Print Friendly and PDF
Showing posts with label Common Consent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Common Consent. Show all posts

Sunday, September 12, 2021

The new Primary song…about vaccinations! 😊

I'm not making this up (I'm not THAT creative). And this isn't a joke.

There's a new primary song being sung in the homes and (inevitably) classrooms of Latter-day Saints. Here it is:


Here's how it sounds:


The prophet said get vaccinated, so that's what we'll do.
For God has given us doctors, and masks and science too.
And if we wear a mask just right and wash hands carefully,
Before we know, good health will come to bless our family.

We'll obey Doctor Nelson's words: when close, a mask we'll wear,
And show we love our neighbors with the virus we won't share.
Oh, please get vaccinated, too, and share the many joys
A vaccine brings in health and love to happy girls and boys.

First popularized in the r/latterdaysaints Reddit group, "The Prophet Said Get Vaccinated" is, of course, a parody based on that timeless classic, "The Prophet Said to Plant a Garden" (Childrens Songbook, p. 237). [1] The lyrics weren't written by Mary Jane McAllister Davis, either (she passed away in 1988). [2]

But some families are taking this song seriously. As one member stated online,


The False Doctrines the Church Teaches Children

This isn't the first time Primary-age kids have been taught the wrong thing. Here's a screen capture from the Primary 5 (D&C and Church History) manual Lesson #15 ("The Prophet Receives Revelation for the Church") located here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/primary-5/lesson-15 

This is, of course, NOT what the Law of Common Consent is all about (read more about it in my past post, "When the Church Breaks One of its Own Laws," here). It is 180 degrees the exact opposite. "Common Consent" used to mean that no action would be taken by the church without the common agreement of the members. "Common consent" never has and never will mean "Common subservience."

Not all votes per the Law of Common Consent are automatically member-endorsed just because the church president said they should be. Just ask Brother Joseph. At a conference in 1843, he questioned Sidney Rigdon's fitness to serve as a counselor in the First Presidency. Other leaders spoke out in support of Rigdon. The assembled Church members voted to retain Sidney in his calling against Joseph's initial wishes. Joseph begrudgingly accepted the result. [3]

But I doubt our kids will be taught that historical anecdote.

Welcome to a New Generation of God Doubters

Along with the funeral dirge [4] song "Follow the Prophet," [5] I think we can safely say that our young ones are being well-indoctrinated in a concept known as "Appeal to Authority" -- a belief that "a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered." [6]

In 2020, church members were invited to #HearHim [7] - to seek God and hear his voice. And as dutiful servants, many church members did just that. 

But along the way, some were reportedly hearing clear messages from God which contradicted what others were feeling inspired to do: They felt inspired NOT to get the Covid-19 injection. Many who felt the opposite (inspired to get the jab) began persecuting those who felt differently, accusing them of being Un-Christlike, not being "good global citizens," [8] not loving their neighbors (see the lyrics, above) and disobedient by not "Following the Prophet." Members were systematically, routinely pressured - by other church members -- NOT to hearken to the promptings they received from God.

We've gone from "Doubting our Doubts" to now "Doubting God." No good will ever come of this.

This "The Prophet Said Get Vaccinated " song carries that pressure (to place the words of a man in front of the words of God) down into the ranks of members ages 0-11. A generation fully entrenched in not even seeking divine dialogues, but simply engaging in "Appeal to Authority." Because that's what the masses tell them to do.

Thus, I think we can safely say that 2020 and 2021 were the years in which both adults and children worldwide were instructed, by their church leaders, to fully accept the teaching of "trust in the arm of flesh." Adults are told to trust "medical experts and government leaders." Children are told that the prophet will never lead them astray, [9] despite there being a long list of doctrines which "prophets" contradicted themselves on (after all, then was the last time you heard a lesson on blacks being eternal servants, Adam-God, polygamy, interracial marriage and more?).

European Tyrants Would be Proud

In his book "Europe: A History," [10] historian Norman Davies summarized the five rules of propaganda that European tyrants perfected decades ago:

  • The Rule of Simplification: Reduce all data to a simple confrontation between 'Good and Bad', 'Friend and Foe'.
  • The Rule of Disfiguration: Discredit the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
  • The Rule of Transfusion: Manipulate the consensus values of the target audience for one's own ends.
  • The Rule of Unanimity: Present one's viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people, draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by 'psychological contagion'.
  • The Rule of Orchestration: Endlessly repeat the same messages in different variations and combinations.

