Corrupt General Authorities and Their Huge Salaries

[cinepro]

Why would purchase of a home 50 years ago in what was then a rural area of Salt Lake County indicate that CES personnel are getting overpaid?

It wouldn't. I was just pointing out the absurdity of anyone trying to argue that CES personnel are overpaid (which is the argument that would have to be made if Elder Packer's 40-year-old home is supposed to mean anything).

[alter idem]

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.

Since I know first hand that the Apostles and GA's (Except for Pres. Huntsman--I can vouch that he did live in a big mansion when I was acquainted with him some years ago) live in their own homes, not homes bought for them by the church, and for certain, Pres. Packer's house and Pres. Monson's house are both very modest by Salt Lake standards, I just do not get this. If people on RFM want to attack them, they need to find another tactic, because this one is laughable.

Those who have nicer homes were more affluent before they entered full time church service. Pres. Monson and Pres. Packer have both worked for the church for a very long time, and their homes show that. They've lived in their homes for many years and when they bought, Pres. Packer, way out around Sandy, it was not an affluent area, it was the sticks! If someone had wanted to buy in an affluent area 50 years ago, it would have been the upper Avenues, Harvard/Yale and Walker Lane--not Sandy or Holladay. These are very nice areas now, but 50 years ago, they were new construction, new neighborhoods and even 18 years ago when my husband and I moved out here and looked for a home, these areas were still reasonably priced. Now, they are much more pricey because of all the new, large, expensive homes they have built on the pasture land and open areas in the area, the home values have sky rocketed. It has been sad to see those areas become overrun with monstrous McMansions but they are still very desirable neighborhoods for the people who can afford them. Those who bought many years ago are sitting on some nice nest eggs.

The Apostles and GA's also drive Toyota Avalons. Very nice, roomy cars, but they are reasonably priced and certainly not extravagant in any way.

Soo....LDS critics, find something else to throw at us, because this one won't stick.

[Scott Lloyd]

It wouldn't. I was just pointing out the absurdity of anyone trying to argue that CES personnel are overpaid (which is the argument that would have to be made if Elder Packer's 40-year-old home is supposed to mean anything).

OK. Got it. I'm not sure Doug the Hutt does, though.

[Calm]

Those who bought many years ago are sitting on some nice nest eggs.

If they can afford the property taxes.

[Daniel Peterson]

Let's look again --

1. You started the thread

2. You took some anti-Mormon guys' comments (image: frothing-at-the-mouth-in-seething-hatred) who complained that teachers don't make much money and yet President Packer lives in a monstrous estate, and insists that Apostles are paid to be apostles. (2 separate points that may or may not be correlated)

3. You took issue with the idea that President Packer's home is a monstrous estate by:

a. labeling him sarcastically an "Einstein", much in the same way you call a bald guy "Curly" or fat guy "Skinny".

That was, of course, no part of any argument. I didn't "take issue" with him "by" calling him an "Einstein." I expressed my lack of respect for ignorant slander by doing so. That's quite different.

Let's look again --b. you stated that you've been at President Packer's home which makes your anecdotal opinion matter more than Mr.-driveby-in-envy's who may or may not have peeked inside

c. you give us your tailored-opinion

What's a "tailored-opinion"?

Incidentally, what you call an "anecdotal opinion" is what I would call an "eyewitness report." I think most reasonable people would also term it that. Words matter.

on President Packer's living arrangements as "reasonably average suburban neighborhood southward in the Salt Lake Valley". The "average-ness" to which you refer is only meaningful relative to the rest of the well-to-do-ers in Cottonwood since they're obviously far above average when you slog on out and compare their home to a crackerbox out in West Valley(gangsta) City.

It was a nice house. He doesn't live in a tenement or a crack house, nor in a slum. I don't think I said anything that would suggest that he did.

d. you assert (probably quite correctly) that the home is "nice enough" (frankly it oughta be).

e. you state the home is "not new, and anything but lavish". How does that change its value?

You actually believe that the quality of the materials of which a home is made -- say, marble rather than formica, wood shingles rather than cheaper roofing materials, imported hardwood kitchen cabinets rather than cheap local products, hardwood floors rather than cheap wall-to-wall carpet, and so forth -- doesn't affect the value of a house?

I've been in President Packer's home. It was not richly appointed.

I'm sure you know that the age of an edifice doesn't make it necessarily valuable or invaluable.

I'm sure you know that houses built in the 1960s, by and large, lose value relative to newly constructed houses with the latest lighting fixtures, wiring, fashionable kitchen and bathroom appointments, and the like.

