The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

Maybe what we want is an Eric Snowden kinda guy.  Someone who can just leak the information, occasionally.

I appreciate knowing the Church now has 32 billion dollars in the stock market.  Probably more now.

Fun stuff.  Just fun, though.  Really, I don't need to know.

[CV75]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

The specific revelations in D&C 26 and 28 have served as a template for current practice (sustaining the setting up of units and leaders, and revelation for the Church, respectively). So this would go for 70, 104 and 120 as well. The overarching principle is that the First Presidency and Twelve decide what is to be proposed to the general membership for common consent, and this principle is found in many if not all the D&C revelations on priesthood office and governance (thinking of 107 as a start).

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As I see it, the Church is not a philanthropic organization, it is a religious organization.  All religious organizations have as a primary goal the "building up of the Kingdom of God" -- whichever god they are serving. Philanthropy might be an aspect of their work, but it is not at all the primary one.  Not even the Salvation Army's primary goal is philanthropy -- despite the bellringers -- it is salvation.  

If you want philanthropy, see the various foundations and charitable organizations that do that as their primary function.  

I suggest Food for the Poor, which I try to support in my small way.  I sometimes hear people pray during blessings on the food, asking Father to help those who have no food, but I think it is better to omit such prayers and do something about it, rather than make empty prayers -- when the means to be a help is within one's reach.  Not trying to be judgemental, just trying to promote one particular philanthropic organization.

It seems to me if you study the words of Jesus in the New Testament that philanthropy is one of the primary purposes of the Christian faith. So I heartily disagree.

 

Luke 18:18-23 King James Version (KJV)

¹⁸ And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

¹⁹ And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

²⁰ Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

²¹ And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

²² Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

²³ And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

"Shouldn't necessarily be applied?"  Sure.  But the concept - that the Lord can instruct His servants to withhold information - has a precedent in D&C 70.  And in many places in the New Testament.

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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 concur.  That doesn't preclude the possiblity of the Lord telling them to apply it now (or giving them a corollary instruction to withhold information).

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I haven't seen or heard of any revelation directing the church leaders not to be transparent in finances.

We have precedents for the proposition that the Lord telling His servants "that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world."

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I'm not sure if there is a post hoc ergo propter hoc thing going on.  Maybe, maybe not.

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Nor am I.  I'm not sure what that means, however.  It may just be a discretionary decision.  From D&C 56:

Quote

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

If the Brethren are operating under instructions from God, I'm good with that.

If the Brethren have made discretionary decisions regarding financial oversight and safeguards and "transparency" and such, I'm good with that.

If the Brethren have erred in exercising the authority that is plainly within their discretion, then I hope they sort it out.  But I don't think it is within my province to publicly speak against them or dictate to them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The specific revelations in D&C 26 and 28 have served as a template for current practice (sustaining the setting up of units and leaders, and revelation for the Church, respectively). So this would go for 70, 104 and 120 as well. The overarching principle is that the First Presidency and Twelve decide what is to be proposed to the general membership for common consent, and this principle is found in many if not all the D&C revelations on priesthood office and governance (thinking of 107 as a start).

It seems to be a logical fallacy to stat that because X (D&C 26&28 serve as a template) that Y (D&C 70 & 104) must also serve as a standing template. As I stated earlier, we can see through history that the church has made financial information available which means they did not believe they were commanded to hide that information from the church as a whole.

SMAC was making the argument that it wasn't up tot he 1st Presidency and Twelve to "decide" because they had been commanded not to share that information. I was disagreeing with the assertion that church leaders have been commanded not to share. That sounded more to me like a specific revelation to specific individuals and not to be taken as a general commandment to the church. If it was, it would seem church leaders didn't follow the commandment for much of its history.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Shouldn't necessarily be applied?"  Sure.  But the concept - that the Lord can instruct His servants to withhold information - has a precedent in D&C 70.  And in many places in the New Testament.

We have precedents for the proposition that the Lord telling His servants "that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world."

You are proof-texting Section 70 and really should stop.  You are better than that.  

