The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[mrmarklin]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I told you they do a lot..the church does a lot..but with billions in their pockets that may be accessible...why aren't those funds directed to the ones who are in need..I mean there is more to do!  You don't need a CFR to know that there are members who are not being taken care of...and all those who are non mormons..what else do you need?  Jesus said to help the poor and needy...he didn't say how much..but he didn't say build a mall or invest the Saints dollars either.   Ban me from the thread..if you want..but it is so obvious that the priorities are not in line with the gospel.

Jeanne,

I have pointed out out several times on this thread that 32 billion is not that much compared to the size of the Church.  It’s probably a prudent reserve, considering all the potential obligations the Church has, should for some reason a fiscal emergency arise. 

Much of the churches real estate holdings are likely very illiquid. The value of most of it is single purpose buildings, ie temples, chapels, etc. whose value is more in spiritual uses than real world practicalities. 

Of course there are many farm properties, but again typically illiquid. I don’t think the Church really wants to ever be in a position to have to borrow again. 

So your concerns are noted, but IMHSHO, misplaced. 

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Just wait until you die. 

Ever heard of the Estate Tax?

Actually, the US is fairly benign in this area. Tax doesn’t start until you have over $10MM. But in mNy countries it is much worse and rates are confiscatory. Rates in the US are too high as well. 

 

Yeah, technically it’s a transfer tax, but what governments are really doing are taxing a lifetime of work and saving.

Thats right, work hard, save your money and then the government gets its hand out. No good deed goes unpunished. 

As i said, the govt only taxes movement of money, and when you die your money moves. This is the reason the super wealthy park their money in trusts and foundations -- which survive their founders' deaths.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry that I don't understand your point to bring it up.

My point was that the foundation was set up to continue business ad infinitum and save taxes not primarily to take care of people.

I quoted one article which showed that the business interests of part of the foundation were more important than the humanitarian causes.

I'm just missing the point here.

Not important.  Just drive on. 

[rockpond]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So criticizing their use of money while you have no clue about what their plans are, and cannot know because of confidentiality is "carrying out their instructions"?

How have I criticized their use of money?

[rockpond]

10 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Well, you have building maintenance and welfare needs for a large worldwide church.  You have church, Temple, office building sites to purchase and maintain as well as recreation properties.  Utility expenses.  You have salaries and benefits for a relatively modest human resource infrastructure.  You have Family History centers, Temples and associated expenses.  You have charitable distributions mentioned earlier.  Throw in legal expenses, counseling.  How about local church library expenses and classroom materials?  Then there is the need for an ample rainy day fund for emergencies, increased welfare needs when there is a downturn in the economy, national and international disasters, etc.  (The Church is usually among the first responders with money, labor and other resources.) We've seen such emergencies before, and the Church has been there, thanks to wise planning.

I'm sure there are a multitude of other justifiable expenses that our church leaders allow on occasion.  I also know they are careful in their stewardship over the Lord's resources.  There may be a bad apple occasionally in the organization that draws attention.  That's what you get with human beings and families.  

What do you think are worthy expenses for the Lord's Church by His authorized representatives?

Well, that’s pretty much the  entire list.  I think that list sounds good.  But obviously we don’t know how much all of that costs nor how much the Church brings in. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

How have I criticized their use of money?

I apologize, misunderstanding.

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

While each of the passages does involve corrupt priests as a backdrop (as much of the Old Testament lessons do!), the principle of reckoning is not a feature in either their corruption or the scribes’ faithfulness, even when the king transfers fiscal responsibility from the priests to other officials. On the contrary, reckoning is explicitly proscribed!

I think you need to offer specific scriptural examples of fiscal transparency in the kingdom of God on earth, especially since the books or records in heaven and earth are not reconciled until Jesus returns and judgement is rendered. Offer some scriptural examples to support you case. Vague references to the Lord’s warnings and your suggestion of a mandate for common consent in accepting fiscal paperwork aren’t enough unless you’re just stating what you feel and believe on the topic without further exploration or discussion, but that’s just rhetoric and polemics.

To answer your question, I think given the absence of fiscal transparency requirements in the canon, no official explanation was required for why a level of reporting was stopped in the 50’s, or why it began for that matter. People used to raise their hands to pray, adults were ordained deacons, and general conference was broadcast by telephone too!

I disagree that there is an absence of fiscal transparency requirements in the scriptures.  

