James huntsman (jon's brother) sues church for 'fraud'

[rodheadlee]

28 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So in other words if someone disagrees with what you think is reasonable means they are unreasonable.  Got it.  As far as reserve fund that is a wise thing to do.  $100 billion plus for a Church that claims to be Jesus's church as well as all the land and other assets it has seems rather high. A reasonable informed person could easily conclude that such a hoard is rather over the top.  Again for the church that claims to be run by the guy who told the rich man to sell all he has and give to the poor, and that it is easier for camel to go through the eye of the needle than enter heaven. 

So what do you think is a reasonable amount? 1 billion, 500 million? By the way you're taking that quote about the rich man out of context. That's not what everyone needed to do that's what he needed to do because he loved his money more than God.

[JAHS]

Besides what it says on the Donation slip there is also this on the year end statement:
"This statement contains a record of voluntary contributions to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 
made by the named donor(s) during the year 2020.
The Church provided no goods or services in consideration, in whole or in part, for the contributions detailed below 
but only intangible religious benefits."

If Huntsman had made his donations in correct the spirit of doing it, because He loves God and wants to advance His Gospel on the earth, and not just because he wanted to go to the temple or the Celestial kingdom, he would not care how it is spent and can not expect to get any of it back at any time.

[mrmarklin]

I read a bunch of the comments and then skipped a lot. 
All of us are totally ignorant of what the church’s income is or its balance sheet except for the $100 billion which has been acknowledged. 
Other than a few relatively small bunch of transactions, we don’t know exactly how the church spends its money. 
After all the kilobytes spent, some of you are fairly worked up about perceived fraud. 
 

As someone who has been peripheral in the church accounting system I will say this. The church uses fund accounting. It has a strong internal audit system. It’s likely that outside accounting firms are used to audit the Church’s funds given the internal audit program, but I have no direct knowledge that this is true. 
 

You guys need to get a life angsting over all of this. 
 

BTW, I heard President Nelson has had a revelation to build a Palace in or near Central SLC, so he can keep up with the Pope. 🙃

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

BTW, I heard President Nelson has had a revelation to build a Palace in or near Central SLC, so he can keep up with the Pope. 🙃

Hey, I think SLC should become its own country like the Vatican and then President Nelson could be an absolute monarch. I mean, if you want to be like the Pope, go all the way!

[mgy401]

What, precisely, is so morally outrageous about the Church bailing out DMBA (whether with tithing or other funds)?

DMBA is an insurance and retirement savings company.  If it can’t meet its obligations, people lose their life savings.  Widows don’t get their spousal life insurance payouts.  Children lose access to lifesaving medical treatment.  Retired seniors in declining health are forced back into the workforce in a desperate and usually ill-fated attempt to make ends meet.  If we are to believe all the durm and strang we heard back when PPACA was being debated in 2009–without insurance, people die.

Put in that light:  the Church’s bailout of DMBA may be the most potent single humanitarian act it has undertaken since it sent rescue wagons after the Willie and Martin handcart companies.

I hope that the Church’s lawyers and accountants structured the thing in a way that complied with law; but even if they didn’t—I don’t really give a crap.  I’m just glad that folks like @Scott Lloyd get to enjoy their retirement; and I think it’s telling that so many people—not just James Huntsman, but people on this very board—would rather see him and other DMBA beneficiaries forced into bankruptcy than see the Church doing a tremendously good thing in the community while continuing its other work without even breaking a financial sweat. (Or did I just miss the posts from in 2008 where y’all took up a collection for Scott’s and his family’s medical and retirement needs?)

This is no mere envy, nor even simple run-of-the-mill Mormon criticism.  This is people actively gunning for the ruination and suffering of others.  This is evil. 

Edited March 25, 2021 by mgy401

[JAHS]

16 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I read a bunch of the comments and then skipped a lot. 
All of us are totally ignorant of what the church’s income is or its balance sheet except for the $100 billion which has been acknowledged. 
Other than a few relatively small bunch of transactions, we don’t know exactly how the church spends its money. 
After all the kilobytes spent, some of you are fairly worked up about perceived fraud. 
 

