whistleblower on Church finances

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

For me, tithes and offerings are a separate from how the Brethren choose to utilize sacred funds held by the Church.  I am going to pay my tithes and offerings... full stop.  No qualifiers or caveats.

I think the explanation you've outlined above doesn't capture the true picture.  We are all members of this church.  We are all part of the body of Christ and jointly seeking the kingdom of God.  We are called upon to sustain our leaders.  I believe that we, as members, are responsible for how sacred funds are employed.  It's why the Lord told us to do all things by common consent.

It is important to note how the original phrasing of this common term is properly used in context:

“And let all things be done according to the counsel of the order, and united consent or voice of the order, which dwell in the land of Kirtland.” (D&C 104, “Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at or near Kirtland, Ohio, April 23, 1834, concerning the United Firm…”). The common consent in this case pertains only by those within the United Order/ Firm (the council in D&C 120 likewise), and not the membership at large.

“But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses. …And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him; For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants. For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.” (D&C 28, “concerning the upbuilding of Zion and the order of the Church” and receiving commandments and revelations for the Church). Common consent in this case has to so with appointing the head of the Church according to the church covenants and sustaining his revelations that are presented in conference. Hiram Page was not so appointed.

“Behold, I say unto you that you shall …go to the west to hold the next conference; and then it shall be made known what you shall do. 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.” (D&C 26, “The law of common consent is affirmed.”). The phrase "all things" points to what shall be made known to the Prophet, and he is to proceed according to the common consent of those present, according to the church covenants.

None of these examples point to common consent of the membership at large on points of the disposition of sacred funds: “Verily, thus saith the Lord, the time is now come, that it shall be disposed of by a council, composed of the First Presidency of my Church, and of the bishop and his council, and by my high council; and by mine own voice unto them, saith the Lord. Even so. Amen.” (D&C 120).

[ksfisher]

26 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I literally mean "most" as in "greater than 50%."

Using the leaked numbers, each year the Church takes in about $7 Billion in tithing revenue and an additional $7 Billion in investment income. That is $14 Billion a year in total income. Of that $14 Billion, it spends about $6 Billion a year on its religious mission and uses the remaining $8 Billion to build up its portfolio of for-profit assets.

Ok, most makes sense the way you're counting it. 

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It is important to note how the original phrasing of this common term is properly used in context:

 

“And let all things be done according to the counsel of the order, and united consent or voice of the order, which dwell in the land of Kirtland.” (D&C 104, “Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at or near Kirtland, Ohio, April 23, 1834, concerning the United Firm…”). The common consent in this case pertains only by those within the United Order/ Firm (the council in D&C 120 likewise), and not the membership at large.

 

“But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses. …And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him; For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants. For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.” (D&C 28, “concerning the upbuilding of Zion and the order of the Church” and receiving commandments and revelations for the Church). Common consent in this case has to so with appointing the head of the Church according to the church covenants and sustaining his revelations that are presented in conference. Hiram Page was not so appointed.

 

“Behold, I say unto you that you shall …go to the west to hold the next conference; and then it shall be made known what you shall do. 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.” (D&C 26, “The law of common consent is affirmed.”). The phrase "all things" points to what shall be made known to the Prophet, and he is to proceed according to the common consent of those present, according to the church covenants.

 

None of these examples point to common consent of the membership at large on points of the disposition of sacred funds: “Verily, thus saith the Lord, the time is now come, that it shall be disposed of by a council, composed of the First Presidency of my Church, and of the bishop and his council, and by my high council; and by mine own voice unto them, saith the Lord. Even so. Amen.” (D&C 120).

 

Section 26, "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." , does not refer specifically to the united order.  It says all things in the church.

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thank you for spelling it out in such an organized and intellectual way, I'm way to emotional about these things. My comment keeps being ignored, why can't the church do as we're asked to do when it asks us to pay a generous fast offering. Also, we are expected to pay our tithes yearly, but the church can hold tithes for years? 