Where have you seen these ideas used lately?

Sources


 3.   "Minutes of a Special Conference," Times and Seasons, vol. 4, no. 21 (Sept. 15, 1843), 329-30 as found on https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/common-consent
 8.    First Presidency News Release, January 19, 2021
10.   Norman Davies, "Europe: A History," p. 500; https://books.google.com/books?id=jrVW9W9eiYMC&pg=PA500&lpg=PA500
No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, January 24, 2021

When government, corporations and the church takes away your God-given rights

Joseph Smith once said that "the Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God." [1] He is quoted several times as being a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights. [2]  

Under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to seek and receive news and express opinions. [3]  Many countries flout this international standard by banning or severely restricting the freedom of speech. They enforce silence with imprisonment, digital and physical surveillance, and other forms of harassment.  

Brother Joseph would certainly be no fan of countries which abridge fundamental civil rights. And these days, there are quite a few of them. Today, the world's most censored countries include: [4]

1. Eritrea
2. North Korea
3. Turkmenistan
4. Saudi Arabia
5. China
6. Vietnam
7. Iran
8. Equatorial Guinea
9. Belarus
10. Cuba

In all of these countries, if the private sector (especially the media) exists at all, it is in complete and total lockstep with the country's totalitarian regime.

Sound familiar?

I haven't even started.

The Rise of the Anti-Civil Liberty American Communist Party

In all the countries I mentioned above (and many more that I didn't), several governments not only prefer abridged freedom of speech, but also "selective enforcement," where laws are unequally applied nationwide. [5] Selective enforcement is widely considered a legal abuse and a threat to the rule of law. [6] 

The "Democratic Party," which now runs the United States government (and its supporters) is itself philosophically aligned with the concept of selective enforcement of laws. For example:

  • It favors not only punishing those who vandalized the U.S. Capitol building, but also those who were nowhere near Washington D.C. yet are politically aligned with the protesters who entered the Capitol. For example, musician Ariel Pink made the mistake of attending Trump's pre-march address, and didn't go anywhere near the Capitol; after the rally, he returned to his hotel and fell asleep. But for the crime of attending a political rally, Pink was punished. His record label promptly dropped him like a hot potato. He's likely more virulent than COVID in the music industry, and probably on the no-fly list, too. Yet these same politicians were silent while Antifa and BLM were defying law enforcement, destroying businesses and in fact lives in various cities across the U.S last summer.
  • On May 16, 2017, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tweeted, "Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts. Was she ever charged with insurrection? No. Yet today, those who say the same about the 2020 Presidential Election are unfriended, blocked, silenced, blacklisted, threatened, jailed and worse.
  • Last summer, left-wing protesters destroyed a police precinct (and laid siege for several days) in downtown Minneapolis. Yet soon thereafter, the Democratic Party, big tech and even current Vice President (then Senator) Kamala Harris supported establishing the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which bailed out the insurrectionists.

So, when left-leaning protesters destroy property, businesses and lives, it's OK. It should be supported. But should anybody dare to be at least a little right-leaning, their lives and livelihoods should be destroyed. 

That's called "selective enforcement."

The Rise of Corporate Communism

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So, you won't see Congress scrambling to take away your freedom of speech anytime soon. But they don't have to.

The Biden campaign enthusiastically touted "Joe Biden's Plan to 'Build Back Better' for American Workers." The JoeBiden.com website publicized "Build Back Better: Joe Biden's Jobs and Economic Recovery Plan for Working Families."


What does that mean?

"Build back better" is a World Economic Forum (WEF) plan to "reinvent capitalism" so that companies are more focused on the greater good, not profits. [7]  How to accomplish that? "A 'great reset' of capitalism," the WEF wrote in June, 2020. [8] Three months later, it was called "The Great Reset Initiative." [9] 

Another three months later, the WEF launched a new initiative called the "Davos Manifesto."    It posed the question, "What kind of capitalism do we want?" And it answered by laying out three possibilities - "shareholder capitalism" (like we have in the U.S.), "state capitalism" (like China's emerging markets) and "stakeholder capitalism," which "positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today's social and environmental challenges." [10]

The bottom line: You're in good with the world's economic leaders if you put "the greater good" over profits...even if it's going to sting a little.

