The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[Analytics]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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.   

As a final point, let me state for the record that I personally know somebody who was "in the know" in terms of the Church's finances, and I know that when he accepted the job for the church, he had a dramatic cut in pay that resulted in a commensurately dramatic reduction in his family's standard of living. This guy knew all of the details, and was working behind the scenes in a job that didn't provide any public prestige or recognition. There aren't that many people who have made that type of real sacrifice for the Church and didn't even get the public recognition you get when you become a general authority or even a mission president.

If something improper was going on, my friend would have known about it. And if he would have known about it, he would have quit. He didn't--he is extraordinarily faithful.

While I don't approach this issue with the same faith that you do, I'm as confident as you are that nothing is amiss in how the Church handles money. I just happen to believe in financial transparency for its own sake.

 

[Analytics]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'd actually be okay with that. 

Have you submitted such a proposal to the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

LOL. I don't think they really care about my opinion.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Quote

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.  

I was thinking of this article.  However, I may well be in error.  I'm open to correction.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

So you are questioning their stewardship over the information, correct?   

I'm questioning their decision to not share the information with church members.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I'd actually be okay with that. 

Have you submitted such a proposal to the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

LOL. I don't think they really care about my opinion.

Well, it's a decent idea.  Give it some thought.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

A big deal was made of in back in 2009, but perhaps the Church's efforts are not regularly framed in the context for four-fold mission (as opposed to my youth in the 80s, when I heard about the three-fold mission fairly regularly).

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

Yep.  Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I disagree.  The auditors do in fact evaluate how funds are being used to further the mission of the Church.  Unless you believe they are being dishonest when they say "Additionally, certified professionals perform regular audits to ensure strict adherence to standard accounting principles and Church policies."  and "Based upon audits performed, Church Auditing is of the opinion that, in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2017 have been recorded and administered in accordance with approved Church budgets, policies, and accounting practices."  Emphasis mine.  

I further disagree.  I believe that members do know how sacred funds are being used.  I know that they are being used as the Council on the Disposition of Tithes has determined.  

I acknowledge that you and I have very different views of what "Common Consent" means, and that according to your perspective, it makes sense that you would also expect a greater level of information shared publicly.  

I appreciate that acknowledgement.

Standard accounting principles, church policies, and church budgets may or may not reflect the mission of the church.  You and I have no idea what the latter two are since church budget and policy documentation (that the auditors would need to properly audit) are not shared with us.

Since you don't know how the Council of the Disposition of Tithes has determined to use sacred funds, I would submit that you don't actually know how sacred funds are being used.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I agree with that generally.

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.

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

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

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

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?  

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.  

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

A list of departments and committees is not information about church finances.

Being able to see our missionary program, meetinghouses, and temples does not provide one with information on church finances aside from knowing that we were able to fund those things.

Our knowledge of GA lifestyles is fairly limited.  And knowing that many church leaders serve without salary tells us nothing of church finances.

Common consent is about more than just sustaining leaders.  It is about sustaining particular decisions as well.  But that part of common consent has gone the same way as the old financial reports.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

 

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?  

If the Lord is revealing things to the Prophet, I thought it was the Prophet's role to share those revelations with them members.  Same for Nephi.

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If the Lord is revealing things to the Prophet, I thought it was the Prophet's role to share those revelations with them members.  Same for Nephi.

I feel like you missed the actual substance of the post.  He didn't reveal to Nephi why a second set of plates was necessary.  He didn't even tell Mormon why to include the Small Plates of Nephi.  What if the Lord is telling Prophet what to do, but not telling them why?

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

I feel like you missed the actual substance of the post.  He didn't reveal to Nephi why a second set of plates was necessary.  He didn't even tell Mormon why to include the Small Plates of Nephi.  What if the Lord is telling Prophet what to do, but not telling them why?

Did Nephi share with his brothers that the Lord had commanded him to create a second set of plates?

 

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

A list of departments and committees is not information about church finances.

But it is a list of safeguards and oversight mechanisms.  If the objective is "I would like some assurance that the Church is managing its finances well," then I think we have some pretty good assurances already by way of these safeguards and mechanisms.  

On the other hand, if the objective is to find fault, if the motive is more cynical and ulterior, then no level of transparency will ever do.  (Well, Analytics' proposal seems pretty reasonable.)