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The specific revelations in D&C 26 and 28 have served as a template for current practice (sustaining the setting up of units and leaders, and revelation for the Church, respectively). So this would go for 70, 104 and 120 as well. The overarching principle is that the First Presidency and Twelve decide what is to be proposed to the general membership for common consent, and this principle is found in many if not all the D&C revelations on priesthood office and governance (thinking of 107 as a start).

Section 70 is being proof-texted and misapplied here.  We really ought to stop.  70 is about publishing the revelations, not keeping them a secret.  And the "these things" to be withheld from the church were the profits from publishing the book of revelations.

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Fair enough.  In re-reading your comment, I can see the possibility of another meaning.  I thought you were saying that you hoped people who didn't feel a need for transparency are trusting in the arm of flesh, and hoped we'd be honest enough to admit it.  To me that meant that if I was not admitting that I was trusting in the arm of the flesh, I was not being honest.  If that's not what you meant, no worries.  

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Shouldn't necessarily be applied?"  Sure.  But the concept - that the Lord can instruct His servants to withhold information - has a precedent in D&C 70.  And in many places in the New Testament.

And in those places there seems to be a revelation or scripture stating such. There isn't anything like that now that I'm aware of.

I concur.  That doesn't preclude the possiblity of the Lord telling them to apply it now (or giving them a corollary instruction to withhold information).

No it doesn't preclude the possibility, but there is no evidence they have been told to do this. There is no revelation or scripture

We have precedents for the proposition that the Lord telling His servants "that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world."

Yes, we see examples in scripture of the Lord telling prophets to keep things hidden but we have no modern evidence that leaders have been told the same thing.

I'm not sure if there is a post hoc ergo propter hoc thing going on.  Maybe, maybe not.

Nor am I.  I'm not sure what that means, however.  It may just be a discretionary decision.  From D&C 56:

I agree that it is likely a discretionary decision. In lieu of a commandment from God, that would mean church leaders have it within their authority and control to release information and be transparent. If it's a discretionary decision then they would seem to be the ones responsible for not releasing information, not God.

If the Brethren are operating under instructions from God, I'm good with that.

I've never heard the brethren say that the lack of transparency is a policy instructed by God so believing it is from God is simply an assumption.

If the Brethren have made discretionary decisions regarding financial oversight and safeguards and "transparency" and such, I'm good with that.

And that's fine. I think that is a far different position than claiming God commended them to be non-transparent. If it is a leadership decision, then it is open to change without any kind of revelation. It is a matter of will for leadership to choose transparency. I believe that it is a leadership decision, not a God decision.

If the Brethren have erred in exercising the authority that is plainly within their discretion, then I hope they sort it out.  But I don't think it is within my province to publicly speak against them or dictate to them.

And I disagree. You seem content to trust leadership even if they may be wrong, or even if things could be better. I'm of the opinion that as members we all have a stake in the church and all have responsibility to be knowledgeable enough to exercise agency for consent. Without the knowledge there's really no agency to consent IMO

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It seems to be a logical fallacy to stat that because X (D&C 26&28 serve as a template) that Y (D&C 70 & 104) must also serve as a standing template. As I stated earlier, we can see through history that the church has made financial information available which means they did not believe they were commanded to hide that information from the church as a whole.

SMAC was making the argument that it wasn't up tot he 1st Presidency and Twelve to "decide" because they had been commanded not to share that information. I was disagreeing with the assertion that church leaders have been commanded not to share. That sounded more to me like a specific revelation to specific individuals and not to be taken as a general commandment to the church. If it was, it would seem church leaders didn't follow the commandment for much of its history.

Show how D&C 26 and 28 are not templates when they are used to justify fiscal transparency because of the use of the phrase "all things," which is also used in D&C 70. This phrase is part of just about every correlated explanation we have about common consent and what it applies to. It is rather a logical fallacy to say that they are templates for fiscal transparency when D&C 70 -- notably verses 21, 29 and 68 -- proscribes it.