"Clearly, companies should still seek to … maintain an entrepreneurial mindset," the WEF wrote. "But they should also work with other stakeholders to improve the state of the world … In fact, this latter proviso should be their ultimate purpose." [10]

This is essentially what then-Senator Kamala Harris called for -- insisting that their opponents should be forced to stop talking -- in a Presidential Primary Debate last year. [11] What did Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple, Instagram and Twitter do as soon as the electoral vote was finalized? They set their sights on Parler, another social media app. Not one person in law enforcement or the media has shown any conclusive evidence between any of the criminals caught on camera at the Capitol Building and Parler. Parler committed no crimes. So why are they gone? It's because conservatives spoke to each other (which was considered dangerous) on Parler. So they killed it.


That's a small, very small, glimpse into how corporations driven by social consciences serve: they become the arbiters of proper and acceptable human behaviors. They become the dictators of governance.

Don't like what your political opponents are saying? Not only kill their accounts, but also the social media platforms they use. Destroy any business who dares hire them. First Amendment, whoosh. Gone.

Congress won't pass so-called common sense gun controls? No worries; private companies will restrict firearms' sales. Banks will restrict funds to companies selling firearms. Businesses will boot all gun-carriers from their businesses. Second Amendment, whoosh. Gone.

And elections? Well, I think we've seen what private enterprise, mass and social media can do when they put their hearts and minds to it.

With the "build back better" and "great reset" campaign criteria, "No mask, no entry" (which is now the normal brick-and-mortar sign) will evolve into "No vaccine, no entry" and eventually into "No vaccine proof, no buying or selling" -- all per the standards set by corporate heads and their WEF partners.

The Death of the Freedom of Speech

So it should come as no surprise that if these companies can kill a competitor without any political repercussions, they're pretty dang secure in knowing they can shut down your individual freedom of speech, too. 

The Courts have ruled that the First Amendment, which addresses government actions, does not apply to corporations, which are more powerful than they have ever been in our nation's history. So Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media can limit speech on their own platforms if they want to. [12] If they don't like your pro-Trump meme, they can kick you off. If they don't like your pro-Republican post, you can close your account.

The scope and depth of this liberal-leaning, unprecedented crackdown on civil liberties is so repugnant, immoral and anti-American, it should shock our sensibilities. 

It sure shocked Alexi Navalny, the Russian dissident who was apparently poisoned last year by the Putin government. He's watched the recent crackdown by American Communists and their allies in the media and big tech. His conclusion: "We have seen many examples in Russia and in China of such private companies becoming the state's best friends and enablers when it comes to censorship. This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world." 

So even in Russia, they know what's happening: America is witnessing the rise of communism dressed as social justice capitalism. It is the Russians, of all people, who know that it is dangerous and wrong.

This trend isn't just limited to mass and social media corporations. Earlier this month, PayPal (which is supposed to be a payment processor, not a political party or a law enforcement agency) suspended the accounts of Trump supporters who traveled to Washington D.C. It's not clear that any of these people participated in illegal acts. But we do know they were shut down for their political views. AIG Insurance also canceled the account of baseball legend Curt Schilling because of his conservative social media profile. [13] 

In 2017 (a few weeks after the aforementioned Pelosi tweet), a Bernie Sanders supporter tried to murder Republican congressmen at a baseball practice in Arlington, Virginia. He almost succeeded; he shot and almost killed Rep. Steve Scalise. Yet none of these "woke," morally aware corporations suspended donations to Bernie Sanders or Nancy Pelosi. These same companies also remained silent while BLM set fire to the Episcopal Church in front of the White House. They also said nothing while rioters destroyed a federal building in Portland, OR. 

The twin sister of selective enforcement is selective, biased journalism, which we see in virtually every news organization in the country today.

The Biden Era was originally touted as a return to normalcy. But it turns out that it is instead a new normal: silencing or eliminating the potential for dissent, blacklisting and threatening groups of people for their political beliefs. All for the "greater good."

Which leads us to a discussion about the Church's newly-revised General Handbook of Instructions...

How the Church Now Takes Away Your Membership Rights

One corporation which has also taken away your rights is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

D&C 102 is the doctrinal and administrative foundation of the church's membership disciplinary process. It is the foundation because it is canonized scripture, which assumes a preeminent status in all matters of doctrine unless the church, via the Law of Common Consent, approves a new canonized revelation which supersedes previous revelation. 