Quote

Being able to see our missionary program, meetinghouses, and temples does not provide one with information on church finances aside from knowing that we were able to fund those things.

We also know that we are not going into debt, and that the Church is consistently remaining within its means.

Quote

Our knowledge of GA lifestyles is fairly limited. 

As it should be.  But we know that they live modest (though comfortable) lifestyles.

Quote

And knowing that many church leaders serve without salary tells us nothing of church finances.

It tells us that those who have the means to misuse the Church's funds are not doing so.

It tells us that the Church's safeguards and oversight mechanisms are working.

It tells us that nobody is getting rich of the Church.

And so on.  It tells us quite a bit, actually.

Quote

Common consent is about more than just sustaining leaders. 

But our role is pretty much limited to that.  From the EOM:

Quote

Common consent is a fundamental principle of decision making at all levels in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In selecting new officers and making administrative decisions, Church leaders are instructed to seek the will of God. Once the Lord makes his will known and a decision is reached, the matter is brought before the appropriate quorum or body of Church members, who are asked to sustain or oppose the action.

I guess the question becomes what "administrative decisions" require "common consent."  

Quote

It is about sustaining particular decisions as well.  But that part of common consent has gone the same way as the old financial reports.

What "particular decisions" do you have in mind?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 1, 2018 by smac97

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But it is a list of safeguards and oversight mechanisms.  If the objective is "I would like some assurance that the Church is managing its finances well," then I think we have some pretty good assurances already by way of these safeguards and mechanisms.  

On the other hand, if the objective is to find fault, if the motive is more cynical and ulterior, then no level of transparency will ever do.  (Well, Analytics' proposal seems pretty reasonable.)

We also know that we are not going into debt, and that the Church is consistently remaining within its means.

As it should be.  But we know that they live modest (though comfortable) lifestyles.

It tells us that those who have the means to misuse the Church's funds are not doing so.

It tells us that the Church's safeguards and oversight mechanisms are working.

It tells us that nobody is getting rich of the Church.

And so on.  It tells us quite a bit, actually.

But our role is pretty much limited to that.  From the EOM:

I guess the question becomes what "administrative decisions" require "common consent."  

What "particular decisions" do you have in mind?  

Thanks,

-Smac

I have no concerns that the church isn't managing its finances well.  The Church seems to be doing spectacularly well financially.

I believe that transparency helps us keep our priorities in check.  And I believe that the Lord wants the church run by common consent, not a blind, obligatory raising of the hand.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I have no concerns that the church isn't managing its finances well.  The Church seems to be doing spectacularly well financially.

I believe that transparency helps us keep our priorities in check. 

But there seems to be quite a bit of "transparency" amongst those who have stewardship over the Church's finances.  They seem to be doing a very good job and keeping tabs on each other.

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

And I believe that the Lord wants the church run by common consent, not a blind, obligatory raising of the hand.

I think the Church is run "by common consent."  If we have a concern, we can cast a dissenting vote.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But there seems to be quite a bit of "transparency" amongst those who have stewardship over the Church's finances.  They seem to be doing a very good job and keeping tabs on each other.

I think the Church is run "by common consent."  If we have a concern, we can cast a dissenting vote.

Thanks,

-Smac

There is no transparency.  You have a list of committees and departments.  You've got auditors auditing to policies and budgets that are not shared and providing audit reports that are not published.  You have no material knowledge.

Without any knowledge of the policies, budgets, and reports a common consent vote on the matter is nothing more than a blind, obligatory raise of the hand.  For me, that is not running the church by common consent.

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But there seems to be quite a bit of "transparency" amongst those who have stewardship over the Church's finances.  They seem to be doing a very good job and keeping tabs on each other.

I think the Church is run "by common consent."  If we have a concern, we can cast a dissenting vote.

Thanks,

-Smac

We have the ability to give blanket consent or dissent to individuals serving in certain positions. We either accept everything they do or nothing. If I consent to sustain the prophet then I must consent to everything he does? And what about people serving in positions we don't consent to? You mentioned...

Quote

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.

Aside from the First Presidency, q12 and presiding bishopric, do we sustain or consent to anything any of these other individuals do? Do we even know who they are?