And yes, they were commanded not to share that information; what else can we say? As far as successive Church leaders, we do not know what fiscal details they were not sharing, having determined they were in line with the commandment!  But as far as the First Presidency and Twelve's decisions and prerogatives:

I look to D&C 107 as a start (there are other places to look also). The right to presidency includes determining what is to be brought up for common consent, which could change from time to time. The presidents are sustained by common consent (107:22), and as long as a presidency’s and quorum’s decisions are unanimous, they are valid (verse 30). The quorums offer the check-and-balance to each other (verse 32) and their role in settling “important business, and the most difficult cases” and disciplinary action can be found further down in Section 107. As long as it isn’t transgressive, their decisions are good to go.

These presidencies and governing quorums and councils decided to start and later stop budget reporting in general conference, which is entirely appropriate given their authority and the framework given in Section 107 (and elsewhere in the D&C). They are fine-tuning their decisions all the time!

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Quote

"Shouldn't necessarily be applied?"  Sure.  But the concept - that the Lord can instruct His servants to withhold information - has a precedent in D&C 70.  And in many places in the New Testament.

We have precedents for the proposition that the Lord telling His servants "that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world."

You are proof-texting Section 70 and really should stop.  You are better than that.  

No, I don't think I am.  There appear to be two dueling theories in play:

• Theory A: The leaders of the Church have an affirmative obligation to be "transparent" about a body of information (the Church's finances).
• Theory B: The leaders of the Church have both plenary (all keys) and discretionary (judgment calls) authority to make decisions about the level of "transparency."  They may also have received revelatory guidance on this issue regarding how much to disclose and how much to withhold.

Theory A is overwhelmingly subjective and vague.  It's a value judgment.  And its being carried on about by people who, frankly, are nowhere near having stewardship of the finances of the Church.

Theory B is objectively true as to the scope of the authority vested in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  It's more conjectural about the "revelatory guidance" bit, but the precedent for that is found throughout the scriptures.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Section 70 is being proof-texted and misapplied here.  We really ought to stop.  70 is about publishing the revelations, not keeping them a secret.  And the "these things" to be withheld from the church were the profits from publishing the book of revelations.

No, you need to stop and learn: Section 70 is about the stewardship of the printing operation under the Unite Firm. Stop proof-texting.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't think I am.  There appear to be two dueling theories in play:

• Theory A: The leaders of the Church have an affirmative obligation to be "transparent" about a body of information (the Church's finances).
• Theory B: The leaders of the Church have both plenary (all keys) and discretionary (judgment calls) authority to make decisions about the level of "transparency."  They may also have received revelatory guidance on this issue regarding how much to disclose and how much to withhold.

Theory A is overwhelmingly subjective and vague.  It's a value judgment.  And its being carried on about by people who, frankly, are nowhere near having stewardship of the finances of the Church.

Theory B is objectively true as to the scope of the authority vested in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  It's more conjectural about the "revelatory guidance" bit, but the precedent for that is found throughout the scriptures.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm confused about your theory B.

Didn't you state that it was a commandment from God that they not share financial information. How can it be both a commandment from God and a discretionary judgement of the leader?

[smac97]

21 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As I see it, the Church is not a philanthropic organization, it is a religious organization. 

But it's a "religious organization" that has, as one of its four primary missions, "Care for the Poor and Needy."  That seems to fall squarely within the definition of "philanthropy" ("(of a person or organization) seeking to promote the welfare of others, especially by donating money to good causes; generous and benevolent").

By the way, the Church has an organization within it called "LDS Philanthropies."

So I think the Church's mandate necessarily includes philanthropic endeavors.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But it's a "religious organization" that has, as one of its four primary missions, "Care for the Poor and Needy."  That seems to fall squarely within the definition of "philanthropy" ("(of a person or organization) seeking to promote the welfare of others, especially by donating money to good causes; generous and benevolent").

By the way, the Church has an organization within it called "LDS Philanthropies."

So I think the Church's mandate necessarily includes philanthropic endeavors.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, sir, it does, but the primary mission -- or rather, the primus inter pares mission, is in my opinion at least, the salvation of souls from sin.  Just like Christ's Atonement is the primary teaching, and as Joseph Smith said, all else is an appendage to that.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, sir, it does, but the primary mission -- or rather, the primus inter pares mission, is in my opinion at least, the salvation of souls from sin.  Just like Christ's Atonement is the primary teaching, and as Joseph Smith said, all else is an appendage to that.

