Corrupt General Authorities and Their Huge Salaries

[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.

Good job folks. We're on our way!

[Rich Hansen]

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?"

.

I have tried to state the facts. The source of information is Salt Lake County.

Nowhere did I say BKP is rolling in money. I did not suggest he was super rich. I suggested that he was not. I, along with others pointed to the land value and that he made a good decision years ago. Residential real estate professionals would classify the property as an estate, given the value, size of the house, location, and size and nature of the lot. In fact, that is how it would be marketed. 5200 square feet on one level is very spacious. There are not may houses that size on one level. Can you find others? There may be a few. It is a unique property. You are correct, however, that the universe is larger. The house is even smaller than some egos. Yes, it has asphalt shingles. Many houses do, including expensive homes. The age of the house has little to do with it's value. Value is related to location. Think Harvard/Yale. We do not know the actual value of the house itself. Once again, county tax appraisal does not equal market value. Tax appraisals are done every so often and indexed. Off the top of my head, I would say the tax appraisal is higher than market value. Liveability does not refer to opulence. Yes, views are average. They are average in the Cottonwoods as well. That is what you get in a secluded wooded lot, you look at your own property. Yes the Biltmore is larger, more expensive and more opulent, as is Aaron Spelling's house. BKP's house is more modest than those but less modest than most. There is always a more expensive house, a smarter person, a richer man, and a prettier girl.

Daniel, might it not be easier to just say that BKP has a nice property? Why the incessant need to defend all things? Your use of extreme examples to minimize the facts isn't going to work here. BKP, regardless or your protestations, does not live in an average residential property based on median size of house, lot and median value in Salt Lake County. That is a fact. Does that make him rich? On some level, yes. Are his assets illgotten? No.

[Jeff K.]

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.

Three years ago I drove my father cross country to Virginia from CA, going I took the northern route, coming back I decided to take route 66. So here I am driving across the panhandle and then in a town 50 miles east of Amarillo my Nissan pick up had trouble. Its raining like cats and dogs out there while I am driving, and the first exit I see is into this small town called "Groom". I drive down the single street that doubles as main street and is the center of life, the hub of humanity, the axis of all things Groom. Off that center of commerce I drove into the towns only garage. A large barn like corrugated structure with giant sliding doors. As I enter this cavern that doubles as the towns only proffesional garage, there was this middle aged man, pretty much my age, my height, my build. Obviously a handsome devil. I tell him my problems and graciously, in the rain, he comes out and looks at my truck. The man wasn't exactly a talker, more like the kind of person that appreciates the silence between words, and so seeks to enlarge those opportunities for silence. I was thinking he must be from the Wyatt Earp school of winning friends and influencing people. So he looks at my truck and makes a pronouncement. "I don't work on Nissans, I mainly do Chevy's and Fords pickups." I looked out of his wide open currogated garage, and could see the main street. Nothing but Chevy and Ford pick ups all up and down the street, this town would have been a commercial for "buy American". I looked at him and smiled, "Ever seen the Stepford Wives?" I asked. He shrugged and gave me the number to the Nissan dealership in Amarillo which sent out a tow for me.

In the hour or so of waiting I had a chance to look at this big old corrugated garage. It was kind of soothing to hear the rain rattle off the corrugated roof. And there was a kind of wet chill that I enjoy because it reminds me of times when I had less and things were different and younger. I saw photos and just kind of meandered around the building. The walls of his office had pictures on them. He apparently played football in the local high school (a very small team), there was one of him kissing a cheerleader in his football uniform, another of him and the same girl at some dance, either homecoming or prom... And one of him and this woman a little older holding their child, and then another. These pictures were crowded with trophies, old dusty parts manuals, crayon pictures of stick people working on pick ups with the name "dad" written on them, forgotten washers and screws, a little figurine made of bolts and nuts (made by his son in shop he told me later). I realized I was looking at a life. So I asked him about life in Groom.

"Its a small town". He told me. But we know everybody." And then he was quiet. "How do you like it here" I asked. "Its comfortable".

"Look I appreciate you letting me keep my truck here", let me buy you lunch."

