The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[Analytics]

15 minutes ago, Lemuel said:

 

"The budget for operating expenses will not increase at a more rapid rate than anticipated tithing contributions."

I think a possible clue lies here--perhaps the Church wants to be independent of tithing, much as the Catholic Church is independent of member donations ( I assume).  They will be free to pursue activities that the membership will find unpalatable if they don't have to worry about losing the tithing of those members.

I'm sure that is part of it, but it raises the question, "and then what?" Once the business empire grows to the point where earned interest and dividends fund 110% of its operating expenses, then what? Will it declare at that point that it doesn't need tithing and that members should tithe to the charity of their choice? If not, then what's the objective here?

I admit that this is just me being cynical, but I think they personally enjoy growing the corporate holdings just as you or I would enjoy winning a good game of Monopoly. I and think that ultimately, that is the real driver.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Members are responsible for common consent. 

I agree with that generally.

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

If common consent is done in an information vacuum it becomes meaningless. 

But I don't think we have "an information vacuum."  We have annual reports.  We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Finance and Records Department, the Auditing Department, the Audit Committee, the Investment Policy Committee, the Deseret Management Corporation and its board of directors, the First Presidency of the Church, the quorum of twelve apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric, "other boards and committees to oversee the management of the Church's investments and reserves," and on and on.

Moreover, we have a robust missionary program.  And meetinghouses.  And temples.  And educational and humanitarian efforts.  And Fast Offerings.  And so on.

We also have a generalized knowledge that the General Authorities live very moderate lifestyles, particularly given the huge amounts of money to which they have access.  They aren't in it for the money.

We also have tens of thousands of bishops and stake presidents and other local leaders who work for free.

We also have periodic assurances from the leaders of the Church that it "has been living within its means."

I don't think "information vacuum" is apt.

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

You don't believe members have a right to know Church finances, I disagree.

I think we disagree on the scope of that "right," and the appropriate extent of public disclosure of the Church's finances.

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I understand the auditing process.  I've been through it on a stake level (as you have as well).  I don't believe that there is any fraud.  But auditors don't evaluate how funds are being used to further the mission of the church.

Actually, I am not sure you are correct there.  From the EOM:

Quote

Financial controls are administered through the use of financial policy, budgeting, organization structure, and regular, comprehensive audits. Key financial policy comes from the Council on the Disposition of Tithes. Additional financial policy and procedure directives are issued by the Finance and Records Department, which, under the direction of the First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric, is responsible for the administration of treasury accounting/controllership, taxation, and risk-management functions.

The Church has an Audit Committee composed of experienced businessmen who are not associated with the Church as employees or General Authorities. This committee reports directly to the First Presidency of the Church and works closely with the Finance and Records Department and the Auditing Department to ensure strict adherence to ethical principles and rigid financial policies and procedures. The Auditing Department also reports directly to the First Presidency of the Church and thus maintains its independence from all other departments. Its staff of certified public accountants performs ongoing audits of finance, operation, and computer systems for Church departments and other Church-controlled organizations. Responses to all audits are required and are monitored.

...

The First Presidency has established other boards and committees to oversee the management of the Church's investments and reserves (see Business: Church Participation in Business). Each of these key committees is chaired either by a member of the First Presidency or by another appointed General Authority.

The Investment Policy Committee is chaired by the First Presidency and includes the president of the Council of the Twelve, other members of the Twelve as appointed, and the Presiding Bishopric. Its purpose is to establish investment policy and strategy and to review key investment decisions.

The Deseret Management Corporation (DMC) is a corporation with its own board of directors. DMC functions as a holding company for most of the commercial businesses owned by the Church. These companies pay all taxes that are paid by commercial corporations. Some properties are also held for reasons other than investment. In addition to protecting the surroundings of sacred properties, such investments may be maintained to support the ecclesiastical efforts of the Church.

And there are departments which do "evaluate how funds are being used."  From the EOM:

Quote

[T]he Council on the Disposition of Tithes, consisting of the First Presidency of the Church, the quorum of twelve apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric ... meets regularly and oversees the expenditures of all Church funds worldwide. It approves budgets and financial strategy and establishes financial policy.