As someone who has been peripheral in the church accounting system I will say this. The church uses fund accounting. It has a strong internal audit system. It’s likely that outside accounting firms are used to audit the Church’s funds given the internal audit program, but I have no direct knowledge that this is true. 
 

You guys need to get a life angsting over all of this. 
 

BTW, I heard President Nelson has had a revelation to build a Palace in or near Central SLC, so he can keep up with the Pope. 🙃

Audit report:
"Dear Brethren: Directed by revelation, as recorded in section 120 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes—composed of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric—authorizes the expenditure of Church funds. Church entities disburse funds in accordance with approved budgets, policies, and procedures.

Church Auditing, which consists of credentialed professionals and is independent of all other Church departments and entities, has responsibility to perform audits for the purpose of providing reasonable assurance regarding contributions received, expenditures made, and safeguarding of Church assets.

Based upon audits performed, Church Auditing is of the opinion that, in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2019 have been recorded and administered in accordance with approved Church budgets, policies, and accounting practices. The Church follows the practices taught to its members of living within a budget, avoiding debt, and saving against a time of need.
Respectfully submitted,
Church Auditing Department
Kevin R. Jergensen
Managing Director

So the church has its own auditing department. I don't know if any of those in the department are not members of the Church. I would suppose they all are.
Could the Church really trust a completely independent auditing firm to not invent numbers and use them as proof that the Church is committing fraud?
 

 

[mrmarklin]

8 minutes ago, JAHS said:

 

Could the Church really trust a completely independent auditing firm to not invent numbers and use them as proof that the Church is committing fraud?
 

 

It’s likely that the Church uses independent auditors to examine some of its business operations. But maybe not. 
Obviously, if the Church has nothing to hide, and I believe it doesn’t, there is nothing to fear. 
Keep in mind that according to US tax law, it can do almost anything it wants with the funds, and renders accounts to no one. Not even the IRS. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Could the Church really trust a completely independent auditing firm to not invent numbers and use them as proof that the Church is committing fraud?

Assuming the Church has records of the numbers from which the auditing firm gets their info (it isn’t likely they will send their people to the wards to record the tithing receipts), such invention would probably be discovered, the Church sues them for damages, and then the auditing firm is destroyed because no one trusts them any more....so I think a leap of trust for a reputable company would not be unwise.

[JAHS]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Assuming the Church has records of the numbers from which the auditing firm gets their info (it isn’t likely they will send their people to the wards to record the tithing receipts), such invention would probably be discovered, the Church sues them for damages, and then the auditing firm is destroyed because no one trusts them any more....so I think a leap of trust for a reputable company would not be unwise.

Agreed. But would the church have any real control on what selective parts of the finances are shared with the public rather than the whole picture of what is being done with the money? 
Would they have some sort of nondisclosure agreement with such an independent auditing firm?

Edited March 25, 2021 by JAHS

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, mgy401 said:

What, precisely, is so morally outrageous about the Church bailing out DMBA (whether with tithing or other funds)?

DMBA is an insurance and retirement savings company.  If it can’t meet its obligations, people lose their life savings.  Widows don’t get their spousal life insurance payouts.  Children lose access to lifesaving medical treatment.  Retired seniors in declining health are forced back into the workforce in a desperate and usually ill-fated attempt to make ends meet.  If we are to believe all the durm and strang we heard back when PPACA was being debated in 2009–without insurance, people die.

Put in that light:  the Church’s bailout of DMBA may be the most potent single humanitarian act it has undertaken since it sent rescue wagons after the Willie and Martin handcart companies.