In the D&C the Lord instructs us to run the church by the principle of common consent.  We seem to have relegated that to nothing more than sustaining people in callings.  And yet, our D&C Student Manual chapter on section 26 states:  “Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2).”

We seem to have stopped doing that.  I think we ought to return to the practice.  Policies, major decisions, and things that affect the lives of the Saints would certainly include church finances.

The other scriptures that we’ve discussed provide examples and principles about possible misuse of sacred funds:  1 Kings, Malachi 3, and  Section 121:39.

As for my belief and opinion... I think a return to financial disclosure and common consent on church budgets would turn about to be a faith affirming practice and great blessing to the church.

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by rockpond

[aussieguy55]

With so much money the LDS church won't be affected by any growing inactivity.  In the UK I understand more money goes in than out. It reminds me of the Lutheran Church in Australia. They have an enormous number of private schools and an aging membership. Any growth is from the Lutheran refugees from Africa.A lot of the students are from non-Lutheran families.Chinese seem to think that since there is something German about them they must be good quality schools.

[Analytics]

On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 5:49 PM, Stargazer said:

What I infer from this is that the Church wants to provide for the day when the world economy goes sour again (inevitable), when tithing donations drop precipitously, and the worldwide work of the Church is in danger due to outgo exceeding income.  No doubt in such a situation, the portfolio would lose value, but a well-managed portfolio will include investments that will do well in downturns, to counter the ones that do not.  

According to what it actually says, if tithing revenue goes down by 35%, then expenditures must go down by 35%, too. That being the case, what's the need of the savings? It doesn't say.

Quote

 

Your opinion is that nobody should hoard money.  Fair enough, but what is hoarding?  Do you have a fund of money that you are holding onto for the day when you enter your "golden years" and retire to the good life?  Is that hoarding?  No?  You seem to think that people and organizations with a lot of wealth keep it all in a pit underneath their mansions, a la Scrooge McDuck. Perhaps President Nelson enjoys a plunge in the LDS Money Pit in the Conference Center basement once a week. 

Hoarding money is saving more and more money into perpetuity for no other purpose than to have it.

Yes, I am saving for retirment. Pretty aggresively, as a matter of fact. That isn't horading.

 

Quote

You seem to think that people and organizations with a lot of wealth keep it all in a pit underneath their mansions, a la Scrooge McDuck. Perhaps President Nelson enjoys a plunge in the LDS Money Pit in the Conference Center basement once a week. 

Or perhaps not.

LOL.

 

Quote

You seem to think that a $32 billion portfolio is worth $32 billion.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is not. 

What we're talking about here is $32 billion worth of publically traded stocks. According to IFRS and US GAAP accounting standards, such a portfolio is worth the market value of its components, is it not? IF not, what is it worth?

 

Quote

It's just like your house, assuming you own one.  You may believe that it is worth, say, $300K, because that's what the county assessor says it's worth, but put it on the market and you will find out differently.  In fact, in a recession when no-one is buying, if you have to sell it you may find that it is worth considerably less.  The same is true of supposedly enormous investment portfolios. What they are worth on paper may be very much more, or very much less than they may prove to be in the event of liquidating them.  Frequently, even the act of liquidating or partially liquidating a large investment portfolio may cause the real value to drop precipitously.  The buyer has to have confidence, after all, that what he is buying from you will have at least the same value after the purchase as it did beforehand.  And smart buyers will often want to know why such a large block of stock or bonds is being sold -- which may reduce the final sale price, depending upon many factors.  If you owned 10,000 shares of Microsoft stock, and decided to sell it all come Monday morning, in the absence of bad news nobody is going to worry about why you want to sell it, and you'll get the market price you expected.  If you owned a million shares, however, the very act of putting it on the market may cause the value to drop.  Or maybe even rise, depending upon the news.

Fascinating stuff. But that doesn't mean a dollar isn't worth a dollar. Nor does it mean this has any relevency to my point.

 

Quote

You're entitled to believe anything you want about why the Church has that investment account of such a size (if it truly is that size, and the Church controls all of it), but not to denigrate your general intelligence level, as I'm sure you're a pretty smart guy, I don't think you're smart enough about the large-fund investment market to offer much in the way of good financial advice about it.

You figured me out, lol. Let's keep the truth about my qualifications our little secret, okay? It would be devastating to my business if my clients found out.

