The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[smac97]

16 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Quote

Quote

I wonder if a disagreement over “having to accept” certain Mormon practices and ideas is a divisive notion in our LDS community...

What practices do you have in mind?

They could be anything that Mormons debate, really. But, some examples of practices that some Mormons disagree about:

Women giving blessings

There is a really good article about this: Mormon Women Giving Blessings: Everything You Need to Know

16 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Caffinated soda consumption

This shouldn't be a problem.  The Church does not have a stance.

16 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

The current level of financial disclosure

We've been having a very protracted discussion of that issue here.  I invite you to read it, and also give particular attention to CV75's remarks in it (here).

16 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Sharing ideas about how to improve the church processes and organization with leaders (rather than silently waiting for their guidance)

Did you know that the Church's welfare program originated with a local initiative to "improve the church?"  See here:

Quote

The present-day system for helping the poor had its roots in the Great Depression of the 1930s, which hit urban Church members hardest. Though often struggling in the 1930s, farm-owning Latter-day Saints usually were self-sufficient, while city-dwellers deprived of employment were in the most serious straits. Stake presidents in urban areas contacted nearby farmers who faced prices so low that it was not profitable to harvest their crops. Arrangements were made so that idle urban members could harvest the crops in return for a share thereof. The produce thus obtained was stored in Church-controlled warehouse facilities and distributed according to need. Drawing upon that experience, Welfare farms were soon established under Church ownership in areas surrounding Mormon-populated cities. Other Church units undertook processing and manufacturing projects based on the rural produce. Bishop's storehouses were created for storage and distribution, and products were moved from location to location by a Church-sponsored transportation system. A sheltered workshop program, Deseret Industries, was introduced in 1938 to create jobs for the unemployed and the handicapped, refurbishing used clothing, furniture, and household goods for retail sale at low cost.

It's certainly possible to share ideas about how to improve the Church.  The problem arises when individuals seek to pressure or coerce the Church into making changes to suit the preferences of a self-appointed few (Kate Kelly being a good example).  That just doesn't work out well for the relationship between the Church and the individual.

16 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Supporting the right for others to engage in sex marriage

The Church allows this.

16 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

My thought being that perhaps those within Mormonism who have a more traditional view on the above practices believe that anyone who believes differently should not be a member.

This idea (theory?) came to me after reading @mfbukowski‘s comment about how one should leave Mormonism if it’s not working for you.

Maybe I’m wrong in my interpretation and extrapolation.  Please correct me if I am. I tend to think liberally, but want to better understand those who think more conservatively.

I think you are misreading mfbukowski.  

One suggestion may be to step away from applying political labels (like "liberal" and "conservative") to describe attitudes in the Church.  The attempted crossover creates some confusion.  For example, the Church - as an institution - is doctrinally quite "liberal" as compared to other religions.  It is both doctrinally and sociopolitically "conservative" on sexual mores, but sociopolitcally liberal (or perhaps moderate) on immigration policy.  Members of the Church are all over the map on the issue of same-sex marriage.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

47 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think I understand fine.

I agree that those who are against transparency don't view themselves as placing a trust of infallibility on leaders, yet that's what they do when they state they don't need or want to know what the leaders are doing. Either they want to be ignorant of any misuse that might be discovered via transparency, or they don't believe mistakes will be made. It's pretty simple. If they acknowledge mistakes might be made, they don't care enough to try to prevent it.

As I've said many times, placing so much faith in people that you don't want to review their work or understand their goals, purposes, and practices, even church leaders, is placing faith in the arm of the flesh. I don't care that people do it, I just hope they can be honest enough to recognize it's what they are doing.

I don't think that it's fair to attribute dishonesty to people who trust God to govern and oversee the administration of His Church. I don't trust the 15 Brethren. I don't even like some of them. But I do trust that God is able to do His own work. That doesn't mean I don't believe mistakes can be made. I believe they are made regularly. I just don't believe that God wants me to focus my attention and energy on something that is outside of my stewardship. 

[HappyJackWagon]

56 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I don't think that it's fair to attribute dishonesty to people who trust God to govern and oversee the administration of His Church. I don't trust the 15 Brethren. I don't even like some of them. But I do trust that God is able to do His own work. That doesn't mean I don't believe mistakes can be made. I believe they are made regularly. I just don't believe that God wants me to focus my attention and energy on something that is outside of my stewardship. 

