Bill Reel announces he faces impending Bishop's Court

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Where does this principle come from? 

From those who prioritize transparency over privacy for orgs that receive donations.

 

Quote

What I'm asking is why a person who does not belong to a private, voluntary organization think he has to right to change the policies and procedures or that organization, and over the wishes of many of it's members.

Don't know.  Not speaking for him on this question.  I don't know anything about his association with the Church.  I assume he is or was a member at one point.  But again he's not alone.  many active members support his cause.  

Edited August 14, 2018 by stemelbow

[ksfisher]

Just now, stemelbow said:

From those who prioritize transparency over privacy for orgs that receive donations.

So it's an opinion. 

And McKnight has decided that his opinion about how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints conducts it's business trumps what the church is legally obligated to do, trumps the policies and procedures of the church, and trumps the wishes of many of it's members. 

You talk about principles.  How many principles are being violated there?

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Quote

The principle is pretty simple.  If an org requests and receives donations from a mass of people that org ought to be transparent about what it does and how it spends its money.

I disagree.  I do not believe that this is apparent in any way.  Is it written in law somewhere?

Nope.  He's just making things up as he goes along.

The key phrasing is "ought to be."

And who gets to decide what "ought to be?"  Ryan McKnight.

And if you disagree with Mr. McKnight about how things "ought to be," tough luck.  It's McKnight's way or the highway.  If you do not capitulate to his expectations about "transparency" about your financial and other sensitive personal data, then Mr. McKnight is justified in encouraging people who have access to you (friends, family members, etc.) to steal that data from you and send it to him so he can publish it to the world.

That is how things "ought to be." Because Mr. McKnight says so.

Quote

Quote

But just because you disagree does not mean others can't disagree with you.

That's understood.  But disagreement is different than taking unilateral action against those you disagree with.

I'm having a hard time believing that stemelbow is incapable of grasping this oh-so-simple concept.

Quote

Quote

McKnight and plenty of others plainly disagree with you and feel strongly enough that they are doing something about it.  

What standing does McKnight have to make this decision, on behalf of the church, that the church should be transparent in the manner that he thinks it should?  Is he a member or donor of the church? 

No, he is not.

But he is the arbiter of how "transparent" the LDS Church "ought to be."

Not the government.  Mr. McKnight.

We don't live by the rule of law.  We live by the whims of Ryan McKnight.  Of what he thinks "ought to be."  And since the Church hasn't capitulated to Mr. McKnight's expectations regarding transparency, he is justified in encouraging theft from the LDS Church.

Personally, I am grateful to be so obscure as to probably not get on Ryan McKnight's bad side.  'Cuz if I did, he might end up choosing how things "ought to be" regarding my personal data.

What a weird world.

-Smac

Edited August 14, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Don't know.  Not speaking for him on this question.  I don't know anything about his association with the Church.  I assume he is or was a member at one point.  But again he's not alone.  many active members support his cause.  

Ah.  So if Jack gets enough people to support his "cause" of demanding that you, stemelbow, publish your IRL identity, and social security number, and bank account numbers and logins, and email logins, etc., and if you refuse to publish this data, then Jack is justified in encouraging others to steal this data from you and send it to Jack so he can publish it to the world.

That's how things "ought to be," huh?

-Smac

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Quote

Yes, you disagree with the stated principle.  I realize that.  I'm just stating the principle is simple.  Whether you agree or not is another matter.  

Where does this principle come from? 

"Principle?"  There's a "principle" underlying Ryan McKnight's encouragement of LDS employees to steal from their employer?

I guess the principle is "Do what I say or I will use deceit, theft and coercion to bend you to my will."

And that "principle" comes from . . . Ryan McKnight.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  So if Jack gets enough people to support his "cause" of demanding that you, stemelbow, publish your IRL identity, and social security number, and bank account numbers and logins, and email logins, etc., and if you refuse to publish this data, then Jack is justified in encouraging others to steal this data from you and send it to Jack so he can publish it to the world.

That's how things "ought to be," huh?

-Smac

I don't know why you keep repeating this nonsense.  I have next to no desire at all to traipse down this road with you again.  As is clear I'm not receiving donations from people, thus you simply are ignoring the very reason for the push for transparency.  You've failed each and every time to give a reason why an individual should be so transparent.  