If we aren't given the information about these individuals and we aren't asked to sustain them, thus giving our consent to their efforts, do we really have the opportunity to dissent? Or does it all just come back to the blanket consent we give to 18 individuals who are involved to varying degrees and the staff/organizations/committees they are a part of?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

There is no transparency. 

There is.  "Transparency" doesn't necessarily mean "Everyone in the entire world knows about it," nor even the general public.

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

You have a list of committees and departments. 

Who check up on each other.  Who are trained and qualified to do so.

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

You've got auditors auditing to policies and budgets that are not shared and providing audit reports that are not published.  You have no material knowledge.

No, I don't.  But my ward's finances are "transparent" to the stake, and the area presidency, and so on.

Those who need acces to my ward's finances have it.

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Without any knowledge of the policies, budgets, and reports a common consent vote on the matter is nothing more than a blind, obligatory raise of the hand. 

What "matter" are you proposing we have "a common consent vote" about?

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

For me, that is not running the church by common consent.

I can appreciate that.  A member of my ward will not have information about how the bishop and the various ward organizations spend money.  The ward council knows quite a bit, though.  And the bishop.  And the stake president.  So the ward member does not know the particulars of how the bishop handles the finances, but he does have an assurance that others do, and that there are safeguards in place to ensure the bishop is behaving himself.

At the end of the day, the ward member gets to cast a sustaining or opposing vote for or against the bishop (when he is called, and thereafter at ward conference, and also in temple recommend interviews and during General Conference).  He doesn't have get a vote on each and every decision the bishop makes, though.  If the bishop does something egregious, or engages in a pattern of lesser misconduct, or otherwise creates a concern, the individual can (and should) cast a dissenting vote (and even bring such concerns to the immediate attention of the stake president).  But does the individual have the right to review how the bishop administers fast offerings?  Allocates budgets?  Approves food orders and commodities orders?  I don't think so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There is no transparency.  You have a list of committees and departments.  You've got auditors auditing to policies and budgets that are not shared and providing audit reports that are not published.  You have no material knowledge.

Without any knowledge of the policies, budgets, and reports a common consent vote on the matter is nothing more than a blind, obligatory raise of the hand.  For me, that is not running the church by common consent.

When it comes to the Church leaders' management of money and transparency, the Old Testament allows at least two precedents for principles related to managing sacred funds (plus the D&C has a few more, as well as on common consent relative to financial management and those managing sacred funds):

2 Kings 12:11, 15, "And they gave the money, being told, into the hands of them that did the work, that had the oversight of the house of the Lord: and they laid it out ...Moreover they reckoned not with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money to be bestowed on workmen: for they dealt faithfully." -- Under King Joash.

2 Kings 22: 4-7, "Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may sum the silver which is brought into the house of the Lord, which the keepers of the door have gathered of the people: And let them deliver it into the hand of [them] that have the oversight of the house of the Lord: and let them[administer it]... Howbeit there was no reckoning made with them of the money that was delivered into their hand, because they dealt faithfully." -- Under King Josiah.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Apparently you think its ok to repeatedly lie about what I've said.  I've never characterized the church with the terms cruel and officious, and I continue to correct you on this point and you continue to accuse me of using this language.  This is going on 4 or 5 corrections that I've made and you continue to beat this false drum.  

You did not use the words "cruel and officious," but that was certainly the thrust of you posts here in this thread.  You repeatedly argued that the Conference addresses you referred to meant that the LDS Church insisted on starving its members in order to get tithing from them, while I said that this was certainly not the case.  I know of no such instance, and neither do you.  Only hate could motivate that misleading claim.

Quote

You also won't respond to my CFR, which I find strange because it seems like CFRs are pointless if a person can just dismiss them out of hand without any response or correction.  

I have already provided multiple proofs where the church has instructed members specifically in poverty stricken nations to pay their tithing first.  You dismiss these as generic, and you claim the church has a different standard for the poor, yet you have provided absolutely zero evidence to support this claim. 

I did not say that the LDS Church has a different standard for the poor.  I argued that I know of no instance in which poverty strricken members were left to go hungry and naked in order to pay their tithing first.  You argue the opposite, but fail to provide any instances.  Instead you ask me for a CFR.  That is obvious deflection.

