A "bump" for an older post

[Obrien]

In light of the Washington Post whistle blower story, I want to resurrect an old post. Essentially, it is an online petition asking the CoJCoLDS leaders to be financially accountable to the membership of the church by disclosing financial operations.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35596

Frankly, disclosure is incumbent on the leaders to ensure they fulfill their obligations as a part of the concept of common consent. Each year the Church asks each of us our status in relation to giving... we should expect a much more thorough accounting of what they DID with the funds we gave. Where else in your life is it acceptable for you to be forced to "contribute" (if you want to remain in good standing), receive no discernible value for your "contribution", have no control over the use of your "contribution", and have no feedback regarding the disposition of your "contributions"?

As a result of the secrecy that currently prevails in terms of church funds, I fear we are fulfilling / have fulfilled the prophecies outlined in Mormon chapters 8 and 9.

[mahalanobis]

I love transparency as much as the next guy.

But can we cite scriptures that back up the claim that our leaders are accountable to the members? How does common consent cover this?

Please don't take this as an aggressive challenge. There are folks who know D&C way better than me and may full well back this up... To which I'll gladly click the "thank" button. I'm willing to learn.

My current understanding is that the church leaders are accountable before the Lord, not to us. That's the whole point of being 'called'. It's just that many are called and few are chosen (few are justified in the good stewardship of their calling). So when many are called and NOT chosen due to corruption, it's not on us to cast judgement.

I don't mind being wrong. I just want to hear a good case.

[Zathura]

I love transparency as much as the next guy.

But can we cite scriptures that back up the claim that our leaders are accountable to the members? How does common consent cover this?

Please don't take this as an aggressive challenge. There are folks who know D&C way better than me and may full well back this up... To which I'll gladly click the "thank" button. I'm willing to learn.

My current understanding is that the church leaders are accountable before the Lord, not to us. That's the whole point of being 'called'. It's just that many are called and few are chosen (few are justified in the good stewardship of their calling).

I don't think there's anything in the scriptures that says they have to be accountable to us, but the argument being used is simply: that they should be. If this were a typical corporation, then they shouldn't have to be, but this isn't supposed to be a typical corporation, so why would they adhere to the same exact practices that other large corporations do? If God's way is higher than mans way, why does the church that's suppose to be HIS act the same way all other businesses created by man do?A man-made company would not be accountable to the lowly members, why would God's organization not be different?

Just as there is no scripture(to my knowledge) that says they are not accountable to us, there's also no scripture saying they are NOT.

[mahalanobis]

I love transparency as much as the next guy.

But can we cite scriptures that back up the claim that our leaders are accountable to the members? How does common consent cover this?

Please don't take this as an aggressive challenge. There are folks who know D&C way better than me and may full well back this up... To which I'll gladly click the "thank" button. I'm willing to learn.

My current understanding is that the church leaders are accountable before the Lord, not to us. That's the whole point of being 'called'. It's just that many are called and few are chosen (few are justified in the good stewardship of their calling).

I don't think there's anything in the scriptures that says they have to be accountable to us, but the argument being used is simply: that they should be. If this were a typical corporation, then they shouldn't have to be, but this isn't supposed to be a typical corporation, so why would they adhere to the same exact practices that other large corporations do? If God's way is higher than mans way, why does the church that's suppose to be HIS act the same way all other businesses created by man do?A man-made company would not be accountable to the lowly members, why would God's organization not be different?

Just as there is no scripture(to my knowledge) that says they are not accountable to us, there's also no scripture saying they are NOT.

I think that's a fair perspective. I appreciate it as a valid opinion.

Although, I think we see a trend of sometimes behaving like a typical corporation - not always.

For example, the church's top executives' salaries are laughable when compared to what you'd see at any multi-billion dollar company.

[SmallFarm]

I think the church should send out little altars to burn our tithes on so that people would understand the true concept of tithes. Fortunately God is at the helm not "SmallFarm"

[tjtax06]

I love transparency as much as the next guy.

But can we cite scriptures that back up the claim that our leaders are accountable to the members? How does common consent cover this?

