Corrupt General Authorities and Their Huge Salaries

[Jeff K.]

A close coworker and friend is an avowed atheist. We understand and respect each others position even if we don't agree. He once asked me, "if you are wrong and I am right, who do you blame?"

I asked him the same. We both laughed and tee'd up for the next hole.

[lingo]

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

I appreciated your words. Maybe you could share some of your new meds with me.

At the end of the day, I don't care is Packer lives in a 6.1 million dollar place vs. his 1.6. Just the same as Benny Hinn flying his Gulfstream or any evangelist. What I do care about is accountablility and if any organization, be it the LDS, the Scientologist, or your neighborhood food bank, wants to say they are tax exempt, then YES, I do believe they should have open financials. Tax exempt organizations have a responsibility to the citizens of the United States since those same citizens grant them tax immunity.

[Sleeper Cell]

What I do care about is accountablility and if any organization, be it the LDS, the Scientologist, or your neighborhood food bank, wants to say they are tax exempt, then YES, I do believe they should have open financials. Tax exempt organizations have a responsibility to the citizens of the United States since those same citizens grant them tax immunity.

In other words, you want to use tax law to coerce churches into giving up their privacy.

I get it. Separation of church and state.

[Anijen]

I googled earth on it. Its big but not that big. And in no way is it luxurious.

[Jeff K.]

What I do care about is accountablility and if any organization, be it the LDS, the Scientologist, or your neighborhood food bank, wants to say they are tax exempt, then YES, I do believe they should have open financials. Tax exempt organizations have a responsibility to the citizens of the United States since those same citizens grant them tax immunity.

That is true, if you believe the people owe taxes to the government. I see it as the other way around, the government should justify why it is taxing the people and tax as little as possible. The finances of the church are responsible to its members (if you have no faith in the Church of Jesus Christ) or to Jesus Christ (for those who do have the faith). All members have to do is cease to raise their hands in support of the prophet and reject him and the authority God gave the prophet. Simple as that. It is an internal matter, nothing more.

[ERayR]

I appreciated your words. Maybe you could share some of your new meds with me.

YES, I do believe they should have open financials. Tax exempt organizations have a responsibility to the citizens of the United States since those same citizens grant them tax immunity.

The Church fulfils its responsibility to the citizens of the US by filing tax returns and independent audits every year. Just because they are tax exempt does not mean that they are not required to file a tax return, thay are and they do.

[Calm]

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.

My parents bought a house in the early 70's by San Francisco for around $50,000. Two decades or so later they sold it for close to $400,000. I imagine it must be way over a million by now. Perhaps when I have more time I'll check.

[Daniel Peterson]

My parents bought a house in the early 70's by San Francisco for around $50,000. Two decades or so later they sold it for close to $400,000. I imagine it must be way over a million by now. Perhaps when I have more time I'll check.

Plainly, in the spirit of the some of the savants commenting on this subject elsewhere, your parents extracted roughly $350,000.00 from widows and orphans and the poor over the course of two decades -- that's very nearly $20,000.00 in vicious exploitation per annum, on average, and the folks to whom they sold the property have gouged the underprivileged at an even faster clip (minimally $30,000.00 per year).

This calls, I think, for a criminal investigation. And there should be legislation to freeze real estate prices in place, and to repeal the law of supply and demand. And . . . oh yes, the Church is false.

[Paul Osborne]

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

Count me out. I'm not getting involved. You guys play too rough. This time I mean it. I'm not going to get suckered into it.

Paul O

[Daniel Peterson]

Count me out. I'm not getting involved. You guys play too rough. This time I mean it. I'm not going to get suckered into it.

Nonsense, Paul. There's nothing on this thread even remotely as nasty, hateful, insulting, and defamatory as the things you routinely post, on this very topic, over at the Sweetness and Light and Charity Board.