And

as you keep trying to reduce this....I have already stated my opinion.  If I were receiving donations from people I'd be transparent about what I'm doing and about my spending.  If I weren't, feeling I owed donors that much, I'd hope someone would pressure me to be transparent.  

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So it's an opinion. 

And McKnight has decided that his opinion about how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints conducts it's business trumps what the church is legally obligated to do, trumps the policies and procedures of the church, and trumps the wishes of many of it's members. 

You talk about principles.  How many principles are being violated there?

They're his principles.  he has apparently decided the org should be transparent.  I'm sure he realizes many members and the org itself disagrees with him.  Sure his exercising his right to his opinion.  And yes, it's clear you vehemently disagree.  I on the other hand am less settled as you on the matter.

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe the members need to know these things, especially when they are being told to consecrate their time, talents, money, etc. The church can ask this, but the members shouldn't expect transparency in return? Too onesided, and really a scary existance, to be in the dark about the chruch's decisions, or actions. 

Recently our church bought a 40 story apartment high rise in Chicago. The corporation side, but where are the hospitals for the poor that other faiths build? Nope, just money making ventures.  

It seems logical to let the people know where their money goes with meaningful disclosure through independent audits.  This won't happen until enough of the people demand it.  In fact, I would guess if a poll were conducted today, most would be in favor of a detailed public audit.

[smac97]

Just now, stemelbow said:

Quote

Ah.  So if Jack gets enough people to support his "cause" of demanding that you, stemelbow, publish your IRL identity, and social security number, and bank account numbers and logins, and email logins, etc., and if you refuse to publish this data, then Jack is justified in encouraging others to steal this data from you and send it to Jack so he can publish it to the world.

That's how things "ought to be," huh?

I don't know why you keep repeating this nonsense. 

Because I think it's correct, and because you haven't substantively responded to it.

Just now, stemelbow said:

I have next to no desire at all to traipse down this road with you again. 

As you like.  But if you keep insisting on using patently flawed reasoning to excuse Mr. McKnight's execrable conduct, I'm going to keep pointing it out.

Just now, stemelbow said:

As is clear I'm not receiving donations from people, thus you simply are ignoring the very reason for the push for transparency. 

You are just making things up as you go along.

Anyone (let's call him "Jack") can fabricate justifications for stealing your data, just like you are doing here to justify Mr. McKnight's conduct.  

For exampel: Do you itemize your taxes?  Do you take deductions on payment of taxes that are allowed by law?  If so, you are using the law to avoid payment of taxes that you otherwise would be obligated to pay, which is what tax exempt entities do.  So Jack will use that as a justification to "want" you to come forward and publish your IRL identity, and your pay stubs, and your social security number.  And if you choose to not come forward with this information, then Jack is justified in encouraging your family members, friends, etc. to steal this information from you and send it to him so he can publish it to the world without your consent.

Does Jack's reasoning work?  Sure!  Why not?  If Mr. McKnight (and you) can arbitrarily fabricate justifications for encouraging theft from the LDS Church, then Jack can arbitrarily fabricate justifications for encouraging theft from you.  See how easy it is?

Just now, stemelbow said:

You've failed each and every time to give a reason why an individual should be so transparent.  

See above.

Moreover, I don't really need a reason, do I?  If Mr. McKnight gets to make up rules, then so does "Jack."  And if we all get to make up whatever rules we want, then we don't need to justify them.

Just now, stemelbow said:

And

as you keep trying to reduce this....I have already stated my opinion.  If I were receiving donations from people I'd be transparent about what I'm doing and about my spending. 

And if you chose to not be "transparent" to Jack's satisfaction, then by your reasoning Jack is entitled to encourage people close to you to steal your personal data - anything that Jack wants to see, anything at all - and send that data to Jack so he can publish it to the world.

I think if that happened, you would be upset, and you would be justified in feeling upset.  Jack has no right, moral or legal or otherwise, to encourage others to steal from you.

And Ryan McKnight has no right, moral or legal or otherwise, to encourage others to steal from the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

They're his principles. 

Right.  Principles that justify his encouragement of employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

he has apparently decided the org should be transparent. 