And "lavish" doesn't mean the same to you as it does to three latino families all scrunched together in one two bedroom apartment in Atlanta.

Nor would a peasant family from the Egyptian Fayyum see "lavish" in the same way as those three comparatively wealthy Latino families would.

These things are relative. Obviously. But I'm writing, I suspect, to a largely middle class audience here, and it's their sensibility and their standard to which I was appealing. If, in fact, most of the people here live in the favelas of Brazil or as fellaheen in the Algerian countryside or in a South African bantustan, I apologize.

I'm quite sure they would call the Packer's ten bedroom home "lavish". I'd probably call it lavish too since it's friggin enormous compared to the average Utah home -- land and living space matters, not just the other amenities.

I've been in plenty of genuinely "lavish" homes. This simply isn't one. Period. You can deride the fact that I've actually seen it and been in it, as if that counts for nothing, but it doesn't count for nothing.

f. you tailed that comment stating that your own neighborhood has much larger homes then theirs. WOW. The area in which you live has an average home size of over 5,200 square feet? No wonder you think theirs is just a modest little average unlavish home maintained on a modest stipend. You should spend a little time away from your life of privileged exuberance and world traveling and maybe you'll get a more meaningful definition of "modest" and "average".

You should perhaps learn to read. First of all, I'm quite surprised to read that his home is 5200 square feet. I would have put it at about 1000 square feet smaller than that. Maybe more. But my saying that there are homes in my neighborhood that are larger doesn't mean that the average home in my community is larger. (Reading skills matter, too.)

Still, many neighborhoods in Utah now routinely have homes in the 4000-6000 square foot range. Are they large? Yes. Are they palaces? Compared to the average Navajo hogan, yes. But not very unusual in a state with exceptionally large families. Are they newer and nicer than President Packer's? Yes. There are tens of thousands of houses in Utah that are newer and more "lavish" than President Packer's.

g. you finished your post with another sarcastic quip. It's like the double-tap mentioned in the movie "Zombieland". Beat that "anti" down!

I'm serenely unconcerned that a person such as yourself, who is so plainly willing to dish out serious insults to a publicly-identified person (me), needs his smelling salts when I poke fun at an anonymous person on a message board.

3. You stated "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!"". If we did a man-on-the-street-interview of 1,000 people and drove them up to President Packer's house, would they think his home gives the impression that he's wealthy?'

Answer: Almost certainly not.

Answer: irrelevant.

Nonsense. Entirely relevant.

Other than that the house is friggin huge and so is its land footprint compared to pretty much every home in my city.

And what is that city? In what state?

The cost of square-footage varies widely from St. James's Park in London to Bayt Hanina in Palestine to Tremonton, Utah, to Beverly Hills.

To me I'd certainly conclude that the person who occupied it is wealthy. I'm not wealthy and I certainly cannot buy a 5,200 square foot home in Cottonwood, Park City or anywhere else.

Nor is an old 5200 square foot house a sign of wealth, either. You feel free to mock me as out of touch -- I come from working class parents without college degrees; my extended family are truck drivers and farmers and welders and janitors and construction workers -- but I think you're the one out of touch.

4. "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."j Okay it's apparently nothing extraordinary, other than the building size, the acreage, the heating bill and the potential sales value. And maybe you're not a liar -- maybe you're just out-of-touch and your field of vision by which you make comments like "average" and "modest" just doesn't seem to include the general proletariat corpus. Is that how you can stare into a camera and insist that a horse ain't a horse, and, of course, say that it's *possible/plausible* that it might be a tapir? No serious -- if your mental facility can't tell the difference between an average modest home in the valley and a $2,000,000 mansion what value do the rest of your Animal Farm-like comments have?

I can recognize a jackass when I encounter one.

I guess the problem I have with your comments is that I find it ludicrous to insist that a 5,239 square foot, 2.18 acre, ~$2,000,000 estate is an average, humble little dwelling in the "southward" part of the Salt Lake Valley. If you want to challenge the truth claim that General Authorities don't get paid large salaries when the nay-sayers can point to a GA teacher sitting on a $2,000,000 estate you'd better not poo-poo how a GA living in a $2,000,000 estate looks to the rest of the 6,800,000,000 people in the world.

A better argument (as I made earlier to another respectful poster) would be that President Packer simply made good, consistent financial,decisions in life, kept himself out of debt (I assume he's out of debt -- I really don't know) maintained his property which he raised 10 children in, and every one of us should have a multi-million-dollar-estate when we get to be his age. It doesn't necessarily have to do with a G.A. Qo12 salary/"stipend".