Please don't take this as an aggressive challenge. There are folks who know D&C way better than me and may full well back this up... To which I'll gladly click the "thank" button. I'm willing to learn.

My current understanding is that the church leaders are accountable before the Lord, not to us. That's the whole point of being 'called'. It's just that many are called and few are chosen (few are justified in the good stewardship of their calling).

I don't think there's anything in the scriptures that says they have to be accountable to us, but the argument being used is simply: that they should be. If this were a typical corporation, then they shouldn't have to be, but this isn't supposed to be a typical corporation, so why would they adhere to the same exact practices that other large corporations do? If God's way is higher than mans way, why does the church that's suppose to be HIS act the same way all other businesses created by man do?A man-made company would not be accountable to the lowly members, why would God's organization not be different?

Just as there is no scripture(to my knowledge) that says they are not accountable to us, there's also no scripture saying they are NOT.

What would transparency/accountability actually achieve? Most likely the average member of the Church wouldn't even bat an eye about financial statements and reports but those antagonistic towards the Church would pour over them and find ways to twist the numbers to fit their evil narrative. That is exactly what this whistle blower is doing and it appears almost every single person believes him even though not one single claim he has made has been verified. This leads me to believe that the Church is smart to not open up their books. Almost no benefit and unlimited risk.

[Zathura]

I love transparency as much as the next guy.

But can we cite scriptures that back up the claim that our leaders are accountable to the members? How does common consent cover this?

Please don't take this as an aggressive challenge. There are folks who know D&C way better than me and may full well back this up... To which I'll gladly click the "thank" button. I'm willing to learn.

My current understanding is that the church leaders are accountable before the Lord, not to us. That's the whole point of being 'called'. It's just that many are called and few are chosen (few are justified in the good stewardship of their calling).

I don't think there's anything in the scriptures that says they have to be accountable to us, but the argument being used is simply: that they should be. If this were a typical corporation, then they shouldn't have to be, but this isn't supposed to be a typical corporation, so why would they adhere to the same exact practices that other large corporations do? If God's way is higher than mans way, why does the church that's suppose to be HIS act the same way all other businesses created by man do?A man-made company would not be accountable to the lowly members, why would God's organization not be different?

Just as there is no scripture(to my knowledge) that says they are not accountable to us, there's also no scripture saying they are NOT.

What would transparency/accountability actually achieve? Most likely the average member of the Church wouldn't even bat an eye about financial statements and reports but those antagonistic towards the Church would pour over them and find ways to twist the numbers to fit their evil narrative. That is exactly what this whistle blower is doing and it appears almost every single person believes him even though not one single claim he has made has been verified. This leads me to believe that the Church is smart to not open up their books. Almost no benefit and unlimited risk.

Well for one, the transparency would save them the greif of dealing with speculation and whistleblowers. It would also give members the peace of mind that the church leaders are being wise stewards. Both those who insist that they ARE wise stewards and those that argue that they aren't have no clue what actually happens because of the lack of transparency.

[Obrien]

I love transparency as much as the next guy.

But can we cite scriptures that back up the claim that our leaders are accountable to the members? How does common consent cover this?

Please don't take this as an aggressive challenge. There are folks who know D&C way better than me and may full well back this up... To which I'll gladly click the "thank" button. I'm willing to learn.

My current understanding is that the church leaders are accountable before the Lord, not to us. That's the whole point of being 'called'. It's just that many are called and few are chosen (few are justified in the good stewardship of their calling). So when many are called and NOT chosen due to corruption, it's not on us to cast judgement.

I don't mind being wrong. I just want to hear a good case.

I do not take your question to be asked aggressively... please accept the response with an open mind.

DC 26:2 states that ALL things should be done with common consent. Giving consent requires that a person is informed, has a fair opportunity to reflect on a matter, and is free to oppose. The reason we sustain leadership is to provide our institutional common consent with their actions. The concept had deteriorated to a mere rubber stamp function without information as to the activities of leadership.