In a stake disciplinary council, the high council and stake presidency meet to deliberate upon the member's membership status. 

Although it is not called such, here is how a disciplinary council meeting is supposed to operate (per D&C 102):


Lest anyone doubt the approval of these procedures, here is what is recorded in the History of the Church:

"Bro. Joseph … said he would show the order of councils in ancient days as shown to him by vision. The law by which to govern the council in the Church of Christ. Jerusalem was the seat of the Church Council in ancient days. The apostle, Peter, was the president of the Council and held the keys of the Kingdom of God on the earth [and] was appointed to this office by the voice of the Savior and acknowledged in it by the voice of the Church. … It was not the order of heaven in ancient councils to plead for and against the guilty as in our judicial Courts (so called) but that every counsellor when he arose to speak, should speak precisely according to evidence and according to the teaching of the Spirit of the Lord; that no counsellor should attempt to screen the guilty when his guilt was manifest. That the person accused before the high council had a right to one half the members of the council to plead his cause in order that his case might be fairly presented before the President that a decision might be rendered according to truth and righteousness. … Bro. Joseph said that this organization was an ensample to the high priests in their Councils abroad. … It was then voted by all present that they desired to come under the present order of things which they all considered to be the will of God." [14] 

When the corrected minutes were later presented, Brother Joseph wrote, "We all raised our hands to heaven in token of the everlasting covenant, and the Lord blessed us with His Spirit. I then declared the council organized according to the ancient order, and also according to the mind of the Lord." [15] 

In December 2020, the church produced an updated General Handbook of Instructions (GHI). [16]  Here is a comparison of D&C 102 and the new GHI section concerning "Membership Councils":


As you can see, GHI 32.9.2 now makes the high council's involvement in the disciplinary process optional. This is important because D&C 102:2 tells us that "The high council was appointed by revelation for the purpose of settling important difficulties which might arise in the church, which could not be settled by the church or the bishop's council to the satisfaction of the parties." 

But now, "Members of the high council do not normally participate in stake membership councils."  "However, the high council may participate in difficult situations (see Doctrine and Covenants 102:2). For example, the stake presidency may invite the high council to participate" in certain circumstances.

Although the GHI quotes D&C 102:2, it not only disregards, but it boldly supersedes, D&C 102:12-27. All without a vote of the members per the Law of Common Consent. [17]

Pres. George Albert Smith called the involvement of high councils tantamount to a "correct organization of a court on earth":

"I believe that there never was a more correct organization of a court on earth than our High Councils, for these men go to work and investigate a case, hear the testimony pro and con, the Councilors for each party litigant present the case, it is submitted to the President who sums up, gives his decision and calls on the Council to sanction it by their vote, and if they are not united, they have to go to work and try the case over again in order that they may ascertain more perfectly the facts in the case and be united in their decision."  [18]

Additionally, if a stake membership council is appealed, the matter is in the hands of the First Presidency. "The case is conducted again, according to the former pattern written, as though no such decision had been made." (D&C 102:27). Yet in the new GHI (32.13), the re-conducted case is now optional ("If a membership council is held to consider an appeal...")

Members (and even those who are barely members) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have rights. According to our canonized scriptures, they have the right to have their cases heard by a high council, an essential component endorsed by Joseph Smith and Pres. George Albert Smith. Members also have the right to have their case heard "as though no such decision had been made" by the First Presidency.

UPDATES

QUESTIONS

Based on the aforementioned facts, I have the following questions:

  • Do you believe the scriptures to be the revealed words of God?
  • Do you believe D&C 26:2 ("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.") to be the revealed word of God?
  • Do you believe that the General Handbook of Instructions has supremacy over the scriptures in terms of church operational procedures? If so, when did church members vote on this per the Law of Common Consent? 
  • Do you believe D&C 102:12-27 to be the revealed word of God?
  • When were the policies which overrode D&C 102:12-27 voted on by the general membership of the church?
  • Do you believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God?
  • Do you believe his statements regarding the importance of high councils?
  • Does God change his mind, or are his paths straight?
  • Why does the church no longer want high councilors to be part of disciplinary council meetings?
  • Why are appeals to the First Presidency no longer automatic?