I hope that the Church’s lawyers and accountants structured the thing in a way that complied with law; but even if they didn’t—I don’t really give a crap.  I’m just glad that folks like @Scott Lloyd get to enjoy their retirement; and I think it’s telling that so many people—not just James Huntsman, but people on this very board—would rather see him and other DMBA beneficiaries forced into bankruptcy than see the Church doing a tremendously good thing in the community while continuing its other work without even breaking a financial sweat. (Or did I just miss the posts from in 2008 where y’all took up a collection for Scott’s and his family’s medical and retirement needs?)

This is no mere envy, nor even simple run-of-the-mill Mormon criticism.  This is people actively gunning for the ruination and suffering of others.  This is evil. 

Your comments are spot-on, of course  — except that I don’t believe there ever was any “bailout” of DMBA. I believe 2BizE has been inaccurate and careless with the facts. 
 

I wonder if he was referring to Beneficial Life Insurance Co. It is not the same thing as DMBA. 

Beneficial is a commercial insurance company that has been owned by the Church for many years. It fell on hard times more than a decade ago, concurrent with a downturn in the economy that many here will no doubt remember. At that time, it ceased to issue any new policies and announced that it would thenceforth only service existing policies. So it has, in effect, been slowly going out of business these past dozen or so years, honoring contractual obligations with existing policy holders until, one by one, the policies terminate. One day, the last policy will expire, and the company will cease to exist. 
 

So, to the extent, there was any “bailout” of Beneficial Life, what you have written above certainly applies. It is a noble thing to make sure a company you own can fulfill its obligations, especially when people are depending on it for their well-being. You are right: To denounce the Church for acting so responsibly is evil. 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

That didn't really answer my question, though. How does Jesus Christ reign within the constructs of the US constitution? What role in governing will He have? A democratic republic and a monarchy are really at odds with one another. The only way I can see the US constitution being the basis of a world government after Christ's return is if Christ has no role in government.

(wait, maybe He'll be the senate parliamentarian... in today's senate, that person certainly has god-lilke power  )

Most likely due to the fact that you’re unfamiliar with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day concerning the secular government, and the separate Church government, that will exist on earth during the Millennium, you are conflating the two.

You need to understand that there will be a secular government during the Millennium under which the God given right to the freedom of religion for every human being will be held inviolate. One of the most important obligations of this secular government will be to assure that no particular religious body, not even the Latter-Day Saints, will be able to force its beliefs or views on anyone, This millennial secular government will have it’s headquarters in the present-day American heartland..

It’s equally important to understand that during the Millennium the ecclesiastical government of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will also exist (as will other religious bodies)), At the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will be the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, and the headquarters of this Church will in Jerusalem (at that time Salt Lake City will no longer be where the Church is headquartered). Christ will personally rule over his restored Church, but it will be done in such a way that the guarantees found in the First Amendment and the rest of Bill of Rights will be in force

So Christ will indeed rule over His Church and will also be regarded as the world sovereign, but he will not rule in an oppressive, heavy handed way. In other words, the Lord isn’t going to push his religion down everyone’s throats, much like he doesn’t do so now. The Savior is only interested in willing obedience based on faith and mutual love, not obedience for obedience sake.

Edited March 25, 2021 by teddyaware

[MiserereNobis]

41 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Most likely due to the fact that you’re unfamiliar with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day concerning the secular government, and the separate Church government, that will exist on earth during the Millennium, you are conflating the two.

You need to understand that there will be a secular government during the Millennium under which the God given right to the freedom of religion for every human being will be held inviolate. One of the most important obligations of this secular government will be to assure that no particular religious body, not even the Latter-Day Saints, will be able to force its beliefs or views on anyone, This millennial secular government will have it’s headquarters in the present-day American heartland..

It’s equally important to understand that during the Millennium the ecclesiastical government of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will also exist (as will other religious bodies)), At the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will be the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, and the headquarters of this Church will in Jerusalem (at that time Salt Lake City will no longer be where the Church is headquartered). Christ will personally rule over his restored Church, but it will be done in such a way that the guarantees found in the First Amendment and the rest of Bill of Rights will be in force

So Christ will indeed rule over His Church and will also be regarded as the world sovereign, but he will not rule in an oppressive, heavy handed way. In other words, the Lord isn’t going to push his religion down everyone’s throats, much like he doesn’t do so now. The Savior is only interested in willing obedience based on faith and mutual love, not obedience for obedience sake.