Fortunately Christ's atonement doesn't cost anything, leaving more money available for caring for the poor and needy  

[cinepro]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

By the way, the Church has an organization within it called "LDS Philanthropies."

 

The three menu options at the top of that website are:

"Giving Opportunities", "Gift Planning", and "Ways to Give."

If I set up a website telling other people about how they can spend their own money on philanthropy (including giving me that money so I can do good things with it), that might be a nice thing to do, but I don't think it would make me a "philanthropist."

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by cinepro

[Stargazer]

40 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It seems to me if you study the words of Jesus in the New Testament that philanthropy is one of the primary purposes of the Christian faith. So I heartily disagree.

 

Luke 18:18-23 King James Version (KJV)

¹⁸ And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

¹⁹ And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

²⁰ Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

²¹ And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

²² Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

²³ And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

You really think that advice to one young man who needed to divest himself of his pride in his riches and position means that the main mission of the Gospel is to care for the poor and needy?

If so, why didn't Jesus demand the same of Joseph of Arimathea?  It is clear that he did not.

Taking care of the poor is a Christ-like mission, and as you say, a mission, but the first and the most important mission is salvation from sin, bringing all humans to Christ.  Care for the physical welfare of those humans is important, yes, but it is ancillary, not primary.  One really can't have four primary missions -- the word primary means first, and first must be Christ's atonement. All else is secondary, tertiary, ancillary.  

Note that sometimes physical welfare must take temporary first place, before all else. So we see to that.  But only in support of the first mission.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"Shouldn't necessarily be applied?"  Sure.  But the concept - that the Lord can instruct His servants to withhold information - has a precedent in D&C 70.  And in many places in the New Testament.

And in those places there seems to be a revelation or scripture stating such. There isn't anything like that now that I'm aware of.

Fair enough.

So that takes us back to discretionary exercise of authority.  

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I concur.  That doesn't preclude the possiblity of the Lord telling them to apply it now (or giving them a corollary instruction to withhold information).

No it doesn't preclude the possibility, but there is no evidence they have been told to do this. There is no revelation or scripture

We have precedents for the proposition that the Lord telling His servants "that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world."

Yes, we see examples in scripture of the Lord telling prophets to keep things hidden but we have no modern evidence that leaders have been told the same thing.

What "evidence" would you expect to see of "the Lord telling prophets to keep things hidden?"

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not sure if there is a post hoc ergo propter hoc thing going on.  Maybe, maybe not.

Nor am I.  I'm not sure what that means, however.  It may just be a discretionary decision.  From D&C 56:

I agree that it is likely a discretionary decision. In lieu of a commandment from God, that would mean church leaders have it within their authority and control to release information and be transparent. If it's a discretionary decision then they would seem to be the ones responsible for not releasing information, not God.

Unless the Lord has ratified what they are doing.  "Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  (D&C 1:37)

If the Brethren are improperly using their discretionary authority, then it could be said that "they would ... be the ones responsible for not releasing information, not God."  But I simply don't think it is the province for self-appointed critics (some of whom may very well have good intentions) to publicly instruct the Brethren on such matters.  

Otherwise, divine ratification of prophetic decisions (also well attested to in the scriptures - "whatsoever you bind on earth, may be bound in heaven...") is the way things go.

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If the Brethren are operating under instructions from God, I'm good with that.

I've never heard the brethren say that the lack of transparency is a policy instructed by God so believing it is from God is simply an assumption.

I'm not committed to the Church's current level of "transparency" is "instructed by God."  I'm simply saying that I am open to the possibility that it is.

I also think that it is not within our stewardship to publicly criticize and instruct the Brethren on this issue.

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If the Brethren have made discretionary decisions regarding financial oversight and safeguards and "transparency" and such, I'm good with that.

And that's fine. I think that is a far different position than claiming God commended them to be non-transparent. If it is a leadership decision, then it is open to change without any kind of revelation. It is a matter of will for leadership to choose transparency. I believe that it is a leadership decision, not a God decision.

