Update on Church Finances

[GoCeltics]

On 4/19/2024 at 9:51 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe the tabernacle was also extravagant (as commanded by the Lord), with the overlay of pure gold for the ark of the covenant, and the mercy seat of pure gold, and the two cherubim of gold, and the table of shittim wood overlaid with pure gold, and the pillars of wood overlaid with gold and their hooks of gold, and the altar of incense overlaid with pure gold etc. etc.?  (See Exodus 25-26, 28, 30).  

The construction of the tabernacle was very extravagant, guided by the Lord's direction.

On 4/19/2024 at 9:51 PM, InCognitus said:

Are you suggesting there were no impoverished people in that region?  Israel had commandments regarding the poor among them going back to the beginning (i.e. Exodus 23:11).  And years later, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians, it says "Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it... And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord, as the Lord had said.  And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land."  (2 Kings 24:11–14)   And in 2 Kings 25:12, when more of the people were carried away into Babylon, it says "But the captain of the guard left of the poor of the land to be vinedressers and husbandmen." (2 Kings 25:12)  (Jeremiah 40:7 says something similar).

I acknowledge the presence of impoverished individuals in the land during the time of 
Babylon's conquest. However, I am not aware of any scripture that mentions the same 
concerning those in the vicinity of Jerusalem when Solomon completed the construction 
of the temple centuries earlier or the poor being neglected as money and resources
where diverted to the temple so as not to violate those commandments in Exodus.

Christians in the New Testament were never directed to construct temples as they spread
to distant regions.

Edited April 22, 2024 by GoCeltics

[GoCeltics]

18 hours ago, InCognitus said:

They make tremendous sacrifices to visit the temples. They travel for days at a time in cheap buses and on old boats. They save their money and do without to make it all possible.  They need nearby temples—small, beautiful, serviceable temples.  Accordingly, I take this opportunity to announce to the entire Church a program to construct some 30 smaller temples immediately....."

In the era when the church was expanding to distant regions like Spain and Italy, did 
Christians in those areas feel compelled to journey to the Jerusalem temple? If so, what 
was the purpose of their visits?

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

The construction of the tabernacle was very extravagant, guided by the Lord's direction.

I acknowledge the presence of impoverished individuals in the land during the time of 
Babylon's conquest. However, I am not aware of any scripture that mentions the same 
concerning those in the vicinity of Jerusalem when Solomon completed the construction 
of the temple centuries earlier or the poor being neglected as money and resources
where diverted to the temple so as not to violate those commandments in Exodus.

Christians in the New Testament were never directed to construct temples as they spread
to distant regions.

Fun Fact: Solomon built the temple using impressed labor. Pretty much in the same way the Egyptians extracted labor from the Israelites in Egypt. His willingness to do this combined with his son’s even greater stupidity led to the kingdom splitting.

[ZealouslyStriving]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Fun Fact: Solomon built the temple using impressed labor. Pretty much in the same way the Egyptians extracted labor from the Israelites in Egypt. His willingness to do this combined with his son’s even greater stupidity led to the kingdom splitting.

Another fun fact: Solomon's other name was Jedidiah - but his friends called him Jed.

[Stargazer]

On 4/22/2024 at 6:02 PM, GoCeltics said:

In the era when the church was expanding to distant regions like Spain and Italy, did 
Christians in those areas feel compelled to journey to the Jerusalem temple? If so, what 
was the purpose of their visits?

The Jerusalem temple did not have the same purpose as modern temples. Jews went to visit the Jerusalem temple to offer ritual sacrifices required by the Law of Moses -- such as when Jesus's parents went to the temple to offer a sacrifice:

22 And when the days of her [Mary's] purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) 24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. [Luke 2:22-24]

It was Passover season when Jesus was crucified, and so it happened to be the case that many Jews from the Diaspora had come to offer sacrifices, which is how Simon of Cyrene happened to be there to be compelled to carry Jesus's cross when Jesus couldn't carry it any further. The Cyrenian Jews had a synagogue in Jerusalem, where many went for annual feasts. It happened that it was the time of the Jewish harvest feast of Shavuot that again, when many Jews from outside Palestine were present (this became the Christian Pentecost), and this is why Acts records:

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilæans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? [Acts 2:5-8]

It was necessary to offer these sacrifices because the Law of Moses required them to be done in the presence of the Lord, meaning the temple. But after the temple's destruction in 70 AD, they could no longer offer sacrifices there, and so they created substitute festivals.