SOURCES

1.   Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 147-48
2.   https://www.latterdayconservative.com/quotes/joseph-smith/
3.   https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
4.   https://cpj.org/reports/2019/09/10-most-censored-eritrea-north-korea-turkmenistan-journalist/
5.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country
6.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement
7.   https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/
8.   https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/to-build-back-better-we-must-reinvent-capitalism-heres-how/
9.   https://www.weforum.org/great-reset
10.   https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/why-we-need-the-davos-manifesto-for-better-kind-of-capitalism/
11.   https://youtu.be/MNwq_VgTmSs?t=281
12.   https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45650
13.   https://www.libertybell.com/baseball-legend-curt-schilling-says-aig-cancelled-insurance-because-hes-conservative-but-heres-who-they-will-insure/
14.   "Kirtland High Council Minute Book," Historical Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, pp. 29-32
15.   History of the Church, 2:32-33
16.   https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils
17.   D&C 26:2
18.   George Albert Smith, "Necessity of Understanding," Journal of Discourses 10:59

4 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, December 24, 2020

Follow the Profit: A New Way to Track LDS Church Stocks

When church members pay tithing, they have an expectation that the hard earned money they pay will be spent as the Lord has directed. These expectations are rooted in D&C 119:2, which gives us the scripturally-based purpose of tithing:

  1. "For the building of mine house [temples]
  2. and for the laying of the foundation of Zion [developing people who are of one heart, one mind and dwelling in righteousness with no poor among them]
  3. and for the priesthood
  4. and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church."

Here are some very basic questions about church finances:

Q: What is the church's income?
A: Today, the church receives as much as $7 billion in members' tithing each year. It is speculated that the church has over $100 billion in assets. [1]  

Q: How are tithes allocated?
A: Here's the church's own statement, dated May 22, 2018:

"The Church's Council on the Disposition of the Tithes is composed of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the Presiding Bishopric. Together, they establish and administer the specific policies and budgets guiding the use of Church resources (see D&C 120:1). Those policies embody the following principles:

  • Expenditures will not exceed forecasted revenue.
  • The budget for operating expenses will not increase at a more rapid rate than anticipated tithing contributions.

Budgets for the Church's efforts are specifically approved and funds are appropriated by the Church's Budget and Appropriations Committee, a subcommittee of the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes."  [2]

Q: How are tithes audited?
A: Usually, large organizations hire outside accounting firms to audit their finances. However, the church has its own Audit Committee which does the job:

"Additionally, the Church Auditing Department, which is independent from all other Church departments, employs credentialed professionals to ensure that Church funds are administered and recorded in accordance with Church policies and standard accounting practices." [2]

Q: Do members get to see how the money is spent?
A:  Apparently so. The following is a transcript of an interview between Pres. Hinckley and a reporter (which can be viewed in its entirety here):

"REPORTER: In my country the...we say the people's churches, the Protestants, the Catholics, they publish all their budgets, to all the public.
HINCKLEY: Yeah. Yeah.
REPORTER: Why is it impossible for your church?
HINCKLEY: Well, we simply think that the...that information belongs to those who made the contribution, and not to the world. That's the only thing. Yeah." [3]

This is interesting because the church published its last financial report in April, 1959.

Q: How is the money spent?
A: Here's The First Presidency:

"The vast majority of these funds are used immediately to meet the needs of the growing Church including more meetinghouses, temples, education, humanitarian work and missionary efforts throughout the world. All Church funds exist for no other reason than to support the Church's divinely appointed mission." [4]

D&C 119:2 (As Amended)

So, the Church's divinely appointed mission now includes the development of high-rise office buildings, luxury shopping malls, planned communities and other real estate developments, several businesses, numerous radio and television stations, an insurance company, cattle ranches, farms, stocks and forged documents.

I won't go into detail regarding these various investments; other articles have done an exemplary job of that (for example, see here). In response, the church has admitted that it "also sets aside funds each year for future needs. These funds are added to Church reserves, which include stocks and bonds, taxable businesses, agricultural interests and commercial and residential property." These "Investments can be accessed in times of hardship or to meet the emerging needs of a growing, global faith in its mission to preach the gospel to all nations and prepare for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ." [5]

The source if these funds? Again, church leaders disclosed, "the vast majority of its financial resources comes from the tithes and offerings of Church members." [2]

That means, by the church's own admission, your tithing money is spent on laying "up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt." [6]  Anyone paying these tithes is therefore complicit, to one degree or another, in these anti-scriptural endeavors.