I'm now actually more confused. I'll start out by honestly stating that I'm not sure if your views represent official LDS teaching or majority LDS opinions. Is this your opinion (or a minority opinion)? Some posters have suggested so. Can you clarify?

So, if I understand you correctly, there will be a one world government whose capitol is located in the US and is based on the US constitution. Christ will have nothing to do with this government.

Instead, Christ will be the head of the LDS church. Will he be the president, like President Nelson?

You also say that he will be regarded as "the world sovereign." What does that mean?

You say that people will be free to believe in whatever religion. Why/how would people believe that Christ is the world sovereign, but not believe in Christianity? Will they doubt his divinity but still allow him to rule over them? Why would anyone do that?

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'll start out by honestly stating that I'm not sure if your views represent official LDS teaching or majority LDS opinions. Is this your opinion (or a minority opinion)?

I suspect that Teddy strongly believes that his views are authoritative. They aren't. I don't even think they would pass the threshold to be considered a 'minority opinion'.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Most likely due to the fact that you’re unfamiliar with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day concerning the secular government, and the separate Church government, that will exist on earth during the Millennium, you are conflating the two.

You need to understand that there will be a secular government during the Millennium under which the God given right to the freedom of religion for every human being will be held inviolate. One of the most important obligations of this secular government will be to assure that no particular religious body, not even the Latter-Day Saints, will be able to force its beliefs or views on anyone, This millennial secular government will have it’s headquarters in the present-day American heartland..

It’s equally important to understand that during the Millennium the ecclesiastical government of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will also exist (as will other religious bodies)), At the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will be the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, and the headquarters of this Church will in Jerusalem (at that time Salt Lake City will no longer be where the Church is headquartered). Christ will personally rule over his restored Church, but it will be done in such a way that the guarantees found in the First Amendment and the rest of Bill of Rights will be in force

So Christ will indeed rule over His Church and will also be regarded as the world sovereign, but he will not rule in an oppressive, heavy handed way. In other words, the Lord isn’t going to push his religion down everyone’s throats, much like he doesn’t do so now. The Savior is only interested in willing obedience based on faith and mutual love, not obedience for obedience sake.

I find it hard to swallow that you can call a government that is run by the Son of God 'secular'.

I also question why the Bill of Rights is singled out as something that will survive. Does a worldwide government need to quarter troops in homes or need a well regulated militia. Will there even be state governments? Trials by jury? Bail being needed?

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm now actually more confused. I'll start out by honestly stating that I'm not sure if your views represent official LDS teaching or majority LDS opinions. Is this your opinion (or a minority opinion)? Some posters have suggested so. Can you clarify?

At best all he can do is provide some quotes from other people who have said similar things.  Joseph Fielding Smith and Brigham Young and John Taylor, maybe.  Maybe also some other prophets and apostles.  You could still call that a minority opinion, though.  And those people are dead.  Hardly anyone on the internet will admit to agreeing with them anymore.

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

So, if I understand you correctly, there will be a one world government whose capitol is located in the US and is based on the US constitution. Christ will have nothing to do with this government.

Hmm.  Did teddy say that?  Can you quote where he said that or wherehe made a statement to that affect?  That Christ would have nothing to do with that government?  I don't think teddy is the sort of fellow who would say that.

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Instead, Christ will be the head of the LDS church. Will he be the president, like President Nelson?

He is already at the head of the "LDS" Church... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  At the head of our current President, President Nelson.

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You also say that he will be regarded as "the world sovereign." What does that mean?

He will be the top guy over everyone else on this planet.  As he is now.  The only difference is that he will be here in person.  Probably in a tall building a nice office with a nice view.

