secret combinations

[_Jason Bourne]

Can you give me the section of D&C that dictates the financial records be made inaccessible to members?

Jersey Girl

No there is not one and this has exactly nothing to do with the topic at hand. Can you say red herring?

[_Jason Bourne]

I want the books open but I do not think there is malfeasence going on. There may be paranoia, maybe about the world knowing the assets of the Church, what GAs get paid or some such thing. But I doubt that there is anyone stealing or misusing funds. I know we do not know for sure but I doubt it.

I'm sure a good many of MCI's, Enron's, HealthSouth investors also doubted that anyone was stealing or misusing funds, but turns out they were wrong

.

Interestingly enough these companies books were public and audited by independent CPA firms. I guess malfeasence can occur and be hidden even when the books are open, aye?

And I think it is incredibly navie to assume that just because one is "called of God," one is above temptation to which all other humans are prone

.

Had I said that you may have a point. But I didn't. Next?

There are many, many examples of financial malfeasane by otherwise upstanding men and women, many holding position of high respect and trust, many also religious figures.

Had I argued that this was not the case you may have a point. But I didn't. Next?

Without too much trouble, one can also find examples of malfeasance by local level Mormon leaders, also called by God through inspiration. If at that level, why not higher?

Same as 1 and 2 above. Next?

Being Mormon doesn't exempt one from human weakness.

Same as 1, 2 and 3 above. Next?

To me, an unwillingness to open the books by any organization cannot help but raise the suspicion, "what are they trying to hide?"

I understand this. For this reason I think they should publish financials. But as noted above publishing financials does not prevent fraud.

Mormons aren't the only group on the planet who don't commit financial fraud.

Adhere to the same ethical standards as just about every other mainline, reputable organization in the Western world. Open the damned books!

No argument from me on this one.

[_Jason Bourne]

Poor choice of words on my part. My apologies.

Apology accepted.

Yes, but that only goes to support what I'm saying. We ask a certain level of commitment prior to baptism, but no one would ever think of closing a baptism to family, friends, even the general public can come if they want. Even the initiatories could be done in such a way as to be made public if parents or friends wish to be part of that. It is, when all's said and done, one of the most beautiful blessings we can ever receive.

As noted, I believe as far as content, the temple is anti climatic. I would have no problem if the content were open. Still as noted I believe expectiation of committment level is needed before one goes and makes the covenants there. I think we are in agreement. My only argument is that it is not a secret combination.

Not even the members know the assets of the church. And so what if GA's get paid a stipend. They should! Just because we've been saying they don't for years doens't mean we have to continue with that fiction, does it?

Pres Hinckley has said GAs get paid so I do not think anyone pretends they do not. And we agree as far as the book being open. I just don't think it is a secret combination

Why are disciplinary proceedings closed?

Because frankly they are not the business of anybody accpet those involved. I do not think most members subject to them would want them open.

They should be as open as a baptism, for the same reasons. Family and friends should be able to support the person. And if the person is being disciplined because they commited a crime, then the public has the right to know.

We will have to disagree on this one.

Why is the CHI kept from the members?

It is not. I was able to read the entire thing before I was ever in a position to get one. I just asked my bishop if I could borrow one and read it. He gave it to me to read.

I can't buy one, Jason. It's the rulebook of an organization of which I am a member, but I can't have one, can't buy one, have to ask for one. That's backwards. I should be given one, as a matter of course. And should be encouraged to read it.

I agree that it is not readily accessible, at leat volume 1. volume 2 is available to almost anyone. Again, I would have no problem with any member seeing it and yea it is a bit strange that it is controlled. But my experience is anyone who wants to see it just ask. Most of it is pretty boring though.

[_Jason Bourne]

Unless you've invested in the Church and are owed a return of some kind the comparison to Enron and the rest is kinda silly.

I think there's a reason that the Church has auditors go over the books and make an announcement every year that it is sound. There's too much oversight for embezzling to take place at high levels on any large scale. The Church doesn't owe me public disclosure of what happens to the funds. When I give them funds I realize that they are no longer mine and I have no claim on them whatsoever.

This thread has shifted. It's no longer about combinations and is now about just plain secrets.

The auditor example does not work. These are not independent auditors like and CPA firm from the outside. Rather these are internal auditors, employed by the church. Their attest function is thus rendered meaningless.