I agree with everything you say here.

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If the Brethren have erred in exercising the authority that is plainly within their discretion, then I hope they sort it out.  But I don't think it is within my province to publicly speak against them or dictate to them.

And I disagree.

The difference, though, is that I have quite a bit of guidance from the Scriptures and from the Brethren to support my position.  I don't think you can say the same thing.

I will once again reference Elder Oaks's 1987 article, "Criticism."  It includes numerous points of prophetic counsel about how to handle differences in the Church.  Exactly none of them involve publicly speaking against the General Authorities, or dictating how they should handle things that are totally within their stewardship, and nowhere near my stewardship.

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You seem content to trust leadership even if they may be wrong, or even if things could be better.

Not quite.  To the extent I think "things could be better," my options for facilitating that do not include publicly speaking against the General Authorities, or dictating how they should handle things that are solely within their stewardship, and not within mine.

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm of the opinion that as members we all have a stake in the church and all have responsibility to be knowledgeable enough to exercise agency for consent.

I can see that as a good faith position.  Really.

But I also see that the Brethren can be acting in good faith, too.

And at the end of the day, it's their call.  And it's not our call to publicly speak against them.

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Without the knowledge there's really no agency to consent IMO

I see your point.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

I'm about to go away for the weekend. Devonshire calls, and I must answer!  I'm not taking my laptop, and out of courtesy to my wife, for whom this is to be a romantic getaway, I won't be spending any time on my laptop chatting with you fine people.

So have a good weekend, ya'll!

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'm about to go away for the weekend. Devonshire calls, and I must answer!  I'm not taking my laptop, and out of courtesy to my wife, for whom this is to be a romantic getaway, I won't be spending any time on my laptop chatting with you fine people.

So have a good weekend, ya'll!

Please do not lord your married status over us sad peasants. It offends us second class citizens of the Kingdom of God. TIA.

Edited June 8, 2018 by The Nehor

[bluebell]

Personally, I don't think the Lord has instructed our leaders to keep this stuff a secret.  I'm guessing that the brethren have what they believe to be good reasons for keeping some stuff from common knowledge but I think that the Lord has left it up to their discretion.  

Not knowing what their reasons might be, I have no idea if I would agree with them or not.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Personally, I don't think the Lord has instructed our leaders to keep this stuff a secret.  I'm guessing that the brethren have what they believe to be good reasons for keeping some stuff from common knowledge but I think that the Lord has left it up to their discretion.  

Not knowing what their reasons might be, I have no idea if I would agree with them or not.

Makes it hard to consent to the issue doesn't it? Leaves you only with the option to consent to accept everything a leader does, without information about a specific action or behavior.

It's hard to have the agency to choose if you don't have the information to make a decision.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Makes it hard to consent to the issue doesn't it? Leaves you only with the option to consent to accept everything a leader does, without information about a specific action or behavior.

It's hard to have the agency to choose if you don't have the information to make a decision.

I can see why some people would see it like that.  For me, the witness of the Holy Ghost about the church and the current prophet specifically, makes it much much easier for me to trust that he 1) has authority from God to make these decisions and 2) is doing what God wants Him to do.

So for me, no I don't consider it that hard.  I can respect those that do though.

Edit--just to clarify, when I said that I wouldn't know if i agreed with them or not, I am not saying that I would see my agreement as relevant.  God does things all the time that I don't completely agree with.  It's a very good thing I don't get to call the shots.  

Edited June 8, 2018 by bluebell

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can see why some people would see it like that.  For me, the witness of the Holy Ghost about the church and the current prophet specifically, makes it much much easier for me to trust that he 1) has authority from God to make these decisions and 2) is doing what God wants Him to do.

So for me, no I don't consider it that hard.  I can respect those that do though.

Edit--just to clarify, when I said that I wouldn't know if i agreed with them or not, I am not saying that I would see my agreement as relevant.  God does things all the time that I don't completely agree with.  It's a very good thing I don't get to call the shots.  

I would like to be clear that I have great respect for the position you've articulated here, Bluebell.