Corrupt General Authorities and Their Huge Salaries

[Ceeboo]

Been missing ya Boo ! Where ya been? Been to any good BBQs lately ?

Hi ya gmormon,

Been missing you all too !!!!!

Things are good here, hope all is well in your part of the World.

Have been on a few other forums lately ( Signed up at CARM a few days ago. WOW !!!! That place can be a little ugly real fast )

Great to be back !!!!

Disclaimer : The above post was off topic as direct result of gmormon. Ceeboo will not take responsability for said post. Any and all complaints should be lodged against gmormon and gmormon alone.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[mfbukowski]

deleted; may have been inaccurate

[ERayR]

Ok I can see how that is going to affect an employee on a IRS level. If you read my original post I was speaking of my observation of reported compensation on the corporate financial statements. I went back and checked and what we're specifically talking about is UK GAAP and I was responding to cal's question if that would include travel expenses, etc. I said no and I still say that is accurate. Are you saying I'm wrong?

Phaedrus

Phaedrus

I can't say you are wrong or right. As I have pointed out it is a matter of facts and circumstances. In these cases it is never cut and dryed. Reporting on financial statements is again affected by how the transactions are handled. I have no knowledge of UK GAAP except as it coinsides with US GAAP.

Knowing how the church operates I would say that at the very least they have an accountable plan for reimbursement. Knowing how organizations operate I would say that travel arrangements are taken care of, for the most part, by a church travel department and the GA's do not worry about booking or paying for their own travel.

All that said my best guess is that church expenses are not included in income.

All the above being said I don't see how any of the above affects the message or the purpose of the church.

[Ceeboo]

All the above being said I don't see how any of the above affects the message or the purpose of the church.

Indeed !!!!!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Zakuska]

deleted; may have been inaccurate

If it was about CARM it probaby wasn't.

[SilverKnight]

Over on the oddly-named "Recovery" board, which is far more bizarre, even, than my Malevolent Stalker's lair, some of the inmates are pooling their ignorance and hostility in a discussion of the "ginormous salaries and spend[ing?] accounts" that "guarantee and ensure" that General Authorities don't leave the Church like these self-styled heroic geniuses have: "If they were paid less, you'd probably see them leaving more often."

This must be the #1 apostate delusion: That GA's are getting obscenely wealthy and living like kings off the tithing of the members.

It is complete paranoid insanity.

I've known exactly one GA, and two mission presidents, personally. In all three cases they were wealthy enough to semi-retire when the call came, and whatever living stipend they received from the church was far below their previous income. In all three cases, they viewed their calling as a worthwhile financial sacrifice: They would not be earning any money, but were leaving their former lifestyles behind to do a greater work. All three were encouraged to get their financial affairs in order prior to starting the call for the express reason that they would be living more 'humbly'.

[Nofear]

I predict this thread will be Markked.

Markked: Repeated and insistent denunciation of a church or its practices stemming from a baseless bias despite being confronted with contradictory evidence that is abundant and readily available.

[Calm]

Many current General Authorities were raised in humble circumstances

and became successful because of hard work and higher education.

Why should they be faulted for that?

It seems strange to assume that someone who comes from a blue collar family who makes the choice to take a white collar job and who may succeed greatly at it is somehow automatically less humble or less 'in touch' with humanity.

Kind of a reverse snobbery actually.

[Calm]

You can't put everyone to lead the Church in top positions because positions are limited and GAs tend to live very long lives. In due time, all qualified people move up in the system, on a need and orderly basis. I think the Lord is already in charge of the callings. Nobody is questioning His choices, only commenting on the patterns.

It makes great sense to me to call people who are required to devote their whole heart, mind and body to the work practically 24/7 who do not have the additional burden of worrying about finances. The Church can take care of this burden while they labour in the field, but for most there comes a time afterwards and the sacrifice of the devoted years could have a huge impact on types of careers. With a quite large group to draw from, choosing those on the financially comfortable side is very wise imo.

[gmormon]

Hi ya gmormon,

Been missing you all too !!!!!

Things are good here, hope all is well in your part of the World.