I don't think I did that. I didn't intend to and don't see that I did. If that's how you took it, I apologize.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think I understand fine.

I agree that those who are against transparency don't view themselves as placing a trust of infallibility on leaders, yet that's what they do when they state they don't need or want to know what the leaders are doing. Either they want to be ignorant of any misuse that might be discovered via transparency, or they don't believe mistakes will be made. It's pretty simple. If they acknowledge mistakes might be made, they don't care enough to try to prevent it.

As I've said many times, placing so much faith in people that you don't want to review their work or understand their goals, purposes, and practices, even church leaders, is placing faith in the arm of the flesh. I don't care that people do it, I just hope they can be honest enough to recognize it's what they are doing.

Maybe you should just let people speak for themselves because no, you aren't understanding other's perspectives 'just fine'.  

No, acknowledging that fraud can occur but believing that we have been asked to pay tithing without transparency anyway isn't trusting in the infallibility of leaders.  Your either/or options are not true for everyone so it would probably be good to stop suggesting that they are the only options.

Speaking for myself, I neither want to be ignorant of misuse nor do i believe that mistakes will never be made.  Being aware of misuse would be interesting but I see it as completely unnecessary.  As long as someone knows about misuses (and I believe the church is set up to highlight misuses fairly quickly), I don't have to know about them.  I'm not that important.  Likewise with mistakes.  If/when mistakes are made, they will be handled and if they aren't then God sees all.  I have not been given any authority over that, and I don't feel awesome enough to believe that I need to have that authority to keep things working they way God wants, so I don't worry about it.

No, that's not putting my trust in the arm of flesh. From my perspective, believing that human transparency and oversight is necessary to keep prophets and apostles in check is trusting in the arm of flesh.  Which, you know, i'm fine with you doing as long as you can be honest enough to recognize it.  

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe you should just let people speak for themselves because no, you aren't understanding other's perspectives 'just fine'.  

No, acknowledging that fraud can occur but believing that we have been asked to pay tithing without transparency anyway isn't trusting in the infallibility of leaders.  Your either/or options are not true for everyone so it would probably be good to stop suggesting that they are the only options.

Speaking for myself, I neither want to be ignorant of misuse nor do i believe that mistakes will never be made.  Being aware of misuse would be interesting but I see it as completely unnecessary.  As long as someone knows about misuses (and I believe the church is set up to highlight misuses fairly quickly), I don't have to know about them.  I'm not that important.  Likewise with mistakes.  If/when mistakes are made, they will be handled and if they aren't then God sees all.  I have not been given any authority over that, and I don't feel awesome enough to believe that I need to have that authority to keep things working they way God wants, so I don't worry about it.

No, that's not putting my trust in the arm of flesh. From my perspective, believing that human transparency and oversight is necessary to keep prophets and apostles in check is trusting in the arm of flesh.  Which, you know, i'm fine with you doing as long as you can be honest enough to recognize it.  

I understand what you're saying but I view it as a very defeatist attitude at best. Washing our hands of any responsibility to make things better because God will take care of it strikes me as an idle approach to being a part of an organization or community.

I'm not sure how you don't "want to be ignorant of misuse" while simultaneously saying that you don't need to know because you haven't been given authority. To me, that sounds like you are choosing ignorance because it's not your place to know.  Believing in fallibility while also taking a laissez- fair approach of inaction to make things better isn't very inspiring to me. But to each her own. Still, I disagree that you have no authority and that you aren't important enough to know or try to make things better. I think everyone in the community has that responsibility. You've been given authority to offer consent or dissent, but it's impossible to do that responsibly if you don't know what you are consenting to or dissenting from.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think I understand fine.

I agree that those who are against transparency don't view themselves as placing a trust of infallibility on leaders, yet that's what they do when they state they don't need or want to know what the leaders are doing. Either they want to be ignorant of any misuse that might be discovered via transparency, or they don't believe mistakes will be made. It's pretty simple. If they acknowledge mistakes might be made, they don't care enough to try to prevent it.

As I've said many times, placing so much faith in people that you don't want to review their work or understand their goals, purposes, and practices, even church leaders, is placing faith in the arm of the flesh. I don't care that people do it, I just hope they can be honest enough to recognize it's what they are doing.

