MarginOfError

I had actually chosen all of the items I listed because all of them (with the exception of the hot chocolate and women veiling their faces) are things that I've personally encountered as stumbling blocks for people. These are issues that people actually struggle with and worry about. And almost all of them are faithful, contributing members of the Church. ...which is kind of my point.

I think you'll find that most members have lines in the sand that would qualify as a conditional testimony, as described. Would you retain your testimony if: The Church reestablished polygamy? The Church reinstated the ban those of African descent from holding the priesthood? The Church endorsed a socialist political platform? The Church began solemnizing gay marriages? The Church ended tithing? The Church added hot chocolate to the list of substances banned by the Word of Wisdom The Church authorized women to be ordained to priesthood office? The Church required women to cover their heads and faces to attend Sacrament meeting? The Church begins donating larges sums of money to Muslim communities? Just because you are comfortable with one of those points doesn't mean that you will be comfortable with all of them. I can tell you right now that there are a few items on that list that I would struggle immensely to understand and accept. There's at least one that would drive me into outright revolt. Perhaps we'd be better served to meet people where they are at both emotionally and spiritually.

I think each person's view on this will be influenced by the reasons we believe the confidentiality is desirable. What, exactly, is the purpose of confidentiality in these deliberations? For us, we consider the confidentiality important for two reasons. First, it prevents confusion and chaos during the deliberations process. We don't want people to be distracted by all of the discussion of who might take on a role until all of the decisions have been made. Believe it or not, we sometimes change course in that process, and if all of those details were widely known, it could cause some to begin questioning why or why they weren't called when they had been in named in the discussion before. Second, we don't want people to find out that they are being called or released until someone in the bishopric notifies the person. It's frustrating and sometimes hurtful to find out through the wrong channels. And so when we are making multiple changes, we tend to ask those involved not to discuss their calling with anyone until we have notified everyone. However, once we've notified everyone, we give them all the green light to talk with people and coordinate transitions. We also tell them not to worry about keeping it confidential anymore. At that point, we stop caring about who knows. Not surprisingly, our rumor mill has died down quite a bit since going this route. Now that people don't consider it "inside information," no one wants to talk about it any more. As for including the ward council in deliberations, there have been times when someone from an unaffected organization has spoken up and given insight to a calling that has been invaluable in the selection. I'll stand by our use of the Ward Council here. They may not be affected directly by the changes, but our ward is better by including them in the discussions.

Welcome to the new Children and Youth Initiative......

I can understand the concerns, and have some counterpoints: As far as the circle of confidentiality: If we're going to notify organization presidents of changes with sufficient time for them to work on replacements, your circle of confidentiality has grown just as large. You've just expanded the circle later, which adds more stress to organizations that are losing people*. With regard to organizations resolving staffing issues, sometimes the bishopric says no, too. But more often than not, when the ward council has gotten together and figured out how to match people to open callings, the bishopric has found no reason to object. Regardless, it's supposed to be the bishop's role to approve (or disapprove). If most of the callings are originating at the bishopric, the bishopric probably isn't focusing their time where it is needed the most. * Expanding the circle later may have a benefit where there's less chance for word to spread before the sustaining. In our ward, we tend not to care much about that, because as soon as all of the people have accepted their callings, we tell them to go ahead and start coordinating with anyone they need to. There aren't a lot of surprise sustainings in our ward.

In the past few months, I've taken to pushing a policy (in our ward) that no one is sustained until their replacement is secured. In some cases, that has ended up in, for example, the RS president requests someone from Primary. So we put the Primary and RS presidents together and tell them to resolve staffing across both organizations. If they feel like the solution is pulling someone from YW, then we get the YW president involved. Once they have a solution worked out that all of the organization presidents are happy with, we issue callings. In the extreme example, we denied the RS president a secretary for several weeks until Primary could be suitably staffed. We might be a little strange in our ward, however, because as I write agendas for Ward Council, I put down any callings that are being considered seriously. Our entire ward council knows what is going on with our staffing decisions well before sustainings occur. And they give regular feedback on the process. Very often, staffing issues are resolved by the organizations and the bishopric just approves it.

