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. :)

That's true, but we can point to instances where Joseph had no problem with women laying hands on the sick and healing, plus the piece by the OP, etc. LOL. You may be right. But it is interesting to compare with the other two big changes: polygamy and black male ordination. Prior (and right up to) the changes, GA's public comments were along the lines that these practices will never change. So ya just never know!

From the church's published figures in Canada, top 10 highest paid in that country were getting 80-200K/year. General Authorities also have the magic charge card for any and all expenses, so from my limited accounting knowledge that would probably be on top of the salary. (yes, yes, "stipend" but might as well call it what it is reported as) Lot of other perks too. It is possible that Apostles are also compensated for their Board service (company Boards owned by the church). I'm not aware that General Authorities are required to give up any of their own property upon being called. It's a pity that all the figures are not published (as it was prior to 1960), so there wouldn't be any need to speculate. I think members would be fairly surprised at the amount of money the church receives and where it all goes. Statements have always been that compensation is "modest" but that is always stated in comparison to executives. Well, think about how much you hear CEOs make. Even a modest relative number might sound like a lot to the average member. This is usually the point when my member friends start reaffirming their testimony about living prophets and "the Lord's money". That's cool. All I know is that lots of money without adequate transparency (D&C 104) is a risky business Overall, the Church's financial history is a fascinating subject. Roy

What I find interesting is I don't know of any scriptures that explain an actual justification for not ordaining women to offices in the priesthood. In my mind, I liken this situation to exclusion of black men from the priesthood, in two important ways: 1. No clear scriptural justification for denial of ordination 2. Joseph Smith seemed more open to alternative ordination scenarios than any President since Give it another 50 years I guess. :) Then we can start saying "It's behind us" as we do for 1978. Roy

Wow guys, you've obviously got me all worked out. You think I'm not active? You think I'm saying not to do any of other things? Don't do your calling? You think I haven't read the other books of scripture? And then the note of caution that I'm on the road to apostasy? Wow. The Saviour really knew what he was talking about. Peace and love guys. Roy

Hi Maiku, My response would be that the Book of Mormon was written for our day specifically and that it distils the gospel down to those parts which are necessary for salvation. Although these truths are in the Bible too, we are constantly have to sift through a lot of difficult/incorrect or outdated information in the process. The Book of Mormon helps in this sifting process. Roy

Hi all, My assertion is that the Church is neglecting the gospel, specifically the gospel as outlined in the Book of Mormon. I think the power of the Book of Mormon is its ability to distil the gospel down to its core components and this is done most powerfully in 3 Nephi. All the books before and after it just deal with different aspects of the same issues. Christ taught very simply and unambiguously what his doctrine was. He said that his doctrine was to "repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little achild, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God." (3 Ne 11:38) He repeated this instruction three times. He goes on to expand the little child part by giving his instructions for living (Beatitudes, etc) and establishes these as his "commandments". "Therefore acome unto me and be ye saved; for verily I say unto you, that except ye shall keep my bcommandments, which I have commanded you at this time, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (3 Ne 12:20) Yet, consistently, when someone gives a talk on what the Lord's commandments are, we start giving a list of things such as pray, read scriptures, attend our meetings, do our calling, do home teaching, keep the WoW, go to the temple regularly, do our family history, do missionary work, get our food storage ready, go on a mission, go on couples missions. In almost every case, we never actually talk about the commandments that Jesus actually gave. Jesus' commandments are primarily concerned with how we treat other people. He even devotes a number of verses to how we are to treat our enemies/people we dislike/nasty people. He basically gives a long list of behaviours that most of us would rather not think about because they could make us uncomfortable or require humility and sacrifice on our part. So why is it that we think that we can instead focus on the other list of stuff (attend meetings, etc) and think that we are on the path to the celestial kingdom? Aren't many of us going to find that we are actually horribly unprepared when the time comes? Roy

I believe LDS sometimes struggle to fully reconcile the concept of the Godhead and their separate roles with various scriptures that confuse their roles. For example, is Jesus the Father? Traditionally, LDS may respond something like, "The Father is a separate being from Jesus. We pray to the Father in the name of Jesus. We do not pray to Jesus." Certainly, this was my position. From my reading of scripture, I put forward the following theory: 1. Jesus was/is Jehovah of the Old Testament. The Jews prayed to Jehovah. 2. Abinadi explains that Jesus is both "the Father and the Son" 3. King Benjamin explains that we are spiritually begotten sons and daughters of Christ. He is our Father. 4. The Nephite apostles prayed to Jesus because He was in their presence. If He was not, they would have prayed the Father in the name of Jesus. 5. A number of times, Jesus makes it clear that He is addressing "the Father" for the sake of those listening, not because He needed to. 6. Jesus tells Philip that He who has seen Jesus has seen the Father. The way I look at it is this: Jesus has taken the role/title of *Father* to us. (He has inherited all that the Father has). It is up to us to take the role of *Son* to Him. This is why we pray in His name, ie. we take upon us the name of Christ. In the same sense that Christ became the Father through obedience to *His* Father's will, we also can attain the role/title of Father through obedience to *our* Father's will, ie. Jesus. What do you think? Roy

Wow. This is an interesting topic. I find it pretty hard to go past the words of the Savior where He explains that divorce is not an acceptable part of the gospel, but that it is an Old Testament concept only. He's really quite clear about it, and I find it fascinating that we basically ignore His counsel on the topic in favour of a more *reasonable* approach. Roy

We should *fundamentally* change the approach to missionary work by preaching the gospel the way the Savior and the apostles did it. In particular, I am talking about the role of miracles in missionary work. If you study the Gospels and Acts, you see that signs and miracles were an integral part of the sharing of the gospel. In Mark 16, part of the Savior's charge to the apostles included an explanation of some of the signs that will follow them that believe. When people of the time heard about these signs and miracles, it caused intense interest in the message, such as the day of Pentecost. Book of Mormon preaching is similar, especially the Sons of Mosiah's preaching. And I'm not talking about sign *seekers* here. The miracles were wrought by faith, but it was the crowds that witnessed and heard of these events that were fascinated by the whole thing. In our day and time, I think we are too scared to conduct missionary work in this way. It's not safe. I might risk my job and reputation in my industry if I appeared on the front page for my preaching. Think of Amulek. He gave up his career, family, etc, to follow the call to help Alma, and it caused him a lot of grief. Moroni said it clearly. If miracles have ceased, it is because of unbelief. So that's our dilemma. If we don't do missionary work this way, we are left to search for those people who will join on the strength of friendships or from service rendered or whatever. This will never get the results that the apostles did. I think in the 50's to the 70's, the church did quite well with convert numbers because it had a contemporary social program to complement the spiritual teachings. Dances, plays, basketball courts, etc, were quite competitive with what was in the community. These days, with an even more affluent society, the church doesn't really compare to some of the social options out there. In my area of Australia, I could count on one hand the number of stable family units that have joined the church since 1980. Prior to that, there were heaps. Roy

To give my thoughts on your original question, I believe spirits have tremendous influence on us. Moroni explained in Moroni 7 that the devil and his angels "inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually." On the other hand "that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually." Mormon explains in Alma 3 that people "reap eternal happiness or eternal misery, according to the spirit which they listed to obey, whether it be a good spirit or a bad one." John counseled to "try the spirits, whether they are of God." We cannot get around the reality that there is a spiritual world around us. It might be a stretch for you to propose that everything we do is influenced by spirits, but it would be hard to deny their overall influence. And, of course, I agree that agency allows us to choose our master. Roy