Quote

And lastly you resort to personal insults and attacks, questioning my Mormonism.  Your employment of these tactics has essentially ended this exchange, because I'm done.  But I'll leave you with a few other messages from the church to members that instruct them to pay their tithing first.  I will remind you that these messages are given to all members everywhere, not just to middle class members on the Wasatch front, but to members in poverty all over the world. 

https://www.lds.org/youth/article/tithing-first?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/the-law-of-tithing?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/tithes-and-offerings?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/07/latter-day-saint-voices/could-tithing-ease-my-worries?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/04/the-language-of-the-gospel?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-finances?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-finances?lang=eng

https://lds.org/ensign/2005/05/tithing-a-commandment-even-for-the-destitute?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/12/sacred-transformations?lang=eng 

These are all excellent quotations and I carefully read every one of them.  I already was well familiar with such quotations, and they told me nothing new.  As usual, you took those courageous and brave words and drew the entirely false conclusion that this meant that the LDS Church was cruel and officious in the application of such standards.  If you don't actually believe that, then why were we having this exchange at all?  You had only to deny that the LDS Church would leave some poor soul hanging with no food, clothing, or water -- just so they could get their tithing.

In so doing you also ignored the fundamental principle of tithing which is ten percent of the "increase.."  For those who have no increase, or even have negative income, that means that they owe no tithing at all in that period.  Or do you imagine that God is some sort of ogre?

Edited June 1, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks ALarson, I did report it last night, but since I never use that feature, I'm really not sure how it works or if I should expect to hear anything back.  

It is difficult to keep up in fast moving threads that require pages of reading to understand a report. If the now missing culprit continues, report again.

Just in case this has not been mentioned, mods will not respond directly back to your report in a private correspondence...at least they never have to me that I remember.   On rare occasions they may post in your post as they did here, but this may not be seen if you don't go back to read to refresh memories or correct a misspelling you see in a quote.  It also may take more than 24 hours that an obvious response is given (and sometimes it seems instantaneous, I am guessing it just depends on what time they have to spare) and of course if a ban is not announced (which given complaints about being banned seems to be more common), you will not know about it for sure unless the poster complains in another thread.

It is always smart and courteous to the mods imo to quote the part of the post you have a problem with, indicate if this has occurred in multiple posts (even provide links if you want to be very convincing...don't think I have ever gone that far myself, too much hassle) and specify the rule or board tradition you think is broken to save mods time (I just paraphrase, quoting is too much effort)...plus you have a chance to use your powers of persuasion to bring them to your way of thinking. 

I will also report multiple posters doing the same thing in one thread in one report so as to save mods the hassle of reading complaints more than once.  Not sure if that is actually helpful in a busy thread unless they are immediately preceding, now that I think about it.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Calm

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

You don't have to believe that "government owns all the money" in order for a tax break to be financially equivalent to a subsidy. You only have to believe that the government's legal and moral authority to tax is legitimate and that the break in taxes is a break from a more equitable tax obligation.

But the government's legal and moral authority to tax churches is NOT legitimate.  At least, not in the US.  At least, not officially on the federal level since 1894, and unofficially since the founding of the country...

https://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006554

 

Quote

In the real world, nobody cares about the difference between receiving a subsidy check from the government for $1,000 vs. having their tax obligation decrease by $1,000. Either action has the same financial effect on the tax payer and on the government.

You mention a "real world" where people and churches are the same thing?  I suppose if that were true, your argument about what's financially equivalent and what isn't would be stronger.  But it ain't.  At least, not in the real real world. 

"We've never taxed rocks since the dang founding of the dang country.  However, someone figures that since we tax people at 10%, we must be subsidizing rocks, because it's financially equivalent."

Oh brother, indeed. 

(I think perhaps one thing we can agree on, is this is a cool website: https://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/ )

Edited June 1, 2018 by LoudmouthMormon

[Benjamin Seeker]

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You did not use the words "cruel and officious," but that was certainly the thrust of you posts here in this thread.  You repeatedly argued that the Conference addresses you referred to meant that the LDS Church insisted on starving its members in order to get tithing from them, while I said that this was certainly not the case.  I know of no such instance, and neither do you.  Only hate could motivate that misleading claim.

I did not say that the LDS Church has a different standard for the poor.  I argued that I know of no instance in which poverty strricken members were left to go hungry and naked in order to pay their tithing first.  You argue the opposite, but fail to provide any instances.  Instead you ask me for a CFR.  That is obvious deflection.