And if "Jack" decides that you should be "transparent" about your IRL identity, your SSN, your bank account numbers and logins, your email logins, and so on, then he is free to fabricate "principles" like those of Mr. McKnight.  Principles that justify Jack in encouraging those close to you to steal your personal data and send it to Jack so he can publish it to the world.

This is a healthy state of affairs, in your view?

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm sure he realizes many members and the org itself disagrees with him.  Sure his exercising his right to his opinion. 

"Exercising his right to his opinion" = "Encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and send them to him so he can publish them to the world."

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And yes, it's clear you vehemently disagree.  I on the other hand am less settled as you on the matter.

"Less settled?"

-Smac

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It seems logical to let the people know where their money goes with meaningful disclosure through independent audits. 

Hmm.  And if "Jack" feels that it's "logical" that anyone who itemizes deductions on their taxes are not paying their "fair share," such that they have forfeited any right to privacy and should publish their unredacted tax returns every year.  In the name of "transparency."

Jack further feels it is "logical" that if you, Exiled, refuse to publish your unredacted tax returns, then Jack is justified in encouraging people close to you (family members, friends, accountant, etc.) to steal your tax returns and send them to him so he can publish them to the world.

This may seem "logical" to people like Mr. McKnight and "Jack," but not to me.  Jack has no right to impose his opinions about "transparency" on you.

And Mr. McKnight has no right to impose his opinions about "transparency" on the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

he has apparently decided the org should be transparent.

What right does he have to decide what the policies and practices or a private, voluntary membership organization that he is not a member of should be?  Why does what he want trump the wishes of the members of that organization who agree with the current policies and practices as well as the leaders of the church?

I fail to see how he has any moral or ethical right to do what he's doing.  If anything, he's violating others rights.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe the members need to know these things, especially when they are being told to consecrate their time, talents, money, etc. The church can ask this, but the members shouldn't expect transparency in return? Too onesided, and really a scary existance, to be in the dark about the chruch's decisions, or actions.

Not onesided at all.  The  Church as a whole has consecrated its time, talents, money, etc. to building up the Kingdom of God just as we do individually.

The Church allows the members their privacy and demonstrates what the Church as an institution  does sufficiently imo through their outward behaviour that almost all members with sight and a computer to examine stuff not in their immediate vicinity have access to with some effort.  Just as members demonstrate how they consecrate their own time, talents, money, etc enough through their outward behaviour that church leadership measures whenever necessary pretty much by what they see and what they hear from the member themselves.

The Church is in the dark about the vast majority of your decisions and actions (even for those living in Utah).  Should the general membership be scared?

Edited August 14, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

So because the church has bought an apartment building and is not building hospitals this nullifies everything good that the church is doing?

Apparently it nullifies any need to actually pay attention to anything else the Church does.

The wheelchair and clean water initiative, PEF, Pathfinder educational program, bishop's storehouses, Just Serve program, etc. etc...all money making ventures obviously.

[SouthernMo]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe the members need to know these things, especially when they are being told to consecrate their time, talents, money, etc. The church can ask this, but the members shouldn't expect transparency in return? Too onesided, and really a scary existance, to be in the dark about the chruch's decisions, or actions. 

Recently our church bought a 40 story apartment high rise in Chicago. The corporation side, but where are the hospitals for the poor that other faiths build? Nope, just money making ventures.  

This is a massive challenge for me.  Those who have received their endowments have accepted the law of consecration and are under covenant to live it.  This idea is tough to dispute.

What is challenging is the paradox in the covenant itself. On the one hand, we are asked to live “the law of consecration as contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants.”  The scriptures in D&C teach the law of consecration as one to care for the poor.

On the other hand, this can apparently conflict with the other part of the same covenant, namely that we “consecrate [ourselves, time, talents, etc...] to the Church or Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...”  The covenant clearly states that our resources go to this church (not God, not a cause, but the legal/worldly organization).

The paradox/difficulty arises when we see that which we have consecrated not being used as D&C directs.  This is where I struggle. I suspect I’m not alone.

[Exiled]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  And if "Jack" feels that it's "logical" that anyone who itemizes deductions on their taxes are not paying their "fair share," such that they have forfeited any right to privacy and should publish their unredacted tax returns every year.  In the name of "transparency."