[_Jason Bourne]

The CHI is basically "lorded" over by the priesthood authorities in a given ward. I agree with Harmony that one should not have to ask one's ecclesiastical superior for access to the rule book. It is rather like denying (or making it difficult to gain) access to city laws and statutes.

Fair enough. But it is certainly not a secret combination which was the point of this whole thread.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

wise words of Dr. Phil:

"Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing."

So all sex should be public now?

I don't like Dr. Phil. http://youtube.com/watch?v=__HBFX7aGiY

Dr. Phil's statement applies to sex very nicely. There is nothing to hide about commited sex between consenting adults. Most people prefer to do it in PRIVATE, which is a good thing, in my opinion, but it's not done in SECRET, and I think you can tell the difference. Cheaters, rapists, pedophiles, et al., are the ones who hide their actions.

When I was in high school, Rainbow Girls was a very, very big thing. It promotes itself thusly: "The International Order of the Rainbow for Girls (IORG) is a youth service organization which teaches leadership training through community service. ..." It's part of the Masonic organization. The part I remember, and the part that quickly lost its charm for me, were the secret religious rituals, and the exclusiveness (girls were nominated, then a secret vote was held and undesireables could be blackballed, which was seldom enough but I remember it happening once). It was all pretty innocuous, putting on party dresses and standing in a circle reciting virtues to match the colors of the rainbow with all the popular girls in school, but it wasn't for me and it didn't take very long to figure it out. Figuring out the church wasn't for me was a much longer and painful process.

Anyway, I digress. Secrets aren't necessarily dishonest or immoral or manipulative or criminal or to avoid mocking/judgment. People like secrets for the drama or the exclusiveness. But why would God be taking part in all this? What Coggins is finding difficult to comprehend is that the idea of a God who doesn't deal in secrets is totally logical and intelligent and embraced by more than one belief system.

[_Seven]

When I first began to study early Nauvoo polygamy, history of the endowment, and the coersion of the women involved, it was the scriptures of "secret combinations/death oaths" that came to mind right away. If anybody has read books like "In Sacred Loneliness", "Mormon Enigma" or "Mormon Polygamy" you can find a logical link to the death oaths and keeping the insiders silent about the "God sanctioned" adultery going on. I believe that is why Joseph introduced the Masonic signs and penalties to the select members that he did. If that isn't a "secret combination" I don't know what is.

[_Seven]

wise words of Dr. Phil:

"Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing."

Thanks. The next time I have any questions about Church doctrine or practice, I won't go to the New Testament or GBH or Joseph Smith or Truman Madsen or Hugh Nibley or other scriptures, I'll go to a TV pop psych talking head.

I'm sitting down right now and writing a letter to Oprah to ask her what she thinks about the First Vision...

Has anybody answered why the books were once open and then became secret???????

[_Coggins7]

Dr. Phil's statement applies to sex very nicely. There is nothing to hide about commited sex between consenting adults. Most people prefer to do it in PRIVATE, which is a good thing, in my opinion, but it's not done in SECRET, and I think you can tell the difference. Cheaters, rapists, pedophiles, et al., are the ones who hide their actions.

With the question of sex, the difference between privacy and secrecy is a distinction without a difference. This is another semantic circus.

But why would God be taking part in all this? What Coggins is finding difficult to comprehend is that the idea of a God who doesn't deal in secrets is totally logical and intelligent and embraced by more than one belief system.

Any time anyone asks questions of the form "why would God etc.," red flags sprout up immediately because this is an indication that someone is trying to second guess God or, more precisely, put themselves in his place (which is all they can do intellectually) and tell us what they would or would not do if they were God. Of course, neither they nor I have the slightest understanding of why he does or would do any number of things he does or why he would require certain things of us. When he does require them, we an accept them and obtain the blessings predicated, or reject them and lose those blessings. As to the Temple, the reason the sacred things there are kept from the eyes of those who do not believe, do not understand, and do not respect them are, to me, no secret (and yes, the pun was intended).

[_Coggins7]

[

quote] But why would God be taking part in all this? What Coggins is finding difficult to comprehend is that the idea of a God who doesn't deal in secrets is totally logical and intelligent and embraced by more than one belief system.[/quot

Your tempting me to post here the plethora of verses from the Old Testament and New Testament in which I can clearly demonstrate that God does indeed, deal in secrets (except for those who are worthy to receive them) and expects his people to keep them as a matte of covenant relationship. But that would be a geat deal of work for little avail. What, by the way, did the Lord command his Apostles to do regarding the things he taught them on the Mount of Transfiguration?