Two subcommittees of the Council on the Disposition of Tithes are the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee. Both committees consist of the First Presidency, selected members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and members of the Presiding Bishopric.

The Church Budget Office provides staff support to the First Presidency and gives overall administrative direction to the preparation of the annual Church budget. At the beginning of each annual budgeting cycle, budget guidelines are given to Church administrative department heads, international offices, missions, temples, and other units. Within these guidelines, budgets are constructed at the lowest levels of accountability and scrupulously reviewed through various levels of management and councils. The Budget Committee meets periodically to provide in-depth budget review and to formulate budget recommendations to the Council on the Disposition of Tithes.

The Appropriations Committee meets each week. All expenditure requests throughout the world, except those few which have been delegated to a lower level of administration by the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, are reviewed, checked to make certain the request is within budget, and appropriated. Expenditures that have been delegated are reported to the committee.

So the Council on the Disposition of Tithes "oversees the expenditures of all Church funds worldwide" and "approves budgets and financial strategy and establishes financial policy."

This Council is comprised of the same men we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators.  They are assisted by all sorts of folks, but the Brethren decide "how funds are being used."

So I guess the question becomes . . . what do we mean when we say we "sustain" the leaders of the Church?  

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

They are insufficient because members do not know how sacred funds are being used. 

With respect, I disagree.  All we have to do is look around.  The evidence is all around us.  Meetinghouses.  Temples.  Missionary work.  Humanitarian and educational efforts.  

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

In my professional capacity I have worked with a number of churches.  The leaders of those churches publish church finances to their church members because it is a good practice.  It would be a good practice for our church to return to.  Additionally, we have the mandate of common consent.

I agree.  But I guess we disagree about how "common consent" operates.  From the EOM:

Quote

Today the Church continues to operate by divine revelation and common consent. Callings to positions of Church service at all levels of the organization and ordination to the priesthood are made by the inspiration of authorized leaders and are then brought before the appropriate body of members to be sustained or opposed. Members do not nominate persons to office, but are asked to give their sustaining vote to decisions of presiding councils by raising their right hand, and anyone may give an opposing vote in the same way. This procedure is also followed in accepting important revelations and scriptural additions.

In a much less visible but equally important practice, decision makers at all levels present policy decisions and callings to priesthood councils for their comment and approval. At the local level a bishop will ordinarily discuss decisions with his counselors in the bishopric before presenting a matter to the ward membership for a sustaining vote. On many policy and program decisions the bishopric will consult with the ward council and work for consensus in that group before taking action. Following the same pattern, the stake president consults with his counselors in the stake presidency and then with the high council. The First Presidency consults in this same way on matters of general Church policy and action in regular meetings with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

I think "common consent" is very much in force int he Church today.

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

10 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

You can label this how you choose, but I absolutely disagree with the Church Leaderships decision to keep full financial transparency from the membership.

Okay.  That makes perfect sense.  You have every right to disagree and express that disagreement.  

[Marginal Gains]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I think "common consent" is very much in force int he Church today.

Thanks,

-Smac

What are the terms for common consent being deemed not given?

[smac97]

Just now, Marginal Gains said:

What are the terms for common consent being deemed not given?

Temple recommend interviews are an appropriate venue for voicing a lack of consent.  So is the "Sustaining of Church Offices" presentation during General Conference.  So is any time any member writes a letter or otherwise voices a lack of consent to a representative of the Church (like a bishop or stake president).

I'm not sure lack of consent is ever "deemed."  I think the individual needs to actually voice a lack of consent.

From the EOM:

Quote

Unanimity is the ideal for all these decision processes because of the importance of unity in the Church: "If ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27). The three presiding quorums over the whole Church are of equal authority within their own spheres (D&C 107:22-26), but their decisions are of "the same power or validity" only when made "by the unanimous voice" of the quorum (D&C 107:27). Many important decisions take shape over what seem like long periods because achieving unanimity is highly valued by the quorums.

Because of the emphasis on divine and prophetic leadership and because of well-established norms and values in decision-making procedures, public dissent on a proposed calling or policy is unusual. There are, however, mechanisms for accommodating dissent. Normally, if one or more members find the proposed action objectionable, the dissenting member or members are asked to meet with the presiding officer privately to make known the reason for the question or objection. After considering the objections, presiding officers are free to pursue whatever decision they believe to be right.

