CV75 Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 15 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. Except that post-tithe fiscal decisions are not within your scope of stewardship, hence you are not invited to formally consent to those.
CV75 Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 29 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. I wouldn't say "secret" but simply not disclosed. I see a big difference in the two dynamics, even when the instruction or latitude comes from the Lord. 2
Ahab Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: It's hard to have the agency to choose if you don't have the information to make a decision. On this issue, all you and I need to choose Is whether or not we will pay our tithes and offerings to the Lord through his Church. if we do, our money then becomes his money and he has people in charge of what to do with those funds. 1
CV75 Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 @Steve-o, @cinepro, @ALarson, @HappyJackWagon, @rockpond: here are some easily-digestible discussions about Section 70: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-70-the-lords-steward?lang=eng https://history.lds.org/article/united-firm?lang=eng "And an account of this stewardship* will I require of them in the day of judgment," not before the general conference! "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." "Wherefore, a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things* unto the church, neither unto the world..." Stewardship = their business in the Church = these things = the order, which is why in D&C 104 the common consent is reserved for those in the order, and not general conference! Of course the firm / order was set up for the temporal salvation of the members and the surplus for the Church to use, but that is a different matter than how they used common consent. 1
rockpond Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 15 minutes ago, CV75 said: @Steve-o, @cinepro, @ALarson, @HappyJackWagon, @rockpond: here are some easily-digestible discussions about Section 70: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-70-the-lords-steward?lang=eng https://history.lds.org/article/united-firm?lang=eng "And an account of this stewardship* will I require of them in the day of judgment," not before the general conference! "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." "Wherefore, a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things* unto the church, neither unto the world..." Stewardship = their business in the Church = these things = the order, which is why in D&C 104 the common consent is reserved for those in the order, and not general conference! Of course the firm / order was set up for the temporal salvation of the members and the surplus for the Church to use, but that is a different matter than how they used common consent. The "stewardship" and the "business" being referred to are the printing press. Not the church. "These things" is the business, the assets, and the profit. It was to be used to support their families, not given to the order. I provided this link earlier but this is the institute manual that explains it: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual-2017/chapter-25-doctrine-and-covenants-66-70?lang=eng So, section 70 isn't really talking about common consent. And, I agree that section 104 is referring to the united order/firm and has limited application to us now. 2
ALarson Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 (edited) 44 minutes ago, CV75 said: @Steve-o, @cinepro, @ALarson, @HappyJackWagon, @rockpond: here are some easily-digestible discussions about Section 70: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-70-the-lords-steward?lang=eng https://history.lds.org/article/united-firm?lang=eng "And an account of this stewardship* will I require of them in the day of judgment," not before the general conference! "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." "Wherefore, a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things* unto the church, neither unto the world..." Stewardship = their business in the Church = these things = the order, which is why in D&C 104 the common consent is reserved for those in the order, and not general conference! Of course the firm / order was set up for the temporal salvation of the members and the surplus for the Church to use, but that is a different matter than how they used common consent. Yes, I'm very familiar with Section 70 and its meaning. I agree with rockpond and suggest you read the material he's provided a link for. It will further explain and help you understand what this section was specifically referring to. Edited June 8, 2018 by ALarson
Calm Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, cinepro said: 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." LDS Philanthropies operates Humanitarian Services which operates LDS Charities. Sharon Eubank is the head of that department and has given talks where she shares how the Church will okay sending significants amounts of cash immediately in response to a crisis and then take the time to evaluate other needs in order to send other necessarities (usually cash these days iirc because it is more efficient, including time and costs to buy as locally as possible). It also has ongoing projects, such as Clean Water, wheelchairs, and others. https://www.ldscharities.org/ Edited June 8, 2018 by Calm 1
Calm Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 (edited) 2 hours 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. 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: 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. I think caring for the needy and the poor is one of the things we must do to access salvation. Doing without it would be like doing without good nutrition in a program to promote health. Sure, one can choose to ignore it and think of it as secondary, but the program won't work without it. Salvation is about changing ourselves through God's work to become more like him. He cares for the poor and needy, so we must do so to the best of our ability (which is not the same thing for each person) to fulfill his will as well, to develop that godly attribute of caring and love. Edited June 8, 2018 by Calm 1
provoman Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 I do not think that Christ instructed poverty, infact one lesson he taught about increasing wealth. There is also King Benjamin And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants. 27 And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run fasterthan he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.