 

Quote

Yes it is, and I actually love Bill Gates, in a brotherly sense!  He is a good man doing good works, who deserves great praise and regard.  Most of my computer programming career was spent working with Microsoft software and development tools, and I have a warm feeling for that company and its founders.

Gates started his charitable foundation in 2000 with seed money of $2 billion.  As of 2014 he had donated $28 billion to the foundation, and its net worth was $44 billion at the end of 2014.  Since 2006 Warren Buffet has been donating about $2 billion per year (in Berkshire Hathaway stock) to the foundation, with certain conditions as to its use.  As you point out, Bill Gates has done a lot of good in the world, but he has done it mostly but not all through his foundation.   

The only purpose of the Gates Foundation is to do charitable work in the world, and it can freely do so without much need to worry about next year or the next decade. Do you think that the Gates Foundation could give away all its funds in one stroke?  Of course it could, but that would stop its charitable activities permanently.  So perhaps it should not do so, and should continue to "hoard" its assets.  Even if it has enough assets to pay for 100 hurricanes.  The same can be said for the LDS Church, which has enormously more physical plant to maintain, and considerably less disposable wealth. 

CFR that the LDS Church has less disposible wealth than the Gates Foundation.

 

Quote

By the way, Bill Gate's net worth this morning is in excess of $92 billion dollars.  He's one of those money hoarders you were being doubtful about, along with his partner in philanthropy Warren Buffet, whose net worth this morning was in excess of $87 billion dollars.

No, you completely misunderstood my point. The LDS Church is in the process of always spending less than it takes in, and continuing to do so into the indefinite future. That is hoarding. I am in the process of spending less than I take in, but only until I retire. That is not hoarding. Gates and Buffett are in the process of giving away the bulk of their entire fortunes. That is the opposite of hoarding and the opposite of what the Church is doing. Being rich and having resources isn't hoarding. Having the institutional goal of perpetually increasing your resources rather than spending them on your mission is.

 

Quote

  Combined, that's nearly $180 billion dollars.  Neither Gates nor Buffett, however, have enormous financial responsibilities and futures that they need to watch out for, like the Church does.  Gates and Buffett could each sell virtually all their assets, and except for a few billion dollars each, live in their existing homes in enormous luxury for the rest of their lives.  Surely their descendants would be content with the remainder once the two men and their wives are done with this life?  They don't NEED all those billions.  Yet they keep them.  Should they?

 

According to them they are not keeping them. That is why they aren't hoarding.

https://givingpledge.org/Pledger.aspx?id=177

https://givingpledge.org/Pledger.aspx?id=199

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Analytics

[CV75]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

I disagree that there is an absence of fiscal transparency requirements in the scriptures.  

In the D&C the Lord instructs us to run the church by the principle of common consent.  We seem to have relegated that to nothing more than sustaining people in callings.  And yet, our D&C Student Manual chapter on section 26 states:  “Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2).”

We seem to have stopped doing that.  I think we ought to return to the practice.  Policies, major decisions, and things that affect the lives of the Saints would certainly include church finances.

The other scriptures that we’ve discussed provide examples and principles about possible misuse of sacred funds:  1 Kings, Malachi 3, and  Section 121:39.

As for my belief and opinion... I think a return to financial disclosure and common consent on church budgets would turn about to be a faith affirming practice and great blessing to the church.

 

“All things shall be done by common consent …” Do you take “all” literally; what does “all” exclude? It could easily exclude anything. The context for “all” in D&C 26 is confirming churches and holding conferences, where common consent is evidenced in those administrative matters. The context for “all” in D&C 28 is that only the presiding elders receive revelation for the Church, who are upheld by common consent (this is where sustaining new canon comes in). Notably, “all things” is not referenced in D&C 104, since common consent is limited to those individuals constituting the order (the “United Firm” and its successive iterations, the administrative bodies directing and financing the temporal operations of the Church).

So, we have not stopped practicing common consent as it was set up in the D&C where its application to fiscal management is not a general requirement for the members. The “much prayer and faith” of the general membership does have a role in keeping their covenants to tithe and fast properly, but not in what happens to those funds after that, which falls under their having sustained the Church leaders in the first place. The lives of the saints who honor these covenants are certainly blessed.

I would not use all the examples of possible misuse of sacred funds as either a call to faith or a rationale to mistrust the honorable! – “honorable” referring to the relationship between those giving common consent and those receiving it.