Now there isn't a MacDonalds in Groom, and you won't find Starbucks either. But you will find a diner with a big front window. The waitress greeted us and shouted to the cook, that Bob was here and to fix number 6, and then she turned to me and asked what I'd have.

Meatloaf was the special and so it went.

He ate his meal and I used the opportunity to ask him questions. About Groom, about his family. He met the girl in elementary school. Dated on and off in high school and asked her to marry when he came back from junior college with a mechanics degree. According to him they tried making it in Amarillo, but, well, he just doesn't like the big city (Amarillo the big city?!?!?!). Too many people that aren't family or friends. His two sons and three daughters are all in the FFA Future farmers of America and one son is on the football team. The other takes after mom and is a really good student. Daughters worry him because they are getting old enough to date. "Seen some boys sniffin around them durin last months barbeque."

I grew up in another country, lived in the east, and traveled frequently across the US and to other nations. We are a society that moves. We have a freedom that is relatively unknown in history for packing up and going elsewhere. Can't tell you how much I have moved in my life. Here was a man that was rooted. Ensconced in the living rock of Groom. Like few I have ever seen rooted. He could move, he could travel, he could decide what his future was anywhere. But to him, to his world there was only Groom, the only place for him.

Now there are two ways to look at this. In one, I realized that we build our own walls. Whether we decide to stay in one place or move, it is our own wall that we build. We limit ourselves by our own choices, life does not impose those choices, merely the environment by which we implement them. I wonder if his wife is the same way, did she ever long to see something or be something other than the football players wife? Does she ever seek something else? And if she yearns for something different, does this man know what his wife sometimes wants, and realizes he will never give it to her? Are the children a goal or a substitute? There is a great deal of depth in peole that leaves us wondering.

It may also be that like the very tasty meatloaf I was enjoying, his life was comfort food. And while he doesn't travel, while he doesn't see the world, or enjoy some of the beautiful and exotic places I have seen. His world is filled with other things that aren't as sharp into focus as the new experiences some of us have. But he lives in the warm glow of a community where he knows everyone.

It left me thinking as the tow truck pulled up to the garage.

Sorry to deviate a bit, but your mention of Amarillo got me thinking about that time again.

[Jeff K.]

[ERayR]

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.

However, a yearly tax return and an audit by an independent CPA firm is required. The tax return is filed with the IRS and a copy of the audit is also filed with the government. Both are subject to and are reviewed by government agencys.

[mnn727]

GA's can't make that much money-- they can't even afford to buy colored shirts!

[mnn727]

^{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.}

My gosh, learn how to post so people can read it

If they 'keep stuff hidden' how do you know about it?

[Daniel Peterson]

Nowhere did I say BKP is rolling in money.

Nowhere did I say that you did.

I did not suggest he was super rich. I suggested that he was not.

I agree that he isn't.

5200 square feet on one level is very spacious.

I notice, according to the government document that you cite, that the house is 5239 square feet on one level, and that its total square footage is 5239.

The house I was in was definitely not 5239 feet on one level. I recall it having a downstairs basement, though I don't believe that I actually went downstairs. (Most houses in northern Utah do, I think, have basements. In my experience, in fact, virtually all do.) My guess is that the house has two floors, and that each is closer to 2619.5 square feet than to 5239. I think it much more likely that a government document is mistaken than that a house in northern Utah is 5239 square feet on a single floor and without a basement, as the document seems to indicate. Anyway, the document that you cite provides absolutely no evidence for a home with a total square footage larger than 5239, though you seem to keep insisting that that figure, 5239, which it applies to both the one floor and the entirety of the house, implies a correspondingly large basement -- of which the document you cite appears to know absolutely nothing.

There are not may houses that size on one level.

I don't believe this one is, either. And your document is aware of no second level.

Can you find others? There may be a few.

Yes, I can. And there are more than a few.

It is a unique property.

Not the one I saw.

You are correct, however, that the universe is larger. The house is even smaller than some egos.

And considerably smaller than some agendas.

Yes, it has asphalt shingles. Many houses do, including expensive homes.