Stargazer Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Calm said: I think caring for the needy and the poor is one of the things we must do to access salvation. Doing without it would be like doing without good nutrition in a program to promote health. Sure, one can choose to ignore it and think of it as secondary, but the program won't work without it. Salvation is about changing ourselves through God's work to become more like him. He cares for the poor and needy, so we must do so to the best of our ability (which is not the same thing for each person) to fulfill his will as well, to develop that godly attribute of caring and love. I keep trying to say this, and everyone keeps misunderstanding. Yes, without charity (the pure love of Christ) we are nothing, but without Christ we are less than nothing and doomed to an eternity spent outside God's presence, all of us, good and bad, and all our charity, all our good doing, would avail us nothing without Him. Yes, 1 Cor. 13:1-3, but the firstfruits of charity (the pure love of Christ) is HIS fruit, i.e. the Atonement: 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Yes, take care of the poor, but without Christ all the care of the poor in the world will avail us nothing except eternal damnation -- meaning eternal stagnation and having to suffer for our own transgressions, as Christ suffered (DC 19:16-17): 16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; 17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; And the end of all progress. This is why I keep saying that Christ is the primus inter pares, first among equals, when it comes to the mission of the Church, and the mission of the Savior. All else is appendage -- important appendage, but appendage all the same. I hope I have made myself entirely clear, but if not, I don't know how else to express it. Edited June 8, 2018 by Stargazer
Calm Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I keep trying to say this, and everyone keeps misunderstanding. Yes, without charity (the pure love of Christ) we are nothing, but without Christ we are less than nothing and doomed to an eternity spent outside God's presence, all of us, good and bad, and all our charity, all our good doing, would avail us nothing without Him. Yes, 1 Cor. 13:1-3, but the firstfruits of charity (the pure love of Christ) is HIS fruit, i.e. the Atonement: 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Yes, take care of the poor, but without Christ all the care of the poor in the world will avail us nothing except eternal damnation -- meaning eternal stagnation and having to suffer for our own transgressions, as Christ suffered (DC 19:16-17): 16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; 17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; And the end of all progress. This is why I keep saying that Christ is the primus inter pares, first among equals, when it comes to the mission of the Church, and the mission of the Savior. All else is appendage -- important appendage, but appendage all the same. I hope I have made myself entirely clear, but if not, I don't know how else to express it. And I am saying one can't have Christ without having charity (and it need not always be the poor, there are plenty of needy who are not poor). Joseph taught we cannot be saved without our dead. If we reject/ignore those who Christ would have us accept, then we are rejecting Christ. Edited June 8, 2018 by Calm
Ahab Posted June 8, 2018 Posted June 8, 2018 59 minutes ago, Calm said: And I am saying one can't have Christ without having charity (and it need not always be the poor, there are plenty of needy who are not poor). Joseph taught we cannot be saved without our dead. If we reject/ignore those who Christ would have us accept, then we are rejecting Christ. I think we can have Christ helping us without us having the same love that he has for us (charity), though. And then someday hopefully we will learn to love other people as he does.
