The Church has $32 Billion in the Stock Market

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

“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.”

We disagree in our interpretation/understanding  and I think the discussion long ago left the realm of being productive. 

Please note:  in the future, if you are going to be rude and disrespectful in your replies (referring to your “absurd” comment and some others you’ve made) I won’t reply and may just block you.  I believe that as Latter-day Saints we ought to try to raise the level of discourse, not lower it. 

Have a great week.  I’ll be offline as I’m spending the week serving at our stake young men’s camp.  

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We disagree in our interpretation/understanding  and I think the discussion long ago left the realm of being productive. 

Please note:  in the future, if you are going to be rude and disrespectful in your replies (referring to your “absurd” comment and some others you’ve made) I won’t reply and may just block you.  I believe that as Latter-day Saints we ought to try to raise the level of discourse, not lower it. 

Have a great week.  I’ll be offline as I’m spending the week serving at our stake young men’s camp.  

Back atcha!

[Teancum]

23 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.

There are numerous other passages in the NT where it was clear that Jesus was very focused on the poor, and thus philanthropy.  I am sure you are aware of these passage.  How sad you dismiss them to protect the Corporation the President of the LDS church. 

[cdowis]

Quote

 I think their tithe payers have a right to know.

The prophet and church leaders disagree. Do you actually imagine that tithing is YOUR money? 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by cdowis

[Gray]

On 6/8/2018 at 4:12 PM, CV75 said:

Except that post-tithe fiscal decisions are not within your scope of stewardship, hence you are not invited to formally consent to those.

The removal of the priesthood ban was by common consent. Is that within the scope of stewardship of the lay member?

[Stargazer]

On 6/8/2018 at 11:38 PM, 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.

And I agree. There we are, but some in this thread seem to think that caring for the poor is the gospel, just as some LDS seem to think that the Word of Wisdom is the gospel.

[Stargazer]

22 hours ago, Teancum said:

There are numerous other passages in the NT where it was clear that Jesus was very focused on the poor, and thus philanthropy.  I am sure you are aware of these passage.  How sad you dismiss them to protect the Corporation the President of the LDS church. 

I'm not trying to dismiss philanthropy, I'm trying dismiss the notion of "philanthropy first", which some seem to have. I do understand and sympathize with those unbelievers who only see philanthropy, and for whom Christ's atoning sacrifice is a fable. Of course they would see a juicy stock portfolio as a target for accusations of greed over compassion. And the Corporation of the President does not need little old me to defend it. Anyway, for some there is no defense that shall prosper, because the LDS church is guilty by definition.

I take it that your opinion is that the church should sell it all, and give it to the poor? I'm sure that would be a nice idea. But perhaps the LDS church is keeping the portfolio against a day of famine, like Joseph urged Pharoah to do. Perhaps the Church isn't as venal and greedy as you're assuming, and is being wise and provident in its handling of its assets. 

If Jesus were as focussed on the poor as you say, then when Mary anointed His feet with that spikenard, he should have stopped her and had her sell it to give the proceeds to the poor.

But he didn't. Now why was that, then?

           3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
            4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,
            5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
            6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
            7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.
            8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

The removal of the priesthood ban was by common consent. Is that within the scope of stewardship of the lay member?

No, the revelation was accepted as the word of the Lord and thus canonized by common consent, and that is within the stewardship of the "lay member" (as part of the constituent assembly on September 30, 1978) :

"Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as a prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

"President Kimball, it appears that the vote has been unanimous in the affirmative, and the motion has carried."

The revelation leading to the removal of the ban (to put it colloquially) was received June 1, 1978 and effectuated June 8, 1978 in a letter from the First Presidency to inform and instruct the general and local priesthood officers of the Church throughout the world (it was announced June 9, 1978):

“To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

“Dear Brethren:

...

“[God] has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple...

“We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/10/revelation-on-priesthood-accepted-church-officers-sustained?lang=eng

[Gray]

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

No, the revelation was accepted as the word of the Lord and thus canonized by common consent, and that is within the stewardship of the "lay member" (as part of the constituent assembly on September 30, 1978) :

Yes, that's an important clarification. Thanks.

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

"Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as a prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

"President Kimball, it appears that the vote has been unanimous in the affirmative, and the motion has carried."

The revelation leading to the removal of the ban (to put it colloquially) was received June 1, 1978 and effectuated June 8, 1978 in a letter from the First Presidency to inform and instruct the general and local priesthood officers of the Church throughout the world (it was announced June 9, 1978):

“To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

“Dear Brethren:

...

“[God] has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple...