Jack further feels it is "logical" that if you, Exiled, refuse to publish your unredacted tax returns, then Jack is justified in encouraging people close to you (family members, friends, accountant, etc.) to steal your tax returns and send them to him so he can publish them to the world.

This may seem "logical" to people like Mr. McKnight and "Jack," but not to me.  Jack has no right to impose his opinions about "transparency" on you.

And Mr. McKnight has no right to impose his opinions about "transparency" on the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Anyone can propose changes in the law and opine on what ought to be.  I think what Stem said earlier about taking in charitable contributions makes a lot of sense and outside of forums like this, it would be an obvious point.  If your Jack ran a charity and asked to have contributors give 10% of their annual increase to his charity, the contributors would want to have every dime accounted for on a periodic basis. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Anyone can propose changes in the law and opine on what ought to be.  I think what Stem said earlier about taking in charitable contributions makes a lot of sense and outside of forums like this, it would be an obvious point.  If your Jack ran a charity and asked to have contributors give 10% of their annual increase to his charity, the contributors would want to have every dime accounted for on a periodic basis. 

If the contributors to Jack's charity did not want to have full financial transparency, is it ethical for someone who does not donate to the charity to attempt to force Jack to be financially transparent by releasing confidential information without his permission?

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Quote

Hmm.  And if "Jack" feels that it's "logical" that anyone who itemizes deductions on their taxes are not paying their "fair share," such that they have forfeited any right to privacy and should publish their unredacted tax returns every year.  In the name of "transparency."

Jack further feels it is "logical" that if you, Exiled, refuse to publish your unredacted tax returns, then Jack is justified in encouraging people close to you (family members, friends, accountant, etc.) to steal your tax returns and send them to him so he can publish them to the world.

This may seem "logical" to people like Mr. McKnight and "Jack," but not to me.  Jack has no right to impose his opinions about "transparency" on you.

And Mr. McKnight has no right to impose his opinions about "transparency" on the LDS Church.

Anyone can propose changes in the law and opine on what ought to be. 

I quite agree.  That's one of the blessings of living under the "rule of law."

Mr. McKnight, on the other hand, is not advocating for "changes in the law" to get his way.  He is instead resorting to deceit, theft and coercion to get his way.

I find that represensible.

Quote

I think what Stem said earlier about taking in charitable contributions makes a lot of sense and outside of forums like this, it would be an obvious point.  If your Jack ran a charity and asked to have contributors give 10% of their annual increase to his charity, the contributors would want to have every dime accounted for on a periodic basis. 

Okay.  But they have plenty of options on how to proceed that do not involve Mr. McKnight's preferred modus operandi (deceit, theft, coercion).

Have you read the blog entry on this topic (written by an accountant) that I linked to earlier, The Folly of LDS Church Financial Transparency?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 14, 2018 by smac97

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

McKnight has decided that the church needs to be more transparent.  Is he a member of the church?  Is he a donor?  I am both a member of the church and a donor.  Why do his wishes trump mine?  What about the thoughts and feelings of the other millions of donors who agree with the churches current policies and practices and do not want potentially sensitive information published?  What standing or right does he have to determine what my church does or doesn't do?

Possible family members? He may see his parents (true story) sell their home to go on a mission (because for Senior Missionaries, they aren't cheap), and then come back to having trouble purchasing a home that was as nice as the one they sold. 

Another true story concerning Senior Missionaries, they go on their missionary and do the work that once was a paid position. So the church is pretty much getting free services by calling it a mission? 

And the original tithing quotes that tithing is on interest. But I agree if someone isn't a donor they probably don't seem like a good candidate to complain. 

My personal story is that my in-laws years ago donated a large some to the church, but I doubt very much that they knew the church had so much money. Of course, it's not the church's money, it's the Lords, same sentiment of those on this board that pay tithing. And it's definitely their perogative. And I know their tithing goes to temples etc. and building up the kingdom, so you're right the church needs to make sure there is enough for a rainy day. Enough said, you and others are again right when it comes to this answer. 

But maybe the church should go back to the original script of it being on increase only.

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by Tacenda

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

we are asked to live “the law of consecration

This is not true.  Endowed members of the church are not asked to "live" the law of consecration.  I don't want to get into the language on a public message board, but this is not the word that is used and I think some of the conclusions you've made would change if you used the correct word in it's place.