CV75 Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 3 hours ago, rockpond said: The "stewardship" and the "business" being referred to are the printing press. Not the church. "These things" is the business, the assets, and the profit. It was to be used to support their families, not given to the order. I provided this link earlier but this is the institute manual that explains it: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual-2017/chapter-25-doctrine-and-covenants-66-70?lang=eng So, section 70 isn't really talking about common consent. And, I agree that section 104 is referring to the united order/firm and has limited application to us now. That is a great link! And you seem to be doing some active "listening" (maybe parroting) in your reply. As I've been saying, "Section 70 isn't really talking about common consent," but about what NOT to share. And perhaps you misunderstand our point of agreement: Section 104, by referring to the United Firm, covers its successor entities in principle. Some key points from the link: In that revelation the Lord appointed six men to oversee the publication of His revelations to Joseph Smith. The conference passed a proposal to provide compensation from the sale of the publications for the families of those who were devoting their time to the preparation and publication of the revelations. The elders voted that Joseph Smith Jr., Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, and Sidney Rigdon “be appointed to manage [the revelations] according to the Laws of the Church [and] the commandments of the Lord” (in The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 2: July 1831–January 1833, 138). A later history states that the Prophet received the revelation recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 70 in answer to an inquiry. In this revelation the Lord sanctioned the decision to appoint individuals to oversee the publication of the revelations. 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. In March 1832, a revelation directed the Prophet Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Newel K. Whitney to organize “the Literary and Mercantile establishments” of the Church (in The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 2: July 1831–January 1833, 198; spelling standardized). Consequently, the stewards over the revelations joined with the Church’s bishops and those responsible for the storehouses in what would be called the United Firm (see section headings for D&C 78 and 82). The six men appointed to oversee the Church’s printing endeavors made up a branch of the United Firm called the Literary Firm. In addition to the Book of Commandments, other publishing projects of the Literary Firm were the Church hymnal, children’s literature, the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, and Church newspapers. 3 hours ago, ALarson said: Yes, I'm very familiar with Section 70 and its meaning. I agree with rockpond and suggest you read the material he's provided a link for. It will further explain and help you understand what this section was specifically referring to. That is a great link! As I mentioned above, @rockpond (see quote above your's) repeated my points based on the other links as well. Section 70 isn't really talking about common consent directly, but about what NOT to share, rendering the principle moot for United Form (and successor entities') stewardships. Section 104, by referring to the United Firm, covers its successor entities in principle, and this is where common consent is limited to those belonging to the order (and successor entities). Some key points from the kink: In that revelation the Lord appointed six men to oversee the publication of His revelations to Joseph Smith. The conference passed a proposal to provide compensation from the sale of the publications for the families of those who were devoting their time to the preparation and publication of the revelations. The elders voted that Joseph Smith Jr., Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, and Sidney Rigdon “be appointed to manage [the revelations] according to the Laws of the Church [and] the commandments of the Lord” (in The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 2: July 1831–January 1833, 138). A later history states that the Prophet received the revelation recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 70 in answer to an inquiry. In this revelation the Lord sanctioned the decision to appoint individuals to oversee the publication of the revelations. 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. In March 1832, a revelation directed the Prophet Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Newel K. Whitney to organize “the Literary and Mercantile establishments” of the Church (in The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 2: July 1831–January 1833, 198; spelling standardized). Consequently, the stewards over the revelations joined with the Church’s bishops and those responsible for the storehouses in what would be called the United Firm (see section headings for D&C 78 and 82). The six men appointed to oversee the Church’s printing endeavors made up a branch of the United Firm called the Literary Firm. In addition to the Book of Commandments, other publishing projects of the Literary Firm were the Church hymnal, children’s literature, the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, and Church newspapers.
CV75 Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 3 hours ago, Calm said: I think caring for the needy and the poor is one of the things we must do to access salvation. Doing without it would be like doing without good nutrition in a program to promote health. Sure, one can choose to ignore it and think of it as secondary, but the program won't work without it. Salvation is about changing ourselves through God's work to become more like him. He cares for the poor and needy, so we must do so to the best of our ability (which is not the same thing for each person) to fulfill his will as well, to develop that godly attribute of caring and love. I think the bolded part relates to the subject of Church finances as far as what we are able to do with post-tithe activities (nothing, hence no common consent there)and giving common consent in areas within our ability to do so (sustaining officers, revelation, policies and major decisions as they are proposed to the saints at large, etc.). We are certainly free and invited to help the poor directly with our post-tithe means. I would argue that our ability to do so is greatly enhanced as a result of tithing, and going about the "Father's business" is between us and Him, and the more anonymous, the better (where O where is the transparency in that?) ! He will make the sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and I think this is how we fulfill the command to allow our light to shine forth / stay high on the candlestick.