Of course it doesn't.

So why are you wasting so many electrons on attacking me?

How, by the way, do you think your mansion would look to the majority of the world's population?

I've been out in areas in Upper Egypt and Uruguay and other places where you would be ranked as a plutocrat of the first order. Few people in Cairo could ever hope even to see inside a place as lavish as yours.

[alter idem]

If they can afford the property taxes.

That is true. Which is one reason why some of those older homes have been sold,torn down and then developers move in and build four large homes with tiny lots and sell them for more than a half mil. each.

And the original owners move to a condo or out to West Jordan or Draper.

[Scott Lloyd]

If they can afford the property taxes.

I grew up in a farming community in the south end of the valley. We were all pretty much in the same economic class. Most of my neighbors lived on small family farms -- if you could call them that. Just patches, really, with a cow or two, some chickens and sheep, a few acres of alfalfa or sugar beets or tomatoes. A good many of those neighbors ended up being millionaires, merely from the appreciation on their property. Alas, my dad and his twin brother reached retirement age before the building boom hit and were obliged to sell the family farm they had inherited in order to buy homes to live out their days. Had they been a bit younger, I might be in a lot better position today.

alter idem is right about nest eggs, though.

[alter idem]

1. don't know how much they were worth when they bought their land + home. I'm sure it's in some dank, musty vault somewhere. But even then relatively-speaking a 5200+ sq ft home was worth a bunch -- not $2M 2009 dollars but it wasn't Groundskeeper Willie's crapshack either.

2. I did not take into account anything about "over inflated pricing on homes along the Wasatch". But who's to say that they're over-inflated? Who decides the value of anything in our capitalist world? Answer: the market decides. If you paid $200,000 for your house then you as a factor of the market decided that you were willing to pay that much for it. Since President Packer has been there for 50 years his property is estimated by the Salt Lake County government (which uses relevant private market data) at that value based on what similar homes sell for in that area. If any person disagrees with the government assessed value then they're free to take it up with the county assessor. It doesn't change the reality that President Packer owns a piece of real estate with significant perceived worth (~$2,000,000).

3. Just so we're clear, I never implied that President Packer's home had anything to do with his life as a "stipend'-paid General Authority. I wanted to address Dr. Peterson's assertion that the home was modest by inserting some verifiable evidence that should not be overlooked and painted with words like "average" and "modest" when the numbers say something very different.

4. President Packer, a teacher of many years, made proper financial steps throughout his life, probably sacrificed potential purchases in favor of being in charge of his financial destiny and eventually became a multi-millionaire. It has absolutely nothing to do with GAs raiding the church coffers, but simply keeping oneself out of debt, building and maintaining an edifice that even in the 1950's was a large house with lots of potential. Every single one of us, regardless of how much of a believer in things made of steel, horse or tapir one might be, SHOULD have a multi-million-dollar estate when we become octogenarians.

Doug, give it a rest, this is one argument you cannot win.

Pres. Packer's home is not lavish. Do you know Salt Lake homes? We build basements here--and then we finish them ourselves and we get an extra three, four bedrooms to add to the existing four bedrooms. It is not unusual to find a home with a number of bedrooms, especially because we LDS often have big families.

5200 sq. feet is not huge in Salt Lake--it's normal for a 60's rambler with a finished basement. Homes from that time usually came with at least an acre size lot. There was plenty of room to spread out when those homes were built.

And now it seems that you are chastising the man for being smart 50 years ago and buying a home in an area, holding onto it and being able to reap the rewards for appreciation! Usually people see the wisdom in that, regardless of what faith the person is, but it seems that to some people, LDS are always going to be criticized, no matter what. If an athiest does it, they are smart and thrifty, if an LDS does it, it's shady and indecent.

And calling him a multi-millionaire? Puleaze. Those who are sitting on homes that have appreciated are not millionaires--I know, I grew up in Marin Co. Ca. and I know all my neighbors lived in these kinds of homes--worth millions, but most had modest salaries and they only became millionaires (or their children when they died and the house was sold and they'd paid the death taxes) IF they chose to cash out their house and did not have to pay astronomical capital gains! So, please do not misrepresent the man--you have no idea what his finances are, but his home's present value does not make him a 'multi-millionaire', it only gives him the possible POTENTIAL of becoming one. Big difference.