No it's just that we cannot know where  the ship is going,  but you want to tell them to turn it around and drop you off on Catalina.

You are not getting this at all.

Have you ever run a business?

Did you let others tell you what to do with your money who have no clue what your objectives were ?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

No it's just that we cannot know where  the ship is going,  but you want to tell them to turn it around and drop you off on Catalina.

You are not getting this at all.

Have you ever run a business?

Did you let others tell you what to do with your money who have no clue what your objectives were ?

The only reason we don't know where the ship is going is because we haven't been told by those who presumably know. You keep making the argument that we don't need to know about finances because we don't know about the direction. I think we should know both. Why shouldn't I know the direction of my church?

You're aware that most companies continually receive feedback from vendors, customers, shareholders etc, right? They inform the business about what they like and what the don't. They make the company leaders aware of problems. They offer solutions to problems. A business that refuses to communicate and interact with those with him it is attempting to serve is a poor business model.

In your business analogy, I see members of the church being like unto shareholders or "members of the organization/business. Members have rights and responsibilities to the business. A business should be responsive to the needs of the members/shareholders. That doesn't mean they will get everything they want, but it does mean there is a mechanism in place to communicate with the organization and attempt to influence the organization in a positive way.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

No it's just that we cannot know where  the ship is going,  but you want to tell them to turn it around and drop you off on Catalina.

You are not getting this at all.

Have you ever run a business?

Did you let others tell you what to do with your money who have no clue what your objectives were ?

I disagree with this idea that the Prophet is receiving revelation and guidance on the direction for the church, the kingdom of God on earth, while not sharing it with the membership.  I thought that was the whole idea of a prophet.  The Lord's mouthpiece, not the Lord's confidant.

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I disagree with this idea that the Prophet is receiving revelation and guidance on the direction for the church, the kingdom of God on earth, while not sharing it with the membership.  I thought that was the whole idea of a prophet.  The Lord's mouthpiece, not the Lord's confidant.

Yeah, but it's not like we're getting a ticker tape of how well the Church is doing, minute by minute, while the work of the Church goes on.

I'm sure Scott is doing his best to bring us whatever news he can in his Church news articles, and other people are too, but still it's probably not as in depth and up to the minute as what the Prophet/President is aware of.

Personally, I would tire quickly of having to attend that many meetings.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Yeah, but it's not like we're getting a ticker tape of how well the Church is doing, minute by minute, while the work of the Church goes on.

I'm sure Scott is doing his best to bring us whatever news he can in his Church news articles, and other people are too, but still it's probably not as in depth and up to the minute as what the Prophet/President is aware of.

Personally, I would tire quickly of having to attend that many meetings.

They have three hours a week of our time.  It wouldn't be that tough.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

They have three hours a week of our time.  It wouldn't be that tough.

And Stake conferences, general conferences, email, social media. It seems like a reasonable expectation that the prophet would tell church members the direction of the church. They have ample opportunity if they choose to do so.

The only other argument I see is that God wants them to keep everything secret, in which case, I can't see the purpose of a prophet. If I can't know the will of God personally regarding the church's efforts and goals, I don't need a prophet to also hide the will of God from me.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I understand what you're saying but I view it as a very defeatist attitude at best. Washing our hands of any responsibility to make things better because God will take care of it strikes me as an idle approach to being a part of an organization or community.

I'm not washing my hands of any responsibility; I don't believe God has given me this responsibility and I believe it would be improper for me to assume based on my wants.  How is that defeatist? 

Quote

I'm not sure how you don't "want to be ignorant of misuse" while simultaneously saying that you don't need to know because you haven't been given authority.  To me, that sounds like you are choosing ignorance because it's not your place to know.  Believing in fallibility while also taking a laissez- fair approach of inaction to make things better isn't very inspiring to me. But to each her own. Still, I disagree that you have no authority and that you aren't important enough to know or try to make things better. I think everyone in the community has that responsibility. You've been given authority to offer consent or dissent, but it's impossible to do that responsibly if you don't know what you are consenting to or dissenting from.

I recognize that if something isn't my responsibility, then my wants concerning it are completely irrelevant.  That's how I don't want to be ignorant while believe that I don't need to know.  I'm not choosing ignorance, I'm choosing to recognize my lack of authority on the subject and respect the bounds that I believe God, through His prophets, has placed on me on this topic at this time.