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You say that people will be free to believe in whatever religion. Why/how would people believe that Christ is the world sovereign, but not believe in Christianity? Will they doubt his divinity but still allow him to rule over them? Why would anyone do that?

 

Some people on this planet may think he is just an alien from some other planet who defeated all of the world's military units and just took over. Or some smart guy who used a lot of special effect tricks with cameras while claiming to be Jesus Christ.

You know how sneaky those Hollywood types can be, and how real they can make things appear with cameras, don't cha?  Even our Lord said there will be a lot of people who will claim to be him at his coming.  But even if we test his DNA to make sure he is the real one some people may not believe in him.  They could just think those doctors or scientists are in on the scam.

[rodheadlee]

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I find it hard to swallow that you can call a government that is run by the Son of God 'secular'.

I also question why the Bill of Rights is singled out as something that will survive. Does a worldwide government need to quarter troops in homes or need a well regulated militia. Will there even be state governments? Trials by jury? Bail being needed?

There will be secular governments on earth during the Millennial. They will pay tribute to the Lord in Jerusalem. I refer you to Micah 4: 1-5, Isaiah 60:1-12 and Isaiah 2:1-4. you can find the corresponding BoM verses in 2Nephi by looking up Nations in the Topical Guide. These verse also show there will be other religions still on the earth.

1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.

2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

3 ¶ And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

4 But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it.

5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.

,

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

start out by honestly stating that I'm not sure if your views represent official LDS teaching

Official teaching:

Quote

1. During the Millennium the Savior will reign personally on the earth.

   1. The millennial government is under the administration of the Savior and His righteous Saints (see Isaiah 2:1–4; Micah 4:2–3; Joel 3:16–17; D&C 43:29–30; 45:59; Revelation 5:10; 20:4, 6; D&C 133:25).

   2. The Millennium will be righteous Israel’s day with the Savior, during which He will make all things known to them (see Zechariah 2:11; D&C 101:32–34; 121:26–32; 2 Nephi 30:16–18; Isaiah 11:9).

   3. Not everyone will have a knowledge of the living God and belong to His Church when the Millennium begins (see Micah 4:5).

   4. During the Millennium, all those living on the earth will eventually know the Lord and will join His Church (see Jeremiah 31:31–34; D&C 84:98).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/37-millennium-and-glorification-of-the-earth?lang=eng

[Calm]

Quote

Because of the destruction of the wicked at the Savior’s Second Coming, only righteous people will live on the earth at the beginning of the Millennium. They will be those who have lived virtuous and honest lives. These people will inherit either the terrestrial or celestial kingdom.

During the Millennium, mortals will still live on earth, and they will continue to have children as we do now (see D&C 45:58). Joseph Smith said that immortal beings will frequently visit the earth. These resurrected beings will help with the government and other work. (See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 268.)

People will still have their agency, and for a time many will be free to continue with their religions and ideas. Eventually everyone will confess that Jesus Christ is the Savior.

During the Millennium, Jesus will “reign personally upon the earth” (Articles of Faith 1:10). Joseph Smith explained that Jesus will “reign over the Saints and come down and instruct” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 258).

Quote

Righteous Government

President John Taylor taught: “The Lord will be king over all the earth, and all mankind literally under his sovereignty, and every nation under the heavens will have to acknowledge his authority, and bow to his scepter. Those who serve him in righteousness will have communications with God, and with Jesus; will have the ministering of angels, and will know the past, the present, and the future; and other people, who may not yield full obedience to his laws, nor be fully instructed in his covenants, will, nevertheless, have to yield full obedience to his government. For it will be the reign of God upon the earth, and he will enforce his laws, and command that obedience from the nations of the world which is legitimately his right” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: John Taylor [2001], 225).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-45-the-millennium?lang=eng&_r=1

[Calm]