These are all excellent quotations and I carefully read every one of them.  I already was well familiar with such quotations, and they told me nothing new.  As usual, you took those courageous and brave words and drew the entirely false conclusion that this meant that the LDS Church was cruel and officious in the application of such standards.  If you don't actually believe that, then why were we having this exchange at all?  You had only to deny that the LDS Church would leave some poor soul hanging with no food, clothing, or water -- just so they could get their tithing.

In so doing you also ignored the fundamental principle of tithing which is ten percent of the "increase.."  For those who have no increase, or even have negative income, that means that they owe no tithing at all in that period.  Or do you imagine that God is some sort of ogre?

What would you consider negative income? If you’re implying what I’m thinking, I’m intrigued.

[Analytics]

4 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Oh brother, indeed.   How come you're getting the likes here and I'm not?

My charming personality, LOL.

4 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

(I think perhaps one thing we can agree on, is this is a cool website: https://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/ )

👍

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

How about a Bishops’ storehouse in Brazil. They didn’t have them where/when I served, and according to my mission buddy they don’t have them in the more populated area where he lives. From what I understand they have the Bishops front the money and reimburse similar to how they handle the majority of auxiliary expenses here in the states.

I know you asked for a percentage, but instead I gave a practical and needed suggestion.

Costs of a warehouse and inventory may outweigh benefits due to less density of members as well as transportation of goods from lower cost production facilities.  If the Church doesn't own farms and factories to produce the materials near enough so that they aren't paying custom duties and transportation costs that would bring costs to higher amounts than buying outright, then it makes more sense to buy locally, I suspect.

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We have the ability to give blanket consent or dissent to individuals serving in certain positions.

I don't think so.  I sustain the leaders of the Church using a "rebuttable presumption."  I presume they are worthy of their callings, and that they are acting appropriately.  But that presumption is rebuttable based on evidence of misconduct.  That's neither "blanket consent" or "blanket...dissent."

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We either accept everything they do or nothing.

Or cast a dissenting vote.  If the misconduct is serious enough, yes.

And the individual can also present concerns to the Church (and should do so).

We can do more than just cast a sustaining or dissenting vote.

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If I consent to sustain the prophet then I must consent to everything he does?

No.  We can disagree.  I guess we differ in what we do with that disagreement.

Disagreement?  Yes.  Speaking evil of the Lord's anointed?  No.

Disagreement?  Yes.  Setting myself up as a voice of authority alternative and superior to that of the leaders of the Church?  No.

Disagreement?  Yes.  Publicly disparaging and insulting and finding fault with the leaders of the Church?  No.

I think Elder Oaks' excellent 1987 article, Criticism, is very helpful in providing a framework for addressing disagreements in the Church.

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And what about people serving in positions we don't consent to? You mentioned...

Aside from the First Presidency, q12 and presiding bishopric, do we sustain or consent to anything any of these other individuals do? Do we even know who they are?

No.  But c'mon.  The Church has thousands of employees.  Are you seriously suggesting that "common consent" dictates that we review and approve each and every one?

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If we aren't given the information about these individuals and we aren't asked to sustain them, thus giving our consent to their efforts, do we really have the opportunity to dissent?

Yes.  There will always be a significant amount of discretionary authority given to the leaders of the Church.  Always.  They administer a church of which has billions of dollars in income, thousands of employees, tens of thousands of local leaders, and 16 million members.  They necessarily make numerous important decisions on a regular basis.  We cannot seriously suggest that "common consent" dictates that each and every decision made by each and every leader or employee of the Church is subject to oversight by any of 16 million Mormons.  They have considerable amounts of discretionary authority, which they use in councils, and which is subject to internal safeguards and oversight mechanisms.  Our choice is, knowing these things, to either sustain them (as individuals, as members of governing councils and quorums, as decisionmakers for the Church), or not.

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Or does it all just come back to the blanket consent we give to 18 individuals who are involved to varying degrees and the staff/organizations/committees they are a part of?

Honestly, I think it does come down to sustaining, or not sustaining, the upper echelons of the Church.  

For me, I sustain them based on a rebuttable presumption that they are acting wisely and in accordance with God's will, and that the Church's safeguards and oversight mechanisms are in place and are working well.

Thanks,

-Smac