[rockpond]

52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

“All things shall be done by common consent …” Do you take “all” literally; what does “all” exclude? It could easily exclude anything. The context for “all” in D&C 26 is confirming churches and holding conferences, where common consent is evidenced in those administrative matters. The context for “all” in D&C 28 is that only the presiding elders receive revelation for the Church, who are upheld by common consent (this is where sustaining new canon comes in). Notably, “all things” is not referenced in D&C 104, since common consent is limited to those individuals constituting the order (the “United Firm” and its successive iterations, the administrative bodies directing and financing the temporal operations of the Church).

 

So, we have not stopped practicing common consent as it was set up in the D&C where its application to fiscal management is not a general requirement for the members. The “much prayer and faith” of the general membership does have a role in keeping their covenants to tithe and fast properly, but not in what happens to those funds after that, which falls under their having sustained the Church leaders in the first place. The lives of the saints who honor these covenants are certainly blessed.

 

I would not use all the examples of possible misuse of sacred funds as either a call to faith or a rationale to mistrust the honorable! – “honorable” referring to the relationship between those giving common consent and those receiving it.

 

It isn’t a call to mistrust the honorable.  But I don’t think there is anything wrong in following Christ’s admonition to be “wise as serpents”.

I understand your interpretation of common consent.  I cited our church publication that explained the “all” includes policies, major decisions, and other things that affect the Saints lives.  My sustaining vote for the Prophet and Apostles includes my prayers that we can find our way back to following this principle. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

It isn’t a call to mistrust the honorable.  But I don’t think there is anything wrong in following Christ’s admonition to be “wise as serpents”.

I understand your interpretation of common consent.  I cited our church publication that explained the “all” includes policies, major decisions, and other things that affect the Saints lives.  My sustaining vote for the Prophet and Apostles includes my prayers that we can find our way back to following this principle. 

Likening the scriptures to ourselves, it is interesting to me that in D&C 111, Christ uses the phrase “wise as serpents” after giving counsel not to unduly concern ourselves about the Church’s debts or the material welfare of Zion. It is especially interesting since in Matthew 10 He uses this phrase in giving counsel when sending forth the Twelve to proselyte, which ties in with the “other treasures” in Section 111.

I appreciate the reference to the manual ( https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng ), which notably doesn’t mention Church fiscal affairs.

As far as nostalgia for reporting budget details and financial statements (early to mid-20^th century Utah economic and business culture), I’ll borrow from Elder Oak’s recent remarks on a separate subject: “…in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants.” We are a Church of looking forward in faith, and evidently corporate paperwork is not deemed to be among those “other things that affect the lives of the Saints.”

Edited June 4, 2018 by CV75

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Likening the scriptures to ourselves, it is interesting to me that in D&C 111, Christ uses the phrase “wise as serpents” after giving counsel not to unduly concern ourselves about the Church’s debts or the material welfare of Zion. It is especially interesting since in Matthew 10 He uses this phrase in giving counsel when sending forth the Twelve to proselyte, which ties in with the “other treasures” in Section 111.

I appreciate the reference to the manual ( https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng ), which notably doesn’t mention Church fiscal affairs.

As far as nostalgia for reporting budget details and financial statements (early to mid-20^th century Utah economic and business culture), I’ll borrow from Elder Oak’s recent remarks on a separate subject: “…in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants.” We are a Church of looking forward in faith, and evidently corporate paperwork is not deemed to be among those “other things that affect the lives of the Saints.”

As I said, I understand your interpretation of common consent with respect to finances.  I'm curious at to your thoughts on the other mentioned applications of common consent:  policies and major decisions.  Do you agree that there was no need to have exercised common consent with respect to the age change for missionaries (for example)?  Or, the decision to disassociate from the BSA?  Should we strike that paragraph from the D&C manual?

[Jeanne]

19 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Jeanne,

I have pointed out out several times on this thread that 32 billion is not that much compared to the size of the Church.  It’s probably a prudent reserve, considering all the potential obligations the Church has, should for some reason a fiscal emergency arise. 

Much of the churches real estate holdings are likely very illiquid. The value of most of it is single purpose buildings, ie temples, chapels, etc. whose value is more in spiritual uses than real world practicalities. 

Of course there are many farm properties, but again typically illiquid. I don’t think the Church really wants to ever be in a position to have to borrow again. 

So your concerns are noted, but IMHSHO, misplaced. 