As for the early Christians, except for the few Jewish Christians who continued to observe the Law, they were in small congregations, impoverished and frequently persecuted, by individuals, groups, and by the State. They had no means of building temples. And by the time they had the means, they had apostatized from the fulness of the priesthood.. For instance, they had formerly performed baptisms for the dead (1 Cor 15:29), but this became heretical and then unknown -- though it was apparently continued for a time by the Coptic Christians. But those proxy baptisms were not performed in a temple. Iit appears that the Lord allows for an exception due to poverty, as He did for the Mosaic sacrifices before the Temple of Solomon was built, and in the early years of the CoJCoLDS, when baptisms for the dead were permitted by the Lord to be done outside of a temple. Speaking of baptism for the dead:

30 For this ordinance belongeth to my house, and cannot be acceptable to me, only in the days of your poverty, wherein ye are not able to build a house unto me. 31 But I command you, all ye my saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me; and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me. [D&C 124:30-31]

The modern Endowment was likewise first administered in a specially-prepared room in the Red Brick Store in Nauvoo in 1842. It was certainly also the case for the Endowment in the Primitive Church that it was administered in private dwellings, out of public view.

You might or might not be interested to read this FAIR article: A Case for Ancient Temple Ordinances.

Edited April 27, 2024 by Stargazer

[InCognitus]

On 4/22/2024 at 10:55 AM, GoCeltics said:

I acknowledge the presence of impoverished individuals in the land during the time of 
Babylon's conquest. However, I am not aware of any scripture that mentions the same 
concerning those in the vicinity of Jerusalem when Solomon completed the construction 
of the temple centuries earlier or the poor being neglected as money and resources
where diverted to the temple so as not to violate those commandments in Exodus.

That there were poor during Solomon's time is indicated by Solomon's writings about the poor (i.e. Proverbs 22:22 is one of many examples).  But Solomon's taxation system contributed to the problem (1 Kings 5:13-18 as an example). And 1 Kings 12:1-4 describes the agitation the Israelites had over the burden of heavy taxation and forced labor under king Solomon.  So there was definitely poverty during that period of time.

On 4/22/2024 at 10:55 AM, GoCeltics said:

Christians in the New Testament were never directed to construct temples as they spread
to distant regions.

As Stargazer has already explained, the temple at Jerusalem was different given that it was constructed for operation under the Mosaic law.  But even so, the temple was seen as important enough in Christian times, so much so that Luke both begins and ends his gospel in the temple.  

On 4/22/2024 at 11:02 AM, GoCeltics said:

In the era when the church was expanding to distant regions like Spain and Italy, did 
Christians in those areas feel compelled to journey to the Jerusalem temple? If so, what 
was the purpose of their visits?

Do you mean after the temple was destroyed in 70 AD?  (It didn't exist anymore).   But if you mean before that, the book of Acts includes numerous visits to the temple and Paul returned to Jerusalem to go to the temple (Acts 21:26-30).  But it was not for the same reasons we go to the temple today.

[GoCeltics]

On 4/27/2024 at 11:37 AM, Stargazer said:

You might or might not be interested to read this FAIR article: A Case for Ancient Temple Ordinances.

Thank you. I'll review it and perhaps initiate a new discussion thread to address any questions that arise. It seems I now have the capability to initiate topics.

[Stargazer]

On 5/3/2024 at 5:49 PM, GoCeltics said:

Thank you. I'll review it and perhaps initiate a new discussion thread to address any questions that arise. It seems I now have the capability to initiate topics.

Yes, after 25 posts one acquires this ability. Though one can lose it if the mods decide one is abusing the privilege.

[Tacenda]

43 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, after 25 posts one acquires this ability. Though one can lose it if the mods decide one is abusing the privilege.

Been there done that!

[Stargazer]

On 4/22/2024 at 5:55 PM, GoCeltics said:

Christians in the New Testament were never directed to construct temples as they spread
to distant regions.

"Never"? How do you know? Absence of evidence, as you should be aware, is not evidence of absence. Early Christians had places of worship didn't they? Archaeologists uncover these from time to time. How would they distinguish between a place of common worship and a place of special worship being used in a similar manner to how we used temples in the modern day? 

This is much like the problem of archaeology in connection with the Book of Mormon. Because archaeologists haven't yet found a city with a "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign on the road into town, some folks say that the Book of Mormon must be fiction. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

 

[GoCeltics]

On 5/7/2024 at 7:59 AM, Stargazer said:

"Never"? How do you know? Absence of evidence, as you should be aware, is not evidence of absence. Early Christians had places of worship didn't they? Archaeologists uncover these from time to time. How would they distinguish between a place of common worship and a place of special worship being used in a similar manner to how we used temples in the modern day?

Those who are filled with the Holy Spirit serve as the temples in the New Testament. In 
the early days of Christianity, believers gathered for worship both in homes and in the
temple in Jerusalem, until its destruction. Even Jewish communities dispersed to Spain 
and Italy continued to pilgrimage to the Jerusalem temple rather than constructing their
own.