I don't find your perspective at all inspiring, which is why it really is great that we each get to believe our own thing on this topic.   

 

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

They have three hours a week of our time.  It wouldn't be that tough.

That time is being used for other things.  Or haven't you noticed?

And yet you say you want a report of what? during each 3 hour session each week?  A report that tells as much as our Prophet/President knows about what goes on in the Church?

It would likely take longer than that to find out just how much your bishop knows about what goes on in his ward.  And he doesn't deal with some things that our Prophet/President deals with.

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I disagree with this idea that the Prophet is receiving revelation and guidance on the direction for the church, the kingdom of God on earth, while not sharing it with the membership. 

Could you elaborate on this?  We have plenty of precedents for prophets being instructed to not divulge information they receive, or to limit or delay disclosure.  See, e.g., Matthew 13:

Quote

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

And Mark 9:

Quote

And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.

And Mark 8:

Quote

27 ¶ And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Cæsarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?
28 And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.
29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

And Mark 7:

Quote

31 ¶ And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.
32 And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to put his hand upon him.
33 And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue;
34 And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.
35 And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain.
36 And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it;
37 And were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well: he maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.

And Luke 5:

Quote

12 ¶ And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

And Matthew 16:

Quote

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

And Luke 8:

Quote

49 ¶ While he yet spake, there cometh one from the ruler of the synagogue’s house, saying to him, Thy daughter is dead; trouble not the Master.
50 But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole.
51 And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden.
52 And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth.
53 And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead.
54 And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise.
55 And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.
56 And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done.

See also this entry from the EOM:

Quote

"Mysteries of God" is a scriptural phrase in which the word "mysteries" refers to knowledge about God that is often hidden from mortal understanding. It does not refer to something incomprehensible in principle. Like many people of other religions, Latter-day Saints deem a knowledge of some mysteries to be necessary (D&C 76:5-10), and acquire such knowledge in part through ordinances and in part through revelation (cf. TPJS, p. 324).

As found both in the Bible and in latter-day scripture, the term "mystery" describes a doctrine revealed only to the faithful but not given to the "world" or to the uninitiated. (Matt. 13:11; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 3:1-7; 1 Ne. 10:11; D&C 42:61, 65).

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven ... a time to keep silence, and a time to speak."  (Ecclesiastes 3:1, 7)

Quote

I thought that was the whole idea of a prophet.  The Lord's mouthpiece, not the Lord's confidant.

I think the idea of a prophet is to carry out the Lord's will.  If the Lord's will is for His servants to "keep silence" about some things, then that's the gig.

Also, what are your thoughts about D&C 70?  Here's the relevant part:

Quote

1 Behold, and hearken, O ye inhabitants of Zion, and all ye people of my church who are afar off, and hear the word of the Lord which I give unto my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and also unto my servant Martin Harris, and also unto my servant Oliver Cowdery, and also unto my servant John Whitmer, and also unto my servant Sidney Rigdon, and also unto my servant William W. Phelps, by the way of commandment unto them.
2 For I give unto them a commandment; wherefore hearken and hear, for thus saith the Lord unto them—
3 I, the Lord, have appointed them, and ordained them to be stewards over the revelations and commandments which I have given unto them, and which I shall hereafter give unto them;
4 And an account of this stewardship will I require of them in the day of judgment.
5 Wherefore, I have appointed unto them, and this is their business in the church of God, to manage them and the concerns thereof, yea, the benefits thereof.
6 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world;

What do you think the Lord mean when he said "a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world"?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by smac97

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And Stake conferences, general conferences, email, social media. It seems like a reasonable expectation that the prophet would tell church members the direction of the church. They have ample opportunity if they choose to do so.

Oh, the direction of the Church.  We know that already.  It's going forward.

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The only other argument I see is that God wants them to keep everything secret, in which case, I can't see the purpose of a prophet. If I can't know the will of God personally regarding the church's efforts and goals, I don't need a prophet to also hide the will of God from me.

Try thinking there are simply too many details and that things would likely have changed by the time you heard the latest report.

Consider any detail and imagine how that would play out.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Oh, the direction of the Church.  We know that already.  It's going forward.