Have been on a few other forums lately ( Signed up at CARM a few days ago. WOW !!!! That place can be a little ugly real fast )

Great to be back !!!!

Disclaimer : The above post was off topic as direct result of gmormon. Ceeboo will not take responsability for said post. Any and all complaints should be lodged against gmormon and gmormon alone.

Peace,

Ceeboo

It's the rebel in me Boo. Always looking for a tangent to distract the distracters !

[John Larsen]

Considering that the General Authority's stipends are not paid from tithing but from the income generated by the private tax-paying businesses of the Church this would not be bothersome to me at all (if true - which has not been established). The fact remains that the General Authorities do not glut themselves on the monies offered up by the membership of the Church. Unless you can challenge that fact, why such a silly question?

Since you call that a "fact" I of course must issue a CFR for your claim.

[Daniel Peterson]

Okay folks, I went through (4) pages of this thread and not a single person even provided proof either for or against Dr. Peterson's personal testimoney of President Packer's ~~quaint-little-average-suburban-home-in-teh-valley~~.

http://www.assessor....uery/query2.cfm (enter 1850, packer)

So, at his 1850 address there are two listed for him -- one for a 2009 market value of $482,300 (which is far more than my house is worth....lol) and one for $1,606,790. What? 1.6 million dollars is now considered "a reasonably average suburban neighborhood southward in Salt Lake Valley.

edit:

http://extras.sltrib.com/HomePrices/

BULL FLIPPIN CRAP. DCP, you either posted it in this way to prove to us how rich & well-off you are personally (because "many of the homes in (your) own neighborhood are MUCH LARGER"), or lied to us outright.

Much as I appreciate the charming personal insults, I neither lied nor boasted.

It's been several years since I've been in President Packer's home, and I've only been there once, but I would be enormously surprised if it's worth anything even remotely like 1.6 million dollars. And a <500K home is not precisely lavish by today's standards, even with the current economic slump (let alone a year or two ago).

I don't know what to make of there being two structures (on the same property?). The home I visited -- which is plainly the one in which he was living -- wasn't tiny, but it wasn't large, either. And -- I think this is relevant -- he raised ten children in it. Doing so in a two-bedroom apartment would have been rather awkward He told me that he had built the home himself (I have no idea whether that means that he had it built or that he actually did all or most of the framing and wiring and etc. himself; some people do such things), and that he did so when he was first called as an assistant to the Twelve. He put it rather far south in the Valley because, he said, he "wanted to be as far away from Pharaoh's court as possible" -- which I took to mean that he really wanted to be home and fully with his family when he was home.

The place was absolutely not ostentatious or lavish. Nobody walking into it unaware of the identity of its occupant would ever be constrained to say "Oooooh! This clearly belongs to a wealthy and powerful man!"

There is a parallel thread to this one over on another board, a thread of which my Malevolent Stalker is the impresario and chief demagogue. Somebody there says that Elder Packer's home sits on two acres. That may be true, for all I know. I can easily imagine that the relatively high valuation of the property might be largely due to its size, in a suburban neighborhood that has grown up considerably since Elder Packer purchased the then-cheap land in a fairly distant and undeveloped spot back in the sixties. This is a common phenomenon. One of our best friends in our neighborhood is a former fruit farmer who has done exceedingly well by subdividing and selling off land that was once cheap but -- to put it mildly -- no longer is. And there are many multimillionaire Idaho potato farmers whose money is entirely in their land. It would be ridiculous to regard most of these salt-of-the-earth types as anything remotely like tycoons or venture capitalists or junk-bond traders.

If you want to call me a liar or insult me in other ways, though, feel free. I'm not unaccustomed to graceless and uncivil fanatics. The fact remains that I've seen the house, and been in it, and it's absolutely nothing extraordinary.