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm sure that is part of it, but it raises the question, "and then what?" Once the business empire grows to the point where earned interest and dividends fund 110% of its operating expenses, then what? Will it declare at that point that it doesn't need tithing and that members should tithe to the charity of their choice? If not, then what's the objective here?

I admit that this is just me being cynical, but I think they personally enjoy growing the corporate holdings just as you or I would enjoy winning a good game of Monopoly. I and think that ultimately, that is the real driver.

In all fairness, when the express purpose of the Church is explicitly stated as filling the whole earth, I think we have a very, very long time before the assets are sufficient to fund future operating expenses.  Whether you believe that is prophetic, or even possible, it is what the Brethren claim to believe.  And from that paradigm, there wouldn't be a actual finite upper limit to the needed financial resources.  

Maybe they see their responsibility at this point in the history of the Kingdom being less to grow the numerical strength of the Church, but to build up reserves and finances to facilitate a coming explosion of membership (say following the Savior appearing in Jerusalem and telling people that the LDS Church is His.)   I'm not saying this is exactly what is going to happen, or that this is what the Brethren believe.  But this helps me cope with the fact that "transparency" isn't really possible if all they know is "We feel that the Lord is instructing us to do this for His own purposes." 

[Marginal Gains]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Temple recommend interviews are an appropriate venue for voicing a lack of consent.  So is the "Sustaining of Church Offices" presentation during General Conference.  So is any time any member writes a letter or otherwise voices a lack of consent to a representative of the Church (like a bishop or stake president).

I'm not sure lack of consent is ever "deemed."  I think the individual needs to actually voice a lack of consent.

From the EOM:

Thanks,

-Smac

If lack of general member consent is never deemed, then the Church isn’t operating with common consent. It’s a meaningless phrase if there exists no criteria for it to be deemed to be not commonly given. It is simply being assumed as given no matter the circumstances of the sustaining vote.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[kllindley]

49 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I have yet to hear a valid reason why doing so would be a bad thing.

 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Corporations would likely still provide disclosure for their stockholders even if it wasn't required by law.  But we all agree that the Church is not legally compelled to do it (here in the US).  The point is that it's possible.  If you want to argue that the Church shouldn't do it for other reasons, that's fine.  I think it is invalid to suggest that it isn't possible to do it (which was the post I was replying to).

I don't argue that it would be impossible from a logistical standpoint.  But what if it is impossible or unhelpful because the full reasons aren't fully known?  

What if the Lord is instructing them not to spend more on current Humanitarian Aid because He knows that it will be needed much more at a future time to do much more good than it would at this point.  What if that is why, but the Lord isn't giving the reasoning behind it?   I'm not saying this is exactly what is going to happen, or that this is what the Brethren believe.  But this helps me cope with the fact that "transparency" isn't really possible if all they know is "We feel that the Lord is instructing us to do this for His own purposes." 

I wonder what Laban and Lemuel or other family members might have said if they knew that Nephi was making a second set of plates with their gold.  How would they have responded when he answered: "I know not save the Lord hath commanded me?"  Should they have voted and decided whether or not to allow Nephi to wast the resources to make a second set of plates?  

Edited June 1, 2018 by kllindley

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

If lack of consent is never deemed, then the Church isn’t operating with common consent.

I don't understand.  How do you propose that the Church "deem" a lack of consent?  That would involve imputing consent or a lack of consent onto an individual.  Surely you do not advocate such a thing?

The only thing the Church can do is ask for consent.  If you don't consent, you must express it.  Otherwise, you are not participating in the concept of "common consent."

I am reminded here of A Man for All Seasons, where Thomas More refused to either consent or not consent to the marriage of Henry VIII.  From the screenplay:

Quote

Cromwell: Now, Sir Thomas, you stand on your silence.

Sir Thomas More: I do.