Try thinking there are simply too many details and that things would likely have changed by the time you heard the latest report.

Consider any detail and imagine how that would play out.

MF was stating that we couldn't possibly know the finances of the church because we don't know the direction of what the church is doing. I thought you were following up on his statement.

There's a huge gap between needing to know every single detail and not knowing anything. Lots of room for compromise there.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That time is being used for other things.  Or haven't you noticed?

And yet you say you want a report of what? during each 3 hour session each week?  A report that tells as much as our Prophet/President knows about what goes on in the Church?

It would likely take longer than that to find out just how much your bishop knows about what goes on in his ward.  And he doesn't deal with some things that our Prophet/President deals with.

I think that revelation given to the prophet about the mission of the church is more important than most of what we do in those three hours (the Sacrament being an obvious exception).

[smac97]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

MF was stating that we couldn't possibly know the finances of the church because we don't know the direction of what the church is doing. I thought you were following up on his statement.

There's a huge gap between needing to know every single detail and not knowing anything. Lots of room for compromise there.

What are your thoughts about D&C 70?  Here's the relevant part:

  Quote

1 Behold, and hearken, O ye inhabitants of Zion, and all ye people of my church who are afar off, and hear the word of the Lord which I give unto my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and also unto my servant Martin Harris, and also unto my servant Oliver Cowdery, and also unto my servant John Whitmer, and also unto my servant Sidney Rigdon, and also unto my servant William W. Phelps, by the way of commandment unto them.
2 For I give unto them a commandment; wherefore hearken and hear, for thus saith the Lord unto them—
3 I, the Lord, have appointed them, and ordained them to be stewards over the revelations and commandments which I have given unto them, and which I shall hereafter give unto them;
4 And an account of this stewardship will I require of them in the day of judgment.
5 Wherefore, I have appointed unto them, and this is their business in the church of God, to manage them and the concerns thereof, yea, the benefits thereof.
6 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world;

What do you think the Lord mean when he said "a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate on this?  We have plenty of precedents for prophets being instructed to not divulge information they receive, or to limit or delay disclosure.  See, e.g., Matthew 13:

And Mark 9:

And Mark 8:

And Mark 7:

And Luke 5:

And Matthew 16:

And Luke 8:

See also this entry from the EOM:

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven ... a time to keep silence, and a time to speak."  (Ecclesiastes 3:1, 7)

I think the idea of a prophet is to carry out the Lord's will.  If the Lord's will is for His servants to "keep silence" about some things, then that's the gig.

Also, what are your thoughts about D&C 70?  Here's the relevant part:

What do you think the Lord mean when he said "a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world"?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

The point was made that it's useless for us to see church finances because we don't know about the direction of the church.  I'm not referring to mysteries of God or the need for Christ to have kept some containment on things during his mortal ministry.

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think that revelation given to the prophet about the mission of the church is more important than most of what we do in those three hours (the Sacrament being an obvious exception).

What detail(s) do you imagine you are missing out on that you would like to hear from our Prophet/President?  You do understand that revelation includes basic inspiration, too, right?

The Church is going forward.  That's how much I know about the mission of the church, generally speaking.  By going forward I mean we are continually doing what we are already doing, just doing more of the same, all over the Earth, generally speaking.

Do you need to hear that every week during each 3 hour session, or is there something specific you think you are missing out on?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The point was made that it's useless for us to see church finances because we don't know about the direction of the church. 

That may be true to some extent.  But there are other considerations as well.  It's not within your stewardship (or mine).  D&C 70:1-6 may be applicable.  What are your thoughts about it?

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not referring to mysteries of God or the need for Christ to have kept some containment on things during his mortal ministry.

Understood.  My point, though, is that there are times when the Lord tells His servants to withhold information, or limit or delay disclosure of it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about D&C 70?  Here's the relevant part:

  Quote

1 Behold, and hearken, O ye inhabitants of Zion, and all ye people of my church who are afar off, and hear the word of the Lord which I give unto my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and also unto my servant Martin Harris, and also unto my servant Oliver Cowdery, and also unto my servant John Whitmer, and also unto my servant Sidney Rigdon, and also unto my servant William W. Phelps, by the way of commandment unto them.
2 For I give unto them a commandment; wherefore hearken and hear, for thus saith the Lord unto them—
3 I, the Lord, have appointed them, and ordained them to be stewards over the revelations and commandments which I have given unto them, and which I shall hereafter give unto them;
4 And an account of this stewardship will I require of them in the day of judgment.
5 Wherefore, I have appointed unto them, and this is their business in the church of God, to manage them and the concerns thereof, yea, the benefits thereof.
6 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world;

What do you think the Lord mean when he said "a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world"?