Perhaps. But asphalt shingles are not a mark of lavishness, and this is not a lavish house.

The age of the house has little to do with it's value.

It would be good to be a real estate agent if you were in the market.

Value is related to location. Think Harvard/Yale.

You seriously think that Harvard and Yale derive their "value" from their locations?

Wow. I'm heading out right now to invest in Bunker Hill Community College, Gateway Community College, and the University of New Haven. They're clearly immensely undervalued, given their locations.

We do not know the actual value of the house itself. Once again, county tax appraisal does not equal market value. Tax appraisals are done every so often and indexed. Off the top of my head, I would say the tax appraisal is higher than market value.

Which supports my position.

Liveability does not refer to opulence.

And this property isn't opulent, and its liveability is "average."

Yes, views are average.

Which supports my position.

BKP's house is more modest than those but less modest than most.

It's perhaps on the largish side, but quite modest.

[Daniel Peterson]

There is always a more expensive house, a smarter person, a richer man, and a prettier girl.

And, in this case, there are plenty of more expensive houses. Tens of thousands of them in the state of Utah alone, I should guess.

Daniel, might it not be easier to just say that BKP has a nice property?

He has a nice property. Nothing very special, but nice. Some privacy, which is what he wanted. That's why he moved to that distant and semi-rural location more than half a century ago.

But it's not lavish, it's not "ginormous," and he's not rich.

Why the incessant need to defend all things?

Why the apparent need to misrepresent me, as in the sentence just above?

Your use of extreme examples to minimize the facts isn't going to work here.

I'm aware of that. Which is why I haven't used that technique.

BKP, regardless or your protestations, does not live in an average residential property based on median size of house, lot and median value in Salt Lake County. That is a fact.

His house is nothing out of the ordinary range. I've been in it. You, I take it, have not.

Does that make him rich? On some level, yes.

On the same level as many Idaho potato farmers.

Are his assets illgotten? No.

Precisely. So why do you feel the need to criticize me rather than the anti-Mormon to whom I was responding in the opening post of this thread?

[O-Brother]

I fail to understand why it matters whether a GA lives in a $200K home or a $2M one. What they do with their money, where they live and how they live is their business or what the Church does with its money or members money is the Church's business. If it was meant to be the members business then the organization would have been built to accomodate that, no?

A lot of resentment tends to arise when people start finding out what other people make. In this country, that can be very depressing. I am yet to meet a person who deep down inside is OK in learning that another human is pulling in $1,000,000 per month while he is busting his behind 8-5 for $50,000 per year. It's never a comfortable situation or piece of knowledge.

I'd be more concerned about who got our bail out money and what they've done with it than wondering about what Church leaders make or what kind of house they own. They live comfortably, they're taken care of and for what I know, they deserve it so I leave it at that.

[bizabra]

I know an area authority who is from very humble circumstances. But the sample of how many I know is very very limited. I have met several, and am related to one, as I have said. So I cannot say I really know much from personal experience either way.

But I think your blatant hostility to the church gives you zero credibility.

I think it is clear that success in business often goes together with experience in leadership. I can't imagine a person with janitorial experience only running a multinational corporation, can you?

BIZ: (musing to herself) WHY Why is THE CHURCH a multinational corporation, with corporate boards and jobs, and management positions to offer? Why? Do mormons think that Jesus will the the CEO when he returns, complete with corporate suit and grooming? What an image!

edited to add: Why the cult of "leadership"?

[bizabra]

I work in the Houston Temple. I happen to have a very good idea of how much it costs to maintain that building. Suffice it to say it averages out to several thousand dollars each and every day. And it's a relatively small temple. I'm sure the Salt Lake Temple or Los Angeles Temple cost many times more. 120+ temples of various sizes with all manner of routine maintenance and operating expenses, plus thousands of meetinghouses and stake centers, visitors' centers, welfare facilities, mission homes, etc.

And then there's non-routine and emergency repairs, such as the broken windows in the Houston Temple that needed to be replaced after Hurricane Ike last year.

Oh, and the cost of building new meetinghouses and temples.

