Light is Good.

[Avatar4321]

21 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The absence of such disciplinary councils does not mean no disciplinary councils...nor does it mean no excommunication.  I'm just starting to think about this specifically, so please bear with me if I stumble along.

The big picture to me here is that a church remains a hospital for the sick, and a joining place for disciples, and a testimony meeting for witnesses, be they in need of spiritual counsel, be they out in the world or in jail for criminal behavior, be they in need of bearing or hearing testimony.

Resigning or excommunication are about that relationship ending.

I don't think I'm ready to set parameters for excommunication, what I am ready to say that it and resignation are matters involving the member and the whole church body.

I can see a clergy member reporting child abuse, or urging a member to confess to law enforcement for criminal activity,  or urging a spouse to repair their marriage. I can see a church disciplining or perhaps excommunicating a member for using the church community/relationships to exploit and harm. That's precisely when the church body needs to know.

 

I tend to think of excommunication as the relationship resetting to the original parameters. The relationship doesn't end per se. It just takes a different position.

sort of like divorce. Getting a divorce doesn't mean there is no longer a relationship. Often relationships continue. Especially with children. It just changes the covenants you are bound by and the nature of the relationship

 

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I do have a testimony of Joseph Smith, specifically, that he could not have been a prophet and God's authority on earth. People who deliberately tell lies and deceive "as a prophet of the Lord" and know those lies hurt others in important ways and then never repent cannot simultaneously be God's authority.

first, are you sure you know what a prophet is? Because Joseph certainly falls within that definition. Rev 19:10

second, the high priest during Christ ministry was a wicked man but even Christ acknowledged His authority. He was even given the gift to prophesy, even if he didn't understand what he prophesied.

if we need perfect men to have the authority of God, we would be waiting a long time for that to come.

 

 

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet I did stay and I did hope to change from within, I have dealt with an awareness of multiple issues since my childhood. My impetus to leave was the knowledge the the root is poisoned.  Sure, the goodness of God can flow in the church just like it flows among others on the planet, but sometimes one has to stop and start over with something new.  I no longer believe in men having God's authority on earth and I have a whole new respect for churches who function rather democratically, without any one person being higher in divine power. 

If Joseph Smith was not a prophet, then the church is not a restoration of Christ's church. This is not about mere faults, but about exploitation of claims of divine authority, ongoing deception, and nonrepentence.

Thank you for your appreciation.  I still do believe that following Christ's teachings does matter and does make a difference, wherever we are.

except the root of the church is Jesus Christ, not Joseph Smith

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

But Joseph goes beyond it. He uses what people believe is divine power and authority to induce women to marry him. He dictates revelation establishing rules for polygamy and breaks them.  Joseph's indiscretions are made into doctrine in Mormonism and now, generations later, we're still covering for him because he never repented these abuses. This, in my opinion, is why the Mormon Church has such a difficult time with transparency; there is so much mess to clean up constantly that originated in the church's founding and never stops.

Meadowchik, I just noticed how many posts you've made and how many upvotes you have, incredible! Out of 1,728 posts 1,519 of them are upvotes!

About transparency, I think the church continually brings things out now about the history of the church. Have you visited the new church history museum? The church could bring up anything and everything and I don't think it would change people's testimonies. Some yes, but the majority, no. Not that you asked me, and just like the testimony of Christ. Some say there's no real evidence of Him, but I want to go on believing. It makes me feel better I guess. I don't know what it will be like next month or next year, my faith is a work in progress. I think it's the same with the church.

 

[Calm]

 

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

In Meadowchick's defense this has happened before... God has reestablished his authority several times, and yet people began to mislead. Let's see there was Adam. Then God reestablished his covenant with Noah. Then Abraham received yet another covenant, which the people strayed from, so the law of Moses was instituted to try to keep them on the straight and narrow. Then the highest authority ever on earth, Jesus Christ, reestablished the priesthood, and once again men went astray and began to mislead. The assumption that men will not mislead is a very dangerous assumption, and the Lord told Joseph Smith he could fall. It is prideful, dangerous notion, which I do not accept. Therefore, we have the companionship of the Holy Spirit to guide us in what to follow, and what is right. Even within the Church there are men who have misled. Some who have stolen funds, etc. It is a statement I feel is given to comfort the flock, but there is no scriptural support for it. I believe the Church should be ever vigilant, and should not accept something just because so and so said so. Leaders are imperfect, and make mistakes. Most of these mistakes are not dangerous to one's salvation, but you never know when something bad may rear its head. 