Since all who live during the Millennium will be good and just, peace and neighbor loving, many laws will be unnecessary.  I can think of things like traffic laws would still need to exist as when working in conjunction, like traveling on a road at the same time, to be safe we need to be able to predict others’ behaviour and know what is expected of us.  Probably laws dealing with currency since unlikely to go to bartering (I see no reason to assume we will go back to a more rural, self sufficiency lifestyle....the Millennium is ideal for communal living where resources that are needed on occasion are shared and people choose to do work that brings them joy and willingly do their part of the grunt work rather than every household has their own lawnmower, tool set, etc.  There might need to be community laws for shared resources for scheduling purposes.  Not even sure something like building codes would be needed as everyone would educate themselves on what was needed as they would want to build the best building possible for themselves and others and without improper conduct because of fear of losing investment or greed inflating costs or cutting corners.
 

There likely will need to be taxes if not all are living the United Order yet in order to pay for roads, parks, and other shared infrastructure.  There will be no prisons as when laws are broken, it will be by mistake and not intent and at most education on cause and effect of breaking the law will be all that will be needed to change behaviour.  Restitution will be willing given since all are good and just.  People will not be intent on oppressing others, maxing out their wealth by taking advantage of others, etc.  Lawsuits likely unnecessary.  Maybe mediation if harm is done and a fair restitution needs to be decided.  Likely divorces won’t happen and if they do, it will be because they recognize personalities don’t work together and there won’t be malicious divorce lawsuits or custody battles.

There will be no wars, no illegal trade or migration, no abusers, rapists, murderers...likely even no lying, at least malicious (I can see it might take time to break the habit of white lying so as not to trouble others).

There would be no need for amendments dealing with equality or civil rights protections as no one would be discriminating...at least not after some education if needed.  
 

It would be interesting to go through the Constitution and see how much will actually be needed if there are no more militaries, no more crime, no more oppression of others for whatever reason.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

The Millennium will be a time of peace when the Savior will reign over the earth.

Articles of Faith 1:10: “We believe … that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.”²¹

“The designs of God … have been … to establish peace and good will among men; to promote the principles of eternal truth; to bring about a state of things that shall unite man to his fellow man; cause the world to ‘beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks’ [Isaiah 2:4], make the nations of the earth dwell in peace, and to bring about the millennial glory, when ‘the earth shall yield its increase, resume its [paradisiacal] glory, and become as the garden of the Lord.’ …

“It has been the design of Jehovah, from the commencement of the world, and is His purpose now, to regulate the affairs of the world in His own time, to stand as a head of the universe, and take the reins of government in His own hand. When that is done, judgment will be administered in righteousness; anarchy and confusion will be destroyed, and ‘nations will learn war no more.’ [See Isaiah 2:4.] …

 

Quote

“… Moses received the word of the Lord from God Himself; he was the mouth of God to Aaron, and Aaron taught the people, in both civil and ecclesiastical affairs; they were both one, there was no distinction; so will it be when the purposes of God shall be accomplished: when ‘the Lord shall be King over the whole earth,’ and ‘Jerusalem His throne.’ ‘The law shall go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.’ [See Zechariah 14:9; Jeremiah 3:17; Micah 4:2.]

“… ‘He whose right it is, will possess the kingdom, and reign until He has put all things under His feet’ [see Ezekiel 21:27; 1 Corinthians 15:27]; iniquity will hide its hoary head, Satan will be bound, and the works of darkness destroyed; righteousness will be put to the line, and judgment to the plummet, and ‘he that fears the Lord will alone be exalted in that day.’ [See Isaiah 2:11; 28:17.]”²²

“That Jesus will be a resident on the earth a thousand [years] with the Saints is not the case, but will reign over the Saints and come down and instruct, as he did the five hundred brethren [see 1 Corinthians 15:6], and those of the first resurrection will also reign with him over the Saints.”²³

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-21?lang=eng

Edited March 25, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Isaiah 65:17–25refers to the Millennium. People living then will have no desire for things to be as they once were. The old earth, in fact, “shall not be remembered, nor come into mind” (v. 17). Everything will be gloriously new, sorrow will cease (see v. 19), children will not die in infancy (see v. 20), homes will be built, and fruit trees and gardens planted and enjoyed. No one will drive others from their lands, as the Saints were driven in the early days of this dispensation (see v. 21–22).