Here, for example, is your latest emission, which is relatively mild by your standards:

The terms:

LIVING ALLOWANCE & STIPEND

Are nothing more than salary, perks, bonuses, extras, women, wine, dope, cocaine, whores, etc.

OPEN THE BOOKS YOU CROOKS! My gut tells me those guys have been skimming off the top for a long long time and they feel just fine about it. They think they deserve it by virtue of their position and are worth many times that of a blue collar man. The white collar man keeps the blue collar man down just as much as whites kept blacks down or men keeping women down. The church leaders are a giant hypocrite. They stink with pride.

Check the GA's bank accounts, deposit boxes, securities, and all the other forms of money they have hidden up for themselves.

People here have asked for facts, though. And for logic. And this board doesn't exactly cater to some of your other . . . er, avocations.

.

[Nofear]

Well, as Paul Osborne said he tries to abide by the rules here. Unfortunately, one of the rules is that claims that go beyond mere opinion can be called out for citation. Consequently, in all the pages of this thread he has added exactly 0 substantial information but has simply repeated over and over and over his baseless opinion (tag teaming with some like-minded individuals) despite ample substantial refutation of both fact and logic.

I am keenly reminded of a similar situation concerning a gun and a martyr. I declare my predictions for this thread (post #107) duly fulfilled.

[Daniel Peterson]

How many millions of dollars have been funneled into the GA accounts is anyone's guess.

I'm afraid too many people on this board are suckers and don't realize how white collar men who band together are nothing but crooks whether in the church or without. They are crooks! CROOKS!

There's no way of characterizing posts like that above as other than hyperdramatic wack-job class-envy nonsense.

And what evidence is offered to support it? "Anybody's guess."

[Daniel Peterson]

Another of the sages ventures to describe the life of an LDS General Authority:

One thing I'd point out is that independent of the value of homes, GAs live the executive lifestyle. Private jets, five star hotels and dining, and how about catered lunch during a normal work day?

I fly with them on their private jets from time to time. These elegant vehicles are disguised as Delta Airlines planes, with a lot of Church employees such as myself riding along, pretending to be "passengers" so it'll look kosher.

The five star hotels? Often extra bedrooms in stake presidents' homes.

And the catered lunches on normal work days? There's a cafeteria in the basement of the Church Administration Building. I've seen apostles and members of the First Presidency there a few times when I've been in the building, but I've never yet managed to actually catch anybody dropping grapes in their mouths while they reclined. Hope springs eternal, though.

In the meantime, our friend Paul piles on the decisive and damning evidence:

Oh believe me, I can well imagine how those men in suits & ties can ring up a tab while the working class cater to them. Just imagine what is in the accounts of the 12 apostles of the Lamb. Total it up! I'd love to see those figures. The poor Latter-day saints would be dizzy with envy. So much for the law of consecration!

.

[Daniel Peterson]

Don't worry. I'll stop the posting of material from my Malevolent Stalker's board fairly soon -- I admit that I've found some of the nonsense that's been posted there absolutely fascinating -- if only because I'm going to be really, really busy tomorrow (it being my Mormon Bishop's Day of Rest) and on Monday, and because I'm leaving the country on Monday evening.

But I think I should reply to this one, which was posted there in response to something I wrote just above:

Doctor Peterson has point blank denied that the GAs fly on private jets, that they only travel humbly on coach flights.

Of course, I've done nothing of the sort.

I know that the Utah billionaire Jon Huntsman offered the use of his private jet to President Hinckley, and that President Hinckley used it. At least sometimes. And I think that's wonderful. I remember when President Hinckley once met with leaders and spoke to large crowds in nine major Mexican cities in the space of seven days, which would have been virtually impossible using commercial flights. (The time would have been spent meeting awkward flight times and waiting in airports.) And the time he worked in the office, flew to Nauvoo, laid the cornerstone of the new temple, and was back with Marjorie that evening. I remember, too, when President Hinckley zipped around several of the Polynesian islands, meeting with the Saints there. I happen to know that air-connections between many of those islands are difficult if not effectively non-existent. (One has to fly to Auckland, New Zealand, in order to get from one small island to the next.) I'm very happy that such a tool was offered to President Hinckley, and I presume that President Monson has the same opportunity. That's great! And, after their years and years and years of almost constant travel, I think it's absolutely peachy that these men in their eighties and nineties have gotten a bit of help from a very generous member of the Church. (On the other board, the Brethren are said to be luxuriating in the money they've extracted from the widows, orphans, and poor of the Church.)

