- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Remember – I’m bringing out my libertarian here:
cwald wrote:Because all institutions that ask for member donations and tax exempt status, should be accountable to the the people who fund them.
This is partially true, as it all depends on the articles of incorporation or the Bylaws of the organization. Depending on how and what they say, will drive what the organization is required to do. The articles and bylaws can be changed, though.cwald wrote:Yes, the church is a private organization. But as a member, is it not my right to know how MY church is spending MY money?
See above – it isn’t a right and as soon as you give any money to an organization, it is no longer your money, it is their money.Notice I said “give”. If an organization “Forces it from you” (say the government), then I believe it is still YOUR money and you should know where it goes.
Like I said before – my libertarian is coming out on this one.
Sorry for the topic Jack – I promise to not talk about this subject within the original subject again. {Crosses Fingers}Jazernorth wrote:Remember – I’m bringing out my libertarian here:
cwald wrote:Because all institutions that ask for member donations and tax exempt status, should be accountable to the the people who fund them.
This is partially true, as it all depends on the articles of incorporation or the Bylaws of the organization. Depending on how and what they say, will drive what the organization is required to do. The articles and bylaws can be changed, though.cwald wrote:Yes, the church is a private organization. But as a member, is it not my right to know how MY church is spending MY money?
See above – it isn’t a right and as soon as you give any money to an organization, it is no longer your money, it is their money.Notice I said “give”. If an organization “Forces it from you” (say the government), then I believe it is still YOUR money and you should know where it goes.
]
Ok
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
The BoM is not historical but inspired. I would like to hear Robert Kirby speak at conference. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
cwald wrote:I would like to hear Robert Kirby speak at conference.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Yes! But it’d have to be in the first half of the Saturday morning session, or he’d break his own 74-minute rule.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Here’s what I don’t want to hear at General Conference again:
– Any more incredibly dumb explanations of why women should be happy with the status quo and not seek more gender-integration and equality. I also don’t need to hear another word ever again about
gender essentialism. Ever. – Black & white pronouncements and polemics. “It’s all true or it’s all false.”
– Veiled references to politics: homosexual rights, FoxNews-like diatribes about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket, anything that smacks of not appreciating our upper middle class privilege.
– Stuff that is simply not well researched or understood. (e.g. we say “thou” to show respect to God, when really “thou” is the familiar form. And we mostly say “thou” to sound like the KJV if we are being honest.)
– The word “supernal.”
I think (?) I know what is meant by this, but I don’t think I’ve heard this phrase before. What’s the definition, exactly? Just checking before I say, “Me, too!”
There was some interesting stuff in the Mormon Stories interview with the author of the “Street-Legal” Book of Mormon about King James Bible language.
Jazernorth wrote:Kumahito wrote:Financial transparency would be a great start.
I hear this all the time and I don’t understand why people want a church, which is a private entity, to give financial transparency.I completely agree when it is a publicly held company to its stockholders or a government agency to its citizens, but not from a
privateentity. To me this is the same thing as me asking a person on the street, whom I may or may not know, for their personal financial records. That is my libertarian coming out in saying that private entities (people and otherwise) have a right to their privacy.
Now that said, if you want to see a private (especially charity) entity’s finances before you donate money and they “choose” to not give it to you, then you do not need to donate money to that entity. If that makes sense. <=== My 2 cents on when to donate money. Enjoy!
Two simple reasons, one of which was covered by cwald. First, I am expected to give a lot of money to the church, and I do. I’d like to know where my money is going and to what uses it’s being put. And that relates to point number two: if you believe the D&C to be the “bylaws” of the church, then the church is supposed to have financial transparency. First, D&C 26:2 states that all things in the church are to be done by common consent. That means that both you and I get a vote. D&C 104:71 requires the same, specifically relating to donated monies. Speaking of money donated to the United Order, it states that donated money shall “not be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by voice and common consent.” And this was the church’s practice, up until 1959. Before 1959, during GC a church auditor would get up and announce how much money the church had taken in by various means, and how it was being spent in general terms. The members would then vote to sustain these decisions. Not any more. The cynic in me thinks that the Big 15 fear that if the members hear of the billions coming in, some percentage of now-faithful tithe payers will figure the church doesn’t need their widow’s mite.
I’m fairly libertarian myself, and I’m fine with the church not needing to submit financial disclosures to the government – but I think the owe one to me if they want a five-figure donation from me every year.
hawkgrrrl wrote:– Messages of hope & love.
– Being yourself vs. trying to be who you are not to fit in.
– Avoiding groupthink.
– Modesty, meaning living within our means and not being ostentatious.
– Finding ways not to succumb to pressure, not pressure of the big-bad-world, but how to avoid pressure from your fellow Saints who know no boundaries!
Here’s what I don’t want to hear at General Conference again:
– Any more incredibly dumb explanations of why women should be happy with the status quo and not seek more gender-integration and equality. I also don’t need to hear another word every again about gender essentialism. Ever.
– Black & white pronouncements and polemics. “It’s all true or it’s all false.”
– Veiled references to politics: homosexual rights, FoxNews-like diatribes about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket, anything that smacks of not appreciating our upper middle class privilege.