I believe it is quite possible for leaders to mislead.  I have never placed in the Prophet some unique immunity to failing.  I have never had an an emotional attachement to any Prophet, except I really liked President Hinckley. I have even actively disliked Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as a child and .Brigham Young as a teen until I got to know him better and learn there were somethings to admire in him.  I think my dislike might have stemmed from their portrayals by others, wasn't impressed and felt like others thought I should be, lol.

 There are a few apostles here and there I have become quite fond of, but my faith is first in the presence of God because of personal experiences and then in the gospel and Christ.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Calm

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

My point was that, beyond merely a loss in testimony of Joseph as prophet, I learned he could not have been a prophet.

A prophet prophesies, which Joseph Smith did - a lot actually. One could not get all those prophecies right without being a prophet.

[RevTestament]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe it is quite possible for leaders to mislead.  I have never placed in the Prophet some unique immunity to failing.  I have never had an an emotional attachement to any Prophet, except I really liked President Hinckley. I have even actively disliked Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as a child and .Brigham Young as a teen until I got to know him better and learn there were somethings to admire in him.  I think my dislike might have stemmed from their portrayals by others, wasn't impressed and felt like others thought I should be, lol.

I actually strongly identified with Joseph Smith as a youngster, and really admired him - I guess I felt like I was going through the same things as him - at least spiritually, and in regards to the Bible. Brigham Young I was actually troubled by. Perhaps the last thing that seemed to make me reluctant to join the Church was his policy of no blacks in the priesthood. I remained troubled by that, and felt the Church had grown enough that all other peoples had had an opportunity to receive the gospel, and the priesthood. As I have matured in the Church, I have actually come to appreciate some of Brigham's teachings, but continue to strongly disagree with him on several. However, he was the type of leader the Church needed at the time. Strong, resolute, bull-dog determination which pulled the Church through into Utah. It was kind of the opposite effect with JS, as I began to realize his failings, and my previous glowing impression of him came down to earth a little.

Just curious would you want to share what about JS troubled you? Was it the charges of womanizing or other things? 

Pres Hinckley was a very gregarious, kindly man, so it is hard to imagine me not liking anything about him, but there are things about his Presidency I do not care for. It seems Monson has kept a fairly low profile, but has managed to upset some people in the Church (LGBT community). Personally, I have always liked him. He has never seemed to force the Spirit.

Quote

 There are a few apostles here and there I have become quite fond of, but my faith is first in the presence of God because of personal experiences and then in the gospel and Christ.

I like Eyring and Uchtdorf perhaps the most. Holland is def in my top half. I wish I could say I have enjoyed my return to the Church, but in many ways I have not. It has been good for my family for the most part tho. My faith in the restored gospel is absolute, but my faith in leadership is not. I am not particularly faulting them I guess. I am thankful to the Church for teaching me the restored gospel, and it is because of effective leadership that I was able to learn the restored gospel. Whoever leads is going to have faults - it's just that I feel sometimes over the years their mouths have moved before the Spirit did.

[Calm]

"Just curious would you want to share what about JS troubled you? Was it the charges of womanizing or other things?"

Not when .I was 6 or 8, lol.  Gut thing, don't remember now what caused it.  Maybe I didn't like his picture that was in our chapel hallway.  Maybe someone scolded me for not paying attention to Church history in class ( I was not interested in modern Church history, only scriptures, especially OT.

[Meadowchik]

12 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

first, are you sure you know what a prophet is? Because Joseph certainly falls within that definition. Rev 19:10

second, the high priest during Christ ministry was a wicked man but even Christ acknowledged His authority. He was even given the gift to prophesy, even if he didn't understand what he prophesied.

if we need perfect men to have the authority of God, we would be waiting a long time for that to come.

