Money More Precious than Members

[RubinHighlander]

At lunch today, a NOM friend of mine mentioned how much it bothered him that for many years now the church has two priesthood holders count up the donations and take them to the bank. I actually don't know the history there, but maybe it's always been that way for monetary donations when things switches from chickens and hens at the storehouse to $$. Then a few years back the COB makes it policy to have two instructors in the room for teaching youth, probably after several or more public abuse scandals. Recently it took lots of social pressure and protest for the COB to change the policy to make it optional to have two men present for youth interviews.

So if a TBM or the COB tells you we must trust our inspired priesthood leaders, ask them why it is they don't trust those same leaders with their money but they trusted them for years to be one on one with little girls and boys and they were free to ask them anything they wanted about personal sexual matters?

Is there a double standard here?
Does this reflect where the COB places its true values of money over people?

The words matrix and copper top come to mind...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjtIyY4 ... e=youtu.be

[Palerider]

I'm inclined to think this is just excuse making but we were told that it was a safety measure to ensure the money didn't get heisted as well as making sure a member of the bishopric didn’t get sticky fingers.

It is a load of cash for a single, possibly older person to be carrying. But I think the aspect of keeping the brethren honest was the greater motivation.

The church and the mafia seem to have similar feelings regarding money.

Members are like girlfriends, they come and go but the love and marriage to money is permanent and Celestial.

[Red Ryder]

While I agree this reflection is accurate I think it's a thoughtless complaint of the exmo crowd.

Suggesting that the church protects money over children is low hanging fruit that only becomes a complaint AFTER someone leaves the church.

How many of us before our disaffections just innocently sent our kids in to be interviewed alone? I did. Why didn't we stand up for protecting children then? Because we innocently believed that the Bishop had good intentions and that as a representative of The Lord's church, nothing could go wrong. We didn't think about it nor did we have to. Even as a Bishop Sam Young didn't stop himself from interviewing children alone. Thank god he is one of the good guys and probably never asked an inappropriate question ever. I believe that there are many good bishops who also were good guys and protected the kids and themselves by acting appropriately. However we can't hold the same standard to every bishop since the process has allowed creeps through. This means the process is flawed and should be changed. This is where the church puts it's own agenda first. Rather than change the process they just continue to hope another pedophile doesn't make it through.

Yet with the money, how many of us as active believing members thought that was a good idea for obvious reasons? We all did. I was a finance clerk for a few years and my thinking more than anything was that the 2 man deep policy was in place at a minimum to protect me from any allegations of theft. Of course I was going to follow the procedure so that I couldn't ever be accused of stealing tithing money. Common sense.

Now that we've all disaffected, our perceptions have changed. We see the risk and harm. Active TBM Mormons haven't had their perceptions changed. At least not until now when they hear the MTC president allegations. As perceptions change the church will slowly bow to pressure. Throw in a black eye scandal and change will occur slightly faster.

[Palerider]

After having a bad interview experience with a corrupt stake leader, I was still willing to go through the process and let my kids as well.

My problem with the worthiness interview wasn't initially with leaders asking inappropriate questions. The problem came with the idea of anyone setting themselves as a gateway between man and God. No man can truly judge another's worthiness. Only God can do that.

I found it more than interesting that in conference Bro. Anderson made mention that the "prophet" doesn’t stand between us and God. He stands BESIDE us and points the way to God."

What a lie. A very smooth one for non-critical thinkers but a lie nonetheless.

The sexual aspects of the interview came later for me. But the church will claim that with the power of the priesthood calling that the SP or Bishop have, they can discern an individual's worthiness.

But if that were true, how do so many idiots and perverts end up in these positions of authority? It becomes evident that the church really has no more discerning authority or priesthood power than I do as a non-member. It's all a crock.

[Give It Time]

Your friend makes a good point. I'll take an apologetic view for the church.

I heard of a case where a clerk counted up, recorded and deposited the tithing. He deposited the tithing utilizing an ATM machine. There was a malfunction in the machine and the tithing envelope fell down in the spot between the machine and the wall and the money was not deposited. When the bishop discovered the money was not deposited, the clerk got in all kinds of trouble. I can't remember if he was excommunicated or he resigned, but it got ugly for him and his family. A few months later, the machine was taken out for maintenance and guess what was found? Of course, too much water under the bridge for that clerk and his family. Don't know how real that story is. I heard it back on NOM, back in the day.

So, having a second person present can actually serve as a protection.

As for bishops' interviews and those skeevy questions. It hasn't been until recently we've learned that those types of things are grooming and that there are men who do exactly what is done in bishops' interviews for teens for fun. Yes, we're the Lord's church and should know better. However, humans. They are what they are. That's all I got.

Other than that, your friend makes excellent points. We, as a society, should have been doing this kind of self-examination all along.

[RubinHighlander]

How many of us before our disaffections just innocently sent our kids in to be interviewed alone? I did. Why didn't we stand up for protecting children then? Because we innocently believed that the Bishop had good intentions and that as a representative of The Lord's church, nothing could go wrong. We didn't think about it nor did we have to.

Yes, as hard as that is to admit, it's the harsh truth. My DW still has guilt over ever having let our children be subjected to that. We are greateful they never had any interviews that were mentally damaging. I just remind her that at least we have broken the cycle and that if we ever have grand kids they won't ever have to go through that indoctrination or be at risk in that institution.