Even if we ignore all the money involved in the Church's humanitarian efforts (which is considerable), and the money it spends on producing and distributing printed materials for missionary work and for wards and branches, etc... If we consider just the money that goes into building and maintaining the Church's physical facilities, I'm not sure a billion a year is a terribly unreasonable estimate.

BIZ: (musing again) Hmmm. . . .why couldn't temple ordinances be performed in a smaller, more humble venue than a big and spacious costly building? Why not?

Why the need for the giant conference center? Just rent a stadium from time to time, or broadcast from a rented studio? Why the need for the giant gaudy building? Why?

[Daniel Peterson]

BIZ: (musing to herself) WHY Why is THE CHURCH a multinational corporation, with corporate boards and jobs, and management positions to offer? Why?

Because, in a world with many nations, functioning under many legal systems and tax codes, a global organization owning property and producing materials and needing to be managed requires such a form.

Do mormons think that Jesus will the the CEO when he returns, complete with corporate suit and grooming? What an image!

And how generous of you to ascribe it to us, falsely!

Why the cult of "leadership"?

Why the silly falsehoods?

[alter idem]

I notice, according to the government document that you cite, that the house is 5239 square feet on one level, and that its total square footage is 5239.

The house I was in was definitely not 5239 feet on one level. I recall it having a downstairs basement, though I don't believe that I actually went downstairs. (Most houses in northern Utah do, I think, have basements. In my experience, in fact, virtually all do.) My guess is that the house has two floors, and that each is closer to 2619.5 square feet than to 5239. I think it much more likely that a government document is mistaken than that a house in northern Utah is 5239 square feet on a single floor and without a basement, as the document seems to indicate. Anyway, the document that you cite provides absolutely no evidence for a home with a total square footage larger than 5239, though you seem to keep insisting that that figure, 5239, which it applies to both the one floor and the entirety of the house, implies a correspondingly large basement -- of which the document you cite appears to know absolutely nothing.

I agree, I'm quite certain the house has a basement, they ALL do in that area! In Salt Lake, the only houses that don't have a basement are those that were built on a flood plain and it was not allowed. Virtually all houses here are built with basements, many are left unfinished but it is rare to find a house with no basement.

I have half a mind to drive over and look at his house just to prove it...but I don't care enough. If some of the critics care about it, they can go look.

And you are right about Harvard/Yale. It's certainly not just the location--the individual houses have a lot more to do with why that area is pricey. I don't know if Rich knows the Salt Lake area that well to know this.

It just really bugs me that people are criticizing the man for his house!!! He lives in a nice, but modest home and some people act like it's indecent that he happens to have a very nice piece of property. That is not because he's greedy and extravagant, it's because he bought his home in the sticks area when the lots were big and he did not sell off part to developers like a lot of his neighbors did in that area. If they want to call it an 'estate', because it has property, fine, but not if they are going to use that title to misrepresent it.

[cinepro]

Do mormons think that Jesus will the the CEO when he returns, complete with corporate suit and grooming? What an image!

edited to add: Why the cult of "leadership"?

Yes, like this...

...but obviously without the beard.

But I do agree that there is a fine balance between respect for leaders (and reverence for their office), and developing a personality cult. Most problems I have with this are things the members do, with a few missteps from SLC that probably should have been avoided (i.e. the President Monson General Conference Montage).

[Daniel Peterson]

That looks very much like one of my sons when he's had a beard.

I'm gratified by the fact, though, that those who want to attack us on this point seem to be reduced to inventing nonsensical ideas, attributing them to us, and then attacking us on that basis.

That's a kind of vindication, I think.

[O-Brother]

BIZ: (musing to herself) WHY Why is THE CHURCH a multinational corporation, with corporate boards and jobs, and management positions to offer? Why? Do mormons think that Jesus will the the CEO when he returns, complete with corporate suit and grooming? What an image!

edited to add: Why the cult of "leadership"?

Is this your idea of a Church then?