The relationship between the Church organization and the Lord is different than the relationship between her members and the Lord. I think John 12 illustrates this difference quite well. Mary gave what she had to offer to Jesus; Judas questioned why she didn’t give it to the organization.

As “Mary,” by covenant we give our tithes and offerings to the Lord, not the Church. The Church simply bares what members give Him. As “Mary,” out of love we give much primarily for the future glorification of Jesus (verse 7). The Church bares this for the future glorification of Jesus and a wise administration to the poor in the meantime. “Poor” means anyone in need, temporally (welfare, humanitarian aid, self-reliance training, etc.) or spiritually (missionary, temple, related work). All of these must be done in wisdom and order, so that we “keep the root and the top thereof equal …that the root and the top may be equal in strength.”

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Section 26, "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." , does not refer specifically to the united order.  It says all things in the church.

Yes, D&C 26 provides a different context than 104 and 120. But "all things" in D&C 26 points to what shall be made known to the Prophet at a certain time, and he is to proceed according to the common consent of those present, according to the church covenants (which were already voted on). "All things" in D&C 26 does not refer to all things in the Church universe, and as stated not certain financial matters; the other sections clearly demonstrate that.

Edited December 27, 2019 by CV75

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, D&C 26 provides a different context than 104 and 120. But "all things" in D&C 26 points to what shall be made known to the Prophet at a certain time, and he is to proceed according to the common consent of those present, according to the church covenants (which were already voted on). "All things" in D&C 26 does not refer to all things in the Church universe, and as stated not certain financial matters; the other sections clearly demonstrate that.

104 speaks to the United Order.  120 speaks to the responsibility of the FP, Bishop, and High Council to disposition tithes.

26 says all things should be done by common consent in the church.  I'm not sure what you mean by "what shall be made known to the prophet at a certain time".  Nothing in 26 limits common consent to just what is made known to the prophet.  That's an odd interpretation.  But even if you are correct - if the Lord makes known to the prophet how to handle sacred funds in the church, that should be done through common consent (according to your interpretation of 26) and still supports my personal interpretation and conclusion.

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

104 speaks to the United Order.  120 speaks to the responsibility of the FP, Bishop, and High Council to disposition tithes.

26 says all things should be done by common consent in the church.  I'm not sure what you mean by "what shall be made known to the prophet at a certain time".  Nothing in 26 limits common consent to just what is made known to the prophet.  That's an odd interpretation.  But even if you are correct - if the Lord makes known to the prophet how to handle sacred funds in the church, that should be done through common consent (according to your interpretation of 26) and still supports my personal interpretation and conclusion.

So how would this work on a ward level?  A couple of weeks ago I spent $50 on Christmas cards.  Should I have asked for consent from all the other members in the ward first?  That doesn't sound very workable. 

In a church with 16 million members what does "all things...done by common consent" look like?  How do we define "all things"?

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

104 speaks to the United Order.  120 speaks to the responsibility of the FP, Bishop, and High Council to disposition tithes.

26 says all things should be done by common consent in the church.  I'm not sure what you mean by "what shall be made known to the prophet at a certain time".  Nothing in 26 limits common consent to just what is made known to the prophet.  That's an odd interpretation.  But even if you are correct - if the Lord makes known to the prophet how to handle sacred funds in the church, that should be done through common consent (according to your interpretation of 26) and still supports my personal interpretation and conclusion.

The following shows how D&C 26 limits common consent to what was to be made known to Joseph Smith at that time:

Section 26

Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, Oliver Cowdery, and John Whitmer, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, July 1830 (see the heading to section 24).

 

1, They are instructed to study the scriptures and to preach; 2, The law of common consent is affirmed.

 

1 Behold, I say unto you that you shall let your ^atime be devoted to the ^bstudying of the scriptures, and to preaching, and to confirming the church at ^cColesville, and to performing your ^dlabors on the land, such as is required, until after you shall go to the west to hold the next conference; and then it shall be made ^eknown what you shall do.

