Moral obligations of a Church

[Anonymous]

jaboc84 wrote:

Transparency, no matter how problematic, is crucial. I believe the church does have a moral obligation to disclose the full truth (financially and historically) to its members and investigators. Each of us has the right to choose for ourself (agency), and any material misrepresentation or omission of facts removes a portion of our agency.

This.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

1) I think part of love is attempting to alleviate poverty – even in ways that many LDS members would not approve right now. I think the Book of Mormon is crystal clear on that point – but, again, exactly how to accomplish that isn’t nearly as clear.

I think the church has reasonably clear policies on how to do this. The members give a fast offering, with a guideline yardstick given (amount saved from 2 meals per family). Bishops decide how to dole it out to help with short-term necessities and help people get to self-reliance. They try to make the budget balance on a ward basis, but are flexible if this doesn’t happen, and attempt to balance it on at least a stake basis. Not always successful, but that’s part of the challenge of helping the poor and needy.

Quote:

2) I think part of civic duty is to contribute to the community and area where you live/exist. Thus, I don’t mind fighting urban blight, especially in the area surrounding one’s headquarters and important buildings.

I say the decision about whether to fight blight depends on whether that project is consistent with the church’s mission. There is a clear, three or four-fold mission — and I don’t see how fighting blight can be easily justified with church dollars against these missions without using a lot of reasons that are convoluted and rely on remotely indirect benefits. I actually work in an organization that does that — fights blight. It’s mission centers on prosperity of local business, improving the image of the area, etcetera.

We do this by finding investors to locate in the area to fight blight. We don’t fund it ourselves– we provide resources, we target those kinds of businesses we want to see locate in the blighted area. Government offers special grants to help businesses overcome financial barriers such as permitting and impact fees. But we don’t fund it ourself. And that’s our mission. The church’s mission is to “bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man”, and investing in the downtown of SLC as a for-profit partner seems pretty remote from that mission in my view.

Quote:

3) I think indulgences are wrong, and I understand why some people view tithing as an indulgence. I see everything for which tithing is used and value those things, so I don’t see it as an indulgence.

Not sure about seeing everything for which tithing is used. For example, there is a myth in the church that “no one is paid” in the church. Actually, the people at the top get paid — it’s only the local people who don’t get paid. Uchdorft, bless his heart, came clean on this in one of his talks, but for decades I believed “no one is paid”. So, I’m not sure if I know exactly what tithing is used for. We are told its for buildings, materials, missionary work, all good stuff for the traditional believer, but without transparency, its hard to make a full determination if the funds are used properly.

Quote:

4) I think education is the great equalizer, so I believe organizations of almost all kinds should teach the importance of and contribute toward affordable education.

Agreed. I think one thing the church has to be cautious about, though, is pushing education because it increases peoples’ capacity to serve in the church (alone). GBH said this in one of his conference talks, and it floored me with how egocentric it is for the church.

Quote:

5) I believe in transparency as a general principle, but I’m totally fine with limited transparency in many things – especially when full transparency would cause massive bickering and endless second-guessing.

Not sure about this. The majority of the active membership says “I’m not going to question what the Lord does with my money” so I’m not sure that transparency would be something they care about. But those of us who scrutinize many aspects of the church to etermine if the church lives up to its own claims, and question our faith, care deeply about it.

I also believe there would be greater responsibility with the funds if their use was made public so the people on the fringe would have a voice. Hard to judge when all we get are reports on the number of buildings, wards, stakes and full-time missionaries we have at general conference. Even a blunt statement of how funds are used would be an improvement in the short term.

Quote:

6) I believe in financial independence, so I believe organizations should work to be able to weather economic downturns and difficult times.

Agreed.

Quote:

7) I believe in honesty – but I also believe in creative honesty (telling the truth, but choosing one’s words carefully) and have no problem with not sharing everything with everyone.

I think this needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. For example, not sharing the truth about our history, or even the fact that we become gods someday (using the watered down “we become like him” phrase) is something we could debate about its appropriateness. Learning about MMM on the doorstep of a non-member 3 months into my mission, after reading Truth Restored, 3 weeks in the MTC and the full range of discussions still bothers me as unethical.

I believe in a partnership arrangement where funds and time are shared by members with an organization. If I contribute significant funds to an organization, and if that organization runs a program to help people in financial need, I believe I should have access to that help if I am in financial need. Thus, I am okay with paying tithing and other funds before necessities IF (and only if) I am helped if those contributions cause a real need I can’t meet even with solid budgeting. Likewise, I have NO problem with the organization demanding I live frugally if I am receiving financial help.

Agreed.

Quote:

9) I believe in the same standards and expectations of all (equality under the law, if you will) – and I think that is one area where the LDS Church has lots of room to improve.

Not sure what you mean by this. Not sure how we are not equal in the church. I could brainstorm lots of ways, but not sure what you are thinking about specifically.

[Anonymous]

When trying to find the source of this

SilentDawning wrote:

For example, there is a myth in the church that “no one is paid” in the church. Actually, the people at the top get paid — it’s only the local people who don’t get paid. Uchdorft, bless his heart, came clean on this in one of his talks, but for decades I believed “no one is paid”.

I ran across a 1985 conf talk that GBH does say GA’s get some $ from the church https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1985/10/questions-and-answers?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1985/10/questions-and-answers?lang=eng

I have no issue with them being paid, I just wish their was some type of disclosure – even a per-GA average over a 5 or 10 year period. I know there are some well to do GA’s and probably waive off while there are some GA’s that come from less than affluent areas that in no way can stop working or their family won’t eat. I think if there was transparency that this issue would fade away. Compared to any other large religious organization I think the LDS church shines in this area. The longer that nothing is disclosed makes me think that maybe I could be wrong.

[Author]

Posts