Corrupt General Authorities and Their Huge Salaries

[ttribe]

Pure speculation from the both of you.

None of can see the future of Packer had he not become a GA. There is no telling what his salary would have been and who his employers would be.

It seems reasonable to me that had he never become a GA he would still have been able to pay for that nice house which I assume the church bought for him in return for his services as a church minister.

Paul O

If the Church did, in fact, buy the house FOR him, it shouldn't be too hard to verify. Real estate transaction records are a matter of public record. You need not continue under these assumptions if you really try.

[Paul Osborne]

If the Church did, in fact, buy the house FOR him, it shouldn't be too hard to verify. Real estate transaction records are a matter of public record. You need not continue under these assumptions if you really try.

That sounds easier said than done. First of all, I'm sitting on a chair here in Dallas which is quite a distance from Salt Lake. Second, it could be complicated trying to piece together records to show who paid for what and when. I wonder if there are locals that would want to scrounge around the records department digging for information to prove who paid for the house.

Paul O

[Daniel Peterson]

I fail to see any material difference.

I'm not surprised.

Still, there plainly is a material difference, and I believe that any reasonable person will see it. It's the same difference between announcing that 264 is the correct sum of 152 and 112, on the one hand, and, on the other, going after Jill because she got that sum wrong.

If a preacher testifies of the resurrection of Christ during his Sunday sermon, that's quite a different thing than using his Sunday sermon time to attack Judaism for its failure to accept the resurrection of Christ.

Its your doctrine that the LDS Church is the one and only true church on the face of the earth. You can't preach about the "great apostasy" and the "restoration" of Christ's Church without expressly attacking the "truth" of the faith of others.

You can't preach the resurrection of Christ without at least implicitly disagreeing with Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism, yet there are very few people who would be unable to see the plain difference between affirmatively preaching Christianity and attacking Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism.

You can't claim that the correct sum of 152 and 112 is 264 without tacitly denouncing as incorrect 263, 1055, 12, 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510, and a literally infinite host of other numbers.

The fact is that Latter-day Saint missionaries spend much, much, much less time and effort on the necessary doctrine of the apostasy than they do on the correlative doctrine of the restoration. If you really can't see the difference between affirming Mormonism and denouncing Catholicism, there's probably not much that can be done to help you.

But frankly, who cares. If you have all the answers, and are in business of saving souls, just do what you have to do.

How very faux-gracious of you!

[Daniel Peterson]

Pure speculation from the both of you.

I've been in President Packer's house. Have you?

I'm not speculating when I describe it as modest, and as nothing out of the ordinary.

What do you have to back up your accusations of greed, and of luxurious living?

None of can see the future of Packer had he not become a GA. There is no telling what his salary would have been and who his employers would be.

It's entirely reasonable to assume that his employer would have continued to be the Church Education System. And, in that case, we can have a pretty sound ballpark idea of what his salary would have been.

It seems reasonable to me that had he never become a GA he would still have been able to pay for that nice house which I assume the church bought for him in return for his services as a church minister.

Such evidence as there is -- which has been cited on this very thread -- suggests that it was Elder Packer himself who bought the house, not "the Church."

If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, share it. If you don't, humble silence might be the better choice. (And, anyway, haven't you vowed -- at least twice -- to stay out of this thread?)

[Widow's Son]

>>can you please elaborate on your 'no doubt' fraction<<

Not mathematically, but I can reasonably.

At the time of his first full time calling (Mission President), he was on a fast track as the highest placed official in his nation's office of a fortune 500 financial services company. He was the youngest person in the entire worldwide company to hold that level of position. He lived in one of the toniest neighborhoods in one of the more expensive cities in the world, and had at least 25 years left for further executive advancement. Senior management at his company rank among the "beyond rich".

Today he lives (happily) in a smallish retirement condo on Medicare and Social Security. One of his kids that I spoke to said that there is little net worth remaining, but nobody in the family cares as they were all grateful for the opportunity to serve.

[ebeddoulos]

Fine, let me be a source of a good laugh. Laugh all you want. Just so know, I keep the rules around here the best I can and expect others to do the same.

Paul O

You are correct. That is a thigh slapper. What rule might you be keeping that others, in your judgment, may not be? Can you point to a specific example? May I suggest that you locate an example that has a negativity index rating worse than your own

[Paul Osborne]

I've been in President Packer's house. Have you?