Whatever...they got a lot of moolah there..doesn't matter to me ..but if I were a member I would think about billions of ways to make life better....and people...MIssouri really?  Saving for Zion?  You have been saving for Zion forever...where is it..when is it....and why don;t they tell you?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

As I said, I understand your interpretation of common consent with respect to finances.  I'm curious at to your thoughts on the other mentioned applications of common consent:  policies and major decisions.  Do you agree that there was no need to have exercised common consent with respect to the age change for missionaries (for example)?  Or, the decision to disassociate from the BSA?  Should we strike that paragraph from the D&C manual?

Yes, I believe the same principle operates for policies and major decisions at the discretion of how far the governing councils of the Church determine the need to drill down to preserve the covenant relationship between the saints and God as do canon and priesthood order. Do such things as individual polices in Handbooks 1 and 2 (or the volumes as a whole), the correlated materials, temple recommend questions, opening new missions and temples and so forth (or the BSA involvement and missionary age as you mentioned, or missionary expense policies) fall under that rubric? If they do, then common consent of the at-large membership could be warranted.

“The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng I trace this empowerment to their being sustained by common consent to direct the Church under their delegated priesthood authority, including determining the need for obtaining general common consent for specific policies and decisions.

It is apparent that the cut-off for proposing a matter for common consent to the body of saints is what the saints in any capacity of membership are put under covenant to uphold in their daily lives. Not every saint is obliged to administer according to the handbooks, use the manuals, have a recommend, serve a mission, be a boy scout, build a mall, etc. but every saint is obliged by covenant to uphold the canon and our leaders. Most policy and major decisions are made within the governing councils, and these would apply the principle of common consent in the more limited scope as described in D&C 111 for financial management, but the First Presidency and Twelve would extend the process to the general membership if and when they see first.

There is a watertight covenant relationship between our sustaining the canon by common consent (the three applications of common consent as described in the D&C sections), wherein the canon speaks to sustaining the apostles and prophets by common consent.

Edited June 4, 2018 by CV75

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not every saint is obliged to administer according to the handbooks, use the manuals, have a recommend, serve a mission, be a boy scout, build a mall, etc. but every saint is obliged by covenant to uphold the canon and our leaders.

All saints are obliged to live within the guidance given by the handbooks to the extent their leaders follow them.  And yet the majority of saints do not have access to Handbook 1.  And the handbooks have never been submitted for common consent.

Every saint may not be obliged to have a recommend but it is certainly the strongest of encouragements.  Most are likewise encouraged to serve a mission.

Not all are boy scouts but many of us are called to support the program.

These are things that affect the lives of the members.

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Most policy and major decisions are made within the governing councils, and these would apply the principle of common consent in the more limited scope as described in D&C 111 for financial management, but the First Presidency and Twelve would extend the process to the general membership if and when they see first.

What principle of common consent are you seeing in D&C 111?

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There is a watertight covenant relationship between our sustaining the canon by common consent (the three applications of common consent as described in the D&C sections), wherein the canon speaks to sustaining the apostles and prophets by common consent.

What do you believe are the "three applications of common consent"?  I'd like to understand how you limit it down from "all things" to three applications.

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

All saints are obliged to live within the guidance given by the handbooks to the extent their leaders follow them.  And yet the majority of saints do not have access to Handbook 1.  And the handbooks have never been submitted for common consent.

Every saint may not be obliged to have a recommend but it is certainly the strongest of encouragements.  Most are likewise encouraged to serve a mission.

Not all are boy scouts but many of us are called to support the program.

These are things that affect the lives of the members.

What principle of common consent are you seeing in D&C 111?

What do you believe are the "three applications of common consent"?  I'd like to understand how you limit it down from "all things" to three applications.

That’s right, each member does not have a copy of Handbook 1 or 2 because each member is not required to administer at that level, ergo, no common consent for the handbooks, but instead for the appointment of leaders who do administer, and who would administer with or without the creation of handbooks. The same for temple recommend questions, missionary policies and interorganizational relationships: only the leaders administer them as they are sustained by common consent. These policy and decision items in and of themselves do not affect the lives of the members; the leaders and scriptures do, and these are whom and what they are asked to consent to and sustain.

Oops, not D&C 111, but 104, where common consent is limited to those individuals constituting the order (the “United Firm” and its successive iterations, or the administrative bodies directing and financing the temporal operations of the Church— the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop, the Corporation of the Presidency, Intellectual Reserve, etc.).

