ward, would you have some obligation to try to help the child or would it not be your concern? What if you learn that a bishop is doling out significant $$ monthly from fast offerings to his close friends. Would you say anything or figure that is between him and God? These examples are ridiculous and I mention them only to suggest that I think you would feel a covenant obligation to try to correct the wrongs or at least try to stop the harm in these kinds of serious cases. If I'm right about that, the only thing in question is which wrongs you feel are severe enough to feel an obligation to try and correct. The question of who the leader is, whether a bishop, a prophet, a parent, doesn't really matter much because they are all stewards entrusted to serve. It is my opinion that we are all duty bound to help the church make corrections when we see error. I don't think any mortal is beyond question.
rockpond Posted January 10, 2017 Author Posted January 10, 2017 30 minutes ago, bluebell said: Are there multiple definitions of this law? I've found this one by BRM. Are there more? “Administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside." Sections 20, 26, 28. 1
Duncan Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 Just now, bluebell said: I haven't read this entire thread so i apologize if this has already been shared. This article is interesting because it looks like it gives some further information, such as how all those who receive the stipend receive the same amount whether they are an apostle or a member of the quorum of the 70. How much do top Mormon leaders make good find! It says that the living allowance is uniform for all General Authorities, I wonder if that means they all get it or all get the same amount?
bluebell Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 1 minute ago, rockpond said: All things to be done by common consent. Section 104 makes it clear that the Lord doesn't exclude finances from the "all things" statement. Section 104 is concerning the United Order, right? I'm being lazy and trying to remember without looking it up.
gopher Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 Does the Church provide a pension for emeritus General Authorities? I had a former mission president tell me about his friend who was a General Authority for over 20 (I think) years. After granted emeritus status, he had to go find a job since he didn't have enough in savings since he was called just when his career was taking off. I don't think all General Authorities were wildly successful businessmen before they were called. 1
Gray Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) This is probably underestimated, as it seems, from everything I've seen, that housing and general expenses are also paid for by the church, making their salary mostly discretionary money for them to use (based off my personal understanding of the limited evidence available). Still, even so it's not exorbitant or scandalous. Edited January 10, 2017 by Gray 1
JulieM Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 18 minutes ago, bluebell said: If he was speaking symbolically, then it's a weird statement to make. Maybe, but I doubt he believes we are literally shareholders of the corporation.
bluebell Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: Do you have covenant obligation to try to fix any error in or out of the church in establishing His kingdom? No, i don't believe i do. Quote What if the youth are going on a high adventure trip you consider to be dangerous, and without proper leadership: Would you have a responsibility to make your concerns known to the bishop or other leaders or would you just leave it to those who were called and hope for the best? I believe i would as a human being. I don't believe my membership in the church would have anything to do with that responsiblity. Quote What if you became aware of child abuse occurring within a family in your ward, would you have some obligation to try to help the child or would it not be your concern? Again, protecting others from physical or emotional harm is something i believe i have a responsibility towards as a human being. I believe that everyone, including atheists, has the exact same responsibility. It has nothing to do with my membership in the church. Quote What if you learn that a bishop is doling out significant $$ monthly from fast offerings to his close friends. Would you say anything or figure that is between him and God? I would tell the Stake president and then leave it at that. Quote It is my opinion that we are all duty bound to help the church make corrections when we see error. I don't think any mortal is beyond question. We disagree on that. 2
JulieM Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 8 minutes ago, bluebell said: I haven't read this entire thread so i apologize if this has already been shared. This article is interesting because it looks like it gives some further information, such as how all those who receive the stipend receive the same amount whether they are an apostle or a member of the quorum of the 70. How much do top Mormon leaders make This happened in the 1960's (equalizing the pay), according to this article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-07-18/how-the-mormons-make-money "Until the 1960s, salaries were based on hierarchy, with the prophet receiving top dollar. This changed when then-President David O. McKay decided that all General Authorities, including the prophet, should receive equal pay." 2
RevTestament Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Great. Care to tell us your weekly or bi-weekly income including benefits? And, to make it meaningful to us, tell us your real-life (not screen name) identity? If he was in a public corporation, this would be public knowledge. Personally, I believe the church's stress on non-compensated volunteer gospel teaching applies. If not, perhaps they should start paying bishops and SS teachers, etc. What apparently started as expense reimbursement became a per diem, and now a regular salary - all outside the eyes of the membership. I wonder how much salary the original 12 collected? The salary of persecution and martyrdom it would seem... The church as a whole gave up on the principles of the united order long ago...
bluebell Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, Gray said: This is probably underestimated, as it seems, from everything I've seen, that housing and general expenses are also paid for by the church, making their salary mostly discretionary money for them to use (based off my personal understanding of the limited evidence available). Still, even so it's not exorbitant or scandalous. Actually, it looks like all that is included in the salary. "Eyring's biweekly salary broken down into a living allowance ($2,192.31), parsonage or clergy housing, ($826.92) and a child allowance ($76.92)."
bluebell Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 1 minute ago, JulieM said: This happened in the 1960's (equalizing the pay), according to this article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-07-18/how-the-mormons-make-money "Until the 1960s, salaries were based on hierarchy, with the prophet receiving top dollar. This changed when then-President David O. McKay decided that all General Authorities, including the prophet, should receive equal pay." O.k.
Calm Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 4 hours ago, sdc999 said: There are plenty of members that promoted a less than accurate account of the facts. And some still to this day. Just not on this board. Meaning they lie (since they know enough at least to not post their claims on this board)?
rockpond Posted January 10, 2017 Author Posted January 10, 2017 13 minutes ago, bluebell said: Section 104 is concerning the United Order, right? I'm being lazy and trying to remember without looking it up. Yes. 1
Recommended Posts