There is nothing wrong with having nice clean clothes covering our temples. IF you have a different idea of how the LDS Church should be organized and how people should dress and behave, then you should enlighten us with your wisdom. Suits, ties and haircuts are not essential for salvation but the image part is for the people, not for the Lord, other than present our best before him. If our best is a plain t-shirt and jeans, then He would accept that. Humans function on a visual level, unless you're blind. Humans also go by first impressions. Jesus doesn't need the suit and tie because he's already impressed us and we know, by faith, who he is and what he's about. Most non-rebellious humans need acceptable positive images mixed with positive behaviors.

These folks below may be nice, decent people, but there is something extra about wearing a suit and tie if you want people to take you serious. Jesus looks at the heart but that is no excuse to let the temple of God (our bodies) fall part or not look the best we can:

Let me ask you this: what do you think Heaven will look like and the people therein? Similar to Heavenly Father or totally opposite? Will each of us have our own individuality and dress any way we want up there? Will we all look the same? Instead of suits and ties, will it be white robes for everybody?

[alter idem]

BIZ: (musing again) Hmmm. . . .why couldn't temple ordinances be performed in a smaller, more humble venue than a big and spacious costly building? Why not?

I'm not sure you understand that a temple is supposed to be a sacrifice of the best offered up to God, not an afterthought. Humble is great for the members, as in our stake centers and chapels, but a Temple is a House dedicated to God, a place for him to dwell on earth and it's supposed to be nice. The people in Solomon's day understood and so did other peoples who built temples to their Gods throughout history. They didn't just put up a couple of two by fours, slap some paint on and call it good when it was to be dedicated as an offering to their God.

A Temple is no ordinary building.

Why the need for the giant conference center? Just rent a stadium from time to time, or broadcast from a rented studio? Why the need for the giant gaudy building? Why?

"Gaudy" is in the eye of the beholder I guess. I don't see the Conference Center as 'gaudy'..it's actually pretty understated in it's design. I really don't see what the problem is that the church would like to have a conference center. What's so terrible about that? The building is used constantly because we LDS seem to always have meetings, programs, events going on there..I'd hardly call it a waste. Also, our meetinghouses are 'dedicated' because of their purpose. I'm not sure you can understand this because clearly you see nothing special about our meetings and gatherings, but we do and so we would like them to be in a dedicated building. When this is not possible, we do rent places, but I don't see why it's wrong for the church to own their own building since it certainly gets used. Also, we are charged in our scriptures to meet together, something that doesn't quite fit if we just rented a studio and broadcast the message.

[Rich Hansen]

I notice, according to the government document that you cite, that the house is 5239 square feet on one level, and that its total square footage is 5239.

The house I was in was definitely not 5239 feet on one level. I recall it having a downstairs basement, though I don't believe that I actually went downstairs. (Most houses in northern Utah do, I think, have basements. In my experience, in fact, virtually all do.) My guess is that the house has two floors, and that each is closer to 2619.5 square feet than to 5239. I think it much more likely that a government document is mistaken than that a house in northern Utah is 5239 square feet on a single floor and without a basement, as the document seems to indicate. Anyway, the document that you cite provides absolutely no evidence for a home with a total square footage larger than 5239, though you seem to keep insisting that that figure, 5239, which it applies to both the one floor and the entirety of the house, implies a correspondingly large basement -- of which the document you cite appears to know absolutely nothing.

I don't believe this one is, either. And your document is aware of no second level.

I am merely suggesting that your characterization that the home is "modest" is inaccurate based on the available public data. Yes, it is possible the data are wrong.

The house may be 5239 on several levels. The public record indicates, however, a structure consisting of 5239 feet on the main level. I have made no reference to a basement, nor

does the public record. If, in fact, the house is 5239 on a single level or multiple levels for that matter, it is not modest in size relative to the average size of homes in SL County. It may be modest in appointment and furnishings, but not size. And it is certainly not modest in terms of value. The median priced home in SL County is 235k. The median size home is 2200 square feet. If BKP's house is 5239 feet and if the house is worth 1.7 million, BKP's house is 238% of the median in size and 723% of the median in value. Only 450 homes out of 7118 in SL County currently on the market are larger. This puts BKP's house among the top 6.3% in size.

