roytucker

It's a bird. It's a plane. (well obviously not literally) So, I'll liken it to my own life. I'm on a board of directors for a professional group and every month we receive a treasurer's report, showing incomings and outgoings. We ask a couple of questions, discuss major expenditures and approve the report. Then once a year, we take a treasurer's report to our membership showing our annual financials. If all is well, we vote on accepting the report. Simple. No fuss. (And of course those figures are audited :) ) Everyone is in the light. And that's the way our church operated until 1958. Some speculate that the church had financial difficulties around that time and did not want to show a significant deficit to the church membership. In any case, that was the end of financial statements to the members, so I guess we'll never know for sure. So my "beef", as you put it, is that I don't know what the church is doing with all the money we put into it. I don't want to micromanage any of its decisions. But I certainly would like to peruse the annual expenditure once a year. Now, I've heard many say "It's the Lord's money", "It's none of our business", etc, etc, but I simply don't subscribe to this view as it does not seem to be based in scripture. And in my profession, I have witnessed what happens when there isn't adequate transparency. None of the general authorities, to my knowledge, have arisen to say that angelic messengers have delivered our annual list of spending priorities and that these instruction are sealed from the members. As far as I've witnessed, the Church runs similar to any corporation, with boards, committees, focus groups, etc etc, although of course no other corporation claims to have prophets at the head. (wait, does Apple count?) Oops, as far as I could learn in the Catholic church, their "priesthood" organisational line goes all the way back to ancient times. I wonder if they'll have me back! For me, the office of the priesthood is meaningless unless the power of the priesthood is active in the holder. I do like your reasoning, though. Sort of agree, except to phrase it as WE are the Church of Jesus Christ, if we have come unto Christ through faith, repentance, baptism. And it is this spiritually based membership that also has us part of the 'kingdom of God'. The earthly based "organisation" exists to support our spiritual development, rather than *us* existing to support the earthly based organisation. That's my 0.02 Roy

Though not stated directly at me, I'm wondering if you put my comments in the "gut level disgust with disloyalty to a worthy cause or group" category? I'll assume so for the present. I understand that viewpoint because I've drifted towards it at different times. But fundamentally my loyalty is to my own interpretation of God's will rather than to The Corporation of the President. I'll take each scripture, statement or practice on its own merits. If I didn't have that viewpoint, I would have stayed Catholic. (I mean, come on, they've got an infallible pope and authority traced back to Peter!) Roy

LOL. Thank you Captain Literal

Hi estradling, I understand that. I actually work for one of the Big 4 and understand the auditing process very well. Although you can never rule out fraud completely (Enron anyone), it's not just about fraud. Prior to 1960, the church did publish its expenditures to the members in general conference. From 1960, they changed a decades old practice. As I say, it's not about fraud, it's about transparency, which can sometimes change the thought process about making decisions. It can make you reexamine your priorities. You might make different decisions knowing that people will be examining your expenditure. That's all I'm saying. Roy

Yes. Absolutely. That's why I restated it, because it seemed to be what you were implying. Yep. No worries. This is probably the key point in our discussion. You give the benefit of the doubt and I don't. That's the cool thing about individual agency. Really? See, your view doesn't sound logical to me. If that were true, we'd all be Catholic wouldn't we, given our claim of apostasy and unrighteous priests, etc When I read the New Testament, there are lots of references to the kingdom of God, but I don't read it as an organisation. It reads more like a Zion society: becoming like a little child, abandoning riches, miracles, caring for the poor. Seemed to be about behaviors. Yep, I get that. Who determines? Well, everyone determines for themselves. That's the way individual salvation goes I guess. My relationship with God is a direct one and is not proxied through an earthly organisation. (Don't get me wrong. I'm an active member with a calling, etc,etc). But I'm happy to stand or fall on my own interpretation of things. Thanks for responding and clarifying. Roy

The organisation of the church today does not appear to resemble the various ways it was organised in Book of Mormon days. So you have to examine why Mormon and Moroni, having seen our day, would include the stories they did. Anyway, some random things of interest: Jacob 2 (Riches, immorality creeping in) Mosiah 11 (King Noah's corrupted church and priests) Alma 4 (church succumbing to pride, riches, contention, ignoring poor) Alma 31 (church in Antionum with the rameumptum, big buildings, the prideful people, ignoring poor) 4 Nephi (from Zion to zero) Mormon (Nephite descent to oblivion) plus the various 'I have seen your day' type warnings from Mormon and Moroni. Anyway, that's it for now. Roy

That's true. All of those leaders mentioned were faithful.