rockpond Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 1 hour ago, CV75 said: That is a great link! And you seem to be doing some active "listening" (maybe parroting) in your reply. As I've been saying, "Section 70 isn't really talking about common consent," but about what NOT to share. And perhaps you misunderstand our point of agreement: Section 104, by referring to the United Firm, covers its successor entities in principle. Some key points from the link: In that revelation the Lord appointed six men to oversee the publication of His revelations to Joseph Smith. The conference passed a proposal to provide compensation from the sale of the publications for the families of those who were devoting their time to the preparation and publication of the revelations. The elders voted that Joseph Smith Jr., Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, and Sidney Rigdon “be appointed to manage [the revelations] according to the Laws of the Church [and] the commandments of the Lord” (in The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 2: July 1831–January 1833, 138). A later history states that the Prophet received the revelation recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 70 in answer to an inquiry. In this revelation the Lord sanctioned the decision to appoint individuals to oversee the publication of the revelations. 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. In March 1832, a revelation directed the Prophet Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Newel K. Whitney to organize “the Literary and Mercantile establishments” of the Church (in The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 2: July 1831–January 1833, 198; spelling standardized). Consequently, the stewards over the revelations joined with the Church’s bishops and those responsible for the storehouses in what would be called the United Firm (see section headings for D&C 78 and 82). The six men appointed to oversee the Church’s printing endeavors made up a branch of the United Firm called the Literary Firm. In addition to the Book of Commandments, other publishing projects of the Literary Firm were the Church hymnal, children’s literature, the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, and Church newspapers. That is a great link! As I mentioned above, @rockpond (see quote above your's) repeated my points based on the other links as well. Section 70 isn't really talking about common consent directly, but about what NOT to share, rendering the principle moot for United Form (and successor entities') stewardships. Section 104, by referring to the United Firm, covers its successor entities in principle, and this is where common consent is limited to those belonging to the order (and successor entities). Some key points from the kink: In that revelation the Lord appointed six men to oversee the publication of His revelations to Joseph Smith. The conference passed a proposal to provide compensation from the sale of the publications for the families of those who were devoting their time to the preparation and publication of the revelations. The elders voted that Joseph Smith Jr., Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, and Sidney Rigdon “be appointed to manage [the revelations] according to the Laws of the Church [and] the commandments of the Lord” (in The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 2: July 1831–January 1833, 138). A later history states that the Prophet received the revelation recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 70 in answer to an inquiry. In this revelation the Lord sanctioned the decision to appoint individuals to oversee the publication of the revelations. 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. In March 1832, a revelation directed the Prophet Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Newel K. Whitney to organize “the Literary and Mercantile establishments” of the Church (in The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 2: July 1831–January 1833, 198; spelling standardized). Consequently, the stewards over the revelations joined with the Church’s bishops and those responsible for the storehouses in what would be called the United Firm (see section headings for D&C 78 and 82). The six men appointed to oversee the Church’s printing endeavors made up a branch of the United Firm called the Literary Firm. In addition to the Book of Commandments, other publishing projects of the Literary Firm were the Church hymnal, children’s literature, the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, and Church newspapers. You are stretching and going too far out of context to make those sections indicate that church finances do not fall under common consent. Because men were given the profits from a printing operation for the support of their families, it does not follow that all succeeding church finances should be keep secret from members. 2
mfbukowski Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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. Yes it was a poor analogy I suppose. It is more like the defense department being transparent about it's new submarine program, but you won't understand that. This IS war as the mere existence of this thread illustrates. But I've already covered that a few times, I'm about done. It's all pretty ridiculous really. Scoffers will scoff, but this is plainly about building the New Jerusalem, and you want transparency about where when how and what the street layout will be. It's not going to happen. If you don't want to pay tithing don't pay it. It's that simple. You are not going to get any more information about those plans. Edited June 9, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
CV75 Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, rockpond said: You are stretching and going too far out of context to make those sections indicate that church finances do not fall under common consent. Because men were given the profits from a printing operation for the support of their families, it does not follow that all succeeding church finances should be keep secret from members. You shared a link earlier to a lesson manual for a quote that excludes Church finances from falling under common consent, yet seemed to try to portray it as including it: “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).” You are stretching and going too far out of context to make that correlated statement indicate that church finances fall under common consent. You use Sections 26 and 28 to include Church finances as falling under common consent, but that is also stretching and going too far out of context to make those sections indicate that church finances fall under common consent. Rather, they support the elements spelled out in the correlated statement you shared. Section 104 limits common consent to the members of the decision-making bodies that govern the business and finance matters for the Church. General common consent is not required here. By saying it indicates that church finances fall under broader common consent (as sections 26 and 28 do) you are stretching and going too far out of context with this section. It seems we understand Section 70 in much the same way, except you're avoiding the significance of verse 6. You need to view Section 70 and its subject matter in connection with 104; the two revelations and contexts are connected. Section 70 allows that some things, such as the business stewardships, are not to be given to the Church nor the world (hence their common consent is irrelevant and not required). Section 104 limits the required common consent to those with the actual stewardships, and not to the world or the church membership at large. Edited June 9, 2018 by CV75