No, I haven't had that luxury.

I'm not speculating when I describe it as modest, and as nothing out of the ordinary.

That of course depends on your definition of modest and ordinary and how you compare with what a typical American would think.

What do you have to back up your accusations of greed, and of luxurious living?

I don't recall.

It's entirely reasonable to assume that his employer would have continued to be the Church Education System. And, in that case, we can have a pretty sound ballpark idea of what his salary would have been.

I'm not going to assume that. Whether Packer would have stuck with the low paying job at CES is anyone's guess. He might have moved on within a few years time looking for more lucrative opportunities. All we know is that when the church offered a full time job at the highest levels within the church ministry he took it. Along with that job comes compensation and the means to pay bills.

Such evidence as there is -- which has been cited on this very thread -- suggests that it was Elder Packer himself who bought the house, not "the Church."

Sure, I can easily accept that Packer bought the house but did so with the compensation the church gave him for working in the ministry full time.

If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, share it. If you don't, humble silence might be the better choice. (And, anyway, haven't you vowed -- at least twice -- to stay out of this thread?)

Humble silence is how LDS financial records are kept. I'd love to see the books opened and compensation in all its forms made public to the tithe dollar payers of the church. That is wishful thinking, but more and more people will demand that as time goes on.

BTW, The only thing I've vowed is to be nice to you. So you be nice to me too.

Paul O

[ttribe]

That sounds easier said than done. First of all, I'm sitting on a chair here in Dallas which is quite a distance from Salt Lake. Second, it could be complicated trying to piece together records to show who paid for what and when. I wonder if there are locals that would want to scrounge around the records department digging for information to prove who paid for the house.

Paul O

And I'm sitting in Phoenix...most counties have online search capabilities and will allow you to see the change in ownership information, including buyer and seller.

[Paul Osborne]

You are correct. That is a thigh slapper. What rule might you be keeping that others, in your judgment, may not be? Can you point to a specific example? May I suggest that you locate an example that has a negativity index rating worse than your own

[Daniel Peterson]

No, I haven't had that luxury.

LOL. It wasn't a "luxury."

That of course depends on your definition of modest and ordinary and how you compare with what a typical American would think.

I expect that I'm pretty standard-issue in that regard.

I grew up in a middle-class family, worked construction up through graduate school, count among my uncles welders, farmers, truck drivers, construction workers, insurance agents, and the like. My maternal grandfather was an itinerant sheep shearer. My paternal grandfather was a farmer.

Attempts on your board to portray me as wealthy and out of touch with ordinary people are just as ridiculous as most of the other things they say about me there.

I don't recall.

Which, being interpreted, means "zilch, zero, zip, nada, nothing."

And yet, without even the slightest pretense of evidence, you continue to make absolutely lunatic accusations elsewhere:

The dirt is there if only people will dig. The church leaders have been doing this for a long time and surely they have made some sloppy mistakes that can be exposed once uncovered. It's only a matter of time before LDS priestcraft is exposed. If only one of the 12 would defect! Unfortunately it would cost a lot money to buy him.

Brigham Young loved a big house filled with naked ladies and plenty of wine, no doubt. I can only imagine the orgies that took place. Wow!

"No doubt." Evidence? "I don't recall."

Amazing.

All we know is that when the church offered a full time job at the highest levels within the church ministry he took it.

Back before your recent apostasy, you would have remembered that we Latter-day Saints term that "accepting a calling," and that active Latter-day Saints don't seek callings, very rarely turn callings down, and never do so lightly.

Now, in your apostate mode, you prefer to portray it as "accepting a job."

.

[cdowis]

"No doubt." Evidence? "I don't recall."

You forgot, "I imagine".

Is this guy serious? Dig up the dirt, waiting for one of the apostles to break rank, but it would cost an enoumous amount of money??

Anyway, in this same vein, admit it, Daniel. With the enormous sums that you are paid for being an apologist, you have lost your roots to the common man. I can only dream that I will move up in the apologetic organization to that vaunted position that you now hold.

I can only imagine.

[Daniel Peterson]

Is this guy serious?

The simple answer is, No, he's not serious. Not intellectually serious, anyway. No matter how earnest he may be at any given moment.