– Stuff that is simply not well researched or understood. (e.g. we say “thou” to show respect to God, when really “thou” is the familiar form. And we mostly say “thou” to sound like the KJV if we are being honest.)
– The word “supernal.”
I do especially agree with your “don’t want to hear” points. Black and white pronouncements are what directly led to my period of inactivity and, quite frankly, years of mental and spiritual anguish. It’s NOT all black and white. JS can be a prophet, although imperfect, and the BoM can be inspired yet the church doesn’t have to be true (just as an example).
bridget_night wrote:I would like them to tell about their new website
http://www.mormonsandgays.org/ and address what they website says about how it is not choice and how to treat gays in the church. And that they want every Priesthood and RS leader to review this website. People just don’t know and gays are still being treated badly in the church.I agree totally. I am sometimes amazed that an inactive member such as me knows more about the church’s stand on this and other things than those who are active attenders. There are two young men who grew up in our ward who are gay, and our ward does not understand.
SilentDawning wrote:Quote:Perhaps a work/church/family balance would be a better topic for that one, or maybe a church/family balance. I do see people so engrossed in magnifying their callings they forget that their most important calling is within their own families. This has been addressed before but all important things need to be addressed over and over.
I think this is kind of funny. (It’s a good comment, Jedi)…the reason I think it’s funny because I saw a conference talk on balance, and it was NOT what I expected.
It talked about making sure you don’t get so engrossed in your work or other responsibilities you don’t have time for church responsibilities!!!
Now that you mention it, I remember that talk too SD. I also remember one where the GA talked about a sister putting all of her effort into having a perfect and somewhat extravagant RS activity at the expense of her family when a much more modest activity would have been just as good and accomplished the goal of the activity. The latter is what some individuals need to hear. I think the church leadership is concerned about this, hence some changes in the number of meetings and gradual reduction in responsibilities in some callings (like bishop’s counselors doing TR interviews and TRs being good for 2 years). I think they’re too afraid, quite frankly, to reduce the roles of organizations like RS, YW and SS and shortening the 3 hour block.
I would like to hear that the 3 hour block is no longer 3 hours. It’s too long, and it’s always been too long. I would like them to say that Sunday School and the other auxiliaries are optional. I treat them as optional, but many don’t because of guilt. roobytoos wrote:I would like to hear that the 3 hour block is no longer 3 hours. It’s too long, and it’s always been too long. I would like them to say that Sunday School and the other auxiliaries are optional. I treat them as optional, but many don’t because of guilt.
I think it might happen in the future, but I don’t expect it next week. The reason people feel guilty about it is the TR question – I don’t think it’s clear what’s meant by “other” meetings. I do agree that the three hour block is too long, and it is especially daunting to investigators/new converts. I wouldn’t have liked the old system, either, though, going twice on Sunday and once during the week. There are a couple options I could support:
1. eliminate SS altogether since PH & SS have similar lessons anyway
2. keep SS, but make PH & RS (and YM/YW classes) monthly and perhaps on a weeknight or Saturday (with attendance optional).
That said, I didn’t expect to see a missionary age change announced either.
DarkJedi wrote:bridget_night wrote:I would like them to tell about their new website
http://www.mormonsandgays.org/ and address what they website says about how it is not choice and how to treat gays in the church. And that they want every Priesthood and RS leader to review this website. People just don’t know and gays are still being treated badly in the church.I agree totally. I am sometimes amazed that an inactive member such as me knows more about the church’s stand on this and other things than those who are active attenders. There are two young men who grew up in our ward who are gay, and our ward does not understand.
Thank you, Dark Jedi” I had to do so much educating in my ward after our son came out. Our bishop really believed people choose homosexuality and asked my son privately how he could possibly know he was gay if he had never had sex before? My son answered back, with ‘how did you know you were straight before you had sex? I had some visiting teachers tell me they Visit taught a lesbian girl and their husbands (ward leaders) told them to never hug her or be alone with her because she would pounce on them. Lots of ignorance still.
Last night at the dinner table the subject of broadcasting priesthood session came up. My about-to-leave-on-a-mission son said he didn’t see what the big deal was or why it wasn’t broadcast before. There are no secrets there, he said, and all they ever talk about is “don’t look at porn.” While I’m not disappointed he got the message, the idea of that being the only message is a bit disappointing.
DarkJedi wrote:Last night at the dinner table the subject of broadcasting priesthood session came up. My about-to-leave-on-a-mission son said he didn’t see what the big deal was or why it wasn’t broadcast before. There are no secrets there, he said, and all they ever talk about is “don’t look at porn.”
While I’m not disappointed he got the message, the idea of that being the only message is a bit disappointing.
In DW’s family all the men and boys would go to the session while the women and girls would stay home baking pies or peach cobbler or some other dessert. When the menfolk returned they would all enjoy the baked goods with icecream while the men told about what they had learned in the priesthood session.
As far as traditions go this one has a lot going for it, although I don’t like the gender class distinction.
The RS broadcast is a similarly big deal for the women but the boys don’t cook anything nor ask what the ladies learned.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.