 

 

I could maintain my belief in Joseph as prophet because I believed that perhaps God still worked through a man who sinned. I think that is still possible, but I don't think Joseph was channelling God when he did things like inducing teens and women to marry him with offers of exaltation and angel threats. I know he was not speaking God's authority then. And when a man abuses God's authority,  the Spirit departs. Joseph never repented this abuse...thus I don't believe he had the Spirit of God with him.

What should have happened then was the "Amen to his priesthood." But it didn't happen, we as a church maintained the fogginess needed to cover illegitimacy and it carries over to today.

Have you ever noticed how twelve-year-old Mormon girls are called Young Women? Just a little artifact, just a little cloud cover.

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

12 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

except the root of the church is Jesus Christ, not Joseph Smith

It was supposed to be Christ's church, but everything supposedly from.Christ was channelled through Joseph. The church absolutely depends upon the legitimacy of Joseph as prophet.

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

A prophet prophesies, which Joseph Smith did - a lot actually. One could not get all those prophecies right without being a prophet.

Frankly I have seen some brilliance from a very nasty person who wished me harm and deliberately tried to hurt me with that brilliance. In this person's case, people thought he had divine gifts, he impressed them so.

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Meadowchik, I just noticed how many posts you've made and how many upvotes you have, incredible! Out of 1,728 posts 1,519 of them are upvotes!

About transparency, I think the church continually brings things out now about the history of the church. Have you visited the new church history museum? The church could bring up anything and everything and I don't think it would change people's testimonies. Some yes, but the majority, no. Not that you asked me, and just like the testimony of Christ. Some say there's no real evidence of Him, but I want to go on believing. It makes me feel better I guess. I don't know what it will be like next month or next year, my faith is a work in progress. I think it's the same with the church.

 

Thank you, Tacenda. And thank you for being who you are on this board.  

I wish I could upvote you.

I will be in Salt Lake this summer and will again visit the Museum, but this time from a different perspective. I also want to hold onto Christ, even though Mormonism has all but destroyed my conception of God. 

I'lI give it time and I will try to be faithful to what I know. If God exists, I believe He will honor that.

[Glenn101]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I know he was not speaking God's authority then.

How do you know? Lucy Walker, Eliza R. Snow,  and several other women who were actually involved have very different takes on the subject, including revelations. Have you received a revelation that contradicts their testimonies or is your position based upon personal feelings?

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It was supposed to be Christ's church, but everything supposedly from.Christ was channelled through Joseph. The church absolutely depends upon the legitimacy of Joseph as prophet.

God's dealings with his church has been channeled through a prophet throughout history. All of the scriptures we have depend upon the legitimacy of the prophets involved. So, how do you determine that  legitimacy?

Glenn

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

How do you know? Lucy Walker, Eliza R. Snow,  and several other women who were actually involved have very different takes on the subject, including revelations. Have you received a revelation that contradicts their testimonies or is your position based upon personal feelings?

God's dealings with his church has been channeled through a prophet throughout history. All of the scriptures we have depend upon the legitimacy of the prophets involved. So, how do you determine that  legitimacy?

Glenn

Regardless of how some women described their experiences with Joseph's inducements,  he still factually exercised unrighteous dominion. If you feel the need to explain their compliance, one can look at any number of abusive relationships today where the victims seem to willingly go along.

The fact of unrighteous dominion, in the promises of exaltation and the threat of an angel, is verified to me by sound mind and the Spirit of Truth. And I am comforted, despite the dissonance this causes, by the Comforter who assures me that through Christ, truth can be born.

"How do you determine that legitimacy?"

How, indeed. For me, Mormonism has shattered the authoritative legitimacy of all prophets. It's on the floor, in pieces, and it will take time for me to put things back together, if appropriate. But, the work is worth it. Light is good

Edited May 26, 2017 by Meadowchik

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

"How do you determine that legitimacy?"

How, indeed. For me, Mormonism has shattered the authoritative legitimacy of all prophets. It's on the floor, in pieces, and it will take time for me to put things back together, if appropriate. But, the work is worth it. Light is good

Very well stated!

[stemelbow]

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

How do you know? Lucy Walker, Eliza R. Snow,  and several other women who were actually involved have very different takes on the subject, including revelations. Have you received a revelation that contradicts their testimonies or is your position based upon personal feelings?