2 And all things shall be done by ^acommon consent in the ^bchurch, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

In verse 1, the Lord tells Joseph that what he shall do shall be made known to him after he goes to the west to hold the next conference. In verse 2, “all things’ refers to those yet-to-be received instructions and the related matters to be addressed in the conference. I do not see that interpretation as odd at all – what is odd is its over-application to literally all things whatsoever, ever! 😊

But since it is correct, and it is also correct that the handling of sacred funds follows other processes (D&C 104 limiting common consent to those counseling in the order, and D&C 120 describing a process quite the opposite of common consent -- i.e. “by mine own voice unto them”, the handling of sacred funds (as in decisions and transactions) is not conducted through common consent. Common consent only applies in the sense that those who handle them are sustained through common consent. And of course, these authorizing scriptures have been approved by common consent in the first place (the church covenants), and if you weren’t involved, it is a bit too late for you to alter them.

Edited December 27, 2019 by CV75

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Her argument against more financial transparency from the church is that members who are asking for it are actually in a power struggle with leaders.  I think that’s an unwarranted conclusion.

I also want to know my government‘s budget and deficit but that doesn’t mean I’m in a power struggle with my elected officials. 

There isn't usually only one motivation behind a desire, Flake is intelligent enough I think it is pretty clear she is talking about more than just a one dimensional desire for transparency, she is talking about those who want to change what is done with the money in addition to having that knowledge.

There are undoubtedly those who simply want to know, but have no desire to change.  Perhaps they just want reassurance for doubts (small) or it is simple curiosity in wanting to know how the Church works (I would fall into that category if my curiosity rises to the level of a desire...not sure it does) or even perhaps being given this type of knowledge helps them feel they belong or more likely, being refused this knowledge makes them feel like they are being treated like an outsider.  Probably other motivations not attached to further change (more than opening the books) that I can't think of.

But anyone who wants to know and attaches a desire of how they would like the Church to spend money is competing, it seems to me, even if only in their heart and mind.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think the explanation you've outlined above doesn't capture the true picture.  We are all members of this church.  We are all part of the body of Christ and jointly seeking the kingdom of God.  We are called upon to sustain our leaders.  I believe that we, as members, are responsible for how sacred funds are employed.  It's why the Lord told us to do all things by common consent.

Isn't this also a desire to change how the Church does things, manages its people in a sense as opposed to money?  You believe common consent means something different than the leaders interpret it and you want the Church to come more in line with how you believe it should be.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

From the perspective of the CFO's office, how much should be saved vs. spent depends upon how big the "rainy day fund" already is, as well as what specific costs are on the horizon that need to be saved for.

The BBB Wise Giving Alliance accredits charities that meet its standards of being prudently and wisely administered. The idea is that if you want to donate some money to help homeless dogs, your money will likely make more of an impact if you give to a homeless dog charity that meets its accreditation standards than to one that does not.

http://www.give.org/for-charities/How-We-Accredit-Charities/

The LDS Church doesn't meet many of these standards because its rainy day fund is too big and because it saves too much--at this point, donating to the LDS Church doesn't do much to give the church the resources it needs to preach the gospel, perfect the saints, or redeem the dead. Rather, it just helps the Church grow its war chest that it might need for something someday.

From the perspective of society, if a Church is using most of its annual income to grow its already ginormous war chest, whether the investment income the war chest generates should be tax exempt is a fair question (i.e. the Church's total income is apparently about $14 Billion a year--$7 billion in tithing + $7 billion in investment income. $6 billion goes towards running the church, and $8 billion goes towards growing its war chest). If the Church had to pay a 21% corporate income tax on the $7 billion in earnings, its after-tax income would still be $12.5 billion, which is still plenty to fund the $6 billion of annual expenses. If it didn't want to pay income taxes the answer would be simple--spend the interest on the endowment on charitable or religious purposes rather than simply reinvesting all of it.

From the perspective of members, if having enormous savings is really as important to God as it is to the LDS Church, then maybe members should pay their tithing to their own rainy day funds.