One of the things that made Rogue One so great was that it did a really good job of staying away from previously established characters. There was a brief appearance of Darth Vader, and then Tarkin was really the only other previously established character that had any role. (Even then, they made Tarkin's conniving ascent into power pretty interesting) But by and large, they stuck with new characters with their own stories. Their relationship to the rest of the saga was more-or-less tangential. In fact, it was done well enough that you could have enjoyed Rogue One without ever having seen anything out of the greater saga at all. It may be the best story produced in this franchise* * I have a thing for tragedies, though. I like movies where the protagonists die.

Oh, I think you're misunderstanding which previous character I object tying Rey to. I'm being vague because I don't want to open too many spoilers in an unmarked thread. Perhaps we should open a Spoilers thread so we can be more explicit?

No. I won't engage in that kind of nonsense. If it was a true lack of faith, I wouldn't pay tithing. If it was a truck lack of faith, I wouldn't encourage others to pay tithing. If it was a true lack of faith, I wouldn't sit patiently with those in my various social circles and help them work through their struggles and misgivings about any number of topics. I have a disagreement with organizational policy. What's more, we learn from D&C 46 that gifts of faith, belief, administration etc, are given to different people. Not everyone gets every gift, but they are given out diversely "that all may be profited thereby." I have complete faith and trust in Jesus Christ. But I've seen too many dirt bags elevated to positions of authority in this Church (myself included) to take everything it does organizationally on complete faith. And it's good for you, too, that there are skeptics in the Church. Because our gifts make the body of Christ stronger, too. I don't mind that you disagree with me. I welcome that (yes, it annoys me, but intellectually, at the end of the day, I do truly welcome it). But you have no business denigrating the quality of my or anyone else's faith.

I adamantly disagree. I think trying Rey to a previous character made her story much less interesting. In fact, while everyone else in the theater was gasping, I was groaning, "oh please." It was gratuitous and unnecessary.....and redundant again.

And there it is...just a simple lack of faith......

I'd say it was a good movie. It wasn't a very compelling story. In fact, the only really compelling story I've encountered in this trilogy is the Rey-Luke portions of The Last Jedi*. The obsession that is happening in entertainment of making everything relate back to previous installments has pretty much sucked the joy out of a lot of these stories. It's almost like we don't believe a person's story is worth telling if they aren't somehow tied back to someone we already know. * Well, and Luke standing out to face eight AT-whatevers on his own. They should have ended The Last Jedi on that cliffhanger.

I'm going to go back and ask you to reread the post that prompted this response. Especially the part that says That level of discussion isn't uncommon at all. It states what the goals and objectives of the organization are, and why or how they need the investment strategy they have chosen. I didn't call for full transparency. I didn't ask for the ledgers. I only stated I'd like to know why the account exists and what they hope to accomplish with it. Truthfully, I don't even care to know about any specific account.

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought the $7 billion was donations, which would included all tithes and offerings. My understanding of the situation is that the complaint doesn't criticize the destination of expenditures, but that there are no expenditures. It is the lack of expenditures that is the violating condition of the non-profit status. It's a claim I feel would be worthy of some level of investigation, given that the complainant didn't have a full view of the finances, and so may not have seen any other outgoing expenditures. But it's the kind of thing I think is fair to evaluate. My counter to this would be that, for most tithe payers, the day-to-day social fallout is not why they pay their tithing. The longer term consequences, like salvation and exaltation, are also thrown into the mix of consequences. It isn't uncommon for tithing to become an emotionally fraught decision (either for those that struggle financially or those that have concerns about the use of tithing). It may be that we have different models of how trust works. For me, trust requires accountability to those you are asking to trust you. That may not always be direct accountability. It might mean accountability through some disinterested third party. My bar for transparency is much lower than you might think.