“We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/10/revelation-on-priesthood-accepted-church-officers-sustained?lang=eng

 

So is revelation for the church in the scope of stewardship for lay members?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Yes, that's an important clarification. Thanks.

So is revelation for the church in the scope of stewardship for lay members?

According to D&C 28 (verse 2 and elsewhere in the Section), receiving revelation for the Church is not "in the scope of stewardship for lay members."

[Gray]

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

According to D&C 28 (verse 2 and elsewhere in the Section), receiving revelation for the Church is not "in the scope of stewardship for lay members."

So what does stewardship have to do with common consent? That was the point I was trying to make. You were saying common consent was unnecessary for financial matters because it's outside of the stewardship of most members.

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

So what does stewardship have to do with common consent? That was the point I was trying to make. You were saying common consent was unnecessary for financial matters because it's outside of the stewardship of most members.

D&C 104 describes the connection between common consent and stewardship. The funds held by the entity that is set up to manage business and financial affairs of the Church is put to use by the common consent of the members who have been given this stewardship (verses 71-73; in this case, the United Firm is the "order" -- The Corporation of the President we have today is a successor entity). Those constituting the decision-making body of the entity have a good degree of latitude in making their decisions in good faith (verses 74, 85-86). The members at large do not have this stewardship and so do not participate in "the voice and common consent of the order."

[smac97]

On 6/10/2018 at 8:45 AM, Gray said:

The removal of the priesthood ban was by common consent. Is that within the scope of stewardship of the lay member?

I think "common consent" related to the the body of the Church "accept[ing] this revelation as the word and will of the Lord."

That is to say, Pres. Kimball received it, and the body of the Saints were asked to accept it.

From the EOM article on "Common Consent":

Quote

Common consent is a fundamental principle of decision making at all levels in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In selecting new officers and making administrative decisions, Church leaders are instructed to seek the will of God. Once the Lord makes his will known and a decision is reached, the matter is brought before the appropriate quorum or body of Church members, who are asked to sustain or oppose the action. This process provides for direction of the Church by revelation, while protecting the agency of the members to verify in their own minds whether decisions have been proper and made according to the will of God.

I have a hard time conceptualizing a financial decision that is on par with OD-2.  That is, a decision that affects the Church as a whole.  

Unlike the cessation of the Priesthood Ban, the Church's financial decisions are constant and ongoing.  Common consent as to the general competency and integrity of those charged with making financial decisions?  Sure, we do that all the time.  But common consent as to each and every financial decision that the Church makes?  That's just not practical.

I think a much better case can be made for "common consent" not being used as pertaining to the 2015 policy changes (see here).  Perhaps it should be presented to the body of the Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think "common consent" related to the the body of the Church "accept[ing] this revelation as the word and will of the Lord."

That is to say, Pres. Kimball received it, and the body of the Saints were asked to accept it.

From the EOM article on "Common Consent":

I have a hard time conceptualizing a financial decision that is on par with OD-2.  That is, a decision that affects the Church as a whole.  

Unlike the cessation of the Priesthood Ban, the Church's financial decisions are constant and ongoing.  Common consent as to the general competency and integrity of those charged with making financial decisions?  Sure, we do that all the time.  But common consent as to each and every financial decision that the Church makes?  That's just not practical.

I think a much better case can be made for "common consent" not being used as pertaining to the 2015 policy changes (see here).  Perhaps it should be presented to the body of the Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

It think the principle of common consent operates on a broad, general scale in some cases (D&C 26 and 28) and on a narrow scale in others (D&C 104), the determination being made for financial and business matters according to the pattern given in 104 and by the presiding officers according to D&C 107. In this way, the integrity of the lesson manual quote ("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") is preserved.

The 2015 policy changes, which affect the lives of some Saints by setting membership and ordinance eligibility requirements, appropriately fall under the narrower scope. Where the power and authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church, and we have a Presidency of the Church comprised of three Presiding High Priests, it is well within their scope to practice common consent on the narrow scale for how the priesthood ordinances are administered. Another example might be the changes in the temple ordinances, which affect the lives of many, many Saints.

Sharing with @Gray

[Gray]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think "common consent" related to the the body of the Church "accept[ing] this revelation as the word and will of the Lord."

That is to say, Pres. Kimball received it, and the body of the Saints were asked to accept it.

From the EOM article on "Common Consent":

I have a hard time conceptualizing a financial decision that is on par with OD-2.  That is, a decision that affects the Church as a whole.  