Anyway, in this same vein, admit it, Daniel. With the enormous sums that you are paid for being an apologist, you have lost your roots to the common man. I can only dream that I will move up in the apologetic organization to that vaunted position that you now hold.

If you think you're going to be getting platinum bathroom fixtures and a Caribbean retreat like I have any time soon, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. I'm still accumulating. I still need a Swiss alpine cottage, a larger yacht, a faster private jet, and unlimited chips at the Bellagio. There's nothing left for you, bucko.

I can only imagine.

And, as Paul Osborne demonstrates on a regular basis, that's entirely enough. Furthermore, coupled with spite and envy, it makes for a pretty potent argument. If you're in the mood. (Chemical additives would help on that score, I suspect.)

.

[Glenn101]

You forgot, "I imagine".

Is this guy serious? Dig up the dirt, waiting for one of the apostles to break rank, but it would cost an enoumous amount of money??

Anyway, in this same vein, admit it, Daniel. With the enormous sums that you are paid for being an apologist, you have lost your roots to the common man. I can only dream that I will move up in the apologetic organization to that vaunted position that you now hold.

I can only imagine.

I received some sage advice several years ago. Of course I normally ignore it. But it goes something like this: "Never argue with a ______________ (insert favorite antagonistic type here). He/she will drag you down to his/her level and beat you with experience.

Glenn

[ebeddoulos]

I really don't want to get into an exchange about how we keep rules around here. I've had to suggest to others Latter-day Saint posters to please reframe from referring to various forms of bodily excretement when making snide remarks in my direction.

And now you're mentioning vomit. That's it. I'm leaving this thread for good.

Count me out!

Paul O

I love it! I merely had to quote your own vile statement and you leave? Kewl! I'll have to do that more often. Does that work on other anti-Mormons as well? Or was that just a rather typical, dishonorable anti-Mormon attempt to shift the blame for your vileness.

[Joanna]

This is rediculous!

[rodheadlee]

Do you mean ridiculous?

[Daniel Peterson]

Unfortunately, Paul is consumed with hatred, envy, and bitterness. I honestly don't know why, although I have some suspicions.

[StepfordWife]

i don't think any GA is in it for the money, even if was lucrative and it might be (there are book deals and all that). Regardless i have always been of the opinion the GA's believe in what they are doing and frankly i just don't see mormonism as the medium through which to enjoy wealth even if we assume it was the vehicle through which it was obtained.

The posters over at RFM made me uncomfortable when i was first questioning the church. They don't make me uncomfortable now but i do think of all the ex\post whatever boards they remain the most angry. Part of the idealization\demonization cycle is demonizing that which you used to find faultless. When you quickly go from seeing EVERYTHING about the church as good to questioning it seems to be a normal part of the human condition to go through a period of demonizing it in which EVERYTHING about the church is bad as part of exiting. Some don't seem to get out of this. i was certainly stuck. Its not fun i assure you. It is it's own kind of hell.

Anyway... i know why they do it. i sympathize but i certainly do not buy into all the conspiracy theory BS. Right or wrong the GA's believe they are doing what is right, what is good. i cannot find fault with their intentions. i did not used to believe that but i am coming from a more tempered place now, more sympathetic to the human condition in general.

i stay away from that board for the most part. i just don't find much helpful there, mostly just ad museum re-hashing of the same old thing and knee jerk reactions to pretty much anything you might be able to spin as unfavorable to the church.

The mall project is one of the hot buttons over there. i have to say i watched the PBS segment and i simply find no problem with it, like at all. Jobs are jobs as far as i'm concerned.

[Paul McNabb]

Getting back to Elder Packer's home, the online records show that the value of the land went from $616,290 in 2007 to $1,220,690 in 2008. Something happened in 2007/2008 that doubled the value of his land. You can also see that the value of his home has dropped by about 45% in the last two years.

Year.....Land Value.....Building Value....Market Value

2009.....$1,248,090.....$358,700..........$1,606,790

2008.....$1,220,690.....$486,700..........$1,707,390

2007........$616,290.....$649,900..........$1,266,190

2006........$586,030.....$509,800..........$1,095,830

2005........$488,340.....$533,500..........$1,021,840

2004........$488,340.....$517,200..........$1,005,540

Just some data that someone else might be able to use to draw a conclusion...