Weeeeellllll...there are some sticky issues here. For instance, suppose the Church is building up this massive reserve of value, built on the tithing I pay, and then they never make any expenditures aside from keeping the lights on in the meetinghouses. It was discussed earlier that the Church has $1 Billion left over after paying operational costs, and spends about 4% of that on humanitarian aid. Now I I (hypothetically) take a look at that and say, "it sure doesn't seem like the Church is doing enough good in the world with the money it is collecting. I think I'll quit giving them more money to squander." So I stop paying my tithing now, and next thing I know, I'm getting called in to talk to my bishop and stake president. My temple recommend is revoked. My standing in the Church is put into question. And I'm told to repent, and that my eternal well-being--my opportunity to be with my family forever-- is in jeopardy if I don't repent and obey the Law of Tithing. But if (big if, and hypothetical if) my tithing is being collected and doing nothing more than enriching the Corporation of the First Presidency of the Church--and I'm being spiritually and emotionally manipulated to do it--how is that different from the priestcrafts denounced in the Book of Mormon*. Now, I know those are fighting words. And I'm not accusing the Church of priestcraft. But there is a strong vibe from Church leadership of "just trust us" when it comes to how finances are handled. The total opaqueness leaves a lot of questions. Personally, I'm not really content with that. This is an area where, personally, I don't like how Church leadership has chosen to handle it. I'm a big subscriber to the "trust but verify" model. But I feel like there's no verification path for the membership of the Church**. What's even more frustrating to someone like me is that the bar for justification is pretty low. If there were a statement of "Yes, we retain a fund of more than $100 billion against which we are able to self-insure our $300 billion of real estate assets and supplemental health insurance for youth activities." I'd be good with that. That makes complete sense to me. But that isn't what we get. We get, "we haven't done anything illegal. Trust us. We got this." I don't find that particularly satisfying. * In contrast, when I tell the Red Cross that I won't donate to them anymore because I don't believe that they are spending the money I donate wisely, and that I am donating to the Green Cross instead, they express disappointment and thank me for my time. If I tell the Church that I don't believe they are spending the money wisely and that I am donating to the Episcopal church instead, the calls to repentance start flying. * Are we entitled to it? Legally, no. We surrendered the money. Theologically, we consider that it is the Lord's (TM) money. So religiously speaking, we don't really have a claim to know what happens to it either. But total opaqueness creates the conditions in which abuse and fraud can occur. I'd like some assurances that this isn't occurring.

From the WaPo article (which I have no reason to dispute on this point) "Ensign is registered with authorities as a supporting organization and integrated auxiliary of the Mormon Church. This permits it to operate as a nonprofit and to make money largely free from U.S. taxes."

By Common Consent also has an interesting article up by their resident tax lawyer on the situation. https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/12/17/some-thoughts-about-ensign-peak-advisers-and-the-church/ His highlights: The Church itself has done nothing wrong here. Ensign Peak Advisers may have operated in a weird space, but probably hasn't violated any laws or regulations But unless Ensign Peak Advisers has made qualifying charitable expenditures, it probably shouldn't qualify for tax exempt status*. * If I understand correctly, you are receiving money and not making charitable expenditures, you are really an investment firm, and that doesn't get the same tax-exempt benefits as a charitable organization.

I apologize. I omitted the word "not" in my statement "I am also not ready to question the motives..." I've generally been served better by taking people at their word until there is sufficient evidence to show that they've been deliberately misleading.

This isn't quite true. The only categories that remain in the local units bank account are the Budget, Ward Missionary, and Other. Each batch of tithing, fast offerings, general missionary, or anything else is immediately transferred to Salt Lake. When an fast offering expense is recorded by the unit, the funds for that expense are immediately transferred from Salt Lake to the local account. I believe it's been this way since at least 2000

I likewise find it hard to fault the guy for requesting the reward that is legally available and designed to encourage people to report wrong doing. It really isn't any different that rewards given for tips that lead to arrests. I'm also pretty underwhelmed by the "he's got an axe to grind so he reported the Church." It's just as likely that observing what he perceived to be improper use of tithing funds contributed to his disaffection. At the end of the day, the guy took the risk to file a legal affadavit with his allegations. He isn't just mouthing off whatever he wants on TV...he's believes his allegations enough that he's willing to face serious legal consequences if its determined that he's lying. That being said, my understanding is that the corporate culture of the place he worked at was pretty strong on only giving people access to the information necessary to do their jobs. This is an important information security principle, and so those that aren't managing across multiple groups don't always see the whole picture. That kind of information security can be used to hide wrong doing (I'm not saying that is the case here). But when you're talking about financial portfolios that can turn extra millions based on a few tenths of a percentage point, your trading secrets are very carefully guarded. I'm not convinced that the Church did anything wrong. But I also wouldn't be surprised if some of their investments operated in legally ambiguous spaces. Welcome to reality. But I also am not* ready to question the motives of a whistleblower just because he is making allegations against an organization I hold in high esteem.+ * I accidentally left out the word "not" in my original post. Sorry for the confusion.