I could write many, many posts regarding the incongruity between modern-day church expenditures and what the Lord originally intended in D&C 119:2. But today, I'd like to focus on just one portion of the church's assets: its stock portfolio.

The Definitive LDS Church Stocks Tracking Chart

For 22 years, Ensign Peak Advisors has managed the church's reserve investment fund.  For reasons the church declines to elaborate, [7] it never filed required government oversight paperwork until February 14, 2020 (although there is no evidence of intentional obfuscation, these are some pretty bright advisors who surely know the government expects these reports). 

These reports - filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission - are here: https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001454984

There, you'll see four reports, each filed on a quarterly basis in 2020. What you can't see is how these stocks have been traded from quarter to quarter. What stocks has the church purchased or increased, decreased or eliminated? 

To see that, I have downloaded each of the four reports and converted them into spreadsheets. Then I imported all four spreadsheets into an Access database, using their CUSIP as a common index field. Then I gave each stock issuer (for example, Microsoft) its own row, with each quarter's investment amount in the subsequent columns. After quarters 2, 3 and 4, I also listed the ?, or the percentage change from quarter to quarter.

OK, enough of the technobabble. 

Click here to access my Ensign Peak Advisors Tracking Chart

This spreadsheet has five tabs: Master Data, Top 20 investments, Winners (which stocks have increased), Losers (which stocks have decreased) and Pharma.

Top 20 tab: As of November 12, 2020, the church invested over a billion dollars each in Apple, Microsoft and Amazon. Both Apple and especially NVIDIA (a computer chip manufacturer) saw the church's stock purchases in them increase more than 20% between August and November, 2020.

Winners tab: between August and November 2020: Grocery Outlet, trucking company Schneider National, genetic testing company Natera then several pharmaceutical and therapeutics companies.

Losers tab: The church divested itself of over $79 million in stocks between August and November 2020. They're listed in the Losers tab.

Pharma tab: I list the 17 "COVID-19 RELATED" testing labs / vaccine developers which the church has invested in (red font; four of them are listed in the Top 20 tab). 72 other "CONFIRMED PHARMA" companies are listed in a blue font. Finally, 45 other Therapeutics companies are in a black font.

As you will see, the church is investing over $1.6 billion in tithed funds into COVID-19 testing or vaccine developers. Another $1.7 billion is invested in non-COVID-19 related pharmas, and just under $100 million in other therapeutics companies. All totaled, the church invests almost $3 billion, or 4% of its total portfolio, in these three sectors.

All spreadsheets will be updated on a quarterly basis as new SEC filings are submitted.

In a future post, I'll detail how the church is staunchly committed to vaccinations, including COVID-19 vaccinations. We'll examine the implications of this stance as it relates to these investments, the church's employees and members. 


"Furthermore, I want to say to you, we may not be able to reach it right away, but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God." (Joseph F. Smith, Conference Report, Apr. 1907, p. 7)"


QUESTIONS

Based on the aforementioned facts, I have the following questions:

  • How does the church's investments in these various sectors (see italicized text above) square with the scriptural definition of tithing found in D&C 119:2?
  • When was D&C 119:2 amended to include real estate and other investments? When was this revision presented to the church for a sustaining vote per the Law of Common Consent?
  • What interesting points did you find in these spreadsheets?
  • Why did Pres. Hinckley say that budgetary "information belongs to those who made the contribution," but the contributors (tithe payers) haven't seen that information since April, 1959?

SOURCES

CHECK THE COMMENTS BY LATTER-DAY
TRUTHS BELOW FOR UPDATES TO THIS POST

4 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, October 11, 2020

When the Church Breaks One of its Own Laws

I believe almost all people know Murphy's Law ("If anything can go wrong, it will"). This is actually known as Murphy's Law #1. 

What most people don't know is that there are more laws than that. [1]  Here are a few you may not be aware of:

Murphy's Law #4: If you perceive that there are four possible ways in which something can go wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will promptly develop.

Murphy's Law #6: If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.

Forsyth's Second Corollary to Murphy's Laws: Just when you see the light at the end of the tunnel, the roof caves in.

The 50-50-90 rule: Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there's a 90% probability you'll get it wrong.

Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have any film.