RE: “how much should be saved vs. spent”, I think it includes many more considerations than just that: the immediate and long-term impacts of spending on the four-fold mission; risk assessment, future value and “futuring and visioning”; long-term plans and targets for spending and saving. It is too easy to disapprove of the Church’s strategy when one doesn’t have the wherewithal (whether by training or facts) to formulate a more complete understanding.

RE: “The BBB Wise Giving Alliance”, I do not think the Church is reliant upon its accreditation.

RE: “donating to the LDS Church …just helps the Church grow its war chest that it might need for something someday”, this comment is too polemic to be taken seriously, and justification for donating is clearly provided in the scriptures.

RE: “From the perspective of society…”, this is also too polemic and rhetorical—these are arguments for tightening non-profit rules for political aims, including infringement on religious expression.

RE: “From the perspective of members”, I think John 12 is very instructive. Mary gave what she had to offer to Jesus; Judas questioned why she didn’t give it to the organization instead. As “Mary,” by covenant we give our tithes and offerings to the Lord, not the Church. The Church simply "bares" what members give Him. As “Mary,” out of love we give much primarily for the future glorification of Jesus (verse 7). The Church "bares" this for the future glorification of Jesus and a wise administration to the poor in the meantime. “Poor” means anyone in need, temporally (welfare, humanitarian aid, self-reliance training, etc.) or spiritually (missionary, temple, related work). All of these must be done in wisdom and order, so that we “keep the root and the top thereof equal …that the root and the top may be equal in strength.”

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

The BBB Wise Giving Alliance accredits charities that meet its standards of being prudently and wisely administered. The idea is that if you want to donate some money to help homeless dogs, your money will likely make more of an impact if you give to a homeless dog charity that meets its accreditation standards than to one that does not.

http://www.give.org/for-charities/How-We-Accredit-Charities/

The LDS Church doesn't meet many of these standards because its rainy day fund is too big and because it saves too much--at this point, donating to the LDS Church doesn't do much to give the church the resources it needs to preach the gospel, perfect the saints, or redeem the dead. Rather, it just helps the Church grow its war chest that it might need for something someday.

If you keep comparing the Church which has a very broad mission and has many avenues it works through to fulfill it to a charity which tends to have a much more limited scope and more easily defined limited ways to fulfill it, of course the Church isn't going to meet the standards of something it is not nor is it pretending to be.

[rodheadlee]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

As I read through this, my initial thought was that as governments fell, earthquakes occurred, and global chaos reigned, investments in stocks and commercial real estate would be nearly worthless.

 But your thought from red text that you quoted is that the prophet will receive enough advance warning of these calamities that he will liquidate before things get bad and use the money to create spaces of refuge for the Saints?

Yes, those are my thoughts.

[Duncan]

Well, I will say this our Temple was supposed to have these stones that come from a local quarry, and they are getting some but somehow and who knows but we are getting brick. The complaints came rolling in, people say the Temple looks like a renovated 1970's restaurant, a chicken coop etc. the reasons I heard they switched from these stones to brick is cost, well now I wonder if that is even the case.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Well, I will say this our Temple was supposed to have these stones that come from a local quarry, and they are getting some but somehow and who knows but we are getting brick. The complaints came rolling in, people say the Temple looks like a renovated 1970's restaurant, a chicken coop etc. the reasons I heard they switched from these stones to brick is cost, well now I wonder if that is even the case.

Temples have budgets, it may be cost in terms of meeting that budget (stone costs rose significantly between planning time and buying time). rather than saving a buck.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

For me, tithes and offerings are a separate from how the Brethren choose to utilize sacred funds held by the Church. 

Okay.  

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

I am going to pay my tithes and offerings... full stop.  No qualifiers or caveats.

Same here.  Obedience to the precept should not be contingent on others satisfying the requirements of their stewardship.

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think the explanation you've outlined above doesn't capture the true picture.  We are all members of this church.  We are all part of the body of Christ and jointly seeking the kingdom of God.  We are called upon to sustain our leaders. 