Well, first of all, the initial report came out through the Washington Post. I know that probably doesn't a much higher opinion in these parts. But the original story there isn't terribly written. There are a few legitimate concerns in the report. There are a lot of less legitimate concerns as well. For example, The Church takes in $7 billion dollars in donations annually, and spends $40 million dollars annually on humanitarian aid. That comes to 0.5% of its donations revenue is spent on humanitarian aid. That doesn't account for its other sources of revenue. Conversely, about $6 billion of that is spent each year on operating expenses, which increases the percentage to 4% of the remaining billion is spent on humanitarian aid. One of the complaints raised is that 4% seems kind of low. The complaint alleges that $2 billion were spent on bailing out for-profit ventures owned by the church, and that these transfers were in violation of laws governing how tax exempt funds can be used. That seems, to me, to be something worthy of investigation. But I'm also willing to reserve any judgment until such investigation is complete. If any laws or regulations were violated, justice should be served*. Some are up in arms that the Church has holdings that exceed twice the amount in Harvard University's endowment. It's a little eye raising for me, but one should also consider that the Church probably holds a lot more real estate and property than Harvard does. The purpose of these endowments is to offset operating costs when there are drops in revenue so that services can be provided while making adjustments to match costs to revenue streams. So, to me, not a major concern. Some of the ways this gets frustrating to me personally are Every year I have fights with ward members about getting people to the church each week to do the cleaning. Getting the cleaning schedule operating and the cleaning done is easily the most burdensome task I have faced in any of the callings I've served in the Church (and that's saying something). And yet, more and more of the cleaning responsibilities are being dumped on the members to reduce costs. Not a truly valid concern, but when you can't see the big picture, things like this are massively frustrating. The Church has moved to a facilities management system that is "streamlined, integrated, and more efficient at delivering services" or some such buzz word soup. We can't even get paper towels on a regular basis any more. Our fire alarm has been broken for six months. We submit requests to have it fixed, someone looks at it and says "this is what needs to be done to fix it" and then closes the ticket. So we're in this perpetual loop of not getting the stupid thing fixed because there's a higher priority on closing tickets than there is in fixing problems. But clearly the Church has the money to fix the fire alarm. So, at the end of the day, there may or may not be some things amiss in this report. Given that the whistleblower filed the affadavit under oath and penalty of perjury, I think it's appropriate to investigate. I don't know that much will come of it, because religious organizations have a lot of flexibility in this arena. On the more personal level, it irritates some because that is such a large pot of money (in just one set of holdings, by the way. That isn't everything the Church has), but we still feel like we're being bled dry for our time. Those are feelings that can be dealt with, but we should be careful not to be dismissive of them. Lastly, even if there are some mild shenanigans going on here, it's highly likely that the Church isn't the biggest perpetrator of these shenanigans. I imagine there are a lot of "religious organizations" that are using the flexibility given religious non profits to build egregious personal fortunes (ie, televangelists). It may be time to review the books of some of these religious organizations and institute some reforms.

That's a fair criticism of my remarks. But I'd also nuance that with the fact that Smith was pretty prone to believing in fantastic ideas. And many* of the things he taught and described weren't very far outside of the cultural and religious norms of his day. This was a young man who had a stone with "supernatural" powers and a divining rod. Which leads me to wonder if the way that he saw heavenly visitors was an indication of what those visitors tended to wear? Or were they dressed in ways that would be recognizable to him?** I'm not going to say it was one way or the other, or some combination of both. I only claim that there's enough uncertainty to cast doubt on any strong assertions about day-to-day life after death based on the very, very scant evidence in any scripture. * emphasis on many....certainly not all. ** Perhaps because seeing visitors wearing Tony Stark style nano-technology suits would have freaked the poor kid out

Well, obviously it makes a lot more sense for Lehi and company to sail up the Red Sea, pass through the Suez canal, sail out of the Mediterranean through the straight of Gibraltar, and then west and south to Florida. The other option is they sailed east across the Pacific, and went through the Panama canal to reach Florida. Easy peasy

If we take the scriptures at face value, there are prophets and apostles that have described angels in all kinds of dress. Some with wings, and some hybrid with animals. Angels are depicted in various ways throughout history, which would suggest that their dress has changed over the millenia. If we choose not to take scriptural accounts quite so literally, and say that at least some of those visions were figurative, then we have to start classifying which appearances/visions are literal beings and which are not. Those kinds of processes are always subjective and prone to preconceived biases. There's simply insufficient information in the scriptures to describe any aspect of life after death with any certainty.

No.