I described the three areas here: Posted 4 hours ago I “limit them down” according to the specific situations covered by the three revelations, wherein “all things” refers only to the situation at hand. The context for “all” in D&C 26 is confirming churches and holding conferences; in D&C 28 is that only the presiding elders receive revelation for the Church; and, “all things” is not even referenced in D&C 104. That said, confirming churches and holding conferences, and receiving revelation and expanding canon do indeed affect the lives of the saints in very important ways.

Edited June 4, 2018 by CV75

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That’s right, each member does not have a copy of Handbook 1 or 2 because each member is not required to administer at that level, ergo, no common consent for the handbooks, but instead for the appointment of leaders who do administer, and who would administer with or without the creation of handbooks. The same for temple recommend questions, missionary policies and interorganizational relationships: only the leaders administer them as they are sustained by common consent. These policy and decision items in and of themselves do not affect the lives of the members; the leaders and scriptures do, and these are whom and what they are asked to consent to and sustain.

Oops, not D&C 111, but 104, where common consent is limited to those individuals constituting the order (the “United Firm” and its successive iterations, or the administrative bodies directing and financing the temporal operations of the Church— the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop, the Corporation of the Presidency, Intellectual Reserve, etc.).

I described the three areas here: Posted 4 hours ago I “limit them down” according to the specific situations covered by the three revelations, wherein “all things” refers only to the situation at hand. The context for “all” in D&C 26 is confirming churches and holding conferences; in D&C 28 is that only the presiding elders receive revelation for the Church; and, “all things” is not even referenced in D&C 104. That said, confirming churches and holding conferences, and receiving revelation and expanding canon do indeed affect the lives of the saints in very important ways.

I'm not sure how you conclude that Handbooks 1 and 2 do not impact the lives of members.  But I'll just leave that as a difference of opinion between us.

What in Section 26 leads you to believe that the "all" is limited to confirming churches and holding conferences?

Did I miss your answer to my question about the paragraph I quoted in the D&C manual?  Should that be removed since we no longer seek common consent with respect to policies and major decisions?

Also, regarding your last sentence above that I bolded:  When you say "confirming churches" what does that mean?  Likewise with "holding conferences"?  How do we practice common consent with respect to those?  And, should we be exercising common consent with respect to receiving revelation?

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure how you conclude that Handbooks 1 and 2 do not impact the lives of members.  But I'll just leave that as a difference of opinion between us.

What in Section 26 leads you to believe that the "all" is limited to confirming churches and holding conferences?

Did I miss your answer to my question about the paragraph I quoted in the D&C manual?  Should that be removed since we no longer seek common consent with respect to policies and major decisions?

Also, regarding your last sentence above that I bolded:  When you say "confirming churches" what does that mean?  Likewise with "holding conferences"?  How do we practice common consent with respect to those?  And, should we be exercising common consent with respect to receiving revelation?

It is the leaders that impact the lives of members, not the handbooks or the policies written therein (and whether they have handbooks or not). The creation of policies falls under the purview of the leadership which is empowered to perform that function by virtue of their delegated authority and common consent.

The contexts of section 26 and 28 offer the scope of what "all things' refers to (they offer direction for the specific kind of event and need at hand). 26 is about confirming churches and holding conferences; 28 is about receiving revelation for the Church.

I don't have a preference as to whether your quote from the manual should be removed or not.

"Confirming the churches" refers to establishing a unit and "holding conferences" refers to general and unit conferences. These entail common consent as motions are sustained by the attendees. I've been in conferences where the stake president asked for a sustaining vote not only on the leadership roll, but on certain actions to be carried out by those leaders and/or those in attendance. The later additions to the D&C are examples of where common consent was requested for revelation and canon.

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It is the leaders that impact the lives of members, not the handbooks or the policies written therein (and whether they have handbooks or not). The creation of policies falls under the purview of the leadership which is empowered to perform that function by virtue of their delegated authority and common consent.

The contexts of section 26 and 28 offer the scope of what "all things' refers to (they offer direction for the specific kind of event and need at hand). 26 is about confirming churches and holding conferences; 28 is about receiving revelation for the Church.

I don't have a preference as to whether your quote from the manual should be removed or not.

"Confirming the churches" refers to establishing a unit and "holding conferences" refers to general and unit conferences. These entail common consent as motions are sustained by the attendees. I've been in conferences where the stake president asked for a sustaining vote not only on the leadership roll, but on certain actions to be carried out by those leaders and/or those in attendance. The later additions to the D&C are examples of where common consent was requested for revelation and canon.