Cromwell: But, gentlemen of the jury, there are many kinds of silence. Consider first the silence of a man who is dead. Let us suppose we go into the room where he is laid out, and we listen: what do we hear? Silence. What does it betoken, this silence? Nothing; this is silence pure and simple. But let us take another case. Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak! Let us consider now the circumstances of the prisoner's silence. The oath was put to loyal subjects up and down the country, and they all declared His Grace's title to be just and good. But when it came to the prisoner, he refused! He calls this silence. Yet is there a man in this court - is there a man in this country! - who does not know Sir Thomas More's opinion of this title?

Crowd in court gallery: No!

Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!

Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.

Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?

Sir Thomas More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.

"Qui tacet consentire."

"Silence gives consent."

That's the only way to go.  If you want to dissent, you must express it.

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

It’s a meaningless phrase if there exists no criteria for it to be deemed to be not commonly given.

Of course common consent is being "commonly given."  The "criteria" is a raised hand. 

Here is the last time we did it.

From the EOM (again):

Quote

Members ... are asked to give their sustaining vote to decisions of presiding councils by raising their right hand, and anyone may give an opposing vote in the same way.

If you dissent, you must express it.  The Church will not assume that your silence denotes dissent.  That just doesn't work.

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

It is simply being assumed as given no matter the circumstances of the sustaining vote.

It's not an assumption.  Watch the video.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I wonder what Laban and Lemuel or other family members might have said if they knew that Nephi was making a second set of plates with their gold.  How would they have responded when he answered: "I know not save the Lord hath commanded me?"  Should they have voted and decided whether or not to allow Nephi to wast the resources to make a second set of plates?  

Who’s gold was it? How had Nephi come into possession of it? What was Laban and Lemuel’s reasonable expectation as to what Nephi would do with the gold?

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

In all fairness, when the express purpose of the Church is explicitly stated as filling the whole earth, I think we have a very, very long time before the assets are sufficient to fund future operating expenses.  Whether you believe that is prophetic, or even possible, it is what the Brethren claim to believe.  And from that paradigm, there wouldn't be a actual finite upper limit to the needed financial resources.  

Maybe they see their responsibility at this point in the history of the Kingdom being less to grow the numerical strength of the Church, but to build up reserves and finances to facilitate a coming explosion of membership (say following the Savior appearing in Jerusalem and telling people that the LDS Church is His.)   I'm not saying this is exactly what is going to happen, or that this is what the Brethren believe.  But this helps me cope with the fact that "transparency" isn't really possible if all they know is "We feel that the Lord is instructing us to do this for His own purposes." 

That is not only fair--it made me smile.

As far as the type of transparency that I am gently suggesting, all I would want to see is a booklet with a couple of paragraphs that say how the church did financially over the last year, and then just a little more detail, like a pie graph that shows how much income went towards each item in the 3.1-fold mission of the Church, how much towards overhead, and how much towards savings. If it then said this is what our savings objectives are, presented a high-level three-page financial statement with the income statement, balance sheet, and budget for the last year, and then gave some information about executive compensation, I would give them a four-star score on transparency.

[Marginal Gains]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  How do you propose that the Church "deem" a lack of consent?  That would involve imputing consent or a lack of consent onto an individual.  Surely you do not advocate such a thing?

The only thing the Church can do is ask for consent.  If you don't consent, you must express it.  Otherwise, you are not participating in the concept of "common consent."

I am reminded here of A Man for All Seasons, where Thomas More refused to either consent or not consent to the marriage of Henry VIII.  From the screenplay:

"Qui tacet consentire."

"Silence gives consent."

That's the only way to go.  If you want to dissent, you must express it.

Of course common consent is being "commonly given."  The "criteria" is a raised hand. 

Here is the last time we did it.

From the EOM (again):

If you dissent, you must express it.  The Church will not assume that your silence denotes dissent.  That just doesn't work.

It's not an assumption.  Watch the video.

Thanks,

-Smac

So, what are the terms for collective common consent to not be deemed granted? 51% against? More? Less? If there isn’t a criteria for collective common consent to be denied, then there isn’t a criteria for deeming it granted.

Lets say the CEO faces a shareholders sustaining vote each year at the AGM. If there isn’t a set threshold for deeming that the general body of shareholders approves or disapproves of his appointment then the vote is a sham. 