Should we minimize another's inspiration as personal feelings?  Where does that get us?  What is revelation aside from promptings by the Spirit and what some call the still small voice within us? 

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

God's dealings with his church has been channeled through a prophet throughout history. All of the scriptures we have depend upon the legitimacy of the prophets involved. So, how do you determine that  legitimacy?

Glenn

I'm not sure your first line is true.  We each receive personal revelation.  There is no channeling that through a prophet.  And your second line is not true at all. Most of the scripture we have was written long after the prophets involved.  How do we determine the legitimacy of different passages as they contradict each other?  Well, that can be a long involved complicated process for each of us, or we can easily say, "that's not of God.  Can't be.  He wouldn't do that or say that."  In some instances.  That's why none of us live strictly to the words of all scripture.  We simply couldn't with all the contradiction. 

[Jeanne]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Thank you, Tacenda. And thank you for being who you are on this board.  

I wish I could upvote you.

I will be in Salt Lake this summer and will again visit the Museum, but this time from a different perspective. I also want to hold onto Christ, even though Mormonism has all but destroyed my conception of God. 

I'lI give it time and I will try to be faithful to what I know. If God exists, I believe He will honor that.

Good luck with this.  Keeping the Savior and God/prayer in my life after mormonism has been the toughest thing I have ever done.  It is rebuilding ...setting aside preconceived notions and teachings..to learn again of a God that speaks the same truth to everyone.  It has been a spiritual test..but yes..though hard..it is worth it.  Best to you!

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Regardless of how some women described their experiences with Joseph's inducements,  he still factually exercised unrighteous dominion. If you feel the need to explain their compliance, one can look at any number of abusive relationships today where the victims seem to willingly go along.

The fact of unrighteous dominion, in the promises of exaltation and the threat of an angel, is verified to me by sound mind and the Spirit of Truth. And I am comforted, despite the dissonance this causes, by the Comforter who assures me that through Christ, truth can be born.

"How do you determine that legitimacy?"

How, indeed. For me, Mormonism has shattered the authoritative legitimacy of all prophets. It's on the floor, in pieces, and it will take time for me to put things back together, if appropriate. But, the work is worth it. Light is good

Thank you for your response. You attribute your own beliefs to the Spirit of Truth while the ladies involved in the situation relied on their own personal revelations on the subject (which involves the Spirit of Truth also). That is what my own testimony of Jesus the Christ, the Atonement, and of the restoration is based upon. It would only have been unrighteous dominion if Joseph had not been commanded and if the story of the angel were to be found untrue. It seems we have competing "Spirits of Truth."

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure your first line is true.  We each receive personal revelation.  There is no channeling that through a prophet.  And your second line is not true at all. Most of the scripture we have was written long after the prophets involved.  How do we determine the legitimacy of different passages as they contradict each other?  Well, that can be a long involved complicated process for each of us, or we can easily say, "that's not of God.  Can't be.  He wouldn't do that or say that."  In some instances.  That's why none of us live strictly to the words of all scripture.  We simply couldn't with all the contradiction. 

While your statement that individuals can and do receive personal revelation God's dealings with his church have been channeled through prophets. There were times when no prophets were upon the earth and thus there were no dealings with the church. If no prophet had written his words or had them written, there would have been no scriptures to have been copied however accurately or inaccurately they were transmitted.

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Should we minimize another's inspiration as personal feelings?  Where does that get us?  What is revelation aside from promptings by the Spirit and what some call the still small voice within us? 

But isn't that just what every critic of Joseph's polygamy is doing? They are discounting the testimonies of those who were actually involved in the situation. They are saying that those women were all manipulated, coerced, cajoled into making their decisions while none of them believed it to be so, and if you will go and read their own narratives, they do not paint such a picture. Those women were entitled to their own revelations on the matter. I do not think that we can confidently ascribe to unrighteous dominion such a testimony as this:

"