What am I not seeing in Section 26 that leads you to believe that section refers to confirming the churches and holding conferences?

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It is the leaders that impact the lives of members, not the handbooks or the policies written therein (and whether they have handbooks or not). The creation of policies falls under the purview of the leadership which is empowered to perform that function by virtue of their delegated authority and common consent.

The contexts of section 26 and 28 offer the scope of what "all things' refers to (they offer direction for the specific kind of event and need at hand). 26 is about confirming churches and holding conferences; 28 is about receiving revelation for the Church.

I don't have a preference as to whether your quote from the manual should be removed or not.

"Confirming the churches" refers to establishing a unit and "holding conferences" refers to general and unit conferences. These entail common consent as motions are sustained by the attendees. I've been in conferences where the stake president asked for a sustaining vote not only on the leadership roll, but on certain actions to be carried out by those leaders and/or those in attendance. The later additions to the D&C are examples of where common consent was requested for revelation and canon.

Also, since you and I seem to agree that common consent should be requested for revelation, why do you think we have stopped doing that?

[Teancum]

On 5/30/2018 at 9:45 AM, Storm Rider said:

Frankly, I don't give two red pennies on a cold day about this topic. I find it silly and an opportunity for the ignorant to yammer and complain.

However, if I was trying to build an organization to last forever I would strive to understand what my expenses would be annually and what they will be in the future.  I would plan for growth and how to financially handle those events.  I would then plan for all forms of emergency contingencies.  I would then develop a financial plan to invest funds in order to accommodate those plans.  What I would not do is spend every penny I had today without any consideration for tomorrow, which seems to the be modus operandi for the vast majority of individuals today.

Lastly, please, do not try to dress your tirade as if it is a noble endeavor.  This is not about transparency - there is not "transparency" anywhere in the world.  It is not found in your personal lives; it is not found in corporations; nor is it found in city, state, or federal governments. I have long since tired of those who cannot look themselves in a mirror and tell the truth.  It is demonstrative of society so steeped in self-delusion that they have lost the desire for truth.  This yields a surplus of individuals desperate to be rebels and more desperate to find a cause.

I agree mostly with your post but I disagree that there are not certain efforts for financial transparency by many organizations, and some of that imposed by law.  Does it always work?  No.  Does it help make strides?  Yes.

[Teancum]

On 5/30/2018 at 10:10 AM, ksfisher said:

What right do you have to decide that someone or some organization other than yourself should be transparent?  People and organizations have a right to privacy.

You are not serious are you?

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

According to what it actually says, if tithing revenue goes down by 35%, then expenditures must go down by 35%, too.

I'm not sure that would be the worst thing in the world.  I was impressed by the recent remarks attributed to Elder Bednar (to church members in Arkansas):

Quote

• Hastening the work is about individual repentance. First principle is faith, to get things done, to accept what is happening. Changing behavior is not repentance unless it involves the Redeemer. The R's of repentance (recognition, remorse, restitution, reformation, resolution, etc.) left out the most important R - the R of the Redeemer. We have to have the help of the Lord to redeem. Prioritize things you need to adjust in order to keep up with the hastening.
• ...
• The hastening is not about what we are to do. It is about what the Lord is doing. This is His church, and He is hastening. Will we be able to keep up?
• We don’t need buildings to have church. We build buildings to receive ordinances.
• ...
• He said that the church is growing so fast worldwide that, for all the units to have beautiful chapels like this to meet in, we would all have to pay 80% tithing. "Will you and I keep pace? "
• The future if the church is not reflected in units of the church like this (gesturing out to the congregation).
• In Ghana, the government confiscated the church property, and the saints were not allowed to worship in the chapels. So the priesthood leaders traveled from village to village, visiting the saints, administering the sacrament, and teaching the gospel. When the government relented and they were able to return to their church buildings, retention was high and baptisms had continued. From this, the presidency and quorum of the 12 learned that we don’t really need buildings to have church. All we really need is the priesthood authority, the Book of Mormon, and a mango tree to sit under.
• "What you have come to believe the church is, will go away. The people who will struggle most with that will be the people in North America." You don't have to have a building to meet.

Will I struggle with having only "the priesthood authority, the Book of Mormon, and a mango tree to sit under?"  I honestly hope not (except that I'd want the full Quad, not just the Book of Mormon, and we'd sit under pine trees, not mango trees).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You are not serious are you?

If he’s not, I am.