What percentage of the membership voted in favour of sustaining President Nelson as Prophet and President? And if you don’t know the answer to that (and you don’t), you cannot say that common consent was given to his appointment.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

If lack of general member consent is never deemed, then the Church isn’t operating with common consent. It’s a meaningless phrase if there exists no criteria for it to be deemed to be not commonly given. It is simply being assumed as given no matter the circumstances of the sustaining vote.

Not necessarily. It matters deeply what is meant by Common Consent, and what role it has in the process.  I think most people think of it as voting.  If there is enough support, the motion passes, if there is enough opposition it fails.  This places consent in the role of affecting the decision and policy making process.  I would view this as generally congruent with the idea that "government only rules with the consent of the governed."  I understand Common Consent as used in the scriptures to have a very different role.  In the Church, it comes after a decision is made, which makes the "consent" much more about the opportunity for individual members to sustain a calling or action.  In other words, the Lord's authorized servants are going to to what they believe is His will and the entire Church is given the opportunity to consent and sustain.  

So if which of these two is actually meant by scripture?  I find my answer in how these decision are presented to the Church Body.  The phrasing is "Brother or Sister so-and-so has been called to serve in such-and-such position.  It is proposed that we sustain them." or "It is proposed that we sustain Brother/Sister Smith as (or to serve as) such-and such."

This wording is substantially different in meaning from "We propose that Brother or Sister So-and-So be called to such-and-such position.  All in favor, please manifest it."  If this were the phrasing used, it would support the idea that Common Consent is part of the decision making process.  

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So, what are the terms for collective common consent to not be deemed granted? 51% against? More? Less?

Ah.  I think I see what you mean now.  I was not understanding you before.

I have always understood "common consent" to require, at a minimum, a preponderance vote.  We virtually never run into that, though, since the sustaining votes are overwhelming.

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

If there isn’t a criteria for collective common consent to be denied, then there isn’t a criteria for deeming it granted.

The criteria is the raised hands of the members.

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Lets say the CEO faces a shareholders sustaining vote each year at the AGM. If there isn’t a set threshold for deeming that the general body of shareholders approves or disapproves of his appointment then the vote is a sham. 

Unless, of course, the vote is patently and obviously in the affirmative.  

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

What percentage of the membership voted in favour of sustaining President Nelson as Prophet and President?

I think the more appropriate question would be "What percentage of the membership of the Church who cast a vote cast consenting votes, and what percentage cast dissenting votes?"

The votes are overwhelmingly in favor of consent.  Dissenting votes are to be reported to local leaders, who I understand pass those votes (and the reasons therefore) on to the Church.

There is an interesting article on this subject here.  An excerpt:

Quote

In the event that member concerns are raised through dissenting votes, the Church Handbook 2, which applies to all Church meetings, explains the protocol for dealing with these issues:

“If a member in good standing gives a dissenting vote when someone is presented to be sustained, the presiding officer or another assigned priesthood officer confers with the dissenting member in private after the meeting. The officer determines whether the dissenting vote was based on knowledge that the person who was presented is guilty of conduct that should disqualify him or her from serving in the position” (19.3).

The article also gives some examples of dissenting votes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So if which of these two is actually meant by scripture?  I find my answer in how these decision are presented to the Church Body.  The phrasing is "Brother or Sister so-and-so has been called to serve in such-and-such position.  It is proposed that we sustain them." or "It is proposed that we sustain Brother/Sister Smith as (or to serve as) such-and such."

This wording is substantially different in meaning from "We propose that Brother or Sister So-and-So be called to such-and-such position.  All in favor, please manifest it."  If this were the phrasing used, it would support the idea that Common Consent is part of the decision making process.  

“It is proposed that Russell Marion Nelson be sustained as prophet, seer, and revelator and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, together with his counselors and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as they have been presented and voted upon.

All in favor, please manifest it.

Any opposed may so manifest it.“

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/04/solemn-assembly?lang=eng

Now what?

[Marginal Gains]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  I think I see what you mean now.  I was not understanding you before.

I have always understood "common consent" to require, at a minimum, a preponderance vote.  We virtually never run into that, though, since the sustaining votes are overwhelming.

The criteria is the raised hands of the members.

Unless, of course, the vote is patently and obviously in the affirmative.  