    When the Prophet Joseph Smith first mentioned the principle of plural marriage to me I became very indignant and told him emphatically that I did not wish him to ever mention it to me again....and so expressed myself to him....He counseled me, however, to pray to the Lord for light and understanding in relation thereto, and promised me if I would do so sincerely, I should receive a testimony of the correctness of the principle. Before praying I felt gloomy and downcast; in fact, I was so entirely given up to despair that I felt tired of life...." 
    was so unwilling to consider the matter favorably that I fear I did not ask in faith for light. Gross darkness instead of light took possession of my mind. I was tempted and tortured beyond endurance until life was not desirable....
    The Prophet discerned my sorrow. He saw how unhappy I was, and sought an opportunity of again speaking to me on this subject....
    [He said] "I have no flattering words to offer. It is a command of God to you. I will give you until tomorrow to decide this matter. If you reject this message the gate will be closed forever against you."
    This aroused every drop of scotch in my veins...I felt at this moment that I was called to place myself upon the altar a living Sacrafice, perhaps to brook the world in disgrace and incur the displeasure and contempt of my youthful companions; all my dreams of happiness blown to the four winds, this was too much, the thought was unbearable.... I...at last found utterance and said, "Although you are a prophet of God you could not induce me to take a step of so great importance, unless I knew that God approved my course. I would rather die. I have tried to pray but received no comfort, no light....The same God who has sent this message is the Being I have worshipped from my early childhood and He must manifest His will to me."
    He walked across the room, returned, and stood before me. With the most beautiful expression of countenance, he said, "God almighty bless you. You shall have a manifestation of the will of God concerning you; a testimony that you can never deny. I will tell you what it shall be. It shall be that peace and joy that you never knew." 
    It was near after another sleepless night when my room was lighted up by a heavenly influence. To me it was, in comparison, like the brilliant sun bursting through the darkest cloud. The words of the Prophet were indeed fulfilled. My soul was filled with a calm, sweet peace that "I never knew." Supreme happiness took possession of me, and I received a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truth of plural marriage, which has been like an anchor to the soul through all the trials of life. I felt that I must go out into the morning air and give vent to the joy and gratitude that filled my soul. As I descended the stairs, President Smith opened the door below, took me by the hand and said, "Thank God, you have the testimony. I too have prayed." He led me to a chair, placed his hands upon my head, and blessed me with every blessing my heart could possibly desire." This was Lucy Walker's story.

I cannot really say any more. I have read their stories, and Joseph's story. I believe them. Others evidently do not. There will come a time when we all will know the verity of the situation.

Glenn

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Thank you for your response. You attribute your own beliefs to the Spirit of Truth while the ladies involved in the situation relied on their own personal revelations on the subject (which involves the Spirit of Truth also). That is what my own testimony of Jesus the Christ, the Atonement, and of the restoration is based upon. It would only have been unrighteous dominion if Joseph had not been commanded and if the story of the angel were to be found untrue. It seems we have competing "Spirits of Truth."

You're welcome, thank you for yours

There are ways to test influences be they divine or not.  Coercion into marriage is unrighteous dominion, thus it was not an angel of God.

 

[Meadowchik]

53 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

While your statement that individuals can and do receive personal revelation God's dealings with his church have been channeled through prophets. There were times when no prophets were upon the earth and thus there were no dealings with the church. If no prophet had written his words or had them written, there would have been no scriptures to have been copied however accurately or inaccurately they were transmitted.

But isn't that just what every critic of Joseph's polygamy is doing? They are discounting the testimonies of those who were actually involved in the situation. They are saying that those women were all manipulated, coerced, cajoled into making their decisions while none of them believed it to be so, and if you will go and read their own narratives, they do not paint such a picture. Those women were entitled to their own revelations on the matter. I do not think that we can confidently ascribe to unrighteous dominion such a testimony as this:

"