But do the Twelve or even the other members of the First Presidency typically fly on private jets? I doubt it very much. Anyway, flying as much as I do, and flying as much as I do out of Salt Lake City, I've seen members of the Twelve in the regular section of the airport and on Delta Airlines planes on a number of occasions. And as for the Seventy, I suspect that they never fly on private planes, or just about never.

[Daniel Peterson]

Sorry. It's just too good not to post. From my Malevolent Stalker's board, a familiar voice:

I'm not bothering with proof or witnesses. Unlike the other board I don't have to back up what I say. This isn't MAD and over here we can accuse without haven't to submit any kind of proof at all. Over here, my friends will forgive me of my crazyness after a few days go by. But over on MAD they will hate me forever. That is the difference between being Christian and being hateful.

Being "Christian," it seems, means being free to publicly accuse others of gross immorality and wrongdoing without any need for evidence. And it's "hateful" to object to that.

Hallelujah!

[Pahoran]

Why on earth would I want to reply to such an unChristian remark? I won't!

Let's see.

You've been baselessly accusing devoted Church leaders who did not apply for their callings as hogs with their snouts in the trough, but as soon as anyone suggests you need to get in touch with reality, it's just too "unChristian" for you to deal with.

Criticism of posters are "unChristian," while serious, unsubstantiated accusations against non-posters are absolutely hunky-dory; is that it?

Incidentally, you should change your MDB avatar. The one you use here is much better-looking.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I fail to see any material difference.

I agree, Jaybear. Your inability to see a material difference, when it is really so remarkably obvious, is indeed your failure.

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.

Can't we? Actually we can; we know we can, because it is an established fact that we do.

Now of course I don't deny -- and would not want to deny, even if I could -- that accepting the Restoration and the concomitant apostasy, does indeed implicitly reject important elements of the faith of others. Acceptance of an exclusive truth claim necessarily entails the wholesale rejection of all incompatible claims. But we do not run through laundry lists of doctrinal and/or historical problems with other churches; implicit rejection, you see, is not the same as an express attack. As you should know, given the actions of your own co-irreligionists. For example, while some disaffected Mormons expressly attack the Church of Jesus Christ, and the faith of the Latter-day Saints, not all do, even though all of them have rejected the Gospel to some degree or another.

The two things, you see, are not the same.

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

We will. That is, we will continue to preach the Gospel in its fulness without "expressly attacking" anything else. Unlike you, we don't have to.

While on the subject of material differences that are too subtle for some to grasp, I thought of this:

It was, he thought, the difference between being dragged into the arena to face a battle to the death and walking into the arena with your head held high. Some people, perhaps, would say that there was little to choose between the two ways, but Dumbledore knew - and so do I, thought Harry, with a rush of fierce pride, and so did my parents - that there was all the difference in the world. ~J.K. Rowling, "Horcruxes," Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, 2005

Regards,

Pahoran

[Paul Osborne]

Incidentally, you should change your MDB avatar. The one you use here is much better-looking.

That was so sweet of you to say that, Pahoran. I really appreciate it.

Thanks,

Paul O

[Pahoran]

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.

Ebed,

you may need to cut Paul a little slack. He's been known to post when he is somewhat "under the weather," and so it may simply be the case that he genuinely cannot remember posting that remark.

In much the same way as some people can't remember what they did at the New Years Eve party....

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hestia]

I think this discussion has run it's course.