Incidentally, for what it's worth: Those who seek to portray LDS General Authorities as a greedy tithe-payer supported financial elite heighten the effect of their misrepresentation by comparing them to the supposed "blue collar workers," the humble peasant fishermen and carpenters, who were Jesus' first disciples. But this, too, may be a distortion. In the center of the ruins of Capernaum, just south of the synagogue, are the purported remains of the home of St. Peter, chief of the apostles. I'm generally skeptical of such identifications, but the archaeological evidence, in this particular case, seems to me (and to many others) remarkably strong. I think this was his home. And it was, by the standards of the day and the place, a pretty nice house. Not lavish, but one of the better houses in the village, if not, indeed, altogether the best. Peter wasn't merely a fisherman. He seems to have been a businessman, and a successful one, at that.

.

[Nofear]

Since you call that a "fact" I of course must issue a CFR for your claim.

Already done in a previous post. You must have missed it.

[Calm]

This was not always the case though. In order to start the business, I used my own funds just as I believe the church used tithing funds early on to acquire many of their assets.

There have been significant contributions given to the Church over and above tithing. There are also the properties acquired when the Church was first established in Utah. While it is likely that tithing was used to a certain extent, it was certainly not the whole amount.

I also believe that due to the entanglement of government and church in the early days as well as the times that the Church had debt issues that it is not possible to even closely estimate what went where.

What is important to me is simply that it is for the most part well managed---that the tithing, if any is used, isn't just disappearing into a bottomless pit---and I see that in the ability to build where and when it's needed as well as what appears to me as wise business choices in various places.

[gmormon]

...Incidentally, for what it's worth: Those who seek to portray LDS General Authorities as a greedy tithe-payer supported financial elite heighten the effect of their misrepresentation by comparing them to the humble peasant fishermen and carpenters who were Jesus' first disciples. But this, too, may be a distortion. In the center of the ruins of Capernaum, just south of the synagogue, are the purported remains of the home of St. Peter, chief of the apostles. I'm generally skeptical of such identifications, but the archaeological evidence, in this particular case, seems to me (and to many others) remarkably strong. I think this was his home. And it was, by the standards of the day and the place, a pretty nice house. Not lavish, but one of the better houses in the village, if not, indeed, altogether the best. Peter wasn't merely a fisherman. He seems to have been a businessman, and a successful one, at that.

Yes but what is it home worth today...?

Notice: No Emoticons where used or harmed in making this post to insure that the poster, me, did not incurr the wrath of Dan:)

[ERayR]

Much as I appreciate the charming personal insults, I neither lied nor boasted.

It's been several years since I've been in President Packer's home, and I've only been there once, but I would be enormously surprised if it's worth anything even remotely like 1.6 million dollars. And a <500K home is not precisely lavish by today's standards, even with the current economic slump (let alone a year or two ago).

I don't know what to make of there being two structures (on the same property?). The home I visited -- which is plainly the one in which he was living -- wasn't tiny, but it wasn't large, either. And -- I think this is relevant -- he raised ten children in it. Doing so in a two-bedroom apartment would have been rather awkward He told me that he had built the home himself (I have no idea whether that means that he had it built or that he actually did all or most of the framing and wiring and etc. himself; some people do such things), and that he did so when he was first called as an assistant to the Twelve. He put it rather far south in the Valley because, he said, he "wanted to be as far away from Pharaoh's court as possible" -- which I took to mean that he really wanted to be home and fully with his family when he was home.

The place was absolutely not ostentatious or lavish. Nobody walking into it unaware of the identity of its occupant would ever be constrained to say "Oooooh! This clearly belongs to a wealthy and powerful man!"

There is a parallel thread to this one over on another board, a thread of which my Malevolent Stalker is the impresario and chief demagogue. Somebody there says that Elder Packer's home sits on two acres. That may be true, for all I know. I can easily imagine that the relatively high valuation of the property might be largely due to its size, in a suburban neighborhood that has grown up considerably since Elder Packer purchased the then-cheap land in a fairly distant and undeveloped spot back in the sixties. This is a common phenomenon. One of our best friends in our neighborhood is a former fruit farmer who has done exceedingly well by subdividing and selling off land that was once cheap but -- to put it mildly -- no longer is. And there are many multimillionaire Idaho potato farmers whose money is entirely in their land. It would be ridiculous to regard most of these salt-of-the-earth types as anything remotely like tycoons or venture capitalists or junk-bond traders.