[gtaggart]

Well, I took a look at Elder Packer's lavish mansion. Boy, it doesn't get it any better than that; that is, unless you walk two blocks to the east of my home in north Orem or five blocks to the south or four blocks to the north. By the way, does anyone know why the Elder Packer's land value doubled from 2007 to 2008 (from $616,290 to $1,220,690) while his home value dropped $160,200 and another $128,000 a year later?

Elder Packer is a real estate "millionaire" simply because he bought right and held on. And Bishop Dan is spot on: This home is nothing to get worked up about. Case closed.

[Cold Steel]

Many of the homes in my own neighborhood are much larger.

Ah-ha! Then you admit that your monstrous home is even larger than Packer's! If many of the homes in your neighborhood are larger than Packer's, and if you don't own the smallest home in your neighborhood, which we can easily assume, then we can only guess what the church pays you to stay loyal! In fact, I happen to know that your chef told your butler that your chauffeur made more than twice that of Packer's chauffeur (the guy who cleans your pool told me).

Time to come clean!

From the top of the main tower, Dan can see the rest of his

neighborhood. Of course his summer home at Cape Cod isn't

nearly this nice, but it's spacious and comfortable. Still,

it's well known he spends much of his time on his boat.

[Deborah]

This is one of those dumbest anti-Mormon arguments. Some people seem to have nothing better to do and I suppose when their attempts at proving the BOM false fail they have to find some other way to attack the church.

Several years ago I had the opportunity to go to Bruce R. McConkie's home. It was nice and roomy but far from lavish or what one would consider a mansion. The idea that these men of God are making themselves rich off the tithes of the church is ludicrous.

For those who claim there is no oversight, on the contrary. All the church books undergo audits. Furthermore the IRS can come in any time and look at the books. Since we the members see where the money is going in the church buildings, temples, missionary work, books and supplies etc, we have the evidence of how it is being spent.

As someone said, why is it the non-Mos, ex-Mos and anti-Mos, who have the least right to say anything, complain the loudest.

[O-Brother]

Furthermore the IRS can come in any time and look at the books.

Actually, the IRS can not come in any time and look at the books.

Tax Inquiries and Examinations of Churches

Congress has imposed special limitations, found in section 7611 of the Internal Revenue Code, on how and when the IRS may conduct civil tax inquiries and examinations of churches. The IRS may only initiate a church tax inquiry if the Director, Exempt Organizations Examinations, reasonably believes, based on a written statement of the facts and circumstances, that the organization: (a) may not qualify for the exemption; or (-Be) may not be paying tax on unrelated business or other taxable activity.

- IRS

Without knowing the total amount that comes in and looking at all the income versus expenses, buildings alone become only partial evidence of

how funds are used. Radio and TV stations, real estate projects and other ventures would also have to be considered.

[Stargazer]

By chance did you meet any that were NOT very successful in their business profession? Oh, I've never met a blue collar GA. Have you?

The thing is, even a successful person in business may not be particularly wealthy. My brother and his wife ran a B&B near Amarillo, Texas for about six years and they were consistently ranked in the top ten for Texas, and were included in a list of "best" southern B&B's by Southern Living magazine at one time. They were successful in every sense of the word, yet my salary as a computer programmer was more than their annual profit.

What's a blue collar GA? Somebody who punched a clock for a living? Even those types are in some form of management by the time they retire.

Paul, I think the Lord would prefer to call someone to a responsible calling who had been successful in his or her endeavors. There is even a parable about this.

[Stargazer]

Personally, I assume that its not the salary that draws LDS men to become GAs, but the power, influence and social benefits that flow from the position.

And just how does it "draw" them to become GAs? I must have missed the call for resumes the last time there was a vacancy in the 12. Or in my local ward bishopric.

Odd comment, Jaybear, illustrating yet again just how much you have no clue when it comes to the LDS church.

[Jeff K.]

Yep, everybody has their talents.

[Stargazer]

Money is one of the key factors, but power is even more appealing. Remember that the Church is a corporation, and a business. All business want to increase revenue and power, and in order to do accomplish that, they need to keep their "junk" hidden from public, just like any other business. You do not know how much I wanted to that it were the true church, just like yourselves, but it is not. God would never hide anything from his servants, but the church leadership has always hiding too many things to be the true one. How much benefit for the church it would be and gain credibility by publishing these things? But they are dark and wrong and cannot be made public.The final reasoning is that there is not a true church, as an organization or collectivity, the true church are individuals who follow Jesus Christ we pure heart and devoted their lives to obey him and his gospel, not an organization of men who make commandments of men as precepts of God. I do not say this of myself, it was said by Christ himself and can be read in his testament.