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

The covenant clearly states that our resources go to this church (not God,

Which we believe receives it's authority to act (the priesthood) from God.  I don't see the difference.

Edited August 14, 2018 by ksfisher

[Exiled]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

The  Church as a whole has consecrated its time, talents, money, etc. to building up the Kingdom of God just as we do individually.

The church ought to let its light shine in the darkness and show us how it runs things through meaningful disclosure.  I don't know how keeping the members in the dark can be justified.  Why doesn't the church just open up more financially as it has done with it's history?  Are they afraid that the world would see more corporation than church?

[stemelbow]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because I think it's correct, and because you haven't substantively responded to it.

As you like.  But if you keep insisting on using patently flawed reasoning to excuse Mr. McKnight's execrable conduct, I'm going to keep pointing it out.

You are just making things up as you go along.

Anyone (let's call him "Jack") can fabricate justifications for stealing your data, just like you are doing here to justify Mr. McKnight's conduct. 

Everybody gets to make up their own reasons for doing what they do.  I'm not sure why this has been such a sticking point for you.  

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

For exampel: Do you itemize your taxes?  Do you take deductions on payment of taxes that are allowed by law?  If so, you are using the law to avoid payment of taxes that you otherwise would be obligated to pay, which is what tax exempt entities do.  So Jack will use that as a justification to "want" you to come forward and publish your IRL identity, and your pay stubs, and your social security number.  And if you choose to not come forward with this information, then Jack is justified in encouraging your family members, friends, etc. to steal this information from you and send it to him so he can publish it to the world without your consent.

Does Jack's reasoning work?  Sure!  Why not?  If Mr. McKnight (and you) can arbitrarily fabricate justifications for encouraging theft from the LDS Church, then Jack can arbitrarily fabricate justifications for encouraging theft from you.  See how easy it is?

And how many people will go along with your justifications, smac?  Just because you come up with something doesn't mean it's equivalent here.  But, if you are intent on continuing this awfully illogical and foolish point, by all means, make an issue out of it. See if you can figure out a way to justify your silly scenario of getting my SS number and other things to post online.  We'll see whose site gets more hits, yours or Mormonleaks.  we'll see who garners more interest.  We'll see who gets more accepting the justification, you or he.  Go ahead.  Play that game, smac.  I think you know it's foolishness.  But we'll see.  

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See above.

Moreover, I don't really need a reason, do I?  If Mr. McKnight gets to make up rules, then so does "Jack."  And if we all get to make up whatever rules we want, then we don't need to justify them.

And if you chose to not be "transparent" to Jack's satisfaction, then by your reasoning Jack is entitled to encourage people close to you to steal your personal data - anything that Jack wants to see, anything at all - and send that data to Jack so he can publish it to the world.

You're making crap up again.  Where did I suggest Jack would be entitled to encourage people close to me to steal my personal data?  That's no my reasoning.  And as I've said a few times, I have no decided that Mormonleaks is fully justified in doing what they're doing.  I'm pointing out that I get their reasoning, which it seems you don't get, and am in favor of the Church being more transparent.  I don't know that the tactics Mormonleaks is using justifies the pressure for the Church to be transparent.  

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think if that happened, you would be upset, and you would be justified in feeling upset.  Jack has no right, moral or legal or otherwise, to encourage others to steal from you.

If I was accepting donations from people, particularly millions of people like the Church then I'd feel the need to be transparent about where the money goes and what I'm up to.  But since I'm not receiving donations from anyone I see no need to be so transparent.  Besides no one wants me to be.  You certainly don't.  

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And Ryan McKnight has no right, moral or legal or otherwise, to encourage others to steal from the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

If so, then turn him into the police.  We've been over this though.  You complain he's stealing and being illegal, but you won't turn him in.  You just want to complain.  If you have a case then prove it.  It seems to me you've blabbered nonsense enough on this topic.  I doubt you have anything behind all of that talk besides mischaracterizations and illogic.  

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the contributors to Jack's charity did not want to have full financial transparency, is it ethical for someone who does not donate to the charity to attempt to force Jack to be financially transparent by releasing confidential information without his permission?

seriously?  You think no members of the Church, no contributors to the Church expect the Church to be transparent?  That's not an equal comparison.  There are members who support Mormonleaks, that's how they are getting leaks, from active participating members.  