If you want to call me a liar or insult me in other ways, though, feel free. I'm not unaccustomed to graceless and uncivil fanatics. The fact remains that I've seen the house, and been in it, and it's absolutely nothing extraordinary.

Incidentally, for what it's worth: Those who seek to portray LDS General Authorities as a greedy tithe-payer supported financial elite heighten the effect of their misrepresentation by comparing them to the humble peasant fishermen and carpenters who were Jesus' first disciples. But this, too, may be a distortion. In the center of the ruins of Capernaum, just south of the synagogue, are the purported remains of the home of St. Peter, chief of the apostles. I'm generally skeptical of such identifications, but the archaeological evidence, in this particular case, seems to me (and to many others) remarkably strong. I think this was his home. And it was, by the standards of the day and the place, a pretty nice house. Not lavish, but one of the better houses in the village, if not, indeed, altogether the best. Peter wasn't merely a fisherman. He seems to have been a businessman, and a successful one, at that.

I do not doubt for a minute that a large portion of the value John L has attributed to Elder Packers home and property is attributable to inflation of land values from the 60's to the present. I have seen a lot of it. I know several people who have, after raising thier families, sold their larger homes and farms and have retired quite comfortably. People who would not have been able to do so if it were not for the inflated values of their property.

Where does the idea that in order to serve honorably one must be a pauper.

[Daniel Peterson]

Over on the oddly-named "Recovery" board, which is far more bizarre, even, than my Malevolent Stalker's lair, some of the inmates are pooling their ignorance and hostility in a discussion of the "ginormous salaries and spend[ing?] accounts" that "guarantee and ensure" that General Authorities don't leave the Church like these self-styled heroic geniuses have: "If they were paid less, you'd probably see them leaving more often."

A principal exhibit in support of their case is "the reality behind the Boyd K. Packer estate." As one poster emits, "Seminary teachers/principals aren't paid jack, and this guy spent his whole 'career' in CES. Yet look at his estate. It's monstrous. I've seen it. You can't tell me he isn't paid for his apostleship."

I don't know what this particular Einstein may have seen, but I've been in President Packer's home, which sits at the end of a cul-de-sac in a reasonably average suburban neighborhood southward in the Salt Lake Valley. The home is nice enough, but not new, and anything but lavish. Relatively modest, I would say. Many of the homes in my own neighborhood are much larger.

I wonder where President Packer's "monstrous estate" might be? I lean toward the Planet Zarkon. I think the "Recovery" poster must have seen it during one of his abductions by aliens.

John Larsen declares that this opening post of the thread set forth a straw man.

I wonder if he would be so kind as to indicate what, in it, I got wrong -- other than, perhaps, the name of the planet to which the "Recovering" poster was abducted.

[Calm]

So, at his 1850 address there are two listed for him -- one for a 2009 market value of $482,300 (which is far more than my house is worth....lol) and one for $1,606,790. What? 1.6 million dollars is now considered "a reasonably average suburban neighborhood southward in Salt Lake Valley.

In certain neighbourhoods, yeah.

The location has more to do with the cost of the home than the home itself from what I've seen. I have neighbours who can't afford to sell their home to move to a smaller, but newer one in the same area due to the differences in prices. Of all the pictures posted of GAs' houses, mine is much larger but also likely when we bought it much cheaper. It jumped in price overnight $50,000 due to a limitation on building in the area and even with the drop in housing prices lately, due to the demand may be worth twice as much as we paid for it just 7 years ago because the location is now 'hot' rather than 'rural'.

[Nofear]

Notice: No Emoticons where used or harmed in making this post to insure that the poster, me, did not incurr the wrath of Dan:)

No worries, he hasn't joined the Anti-Emotican Association yet so he can't marshal the AEA (anti-emoticon army). But, who knows what he can do with his vast Church provided monies.

PS: I'd be happy to author an emoticon like the one above if the mods would insert it into our emoticons list.