    When the Prophet Joseph Smith first mentioned the principle of plural marriage to me I became very indignant and told him emphatically that I did not wish him to ever mention it to me again....and so expressed myself to him....He counseled me, however, to pray to the Lord for light and understanding in relation thereto, and promised me if I would do so sincerely, I should receive a testimony of the correctness of the principle. Before praying I felt gloomy and downcast; in fact, I was so entirely given up to despair that I felt tired of life...." 
    was so unwilling to consider the matter favorably that I fear I did not ask in faith for light. Gross darkness instead of light took possession of my mind. I was tempted and tortured beyond endurance until life was not desirable....
    The Prophet discerned my sorrow. He saw how unhappy I was, and sought an opportunity of again speaking to me on this subject....
    [He said] "I have no flattering words to offer. It is a command of God to you. I will give you until tomorrow to decide this matter. If you reject this message the gate will be closed forever against you."
    This aroused every drop of scotch in my veins...I felt at this moment that I was called to place myself upon the altar a living Sacrafice, perhaps to brook the world in disgrace and incur the displeasure and contempt of my youthful companions; all my dreams of happiness blown to the four winds, this was too much, the thought was unbearable.... I...at last found utterance and said, "Although you are a prophet of God you could not induce me to take a step of so great importance, unless I knew that God approved my course. I would rather die. I have tried to pray but received no comfort, no light....The same God who has sent this message is the Being I have worshipped from my early childhood and He must manifest His will to me."
    He walked across the room, returned, and stood before me. With the most beautiful expression of countenance, he said, "God almighty bless you. You shall have a manifestation of the will of God concerning you; a testimony that you can never deny. I will tell you what it shall be. It shall be that peace and joy that you never knew." 
    It was near after another sleepless night when my room was lighted up by a heavenly influence. To me it was, in comparison, like the brilliant sun bursting through the darkest cloud. The words of the Prophet were indeed fulfilled. My soul was filled with a calm, sweet peace that "I never knew." Supreme happiness took possession of me, and I received a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truth of plural marriage, which has been like an anchor to the soul through all the trials of life. I felt that I must go out into the morning air and give vent to the joy and gratitude that filled my soul. As I descended the stairs, President Smith opened the door below, took me by the hand and said, "Thank God, you have the testimony. I too have prayed." He led me to a chair, placed his hands upon my head, and blessed me with every blessing my heart could possibly desire." This was Lucy Walker's story.

I cannot really say any more. I have read their stories, and Joseph's story. I believe them. Others evidently do not. There will come a time when we all will know the verity of the situation.

Glenn

This sounds like coercion. Again, there are victims who are persuaded into believing that abuse is good. 

A possible explanation is that Joseph was skilled and perhaps even convinced himself that these notions were divine,  but they do not pass the test of free agency. If women are real people, with real souls, and God's children, these coercions are absolutely not divine.

There are other women, men also, who have very different testimonies, which undermine Joseph's credibility. 

Edited May 26, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Teancum]

On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 5:39 PM, Meadowchik said:

Are you for or against light shining on every part of an organisation's doings?

 

Why or why not?

 

Well it depends.  I am all for transparency.  But there are some things that need to not be revealed.  For example, military or other counter terrorist plans by our government may need to be kept secret for various reasons. I don't think I need to know the details of all the personal lives of all the people who work for my company.  Really your question is way to broad.

But do I think a tax exempt organization or church that demands complete fealty and loyalty from it members as well as a significant amount of its members time and income should be transparent financially as well as in regards to what the organization claims?  Absolutely.

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Good luck with this.  Keeping the Savior and God/prayer in my life after mormonism has been the toughest thing I have ever done.  It is rebuilding ...setting aside preconceived notions and teachings..to learn again of a God that speaks the same truth to everyone.  It has been a spiritual test..but yes..though hard..it is worth it.  Best to you!

I know. Thank you for your candor and encouragement. I believe you!

[Meadowchik]

Just now, Teancum said:

Well it depends.  I am all for transparency.  But there are some things that need to not be revealed.  For example, military or other counter terrorist plans by our government may need to be kept secret for various reasons. I don't think I need to know the details of all the personal lives of all the people who work for my company.  Really your question is way to broad.

But do I think a tax exempt organization or church that demands complete fealty and loyalty from it members as well as a significant amount of its members time and income should be transparent financially as well as in regards to what the organization claims?  Absolutely.

The question is polarising but anyone is free to give a less polarised, more nuanced, even qualified answer.  If you look in the replies, you'll see that I did. I find that framing the question in the extremes helps to get the cerebral juices flowing sometimes.

I agree with your answer.

[Teancum]

On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 5:45 PM, JLHPROF said:

Against.

Christ was clear that pearls are not to be cast before swine.
Not everything is for public consumption.

I think your reference it totally irrelevant to the question.