I think the more appropriate question would be "What percentage of the membership of the Church who cast a vote cast consenting votes, and what percentage cast dissenting votes?"

The votes are overwhelmingly in favor of consent.  Dissenting votes are to be reported to local leaders, who I understand pass those votes (and the reasons therefore) on to the Church.

There is an interesting article on this subject here.  An excerpt:

The article also gives some examples of dissenting votes.

Thanks,

-Smac

So, what percentage of the 16 million members voted in favour?

And what percentage would need to vote opposed for it to be deemed that common consent has not been given and the appointment is not upheld? And I want the handbook/church protocol percentage rather than your opinion (not because I don’t value your opinion, but your opinion isn’t the point here)

Edited June 1, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So, what percentage of the 16 million members voted in favour?

An overwhelming one, I think.

Again, there are mechanisms in place to count dissenting votes.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

An overwhelming one, I think.

Again, there are mechanisms in place to count dissenting votes.  

Thanks,

-Smac

No, there’s a mechanism for interviewing dissenters with an outcome of “if you have a problem with the General authority called, it’s your problem”. But dissenting votes arent counted and collected.

And there’s  no mechanism for counting sustaining ones. Nobody knows how many members voted in favour. It might have been as few as 25%. Does a 25% positive vote really count as the “overwhelming” common consent of 16 million people?

Edited June 1, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[kllindley]

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is not only fair--it made me smile.

As far as the type of transparency that I am gently suggesting, all I would want to see is a booklet with a couple of paragraphs that say how the church did financially over the last year, and then just a little more detail, like a pie graph that shows how much income went towards each item in the 3.1-fold mission of the Church, how much towards overhead, and how much towards savings. If it then said this is what our savings objectives are, presented a high-level three-page financial statement with the income statement, balance sheet, and budget for the last year, and then gave some information about executive compensation, I would give them a four-star score on transparency.

I don't have any reason why they choose not to provide this level of detail.  I would have no problem with them doing so.  And I don't fault anyone in the least for believing that this is a reasonable expectation from an institution like the Church.  

And at the same time, I believe that the decision about whether or not to disclose that level of information is also in the stewardship of a Council that God himself has authorized for that purpose.  I don't have a problem that they say "We feel inspired not to disclose that information and don't know why."    Would having that information available incite violence against Church members somewhere in the world?  Might it prompt some people to greed?  Would it lead members to say, "Forget the Doritos; with money like that, we can afford to cater Prime Rib!" 

Again, I have no idea if those are true.  They could still happen even if the Church doesn't publish any information.  And I'm not suggesting that any of those risks outweigh the potential benefit to greater transparency.  I'm just saying that I don't know and that I am willing to trust that God is capable of managing those evaluations and making His will known to the Brethren. 

To emphasize, I don't think that someone with a different degree of trust or different belief is wrong, evil, unrighteous, unworthy, anti-Mormon, or faithless.   

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

“It is proposed that Russell Marion Nelson be sustained as prophet, seer, and revelator and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, together with his counselors and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as they have been presented and voted upon.

All in favor, please manifest it.

Any opposed may so manifest it.“

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/04/solemn-assembly?lang=eng

Now what?

Now the votes are counted.  These days, the overwhelming number are to sustain the calling.  That wasn't always the case, though (see the link I provided earlier).

The process for addressing dissenting votes is set forth in section 19.3 of Handbook 2:

Quote

If a member in good standing gives a dissenting vote when someone is presented to be sustained, the presiding officer or another assigned priesthood officer confers with the dissenting member in private after the meeting. The officer determines whether the dissenting vote was based on knowledge that the person who was presented is guilty of conduct that should disqualify him or her from serving in the position. Dissenting votes from nonmembers need not be considered.

So dissenting votes are potentially relevant where A) there are enough to offset the sustaining votes, or B) a dissenting member has information "that the person who was presented is guilty of conduct that should disqualify him or her from serving in the position."

The former seems to be an extremely rare sort of thing.  I've never seen it in my experience in the Church.  The latter, thought still rare, is not unheard of.  I have a friend who gave a dissenting vote and explained why, and the person being presented was thereafter released from the calling.