[Jaybear]

I wonder if he would be so kind as to indicate what, in it, I got wrong -- other than, perhaps, the name of the planet to which the "Recovering" poster was abducted.

You characterized his home as relatively modest, and said that lived in a reasonably average SLC subdivision.

In reality, assuming Doug's information is correct, he owns a 5,200 sq foot home on 2 acres in a very prestigous area of Cottonwood Heights. He also owns the adjoining 2 acre lot appraised at $483K.(not as Doug suggested a smaller home).

According to Zillow, him home is valued at $1.55. The house to the East is valued at #2.1M. The house to the south, $900K.

It seems to me that you got it wrong.

[Daniel Peterson]

You characterized his home as relatively modest, and said that lived in a reasonably average SLC subdivision.

In reality, assuming Doug's information is correct, he owns a 5,200 sq foot home on 2 acres in a very prestigous area of Cottonwood Heights. He also owns the adjoining 2 acre lot appraised at $483K.(not as Doug suggested a smaller home).

According to Zillow, him home is valued at $1.55. The house to the East is valued at #2.1M. The house to the south, $900K.

It seems to me that you got it wrong.

It seems to me that I did not. I've been in his home, which is now roughly fifty years old. It's modest. Have property values risen dramatically with the vast increase in population in the Salt Lake Valley over the past five decades? I would expect so. (I would, in fact, be astonished if they had not.) I suspect that he bought a rural lot that has since been engulfed by suburban development. Did he build a big house? Yes. He has ten children. Did he buy a relatively large lot? Yes. He had ten children. Would that now be worth much more than he paid for it, given inflation and development since the sixties? Yes. Does that make him rich? Not even close.

[Jeff K.]

Ten years ago I purchased a home for what I considered the enormous sum of 400,000 dollars. Two years ago, it was appraised at over a million. This year it is being touted at about 800K. If land values continue to drop, it may go down to as low as 200K.

Now which one makes me out to be a rich greedy church leader, if I were a leader? The original price, the appraised value, or the value it might be if prices continue to drop? I haven't changed a whit, my income has even dropped somewhat, and yet, based on faulty logic on information that varies from year to year regarding the costs of a home I have been living in for years, I can be classified alternately as being either average, incredibly rich, or less well off than one presumes.

Do you get the point Jaybear or must we draw the picture for you as to what the strawman argument is and how "you" seem to be getting it wrong?

[lingo]

There have been significant contributions given to the Church over and above tithing. There are also the properties acquired when the Church was first established in Utah. While it is likely that tithing was used to a certain extent, it was certainly not the whole amount.

I also believe that due to the entanglement of government and church in the early days as well as the times that the Church had debt issues that it is not possible to even closely estimate what went where.

What is important to me is simply that it is for the most part well managed---that the tithing, if any is used, isn't just disappearing into a bottomless pit---and I see that in the ability to build where and when it's needed as well as what appears to me as wise business choices in various places.

Don't misunderstand me. I believe the church is an incredible, well run business, just as Benny Hinns and the other TV evangelists. They are all great business entities; else, they would disappear. The church, as I believe any entity that wishes to be tax exempt, should open up their financials. Would people clammor to see inside the great and mighty chuch in order to seek out that all important "a-ha" element. You bet they would - If the church wouldn't have been secretive for so long about the money, then nobody would really care. But You nor I can accurately say that the money is being well spent or invested or going into a bottomless pit without merely speculating.

[Jaybear]

Do you get the point Jaybear or must we draw the picture for you as to what the strawman argument is and how "you" seem to be getting it wrong?

Oh, I get the picture.

In the world of LDS apologetics, a 5200 sq foot home, valued at $1.55 M, in a prestigious Cottonwood Heights neigborhood, is a "modest home" in a "reasonably priced" SLC neighborhood because Dan Peterson says so.

[SilverKnight]

Don't misunderstand me. I believe the church is an incredible, well run business, just as Benny Hinns and the other TV evangelists.

Pretty weak attempt at a guild-by-association cheap shot there.

The church is nothing like a charismatic TV evangelist's and you know it.

A better comparison would be any large, global church with a centralized leadership, like the Catholic church.