I had to quote your post and remove formatting so I could read the darned thing. Do you have a reason to make the post unreadable to those whose eyes have gotten a bit older than current teenagers? Try 12 point font, fer cryin' out loud.

God would never hide anything from his servants...

BS. God has hidden things from his servants since Day One, literally. Some good examples include Jesus not coming right out and saying that he was the Messiah, either to the people or to his apostles. They had to figure it out for themselves or get a revelation because Jesus wasn't telling'. "Blessed art thou Peter, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto you..." And how long was it that he was wandering Palestine before this happened?

...but the church leadership has always hiding too many things to be the true one.

Just what is your standard for reference, anyway? If you know what they are, then they can't be hidden, can they? And if you don't know what they are, how do you even know there's something to hide?

But they are dark and wrong and cannot be made public.

Yes, suppose you come up with some dark and wrong things the church dares not make public.

[Rich Hansen]

Here are the available details for Elder Packer's home:

Land Value: $1,220,690.00 Improvements Value: $486,700.00 Assessed Total: $1,707,390.00 2008 Tax Amount: $14,391.91

Property Type: Single Family Residential Year Built: 1957 Raised Roof: Y Liveability: Average Location Type: * Eff Year Built: 1990 Roofing Type: Asphalt Shingles Lighting: * Condo Type: * Stories: 1 % Heated: *% View: * Structure Class: RES Bedrooms: 3 HVAC Type: Primary Central Visual: Average Style Type: Rambler Ranch Full Baths: 1 Central AC: No Bathroom: Modern Attic Sq. Ft.: 0 3/4 Baths: 3 % Sprinkled: *% Interior: * Upper Sq. Ft.: 0 1/2 Baths: 1 Exterior Wall: Brick Exterior: * Living Sq. Ft.: * Kitchens: 1 Kitchen Type: * Kitchen: Excellent Main Sq. Ft.: 5239 Total Rooms: 18 Foundation: * Basement: * Grand Sq. Ft.: * Fireplaces: 5 Overall: Good Basement Sq. Ft.: 0 Total Sq. Ft.: 5239

The property would be classified as an estate. It sits on two acres in a prime location. The home is 5239 square feet on one level. There may have been an addition or a renovation in 1990. I assume Daniel was in the house prior to 1990 if there was an addition (there's your out Daniel). 5239 square feet on one level is very, very large. There are 7135 properties on the market in Salt Lake County today. 83 of those are listed at 1.7 million or greater. 54 sit on two acres or more. Of course, the assessed value does not represent market value. This is a very unique property and is not average by any stretch of the imagination.

It appears that Elder Packer bought the land inexpensively years ago and was fortunate to select a great location. It may not be lavish, but it is not modest in size or value relative to the average size (ca. 2000 ft.) or value (225k) of homes in SL County.

Does any of this mean BKP is rolling in money? No. Although, 14k is a large tax bill and the utilities/maintenance have got to be pretty high. Were it me, I would fight the tax valuation with the county.

[Greg Smith]

Why would purchase of a home 50 years ago in what was then a rural area of Salt Lake County indicate that CES personnel are getting overpaid?

Orson Scott Card once remarked that anyone who thinks that the CES are the Church's "Paid ministry" obviously hasn't seen one of their paycheques.

:-)

GLS

[Rich Hansen]

My experience with the Church leads me to believe that GAs are poorly paid, relatively speaking. The church is known for paying low wages.

Since the Church does not disclose finances, we have no way of knowing GA salaries. However, can we make the assumption that the Church president and CEO,

is the highest paid church employee? If so, do we have any idea what the salary might be of other high profile church employees? I am thinking

of BYU football coach, Bronco Mendenhall. The Deseret News wrote an article sometime back suggesting that Bronco's salary might be 900k per year.

This salary is augmented by an endowment from BYU boosters. I don't know if that disqualifies Bronco from being a church employee or not.

Bronco's raise

I am not sure who cuts Bronco's check. I am not even sure whether he is considered a "church" or BYU employee only. I assume church leadership has approved this contract for Bronco.

Is it conceivable that Bronco Mendenhall is the highest paid LDS employee? Higher even than the CEO? I wouldn't think so, but I suppose it is possible.

If true, I think it fascinating.