I also have a friend, a divorced man, whose name was presented to be advanced to high priest.  His ex-wife was consulted and her thoughts were given substantial consideration by the friend's priesthood leaders (she did not object).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[kllindley]

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

“It is proposed that Russell Marion Nelson be sustained as prophet, seer, and revelator and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, together with his counselors and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as they have been presented and voted upon.

All in favor, please manifest it.

Any opposed may so manifest it.“

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/04/solemn-assembly?lang=eng

Now what?

That is exactly the language I quoted in my example. "Proposed that Russell Marion Nelson be sustained."  That sustaining is an individual act between each member and God.  

9 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So, what percentage of the 16 million members voted in favour?

And what percentage would need to vote opposed for it to be deemed that common consent has not been given and the appointment is not upheld? And I want the handbook/church protocol percentage rather than your opinion (not because I don’t value your opinion, but your opinion isn’t the point here)

My understanding is that 100% percent could oppose or fail to sustain and the Calling would sill stand.  If any of those opposing the calling presented information that the person being called is not worthy, the calling may be rescinded. But again, this process is not like a Senate Confirmation Vote.  The calling has been made and the only question is whether the Church will sustain.  

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

But no mechanism for counting sustaining ones. Nobody knows how many members voted in favour. It might have been as few as 25%. Does a 25% positive vote really count as the common consent of 16 million people?

I don't think this is applicable based on the interpretation of Common Consent I have been describing.  However, even from the other paradigm, if 40 percent of eligible voters show up to the polls and 51% of those (21% of the population) vote in favor of an action or candidate, does the Government really count that as a win?

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

No, there’s a mechanism for interviewing dissenters with an outcome of “if you have a problem with the General authority called, it’s your problem”.

Not so.  See section 19.3 of Handbook 2 and 6.4 of Handbook 1.

6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

But dissenting votes arent counted and collected.

I think that's because the number is usually so lopsided in favor of sustaining that counting is not necessary.  

6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

And there’s  no mechanism for counting sustaining ones.

Again, not so.  In my experience, the person presenting the name(s) always looks for sustaining votes and dissenting votes.  

6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Nobody knows how many members voted in favour.

"How many" is virtually never an issue.  A bare preponderance is all that is technically needed (that's my understanding, anyway), and that minimal threshhold is pretty much always met.

But dissenting votes are always looked for and always addressed.

6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

It might have been as few as 25%.

CFR.

6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Does a 25% positive vote really count as the “overwhelming” common consent of 16 million people?

Please provide substantiate of such a vote, then we can talk.

There are only three options: a sustaining vote, a dissenting/opposing vote, or an abstention.  Abstentions don't count at all.  Most of the time, the sustaining vote is obviously and patently well into the majority.  But dissenting votes are nevertheless always called for (and, I hope, always addressed per Section 19.3).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is not only fair--it made me smile.

As far as the type of transparency that I am gently suggesting, all I would want to see is a booklet with a couple of paragraphs that say how the church did financially over the last year, and then just a little more detail, like a pie graph that shows how much income went towards each item in the 3.1-fold mission of the Church, how much towards overhead, and how much towards savings. If it then said this is what our savings objectives are, presented a high-level three-page financial statement with the income statement, balance sheet, and budget for the last year, and then gave some information about executive compensation, I would give them a four-star score on transparency.

I'd actually be okay with that. 

Have you submitted such a proposal to the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So dissenting votes are potentially relevant where A) there are enough to offset the sustaining votes

I'm not trying to question you personally or argue, but is this documented somewhere?  I was not aware that this was the case.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Quote

I'm just perplexed as to why so few members know about it, and these same members could easily tell you the other 3 pillars of missions of the church.  

"Why so few members know about" the missions of the Church?  How do we know how many are unaware? 

I don't know exactly, this was just my observation talking to friends and family and people in my ward.  I've brought it up multiple times in different settings and I've had many people tell me they didn't know about this fourth mission at all.  And that is odd to me because as a kid I knew the old three fold mission because it was talked about so regularly at church.  I've served in presidencies where they assigned one of the 3 fold missions to each of the counselors and had us focus our activities and emphasis on the mission we were assigned.  I don't know if that happens any more.