I agree with all of this.

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

I believe that we, as members, are responsible for how sacred funds are employed.  It's why the Lord told us to do all things by common consent.

I'm not sure how we can be "responsible" for such a thing when we have no particular control over "how sacred funds are employed."  

Our responsibility essentially comes to our role in sustaining the leaders of the Church by, as you noted, "common consent."  Beyond that, however, I don't think "we, as members" have stewardship over the tithes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  

Same here.  Obedience to the precept should not be contingent on others satisfying the requirements of their stewardship.

I agree with all of this.

I'm not sure how we can be "responsible" for such a thing when we have no particular control over "how sacred funds are employed."  

Our responsibility essentially comes to our role in sustaining the leaders of the Church by, as you noted, "common consent."  Beyond that, however, I don't think "we, as members" have stewardship over the tithes.

Thanks,

-Smac

The epitome of a power struggle is often within oneself, approaching something as within one's authority and jurisdiction when it simply is not.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Well, I will say this our Temple was supposed to have these stones that come from a local quarry, and they are getting some but somehow and who knows but we are getting brick. The complaints came rolling in, people say the Temple looks like a renovated 1970's restaurant, a chicken coop etc. the reasons I heard they switched from these stones to brick is cost, well now I wonder if that is even the case.

You’re going to have a pretty nice looking chicken coop.

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Again, why is spending six billion "on temples and chapels and humanitarian aid and educational subsidies and the like" and "putting one billion dollars aside each year for a 'rainy day' fund" not workable?  Why is spending 6/7 of its income and saving 1/7 insufficient?

From the perspective of the CFO's office, how much should be saved vs. spent depends upon how big the "rainy day fund" already is, as well as what specific costs are on the horizon that need to be saved for.

Hmm.  Sounds like there is huge wiggle room there.

Ours is a church with 16 million members.  Thousands of buildings.  Extensive programs and efforts intended to benefit and uplift the members and others.

Quote

The BBB Wise Giving Alliance accredits charities that meet its standards of being prudently and wisely administered. The idea is that if you want to donate some money to help homeless dogs, your money will likely make more of an impact if you give to a homeless dog charity that meets its accreditation standards than to one that does not.

http://www.give.org/for-charities/How-We-Accredit-Charities/

The LDS Church doesn't meet many of these standards because its rainy day fund is too big and because it saves too much--at this point, donating to the LDS Church doesn't do much to give the church the resources it needs to preach the gospel, perfect the saints, or redeem the dead.

Meh.  I'm persuaded that neither you nor the BBB is situated to competently adjudicate the proper size of a "rainy day fund" for the Church. 

And holy cow.  Folks (including, notably, no small number of persons who were predisposed to be antagonistic toward the Church well before this story came along) are presuming to criticize a religious group for saving "too much?"  Isn't that, ya know, pretty subjective?  And how much navel-gazing is involved in such a criticism?  Quite a bit, I think.

Quote

Rather, it just helps the Church grow its war chest that it might need for something someday.

Oh, brother.  "War chest?"  What does that mean?

Money that they church "might need"?  

Again, this all seems very subjective, very it's-wrong-because-I-say-it's-wrong-because-reasons.

Meanwhile, much of the growth of the Church is in impoverished nations.  If there was ever a time for the Church to emulate Joseph of Egypt's let's-spend-seven-years-storing-up-resources-'cuz-the-day-will-come-when-we'll-really-need-it example, I think right now is a pretty good candidate.

Quote

From the perspective of society, if a Church is using most of its annual income to grow its already ginormous war chest,

There's that risible rhetoric again.  What is it that you mean by "war chest"?  For what improper purpose do you accuse the Church of saving its funds?

Quote

whether the investment income the war chest generates

Here it is again.  Three times now.  What do you mean by it?

Quote

should be tax exempt is a fair question (i.e. the Church's total income is apparently about $14 Billion a year--$7 billion in tithing + $7 billion in investment income. $6 billion goes towards running the church, and $8 billion goes towards growing its war chest).