[Daniel Peterson]

Here are the available details for Elder Packer's home: Land Value: $1,220,690.00 Improvements Value: $486,700.00 Assessed Total: $1,707,390.00 2008 Tax Amount: $14,391.91

So the overwhelming bulk of the value of President Packer's residence is in the land -- which, as we've pointed out here time and time again, was bought over half a century ago when it was essentially rural and, therefore, very likely pretty cheap. The house is worth less than $500K, which is certainly not pauper-level, but scarcely "rich," either.

Property Type: Single Family Residential Year Built: 1957

The house is fifty-two years old, going on fifty-three.

Liveability: Average

Sounds pretty elite to me. The palace of a greedy plutocrat, no doubt about it!

Put's me in mind of the Biltmore Estate, in Asheville, North Carolina:

http://www.biltmore.com/

I believe that house is rated "average" in liveability, too.

Roofing Type: Asphalt Shingles

Ah! Gotcha, President Packer! The roofing type is the dead giveaway, the smoking gun, that reveals President Packer as the filthy rich big-spender that he is. Here's what Roofhelp.com says about asphalt shingles:

"Asphalt shingles are currently the most popular type of residential roof material for a variety of reasons. They are relatively inexpensive. . . . Asphalt shingles are very simple to install enabling many homeowners to do the work themselves. They come in a variety of colors and styles, are fairly durable (some have been tested and have achieved a class IV hail rating - the highest available!), and can be easily repaired and maintained."

http://www.roofhelp.com/choices/asphaltshingles/

Clearly, cost was no object to this CE$ administrator turned General Authority. An army of slaves must have labored for thirty years at least to built his palace.

Visual: Average

Elder Packer must have paid a fortune for that average view, and for the average appearance of his mansion.

Style Type: Rambler Ranch

A very popular style among the super-rich. Modeled, no doubt, on the Alhambra in Spain, with a touch of the Taj Mahal thrown in just for whimsy's sake.

The property would be classified as an estate.

By whom? The IRS? Your children will likely pay inheritance taxes on your baronial "estate" when you die.

The home is 5239 square feet on one level. . . . 5239 square feet on one level is very, very large.

Here's what your own source says:

"Main Sq. Ft.: 5239 . . . Total Sq. Ft.: 5239."

Endless. Enormous. Huge. Virtually infinite.

Vast.

This impotent silliness reminds me, for no real reason, of a passage from King Lear:

Glendower: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep."

Hotspur: "Why, so can I, or so can any man; but will they come when you do call for them?"

.

[Manny]

BKP's nephew-in-law (if that makes sense) told me that his home was offered to him at far below market price so that he could afford it. Take that with an Internet grain of salt.

I bet they make between 80-100k...which I used to think was a lot of money....

[handys003]

The thing is, even a successful person in business may not be particularly wealthy. My brother and his wife ran a B&B near Amarillo, Texas for about six years and they were consistently ranked in the top ten for Texas, and were included in a list of "best" southern B&B's by Southern Living magazine at one time. They were successful in every sense of the word, yet my salary as a computer programmer was more than their annual profit.

What's a blue collar GA? Somebody who punched a clock for a living? Even those types are in some form of management by the time they retire.

Paul, I think the Lord would prefer to call someone to a responsible calling who had been successful in his or her endeavors. There is even a parable about this.

Nothing personal Stargazer, but Cookie Monster says Amarillo? Who stops there overnight except relatives? When I drove often through the Panhandle, like others, it was only a stop for gas and maybe that 72 oz steak. Nothing to see except Palo Duro Canyon farther south but basically its like driving through flat earth hell! I can see why his profit is low.

[handys003]

This is one of those dumbest anti-Mormon arguments. Some people seem to have nothing better to do and I suppose when their attempts at proving the BOM false fail they have to find some other way to attack the church.

Several years ago I had the opportunity to go to Bruce R. McConkie's home. It was nice and roomy but far from lavish or what one would consider a mansion. The idea that these men of God are making themselves rich off the tithes of the church is ludicrous.

For those who claim there is no oversight, on the contrary. All the church books undergo audits. Furthermore the IRS can come in any time and look at the books. Since we the members see where the money is going in the church buildings, temples, missionary work, books and supplies etc, we have the evidence of how it is being spent.

As someone said, why is it the non-Mos, ex-Mos and anti-Mos, who have the least right to say anything, complain the loudest.

How do you get so lucky to go to a GA's home?

[Manny]

How do you get so lucky to go to a GA's home?

You're joking, right? No offense, but they put their pants on one leg at a time.

[Deborah]

How do you get so lucky to go to a GA's home?

His daughter was dating a friend.