He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

The church has several laws in it as well. We have the Law of Chastity, the Law of Tithing, the Law of Consecration, the Law of Obedience, the Law of Adoption, the Law of the Harvest, the Law of the Gospel and the Law of the Fast. Even the Word of Wisdom has been described as the Lord's Law of Health [2].  In the case of Chastity, Tithing and Health, these are pretty strictly enforced by the church.

However, there is one law that is not strictly enforced. What makes this more ironic is that it's mentioned in the scriptures several times. It is the word of God, it is the will of God, it is a commandment of God. Yet it is a neglected law of God.

THE LAW OF COMMON CONSENT

According to Elder Bruce R. McConkie, the doctrine of common consent is actually a law: 

"Administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God's earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside." [3]

Sure enough, the law of common consent "has been operative in every dispensation." [4]   For example, it was active (in one form or another) during the lifetimes of Moses [5], Joshua [6], Samuel [7], Mosiah [8]  and Peter [9].

As part of the restoration, the Prophet Joseph Smith received a revelation in April 1830 regarding Church organization and government "which not only gave us much information, but also pointed out to us the precise day upon which, according to His will and commandment, we should proceed to organize His Church once more here upon the earth." [10]    In that revelation - now known as D&C Section 20 - we learn that:

"No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church." [11]

Three months later, in July 1830, the Lord specified that the vote of the church encompasses more than just the approval of its leaders: 

"all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith." [12] 

(Note: that's "all things." Church officer sustainings? Yes. Policies? Yes. Major decisions? Yes. Acceptance of new scripture? Yes. Other things that affect the lives of the Saints? Yes. How our tithing dollars are used? Yes.)

"Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints." [13]

In September, 1830 (two months later), the Lord reinforced this command when Hiram Page attempted to receive revelations for the church:

"For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith." [14]

(See those words "shall" and, two months later, "must"? That's tantamount to the Lord saying that common consent IS a law which the church should not break).

These revelations became a foundation to the government of the Lord's kingdom and defined the order of proper Church procedure.

The Doctrine and Covenants is filled with more arrows pointing to the law of common consent. Some examples include:

  • The role of revelation and common consent, which was revealed in September 1830. [15]
  • Members who were appointed to service to give relief to the poor and needy or to leadership positions within the Church organization were appointed by "the voice of the church". [16] 
  • The disposition of tithes and offerings ("And there shall not any part of it be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by the voice and common consent of the order"). [17] 
  • Church callings. [18]

Two other latter-day historical events highlight the importance of the law of common consent and how it interrelates with the doctrines preached, taught and perpetuated among church members:

  • The Discontinuation of Plural Marriage: With the unanimous approval of Official Declaration #1, church members declared their intention to submit to laws enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages.  As President Lorenzo Snow stated:

"I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous." [19]

  • Extending the priesthood to all worthy male members: This significant change in priesthood membership and administration was effectuated by the approval, by the body of the church, of Official Declaration #2.  President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church, presented the Declaration to the body of the church for ratification.  He stated:

"Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative." [20]

In both cases, an historical precedence was firmly established: changes to existing doctrines (which presumably include anything categorized as a scripturally-based "standing law" unto the church) require the sustaining of the church's members.

A LAW IGNORED OUT OF EXISTENCE

When we examine the history of the church, we begin to see that in implementing the law of common consent, a preliminary decision was made (for example, a person was proposed for a calling, or a tentative budget was presented). Then members were given the opportunity to accept or reject the proposal. [21]  If a proposal was rejected, it was back to the drawing board. To avoid exercising control, dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, no consequences or retribution was given the member for an opposing view. [21]

That's pretty much a thing of the past now. Opposing views precipitate an immediate meeting in the stake president's office, and those meetings aren't particularly warm and fuzzy. 

Yet another a trend has also surfaced: the law of common consent is rarely mentioned and adhered to in the first place. 

By my (admittedly very inadequate) historical research skills, it all began in 1844, less than a month after Brother Joseph's death. The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued an official proclamation for members to immediately pay "a tenth of all their property and money…and then let them continue to pay a tenth of their income from that time forth." 

This was a monumental deviation from Law of Tithing which was revealed six years earlier, in which the Lord gave a "standing law" that the saints should be "tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually." [22]

In instituting this new doctrine, the twelve never once produced a revelation from God for the members to review and prayerfully contemplate. To date, no one has seen the actual revelation which reversed the Lord's "standing revelation," and no one has ever been asked to offer a sustaining vote changing that scripture.