[ERayR]

Getting back to Elder Packer's home, the online records show that the value of the land went from $616,290 in 2007 to $1,220,690 in 2008. Something happened in 2007/2008 that doubled the value of his land. You can also see that the value of his home has dropped by about 45% in the last two years.

Year.....Land Value.....Building Value....Market Value

2009.....$1,248,090.....$358,700..........$1,606,790

2008.....$1,220,690.....$486,700..........$1,707,390

2007........$616,290.....$649,900..........$1,266,190

2006........$586,030.....$509,800..........$1,095,830

2005........$488,340.....$533,500..........$1,021,840

2004........$488,340.....$517,200..........$1,005,540

Just some data that someone else might be able to use to draw a conclusion...

Its all about time and location, time and location, time and location.

[StepfordWife]

Its all about time and location, time and location, time and location.

How does anyone draw the conclusion he is "corrupt" or makes a huge salary from this? If he lived in CA no one would even blink.

If you look at the church like a corporation GA's are probably the worst paid executives out there. A million dollars just isn't that much money anymore.

In addition i don't understand how looking at a GA's property value, or even their net worth for that matter, really amounts to anything. If they've written any books that have sold well there is absolutely no reason to assume the bulk of their income is coming from a salary paid by the church.

[Jeff K.]

I appreciate your words stepford, too many people want to create a nefarious scheme for personal riches. Too many think personal riches are the only motivation, no one is willing to acknowledge that people choose things because they believe they are doing good and are willing to sacrifice for the greater good.

You can argue that they are misguided, if of course you do not believe the church to be true, you can even argue that the church is true and they are misguided (variations exist along those lines). But to believe that talented men walk away from awesome careers and companies Eyering research for instance has (or had in the past) lucrative defense contracts and is a successful ongoing concern, or senior executives for large airliners, they walk away from such things and give up their lucrative financial futures. For those who are members and have a testimony, it is clear, for those who don't, well the good project good, they see that these people try to do what is right, and those with less than good intentions will of course see the same in all others. They are not vile old men with a vile agenda of power and money. They are good men, and whether you believe in their cause or not, they are trying to do well with the best intentions. You can argue results, you can argue methodology, but you cannot argue intention.

[Jeff K.]

How does anyone draw the conclusion he is "corrupt" or makes a huge salary from this? If he lived in CA no one would even blink.

If you look at the church like a corporation GA's are probably the worst paid executives out there. A million dollars just isn't that much money anymore.

In addition i don't understand how looking at a GA's property value, or even their net worth for that matter, really amounts to anything. If they've written any books that have sold well there is absolutely no reason to assume the bulk of their income is coming from a salary paid by the church.

Living in CA, Orange County, my house went from 400K to over a million and then back down to somewhere around 700K. All in six years. Property value is a non revenue producing asset. It is almost entirely dependent on percieved values by others and it produces nothing in the way of cash for you or your personal wealth. And an indicator of revenue it is false. My firm used to buy companies that were literally bankrupt, but had large amounts of percieved property assets (of course when we tried to convert them to revenue they subsequently were worth less than the asserted value). Sitting on land that one purchased decades ago is simply not the way to distinguish wealth. Farmers may own millions in assets, but struggle to make payments in order to keep themselvse above water. Is the farmer working 12-15 hours a day incredibly wealthy? Not really, he just happens to have expensive land he chooses not to sell.

People who conflate income wealth with land conflate the issue.

[StepfordWife]

I appreciate your words stepford.

Well i think this new medication i'm on is working. i "feel" quite a bit more objective. Maybe i'll hop over to RFM and tell them all about it so they can stop hating. i understand where they are at and sympathize. Religion is a powerful thing. Leaving it really can make people crazy. Some people go mad while still in it. When a zealot falls watch out.

i'm sure you will not be surprised to hear me say just about everyone in my family, even those who have also left, have told me "don't throw the baby out with the bath water."

Its hard though.

i will say i have appreciated some of the comments on this board from a few believers who do seem to think it possible that for some of us the church, for me religion at all, just doesn't work. That does not change the fact that mormonism is a HUGE part of my identity. Its meant to be. It touches every aspect of your life. Every decision. Everything.

i'll shut up now before i get in trouble again for talking about my feelings =P

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm afraid that some of the recent comments on this thread have been entirely too sane. Something needs to be done about it.