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Quote

I believe the members need to know these things, especially when they are being told to consecrate their time, talents, money, etc. The church can ask this, but the members shouldn't expect transparency in return? Too onesided, and really a scary existance, to be in the dark about the chruch's decisions, or actions. 

Recently our church bought a 40 story apartment high rise in Chicago. The corporation side, but where are the hospitals for the poor that other faiths build? Nope, just money making ventures.  

This is a massive challenge for me.  Those who have received their endowments have accepted the law of consecration and are under covenant to live it.  This idea is tough to dispute.

What "idea" are you referencing here?

12 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

What is challenging is the paradox in the covenant itself. On the one hand, we are asked to live “the law of consecration as contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants.”  The scriptures in D&C teach the law of consecration as one to care for the poor.

The Law of Consecration encompasses quite a bit.  See here:

Quote

The law of consecration was introduced through revelations given to the Prophet Joseph Smith. As early as 1829, he was directed by the Lord to "seek to bring forth and establish the cause of Zion" (D&C 6:6;11:6;12:6;14:6). Anciently, the Zion of Enoch was made up of people who "were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them" (Moses 7:18). These features have characterized the Lord's people who have accepted and applied the fulness of the gospel in their lives, such as the people of the city of Enoch (Moses 7:17-18) and the Nephite golden era (4 Ne. 1:2-3, 15-17) and some of the early Christians (Acts 4:32-37). Latter-day Saints have also been given the law of consecration as an ideal and a challenge and promise for the future (D&C 42:32-39).

...

The key principles given in the revelations are consistent with those required for celestial living: all things belong to God, and his people are stewards (D&C 38:17;104:11-14); individuals are to esteem others as themselves (D&C 38:24-27;51:3, 9;70:14;78:6;82:17); mankind must retain free agency (D&C 104:17); men and women are made equal according to their wants, needs, and family situations (D&C 51:3); and there must be accountability (D&C 72:3;104:13-18). Although the implementation of the law of consecration of property as revealed in the early 1830s was temporarily suspended (cf. HC 4:93), the principles themselves were not discontinued.

...

THE COVENANTS OF CONSECRATION TODAY. The Lord revealed several purposes for the law of consecration: to bring the Church to stand independent of all other institutions (D&C 78:14); to strengthen Zion, adorning her in beautiful garments, as a bride prepared and worthy of the bridegroom (D&C 33:17;58:11;65:3;82:14, 18; etc.); and to prepare the Saints for a place in the Celestial Kingdom (D&C 78:7).

Commenting on this subject, President John Taylor stated that consecration is a celestial law and, when observed, its adherents become a celestial people (JD 17:177-81). Thus, men and women today can become like as those of Enoch's day, "of one heart and one mind,…with no poor among them" (Moses 7:18). Orson Pratt, an early apostle, observed that if the Lord's people aspire to the Celestial Kingdom, they must begin to learn the order of life that is there (JD 2:102-103).

Providing for the poor is obviously a very important part of the Law, but that's not the sum total of it.  If the Law of Consecration were solely about providing for the poor, we would theoretically not have missionary work, or temples, or educational endeavors.  Moreover, there are all sorts of ways that the Church "provides for the poor" other than giving them money and materials and food (which we do, with the understanding that such things should be temporary so as to avoid the "evils of the dole").  The Church's emphases on education and hard work and living within our means and so on are all geared toward lifting ourselves out of poverty and setting us on a path toward self-reliance.

12 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

On the other hand, this can apparently conflict with the other part of the same covenant, namely that we “consecrate [ourselves, time, talents, etc...] to the Church or Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...”  The covenant clearly states that our resources go to this church (not God, not a cause, but the legal/worldly organization).

Well, no.  See above ("The key principles given in the revelations are consistent with those required for celestial living: all things belong to God, and his people are stewards (D&C 38:17;104:11-14)").

12 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

The paradox/difficulty arises when we see that which we have consecrated not being used as D&C directs.  This is where I struggle. I suspect I’m not alone.

"Not being used as D&C directs" seems to have a ton of wiggle room in it.

Thanks,

-Smac