In summarizing conditions in this glorious day, Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote: “Great and marvelous though the changes will be incident to life during the millennial era, yet mortality as such will continue. Children will be born, grow up, marry, advance to old age, and pass through the equivalent of death. Crops will be planted, harvested, and eaten; industries will be expanded, cities built, and education fostered; men will continue to care for their own needs, handle their own affairs, and enjoy the full endowment of free agency. Speaking a pure language (Zeph. 3:9), dwelling in peace, living without disease, and progressing as the Holy Spirit will guide, the advancement and perfection of society during the millennium will exceed anything men have supposed or expected.” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 496–97.)

A great deal of information about the Millennium has been revealed in Doctrine and Covenants 101:23–31.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-kings-malachi/chapter-18?lang=eng

No famine, no intentional shortages to drive up prices, no natural disasters to destroy needed infrastructures (the earth is paradise again), no one intentionally taking advantage of the other.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

There will be secular governments on earth during the Millennial. They will pay tribute to the Lord in Jerusalem. I refer you to Micah 4: 1-5, Isaiah 60:1-12 and Isaiah 2:1-4. you can find the corresponding BoM verses in 2Nephi by looking up Nations in the Topical Guide. These verse also show there will be other religions still on the earth.

1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.

2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

3 ¶ And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

4 But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it.

5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.

,

Verse 2 seems to me to be pre-Second Coming. Then he comes and judges the nations (and takes over). There will be other faiths on the Earth and the global monarch, Jesus, will allow them to continue.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is not now and never has been anything reasonable about Christianity.  Andre Schwartz-Bart declared that Jesus taught "an impossible love."  No one can prove that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, or that He raised Lazarus from the dead.  No reasonable person can prove that any of His miracles actually took place.  Christianity is preposterous, except to those who have faith.  For the faithless, of course the entire enterprise will be taken to be unreasonable.  That is a given.  So what else is new?

Jesus directed that to an individual (to test his commitment), not to a corporation which has responsibility for preaching the Gospel to the entire world and for building and maintaining church bldgs and temples worldwide.  Indeed, that corporation is owned by the Lord and does His bidding, not the bidding of the secular busybodies who mock Him and His Father.

My use of reasonable was in response to Smac's post where used the term constantly to illustrate how reasonable members should react to the topic at hand.

Your second paragraph is simple equivocation. I was as much as a faithful member as you most of my life.  I gave two example. One was given to one person, the other was a statement in general,  But as far as Jesus direction to the rich man, apparently the writers of the gospel thought it important enough to include in the text.

So once again we can conclude the reasonable people can have the position that the church that claims the name of him who seemed to teach that massive worldly possessions are outside the scope of what he taught.  But I understand the need to equivocate on this or many.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

So what do you think is a reasonable amount? 1 billion, 500 million? By the way you're taking that quote about the rich man out of context. That's not what everyone needed to do that's what he needed to do because he loved his money more than God.

Hmmm I d not recall that Jesus gave the qualifier you give. That and other teachings of Jesus certainly do focus on the idea that accumulating massive wealth is not something he was favorable of.

 

Regarding your other question I am not sure I have a number.  It seems odd for a church that claims to be Jesus's to have more amassed than some of the largest corporation in the world as well as the larges universities. Given the fact that the church has many other assets that are likely in the billions of $ in value(lands, buildings, other for profit businesses, etc) $100 billion is easily liquidated assets seems rather excessive.  I would think, as one other poster suggested, that  few time annual operating costs would be more than enough.  Apparently the Church was worried about image enough to try to hide this amount from public view.

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hey, I think SLC should become its own country like the Vatican and then President Nelson could be an absolute monarch. I mean, if you want to be like the Pope, go all the way!

That was Brigham's plan.