Sorry Vort, obviously I'm a bit slow. So you're saying that because the institutional church is "the kingdom of God", we should always give it the benefit of the doubt in any decisions that are made? Hopefully I've restated that correctly. Here's my response: My own reading of scripture has always equated the "kingdom of God" as a state of righteousness to which one has attained. I went back and looked through every reference to "kingdom of God" across all the Standard Works. Each scripture either defines an aspect of human behavior that is consistent with the kingdom of God or it refers to the group of believers who have reached that state. In my mind, it is correct to equate the kingdom of God with the church in the sense that the church is the group of believers who have come unto Christ. If I am not behaving in harmony with Christ's teachings, then I'm not really part of His church. I liken this perspective to D&C 121 where the existence of priesthood authority is only present through righteousness, not through position alone. Therefore, the "institutional church" as I referred to it, is only acting as the kingdom of God when its decisions/actions are righteous. It's not the kingdom of God just because it exists as a legal entity/corporation. If the Book of Mormon teaches anything, it teaches that the "institutional church" throughout its ancient American history was corrupted by riches. The book is meant to be a warning to our day. It is with this context that I question the current lack of transparency, and it is in this context that I don't grant any benefit of the doubt. Moroni said it well in Mormon 8 and didn't appear to be giving any benefit of the doubt either: "why have ye built up churches unto yourselves to get gain?" "ye do love amoney, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted." "why have ye polluted the holy church of God?" If we're not meant to suffer uncleanliness to enter the kingdom of God, we have to be ever vigilant of all parts of the body of Christ. Bring the finances into the light and then we've got that aspect covered. Roy.

He makes some great points about belief vs truth. He is one of my favorite speakers. Of course when it came to addressing issues in church history, I felt a bit of Obi wan kanobe: "These are not the droids you're looking for" :) love those Jedi mind tricks! Roy

Chrissy, Well, he was kind of correct in his statement, but, yes it sounds a little pridefully spoken. I don't see how that would invalidate his prophetic mission though. It seems Joseph was a flawed person and those flaws are there for inspection. I'm sure current leaders aren't perfect either. They just have better control on what gets published Roy

Vort, that's a very pithy response, but how does that address my point? If you're trying to say that no bad financial decisions can be made by "the kingdom of God on earth" then you might want to look at church history a little closer. I see absolutely no issue with full transparency to the members of the church. Of course this is not what the church does and so we jump to justifications on the church's behalf.

Actually I think the voice of common consent is the Lord's preferred model. Read about how decisions were made in Joseph's day. Fascinating stuff.

Maureen, this detail is fascinating but how do you know it is accurate? It is not an article published by the church and the church itself will not confirm or deny any financial arrangements (aside from that one simple quote from Pres Hinckley). The information regarding all getting "the same allowance" is also in conflict with historical (and "insider") knowledge regarding the operation of church finances. I don't see why the institutional church should get any benefit of the doubt in this matter. If it just reported its expenses like it used to, there wouldn't be any need for speculation. Money can corrupt and transparency in the handling of money is the best way to avoid that.

Absolutely. But good luck to the sister who tries to claim those healing spiritual gifts today. I'm not sure it would be as well received. :) I'm loving this discussion on what equality of roles might mean in a priesthood sense and the shifting rhetoric between church duty and family duty. It's great to hear people's perspectives.

Yes, the battle of pantsmageddon was an interesting one. It did show, though, that at least some women are looking for change. (although the pants issue itself was a bit silly) You may be right. It may never happen. But the interesting aspect for me is that it's another practice that is accepted across the church, that maybe doesn't have a strong scriptural foundation, and for which the church receives negative attention (inside and out). Stay tuned. :)