CV75 Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yes it was a poor analogy I suppose. It is more like the defense department being transparent about it's new submarine program, but you won't understand that. This IS war as the mere existence of this thread illustrates. But I've already covered that a few times, I'm about done. It's all pretty ridiculous really. Scoffers will scoff, but this is plainly about building the New Jerusalem, and you want transparency about where when how and what the street layout will be. It's not going to happen. If you don't want to pay tithing don't pay it. It's that simple. You are not going to get any more information about those plans. I mentioned in an earlier post that the demand for fiscal transparency of the Church leaders, which has not been scripturally supported, is a matter of control. Zion is a temporal and spiritual construct, and so is money. There is an emotional (spiritual) component to our relationship with it, and with some personalities that incorporates a desire to control it out of proper context and boundaries. Money isn’t the only thing, but that is the subject of this thread. Control is the antithesis of common consent. The Lord has granted control of some things and not others, just has He has delegated keys and stewardships of various kinds and scope. His presiding servants of His kingdom simply have more keys and broader scopes. So some things do not require common consent, and the vast majority of them are found within our daily, private lives. Laman and Lemuel were contentious over the perception of Nephi’s control (seeking power and authority over them, when the Lord had chosen him to lead). 3 Nephi 11 and 12 discuss the problem of contention in relation to heeding the Lord’s chosen servants in relation to His doctrine as He describes it. 1
rockpond Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 33 minutes ago, CV75 said: You shared a link earlier to a lesson manual for a quote that excludes Church finances from falling under common consent, yet seemed to try to portray it as including it: “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).” You are stretching and going too far out of context to make that correlated statement indicate that church finances fall under common consent. You use Sections 26 and 28 to include Church finances as falling under common consent, but that is also stretching and going too far out of context to make those sections indicate that church finances fall under common consent. Rather, they support the elements spelled out in the correlated statement you shared. Section 104 limits common consent to the members of the decision-making bodies that govern the business and finance matters for the Church. General common consent is not required here. By saying it indicates that church finances fall under broader common consent (as sections 26 and 28 do) you are stretching and going too far out of context with this section. It seems we understand Section 70 in much the same way, except you're avoiding the significance of verse 6. You need to view Section 70 and its subject matter in connection with 104; the two revelations and contexts are connected. Section 70 allows that some things, such as the business stewardships, are not to be given to the Church nor the world (hence their common consent is irrelevant and not required). Section 104 limits the required common consent to those with the actual stewardships, and not to the world or the church membership at large. Yes, section 70 allows for some things to not be given to the church. But it doesn’t speak to financial disclosure nor common consent. Section 26 says “all things”. And the quote from the manual interprets all things to include policies, major decisions, and things that affect the lives of the saints. Since the Brethren have made it clear that our finances are governed by policies (which are then audited to) I take this statement to show that church finances should be shared and/or the policies that govern them as part of common consent. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, CV75 said: I mentioned in an earlier post that the demand for fiscal transparency of the Church leaders, which has not been scripturally supported, is a matter of control. Zion is a temporal and spiritual construct, and so is money. There is an emotional (spiritual) component to our relationship with it, and with some personalities that incorporates a desire to control it out of proper context and boundaries. Money isn’t the only thing, but that is the subject of this thread. Control is the antithesis of common consent. The Lord has granted control of some things and not others, just has He has delegated keys and stewardships of various kinds and scope. His presiding servants of His kingdom simply have more keys and broader scopes. So some things do not require common consent, and the vast majority of them are found within our daily, private lives. Laman and Lemuel were contentious over the perception of Nephi’s control (seeking power and authority over them, when the Lord had chosen him to lead). 3 Nephi 11 and 12 discuss the problem of contention in relation to heeding the Lord’s chosen servants in relation to His doctrine as He describes it. Common consent does not nor never did imply transparency. We sustain our leaders, period. We don't vote on policy or anything else, and never have. We are getting to the point where you are on the ship, or free to jump into the freezing waters and have all the "freedom" you want. This is not, not ever was, a democracy. The problem is all inside your head, it seems to me, The answer is simple if you take it logically I'd like to help you in your struggle to be "free" There must be 50 ways to leave your church Sneak out the back Jack Make a new plan, Stan No need to be coy Roy, just listen to me... Edited June 9, 2018 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 I mean why stay in a church you disagree with? I have left at least three, and only been here 39 years, it's quite simple.....