Since then, the Law of Common Consent has kind of conveniently become forgotten and ignored. And to most members, that's OK, because we have our leaders, making the church the "church of the latter-day leaders" instead of the "church of the latter-day saints." Here's what two members said online:

"Common consent in the Church is not a grassroots kind of principle."

"There are just too many daily happenings within the Church that can not be voted on. This is, IMHO, the reason the Lord has chosen good men to be our leaders. As a whole, although some may err, I believe they are doing the Lord's work on the earth today. And isn't that what common consent is….the majority. I doubt that they all agree on every proposal brought before the 15, however, I believe that when they walk out of a meeting, they are in agreement that this is what the Lord wants done at that time. I don't have to agree ( as you have chosen not to do), but I can still sustain them in their callings because I know the Lord has guided them in those decisions."

And sure enough, that's the unwritten order of things today. Here's former Seventy (and now mission president) Matthew O. Richardson:

"This privilege of voting is more an act of ratifying leadership callings and decisions rather than actually making those decisions. Such decisions are left to the Lord and His anointed servants." [23] 

I believe Brother Richardson is telling the truth. We members are no longer involved in having a say in the church's "administrative affairs".  The application of the law of common consent to "all things" by members is no longer applicable. We have no explanation as to why the law of common consent has been non-existent for a long time in the church. 

If it was in play/practice, would we have a multi-billion dollar mall in downtown Salt Lake City? Or plush million-dollar condos? Or hunting preserves in Nevada where rich men can pay big money to hunt big game for sport? Or 3% of the land mass in Florida?

A DOSE OF REALITY

You'd be hard pressed to say this is what church members have been wanting. 

Nowhere do I find in the scriptures that its OK for members to abrogate their responsibilities as members to their leaders. If you can find the scripture, please send it to me. If you can find the revelation, please send it to me.

Moroni reminded us (four times) that God is the same yesterday, today and forever. He does not change His mind on eternal truths, just to tease or test us.

As far as I can tell, the Lord never said, "And all things shall be done by common consent by the church's leaders." He said, "And all things shall be done by common consent in the church." He wants church members to participate in the decision-making process, because it gives them ownership of the doctrine, policy or sustained leader - and for all the good or bad that brings with said decision:

"If the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time the judgements of God will come upon you." [24]

Over time, we've seen a lot of other doctrines and laws evaporate away. Are these "things that affect the lives of the Saints"? Definitely.

Were they subject to approval or disapproval via the Law of Common Consent? Definitely not.

Will I be addressing each one of these doctrines and laws in future posts? You better believe it.

"If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee." [25]

"Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken.
Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what is among them.
Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it."  [26]

QUESTIONS

Based on the aforementioned facts, I have the following questions:

  • How is the church’s ongoing neglect of the Law of Common Consent NOT making this the church of the “latter-day administrative leaders” instead of the church of the “latter-day saints”?
  • When and how did the Lord declare that it was OK for the saints not to directly have a say in “all things” regarding his church?

CHECK THE COMMENTS BY LATTER-DAY
TRUTHS BELOW FOR UPDATES TO THIS POST 

1  http://www.murphys-laws.com/murphy/murphy-miscellaneous.html
2  http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-clarifies-word-of-wisdom-on-vaping-green-tea-coffee-marijuana-opioids
3   Mormon Doctrine, p. 149-50
4  Bruce R. McConkie, Common Consent (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, n.d.), p. 4.
5  Exodus 24:3
6   Numbers 27:19-22
7  1 Samuel 8:7
8  Mosiah 29:25-26
9  Acts 1:26
10  History of the Church 1:64
11  D&C 20:65
12  D&C 26:2; emphasis mine
13  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent
14  D&C 28:13
15  D&C 20:63, 65, 66.
16  D&C 38:34-35; 41:9-10; 51:4, 12.
17  D&C 104:64, 71-77.
18  D&C 42:11; 102:9; 124:124-44.
19  D&C Official Declaration #1.
20  D&C Official Declaration #2.
21  D&C 121:37
22  D&C 119:4.
23  "The Law of Common Consent (D&C 26)", https://rsc.byu.edu/sperry-symposium-classics-doctrine-covenants/law-common-consent-dc-26-0
24  Mosiah 29:27
25  Deuteronomy 13:1-5
26  Jeremiah 6:16-19

1 comment:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)