Four times.  

Again, for what improper purpose do you accuse the Church of saving its funds?

Quote

If the Church had to pay a 21% corporate income tax on the $7 billion in earnings, its after-tax income would still be $12.5 billion, which is still plenty to fund the $6 billion of annual expenses. If it didn't want to pay income taxes the answer would be simple--spend the interest on the endowment on charitable or religious purposes rather than simply reinvesting all of it.

Sounds like special pleading.  From people antagonistic toward the Mormons.

Quelle surprise.

Quote

From the perspective of members, if having enormous savings is really as important to God as it is to the LDS Church, then maybe members should pay their tithing to their own rainy day funds.

Sounds like Kathleen Flake called it:

Quote

Pondering the merit of added transparency for the church’s finances, Flake asks why the church doesn’t simply open up its records.

Her answer: The alleged problem is not about financial malfeasance, “it’s about competing views of what should be done with Church money and who gets to say so.”

“In other words,” Flake concludes, “this is a power struggle ... and one that we’ve seen before from those who don’t understand Mormonism and how it handles its money.”

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 28, 2019 by smac97

[rockpond]

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

The following shows how D&C 26 limits common consent to what was to be made known to Joseph Smith at that time:

Section 26

Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, Oliver Cowdery, and John Whitmer, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, July 1830 (see the heading to section 24).

 

1, They are instructed to study the scriptures and to preach; 2, The law of common consent is affirmed.

 

1 Behold, I say unto you that you shall let your ^atime be devoted to the ^bstudying of the scriptures, and to preaching, and to confirming the church at ^cColesville, and to performing your ^dlabors on the land, such as is required, until after you shall go to the west to hold the next conference; and then it shall be made ^eknown what you shall do.

2 And all things shall be done by ^acommon consent in the ^bchurch, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

In verse 1, the Lord tells Joseph that what he shall do shall be made known to him after he goes to the west to hold the next conference. In verse 2, “all things’ refers to those yet-to-be received instructions and the related matters to be addressed in the conference. I do not see that interpretation as odd at all – what is odd is its over-application to literally all things whatsoever, ever! 😊

But since it is correct, and it is also correct that the handling of sacred funds follows other processes (D&C 104 limiting common consent to those counseling in the order, and D&C 120 describing a process quite the opposite of common consent -- i.e. “by mine own voice unto them”, the handling of sacred funds (as in decisions and transactions) is not conducted through common consent. Common consent only applies in the sense that those who handle them are sustained through common consent. And of course, these authorizing scriptures have been approved by common consent in the first place (the church covenants), and if you weren’t involved, it is a bit too late for you to alter them.

26:2 does not refer to specific instructions that the prophet will receive.  There is no language in verse 2 that makes such a reference.

And, 104/120 describe applications of common consent.  They do not limit its application.  Again, there is no text in those sections which serves to limit the use of common consent. 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

26:2 does not refer to specific instructions that the prophet will receive.  There is no language in verse 2 that makes such a reference.

And, 104/120 describe applications of common consent.  They do not limit its application.  Again, there is no text in those sections which serves to limit the use of common consent. 

D&C 120 does not mention the application of common consent at all, but that the tithes will be disposed by the voice of the Lord to the council. That is hardly common consent. We know that the councils and their membership as mentioned in this section are upheld by common consent according to the conference votes called for in D&C 20, but that is different than what you seem to be interpreting.

D&C 104 calls for the application of common consent of the order, which is not the same scope as that of the general membership indicated in D&C 20 and 26. “All things” in this instance pertain to the limited scope of the particular order (“And let all things be done according to the counsel of the order, and united consent or voice of the order, which dwell in the land of Kirtland.”).

