ajax18 wrote:Could the Church do this without providing the upper leadership six figure salaries comparable to that of other corporate managers? If this type of compensation is not what is going on, why doesn't the Church open the books and resolve the controversy. They seem very quick to point out that the LDS Church has no paid clergy. Wouldn't it be more fair to tell the whole truth?
Should each church leader pay for their own church related traveling and other expenses? What if some church leaders can easily afford the expenses while other church leaders cannot? A simple small salary to help offset the expenses they rack-up is all any of them get and I doubt anyone can prove otherwise. The church does not open up the books because there is no reason to do so and the law does not require it.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
ajax18 wrote:Could the Church do this without providing the upper leadership six figure salaries comparable to that of other corporate managers? If this type of compensation is not what is going on, why doesn't the Church open the books and resolve the controversy. They seem very quick to point out that the LDS Church has no paid clergy. Wouldn't it be more fair to tell the whole truth?
Should each church leader pay for their own church related traveling and other expenses? What if some church leaders can easily afford the expenses while other church leaders cannot? A simple small salary to help offset the expenses they rack-up is all any of them get and I doubt anyone can prove otherwise. The church does not open up the books because there is no reason to do so and the law does not require it.
If they are only receiving enough for basic expenses, why would the church NOT open up the books? Is "the law does not require it" the measuring stick for what is right or wrong? The law does not require that church leaders keep the Word of Wisdom or the law of chastity or pay their tithing or wear their garments or do their home teaching. Do you think that would be a valid excuse for them not to do those things?
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
I would guess that some very faithful LDS members would be disturbed to find out that the LDS church contributed to let's say a Jewish or Catholic charity. Why tempt the very membership into questioning where and why the money goes where it goes. Many faithful LDS members would not question it and say, God runs the church and he knows where the money gets spent and approves it. So this is why in my opinion the church does not open the books.
CSA wrote:I would guess that some very faithful LDS members would be disturbed to find out that the LDS church contributed to let's say a Jewish or Catholic charity. Why tempt the very membership into questioning where and why the money goes where it goes. Many faithful LDS members would not question it and say, God runs the church and he knows where the money gets spent and approves it. So this is why in my opinion the church does not open the books.
If the defenders of the FLDS church made the same claims, you'd be OK with it?
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
CSA wrote:I would guess that some very faithful LDS members would be disturbed to find out that the LDS church contributed to let's say a Jewish or Catholic charity. Why tempt the very membership into questioning where and why the money goes where it goes. Many faithful LDS members would not question it and say, God runs the church and he knows where the money gets spent and approves it. So this is why in my opinion the church does not open the books.
If the defenders of the FLDS church made the same claims, you'd be OK with it?
I don't understand your question. If the FLDS make what similar claims? Personally they have every right to hide financials if the laws permit it.
God runs the church and he knows where the money gets spent and approves it.
That claim. What if someone questioned Bernie Madoff's financials and one of his defenders said Bernie was being led by God so don't worry about it? You OK with that?
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
340,000 pounds for humanitarian aid, and they couldn't find enough needy people to spend more than 11,000?
I don't see that as the Church's job. That is the job of individual members and groups of members acting on their own. The Church itself should only help it's own and apply anything outside on a strategic basis. This does not mean the Church is not "humanitarian", it means that the doctrine for the members to apply. The Church takes in only enough to run and expand the kingdom on it's own terms.
ldsfaqs wrote:Tithing money goes into the Church, and what does the Church do? It provides services for the membership. It teaches people, it saves people, it exalts people, on and on.
Absolutely not. The church teaches no one; the spirit does that. The church saves no one; Christ does that. The church exalts no one; God does that.
Maybe you idiots think none of that is important, but we do. The SAVING OF SOULS is our most important work.
The church saves no souls. You don't really know the gospel very well, do you?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
ldsfaqs wrote:The subsidy is not subsidizing "the Church" LADY! :( It is subsidizing PUBLIC companies that are privately held which are simply owned by the Church. The companies service the people of Britain, not the Church.
Tithing was the source of all monies used to purchase companies owned by the church.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.