mfbukowski Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, rockpond said: Section 26 says “all things”. Absurd. We are going to have the whole church consent to the purchase of 14 new classroom chairs in the Cheboygan Fourth Ward right? "2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen" So now the entire church is going to pray about those 14 desks and then decide whether or not to make the expenditure is that correct? That is clearly not the meaning. Edited June 9, 2018 by mfbukowski
rockpond Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Absurd. We are going to have the whole church consent to the purchase of 14 new classroom chairs in the Cheboygan Fourth Ward right? "2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen" So now the entire church is going to pray about those 14 desks and then decide whether or not to make the expenditure is that correct? That is clearly not the meaning. Agreed. Likewise, using common consent solely to sustain members in callings is not the meaning.
CV75 Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 4 hours ago, rockpond said: Yes, section 70 allows for some things to not be given to the church. But it doesn’t speak to financial disclosure nor common consent. Section 26 says “all things”. And the quote from the manual interprets all things to include policies, major decisions, and things that affect the lives of the saints. Since the Brethren have made it clear that our finances are governed by policies (which are then audited to) I take this statement to show that church finances should be shared and/or the policies that govern them as part of common consent. “Absurd,” did I hear one say? We know what “all things” refers to in Sections 26, 28 and 104: “all things” pertinent to the subject at hand (confirming the churches, holding conferences in Section 26; revelation for the Church in Section 28, and the business stewardships in 104 and 70). I keep reminding you that while section 70 doesn’t speak to financial disclosure or common consent concerning fiscal and business matters, Section 104 (an extension to 70) does, and its application is limited to those individuals in the order (which in today’s terms is no longer the United Firm but the Corporation of the President and related entities) and not general for the Church membership. According to Section 70, “some things” not to be given to the church include those things that fall within the responsibility of those entities. By your logic that our finances are governed by policies and therefore fall under a requirement for common consent because the statement from the lesson manual says so, the scriptures and the presiding officials govern the policies which govern the finances, and these have been accepted by common consent already! The contradiction in logic is settled by understanding that the scriptures drive the statement from the manual; they provide its context to exclude a requirement for financial disclosure and limit common consent to the ordained decision-makers in fiscal and business matters. That which is specifically proposed for common consent is determined by the governing presidencies and councils anyway, per Section 107. The Brethren have made it clear that our finances are governed by the instructions in D&C 120, and two very basic principles (see below), none of which require or have to do with transparency and common consent. You can read Elder Bednar’s experience here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/the-windows-of-heaven?lang=eng , but some key points for this discussion: “I marvel at the clarity and brevity of these two revelations [D&C 119 and 120] in comparison to the complicated financial guidelines and administrative procedures used in so many organizations and governments around the world.” “In that first council meeting I was impressed by the simplicity of the principles that guided our deliberations and decisions. In the financial operations of the Church, two basic and fixed principles are observed. First, the Church lives within its means and does not spend more than it receives. Second, a portion of the annual income is set aside as a reserve for contingencies and unanticipated needs.” "As the meeting progressed, I found myself wishing that all members of the Church could observe the simplicity, the clarity, the orderliness, the charity, and the power of the Lord’s own way (see D&C 104:16) for conducting the temporal affairs of His Church.” “…I acknowledge the voice (see D&C 120:1) and hand of the Lord that sustain His ordained servants in fulfilling the duty to represent Him.”
CV75 Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 4 hours ago, rockpond said: Agreed. Likewise, using common consent solely to sustain members in callings is not the meaning. I don't think anyone is limiting its meaning to sustaining leaders only, though they do have the prerogative to call for common consent on anything outside of D&C 26 and 28 (P.S. the statement from the lesson manual is to teach the broader meaning of common consent in D&C 26, not the narrower application in 104... "all things" includes all scopes of practice and application, allowing for its exercise in both general- and council-specific contexts).
Recommended Posts