Unlike the cessation of the Priesthood Ban, the Church's financial decisions are constant and ongoing.  Common consent as to the general competency and integrity of those charged with making financial decisions?  Sure, we do that all the time.  But common consent as to each and every financial decision that the Church makes?  That's just not practical.

I think a much better case can be made for "common consent" not being used as pertaining to the 2015 policy changes (see here).  Perhaps it should be presented to the body of the Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think part of the issue is there has never really been a clear or consistent application of the principle of common consent.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I think part of the issue is there has never really been a clear or consistent application of the principle of common consent.

LOL that's only an issue when one is unaware of the clear and consistent applications of the principle of common consent! This thread is full of them; it might be worth a review!

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

LOL that's only an issue when one is unaware of the clear and consistent applications of the principle of common consent! This thread is full of them; it might be worth a review! 

Well to start with, how does one square the principle of common consent with the requirement to sustain the prophet and Q12? Did common consent operate the same way in 1835 as it does today? Or in 1912?

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well to start with, how does one square the principle of common consent with the requirement to sustain the prophet and Q12? Did common consent operate the same way in 1835 as it does today? Or in 1912?

Just because the form and/or practice of a principle may change over time doesn't mean the principle and its operation have changed. I think its clear and consistent (enough!) to the participants, otherwise they would probably refrain or recuse themselves.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Well to start with, how does one square the principle of common consent with the requirement to sustain the prophet and Q12? Did common consent operate the same way in 1835 as it does today? Or in 1912?

I don't think so.  As the Church grows, I think "common consent" necessarily shifts from a less "hands on" approach by the general membership to something like "We utilize 'Common Consent' to sustain the leaders of the Church and their administrative decisions that govern the Church."

In 1835, the fledgling Church had very few members (8,835 members, or approximately .05% of today's membership), and very little money.  It would stand to reason that some adjustment of practice would be necessary when managing today's church comprised of of 16,118,169 members, thousands of buildings, billions in revenue, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 12, 2018 by smac97

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  As the Church grows, I think "common consent" necessarily shifts from a less "hands on" approach by the general membership to something like "We utilize 'Common Consent' to sustain the leaders of the Church and their administrative decisions that govern the Church."

In 1835, the fledgling Church have very few members (8,835 members, or approximately .05% of today's membership), and very little money.  It would stand to reason that some adjustment of practice would be necessary when managing today's church comprised of of 16,118,169 members, thousands of buildings, billions in revenue, etc. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Fair point.

[Ahab]

56 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well to start with, how does one square the principle of common consent with the requirement to sustain the prophet and Q12? Did common consent operate the same way in 1835 as it does today? Or in 1912?

Common consent from Church members is required to sustain them in their callings, otherwise they would operate in their callings without any support or sustaining from Church members, or conceivably they would choose to abandon their callings since no member of the Church supported or sustained them. They wouldn't be able to lead people who chose not to follow them or their counsel, so their counsel wouldn't be doing any good. 

Fortunately ever since the Church was reorganized in our day, back in 1830, ;the majority of the Church has sustained them.  Or at least enough of us have so that they could still do us some good. If that ever stopped, or not enough Church members chose to follow their counsel, we would be looking at another apostasy, possible without even realizing that's what it was.  But supposedly that is never going to happen again.

[FearlessFixxer]

On 6/6/2018 at 12:54 PM, PacMan said:

The moment a tithe payer made a voluntary contribution they relinquished the right to know because it is no long there's.  What you "think" is immaterial.

Study up on Isoroku Yamamoto.  If you waken the sleeping giant, you will, and should, end up in jail.

what have I or ML done that would lead us to jail?

[mfbukowski]

On 6/6/2018 at 3:26 PM, Gray said:

I don't think they're doing anything unethical with it. But have you ever had a bishop make bad decisions? No one at any level of the church is immune. It does not follow from "the gospel is true" that "the money is being used correctly."

What precisely constitutes "correct" use of money?

It is in the eye of the beholder and in this case the church is the beholder.

So it's correct use would be whatever they decide to do with it.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What precisely constitutes "correct" use of money?

It is in the eye of the beholder and in this case the church is the beholder.

So it's correct use would be whatever they decide to do with it.

Personally I have in mind the system of ethics based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. But it doesn't really matter. They could easily be using it incorrectly by any standard you chose, and that wouldn't make the gospel more or less true.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Gray

[Walden]

I can imagine upon Christ's return that he will be very pleased that the church has built up such a stockpile of wealth in the stock market...."well done my good and faithful servants, you have quite an impressive stock portfolio....never mind when I said "that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven....it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Maybe God has a more forgiving view of corporations?