Thanks,

-Smac

"These things" refers to the profits from the publication of the revelations.  Ironically, this section is about publishing the revelations to the world (NOT keeping them a secret).

From the institute manual (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/70?lang=eng)...

Doctrine and Covenants 70:3–8 “Stewards over the revelations and commandments”
In the revelation recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 70, the Lord called Martin Harris and William W. Phelps to join the four men who had been previously appointed to serve as stewards over the revelations. These stewards were not only responsible for publishing the revelations but also for managing the revenue generated from the sale of the Book of Commandments. The Lord commanded them to use the profits to provide for their families and to consecrate what was left to the Lord’s storehouse for the benefit of the people in Zion. The Lord organized this joint stewardship according to the principles of the law of consecration.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

What detail(s) do you imagine you are missing out on that you would like to hear from our Prophet/President?  You do understand that revelation includes basic inspiration, too, right?

The Church is going forward.  That's how much I know about the mission of the church, generally speaking.  By going forward I mean we are continually doing what we are already doing, just doing more of the same, all over the Earth, generally speaking.

Do you need to hear that every week during each 3 hour session, or is there something specific you think you are missing out on?

It wasn't my claim that we are missing out on information from our prophet.  It was a claim that is being used to justify not disclosing church finances.  I disagree with the claim as a justification for keeping finances a secret from members.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think I understand fine.

I agree that those who are against transparency don't view themselves as placing a trust of infallibility on leaders, yet that's what they do when they state they don't need or want to know what the leaders are doing. Either they want to be ignorant of any misuse that might be discovered via transparency, or they don't believe mistakes will be made. It's pretty simple. If they acknowledge mistakes might be made, they don't care enough to try to prevent it.

As I've said many times, placing so much faith in people that you don't want to review their work or understand their goals, purposes, and practices, even church leaders, is placing faith in the arm of the flesh. I don't care that people do it, I just hope they can be honest enough to recognize it's what they are doing.

Yet the scriptures I offered exempt finances from the law of common consent; those who believe them are neither for nor against fiscal transparency, but simply accept that it isn’t called for in the way the Lord set things up.

And I don’t see much opposition against fiscal transparency in this thread, but rather opposition to the reasons and attitudes the contenders use  in demanding it.

Edited June 8, 2018 by CV75

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about D&C 70?  Here's the relevant part:

  Quote

1 Behold, and hearken, O ye inhabitants of Zion, and all ye people of my church who are afar off, and hear the word of the Lord which I give unto my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and also unto my servant Martin Harris, and also unto my servant Oliver Cowdery, and also unto my servant John Whitmer, and also unto my servant Sidney Rigdon, and also unto my servant William W. Phelps, by the way of commandment unto them.
2 For I give unto them a commandment; wherefore hearken and hear, for thus saith the Lord unto them—
3 I, the Lord, have appointed them, and ordained them to be stewards over the revelations and commandments which I have given unto them, and which I shall hereafter give unto them;
4 And an account of this stewardship will I require of them in the day of judgment.
5 Wherefore, I have appointed unto them, and this is their business in the church of God, to manage them and the concerns thereof, yea, the benefits thereof.
6 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world;

What do you think the Lord mean when he said "a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world"?

Thanks,

-Smac

My initial thought would be that this is a very specific revelation given to specific people and shouldn't necessarily be applied to the church as a whole and every leader since. It seems that the church has been more financially transparent for most of its history than it is now, so church leaders didn't seem to apply this scripture as a commandment for them not to "give these things unto the church". I haven't seen or heard of any revelation directing the church leaders not to be transparent in finances. My understanding is the lack of transparency developed in the 1950's after criticism arose about a robust building plan that nearly bankrupted the church. But like I said, I'm not aware of any revelation that can be cited as a reason for why they changed their approach to financial transparency.