“All things” in D&C 26:2 refers to what shall be made known to the Prophet to carry out at the next conference as verse 1 directs, in accordance with D&C 20:61-62: “The several elders composing this church of Christ are to meet in conference once in three months, or from time to time as said conferences shall direct or appoint; And said conferences are to do whatever church business is necessary to be done at the time.” Any business addressed at these conferences is determined by the Prophet, and always includes the sustaining of Church authorities and officers. The same occurs on the unit levels.

In the D&C, there are some 166 times the phrase “all things” is used. Which of these requires the governing councils to obtain the common consent of the membership to manage tithes and to decide and execute individual business transactions? Please provide these verses.

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

D&C 120 does not mention the application of common consent at all, but that the tithes will be disposed by the voice of the Lord to the council. That is hardly common consent. We know that the councils and their membership as mentioned in this section are upheld by common consent according to the conference votes called for in D&C 20, but that is different than what you seem to be interpreting.

D&C 104 calls for the application of common consent of the order, which is not the same scope as that of the general membership indicated in D&C 20 and 26. “All things” in this instance pertain to the limited scope of the particular order (“And let all things be done according to the counsel of the order, and united consent or voice of the order, which dwell in the land of Kirtland.”).

“All things” in D&C 26:2 refers to what shall be made known to the Prophet to carry out at the next conference as verse 1 directs, in accordance with D&C 20:61-62: “The several elders composing this church of Christ are to meet in conference once in three months, or from time to time as said conferences shall direct or appoint; And said conferences are to do whatever church business is necessary to be done at the time.” Any business addressed at these conferences is determined by the Prophet, and always includes the sustaining of Church authorities and officers. The same occurs on the unit levels.

In the D&C, there are some 166 times the phrase “all things” is used. Which of these requires the governing councils to obtain the common consent of the membership to manage tithes and to decide and execute individual business transactions? Please provide these verses.

The limitation you are placing on section 26 is something of your own making.  The text doesn’t say or imply such.

As for all the times that “all things” appears in the Doctrine and Covenants, I’m sure you’re aware that most times the phrase is used it isn’t referring to matter of church administration. But when it is, yes, common consent should apply. 

[rockpond]

On 12/27/2019 at 11:33 AM, ksfisher said:

So how would this work on a ward level?  A couple of weeks ago I spent $50 on Christmas cards.  Should I have asked for consent from all the other members in the ward first?  That doesn't sound very workable. 

In a church with 16 million members what does "all things...done by common consent" look like?  How do we define "all things"?

I believe it applies to much more than just sustaining individuals into callings.  Publishing budgets and financial statements would be a good step in the right direction. 

[ksfisher]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I believe it applies to much more than just sustaining individuals into callings.  Publishing budgets and financial statements would be a good step in the right direction. 

So how do you define "all things"?  Publishing a budget could fall under all things.  But how far do you take it?  How about selecting someone to speak in sacrament meeting?  That would also seem to fall under the very wide umbrella of "all things."  Does everyone in the ward need to agree on "all things" that are to be done before they are done?

If "all things" that are done in the church need to be approved by common consent of the membership of the church before anything is done, then clearly the church would accomplish very little. Clearly there are limits.

I'm not just trying to be argumentative or contrary, but the idea that "all things" in the church are done by common consent seems unworkable if you define "all" as everything.

So if all doesn't mean everything what does it mean?  Only the thing you think are important?  Or the things I think are?  

Edited December 28, 2019 by ksfisher

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The limitation you are placing on section 26 is something of your own making.  The text doesn’t say or imply such.

As for all the times that “all things” appears in the Doctrine and Covenants, I’m sure you’re aware that most times the phrase is used it isn’t referring to matter of church administration. But when it is, yes, common consent should apply. 

D&C 26 was a revelation dealing with the upcoming conference. You would have to show how this conference was excepted from the instructions for conferences given in D&C 20 if you want to establish that "all things" goes beyond the scope of what constitutes the "church business" conducted in these conferences.

CFR that "all things" refers to any and all "church administration" (which is not the same as the scriptural term "church business") and that the agenda items constituting "church business" are at the same time established by and then subject to common consent of the general membership before implementing.