There is a component of duress in our tithing system as it currently exists, outside of the clear violation of common consent. If you don't pay an institutionally recognized full tithe, policy is to exclude you from ordinances that affect your ETERNITY, both as an individual as well as a family. This perverse teaching is used as the stick in the motivational equation.

There is very little associated with the tithe process that is based in righteousness, other than the free will attitude of many of the contributors.

It does not surprise me that the leaders of the church teach the congregants that leaders are accountable to God, not the people. That teaching allowed them free reign to teach or do whatever they want and take the high ground should someone oppose their ideas. Others have expounded today on the malachi passages being a rebuke of the priests, not the people. Read those with an open mind, for understanding. Read also Mormon chapters 8 and 9 (especially the last 10 verses of 8) and reflect on the current church with respect to these passages.

I'm happy to engage in reasoned discussion, you'll just have to be patient in that I don't have a lot of free time for response.

[mahalanobis]

I love transparency as much as the next guy.

But can we cite scriptures that back up the claim that our leaders are accountable to the members? How does common consent cover this?

Please don't take this as an aggressive challenge. There are folks who know D&C way better than me and may full well back this up... To which I'll gladly click the "thank" button. I'm willing to learn.

My current understanding is that the church leaders are accountable before the Lord, not to us. That's the whole point of being 'called'. It's just that many are called and few are chosen (few are justified in the good stewardship of their calling). So when many are called and NOT chosen due to corruption, it's not on us to cast judgement.

I don't mind being wrong. I just want to hear a good case.

I do not take your question to be asked aggressively... please accept the response with an open mind.

DC 26:2 states that ALL things should be done with common consent. Giving consent requires that a person is informed, has a fair opportunity to reflect on a matter, and is free to oppose. The reason we sustain leadership is to provide our institutional common consent with their actions. The concept had deteriorated to a mere rubber stamp function without information as to the activities of leadership.

There is a component of duress in our tithing system as it currently exists, outside of the clear violation of common consent. If you don't pay an institutionally recognized full tithe, policy is to exclude you from ordinances that affect your ETERNITY, both as an individual as well as a family. This perverse teaching is used as the stick in the motivational equation.

There is very little associated with the tithe process that is based in righteousness, other than the free will attitude of many of the contributors.

It does not surprise me that the leaders of the church teach the congregants that leaders are accountable to God, not the people. That teaching allowed them free reign to teach or do whatever they want and take the high ground should someone oppose their ideas. Others have expounded today on the malachi passages being a rebuke of the priests, not the people. Read those with an open mind, for understanding. Read also Mormon chapters 8 and 9 (especially the last 10 verses of 8) and reflect on the current church with respect to these passages.

I'm happy to engage in reasoned discussion, you'll just have to be patient in that I don't have a lot of free time for response.

I think that's fair.

But we have books of scripture on how the church is to be run an then one verse:

And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

It's pretty vague with no follow-up. (Maybe there are other D&C sections I'm missing).

Do we have an example of how common consent is supposed to work relating to church governance?

[simpleton]

I think that this one little scripture can sum it up nicely..

"The Greatest of all is the Servant of all" .
And that should be applied across the board.

But today, the greatest of all is untouchable....

[ajax]

you'll just have to be patient in that I don't have a lot of free time for response.

Make time [Insert Obrien's favorite curse word here]

[Obrien]

you'll just have to be patient in that I don't have a lot of free time for response.

Make time [Insert Obrien's favorite curse word here]

Now THERE is a blast from the past... and [Insert Obrien's favorite curse word here] is still my go to curse word. I feel honored in a weird way to have that distinction on the forum. Thank you for reminding me if that bit of history!

I hope your well, brother Ajax. Next time I'm in your town let's burger and barley.

[ajax]

Next time I'm in your town let's burger and barley.

Now that's a real man's B&B

[Obrien]

Amen, [Insert Obrien's favorite curse word here]

[ajax]

you'll just have to be patient in that I don't have a lot of free time for response.

Make time [Insert Obrien's favorite curse word here]

[Insert Obrien's favorite curse word here] is still my go to curse word. I feel honored in a weird way to have that distinction on the forum.

"an elegant [word] for a more civilized age.” - Kenobi