[smac97]

On 4/17/2024 at 5:53 PM, Calm said:

Quote

Quote

The SEC situation brings to light that, at least sometimes, the Church's internal controls do fail and do fail in a significant manner (internal controls are supposed to catch both unintentional mistakes as well as intentional efforts to misuse uinds).

Sure.  The human factor will always require us to leave that possibility open.  In fact, I think the SEC matter was the exception that proves the rule.  I also think the SEC issue was way overblown by some of our critics. 

In any event, that the Church made some mistakes in its SEC regulatory compliance efforts is just not that big a deal to me.  The mistakes were identified, corrective measures implemented, a fine paid, and life goes on.  None of this has any impact on my assessment of the truth claims espoused by the Church.  Errors in 13F forms do not, for me, retroactively negate the reality of the First Vision and other theophanies, the Gold Plates and the translation of the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the Priesthood, etc.  If these things happened, then I'm sticking with the Church, even if and when it makes mistakes.

How?  A failure that proves success?

Here is what I meant by "the exception that proves the rule":

Quote

Proving the existence of the rule

 

This meaning of the phrase, which for Fowler is the original and clearest meaning, is thought to have emerged from the legal phrase "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" ("the exception proves the rule in cases not excepted"), an argument attributed to Cicero in his defence of Lucius Cornelius Balbus. This argument states if an exception exists or has to be stated, then this exception proves that there must be some rule to which the case is an exception. The second part of Cicero's phrase, "in casibus non exceptis" ("in cases not excepted"), is almost always missing from modern uses of the statement that "the exception proves the rule".

Consider the following example of the original meaning:

Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight till 11.00 p.m.; "The exception proves the rule" means that this special leave implies a rule requiring men, except when an exception is made, to be in earlier. The value of this in interpreting statutes is plain.

— Fowler

In other words, under this meaning of the phrase, the exception proves that the rule exists on other occasions. This meaning of the phrase, outside of a legal setting, can describe inferences taken from signs, statements or other information. For example, the inference in a shop from a sign saying "pre-paid delivery required for refrigerators" would be that pre-paid delivery is not required for other objects.^[2] In this case, the exception of refrigerators proves the existence of a rule that pre-paid delivery is not required.

The English phrase was used this way in early citations from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

The SEC matter was, I think, an outlier.  Most of the time, the Church's finances and business affairs are handled not only within the confines of the law, but are handled well.  Were this not the case, I think we would likely encounter ongoing news items about the Church's mistakes.  This is particularly so in 2024, when the Church has all sorts of eyes on it (David Nielsen, take a bow), and in fact even has attempts by bad actors to encourage Church employees to steal the Church's information and secretly send it out for publication and sensationalism (Ryan McKnight, take a bow).  These folks can have vigorous ideological and/or malicious and/or pecuniary motives for pointing to instances of the Church erring in the management of its finances.  And despite all this, I do not see a persistent series of scandals or other sensationalized news items about the Church's finances.  The "rule," then, is that the Church is doing well at managing its finances.  The comparative rarity of instances of the Church erring in such management (such as the SEC matter) is, therefore, indicative of these being an exception to the rule, exceptions which tends to prove the rule's otherwise generalized existence.

On 4/17/2024 at 5:53 PM, Calm said:

Quote

Seems like they are doing pretty well.  

How would you know?  Serious question. 

Because we have both positive evidence and negative evidence.  Regarding the former:

Quote

Moreover, we do know "where {} tithing $$ go{es}."  We see the Brethren not living high off the hog.  We see beautiful church buildings, temples, seminaries and institutes, colleges, missionary programs, family history efforts, youth programs, women's programs, Deseret Industries, Humanitarian Square, Welfare Square, canneries and storehouses, public statements about billions being spent on collaborative humanitarian efforts, and on and on and on.  We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Church Audit Committee, and more.  We get annual reports from the Audit Committee.  We also have a notable lack of any evidence of financial misconduct, malfeasance, etc.

If the Latter-day Saints were presently operating in the dark about the finances of the Church, I think our critics would have more of a point.  But per the above observations, we aren't, so they don't.

If the Church had not previously put in place substantial auditing or other mechanisms for financial controls and oversight, I think our critics would have more of a point.  But it has, so they don't.

If the Church had, in its recent history, a pattern of substantial financial mismanagement / malfeasance / corruption / scandal, etc., I think our critics would have more of a point.  But it doesn't, so they don't.

The Church is doing a really good job, and is getting better as time goes on.

Regarding the latter, we have the absence of profligate living by those who have access to the Church's wealth.  We have the generalized absence of scandals, regulatory interventions, etc.  I think this is why the SEC matter gained so much attention.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 5, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

Thanks for clarifying; I agree.