Personally, I could care less. Your characterization of modest, needs to be put into perspective, though. Based on your suggestion as it relates to house size, being in the top 6% is modest. The house value puts it in the top 1.2% in the county. I am not sure where you derive your definition of modest as it relates to houses in SL County. Go visit some neighborhoods on the west side or Sugarhouse for that matter.

As far as location being determinate of value, I was referring to the Harvard/Yale area of Salt Lake City.

There are actually only 374 residential properties currently listed on the Wasatch Front Regional MLS that are priced greater than 1.7 million. So, no, there are not tens of thousands

of homes in Utah that are more expensive.

[Zakuska]

O-brother,

Perhaps this is more their style.

[Zakuska]

One wonders why there was a definate Hierarchy in the Church in the NT and Why Paul and Barnabus had to go up to Jerusalem so many times to ask the PILLARS in the church what should be done.

Acts 15

1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

6

[Daniel Peterson]

Hmmm. . . .why couldn't temple ordinances be performed in a smaller, more humble venue than a big and spacious costly building? Why not?

Temple ordinances could be, and have been, performed in rooms above country stores, in small houses, on board ships, and on top of hills and mountains.

Moreover, many of the temples are, in fact, not "big and spacious."

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/coloniajuarez/

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/vernal/

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/papeete/

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/freiberg/

They're about as big as they need to be.

But it's nice that they're typically quite nice. It helps worshipers who enter them feel a spirit of reverence and humility.

Do you attend the temple?

If you don't attend the temple, why do you care? Why would you object to the worship style of others?

Why the need for the giant conference center?

Because it's difficult to fit 23,000 people into 230 seats.

Just rent a stadium from time to time

It's actually used quite a bit. Not just at General Conference time. And October Conference falls during football season. Good luck renting a stadium for that.

Besides, we want a consecrated house of worship. Do you object to that? On what grounds? What is your standing to do so?

or broadcast from a rented studio?

If attendance is any guide, lots of people actually want to attend Conference in person. (On average, about 23,000 people for each of five sessions, twice a year.) Many come from around the world to do so. You take it upon yourself to tell them that they shouldn't?

As the bishop of a singles ward, I'm typically given about ten or twelve tickets for General Conference. I usually receive about three times that many requests for them, and there are presumably many more who don't request them simply because they know the odds are poor.

Why the need for the giant gaudy building? Why?

Actually, the building is distinctly ungaudy. It was specifically designed not to overwhelm the Temple and Temple Square, across the street. And it was designed to have local flora on top, so that it isn't even gaudy from the air. Look at the aerial view of Temple Square to which I've supplied the link below. Look northward. See how the Conference Center fails to stand out. (You can manipulate the image to go northward, and to zoom in.) It looks more like a garden than like the roof of a building:

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/saltlake/aerial/

Do you pay tithing? I do. I'm delighted at the Conference Center. It's a beautiful facility. I love attending the Christmas concerts there, and have enjoyed many other activities there, as well. I'm glad that my money helped to build it.

If you don't pay tithing, why do you care?

[Paul Osborne]

I call upon Paul Osborne to sell everything he has and live in a tent

You are faster than a speeding bullet! No one can keep up with you, Dan.

Paul O

[Jeff K.]

BIZ: (musing to herself) WHY Why is THE CHURCH a multinational corporation, with corporate boards and jobs, and management positions to offer? Why? Do mormons think that Jesus will the the CEO when he returns, complete with corporate suit and grooming? What an image!

edited to add: Why the cult of "leadership"?

Biz does not like organization? Whether it is a board of directors, or college of the cardinals or for that matter "deacons of the church". Pretty much follows a similar organizaitonal plan. Does Biz actually believe churches should be disorganized and that a central body should not make general policy?

Or does he call all organizations "cults". Perhaps it is only the organizations he hates, that he calls "cults". The lack of knowledge some of these hate groups have, well, what can you say other than shake your head.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, Paul? When are you going to sell everything you own and live in a tent?

When you do it, I'll want serious evidence.

I am merely suggesting that your characterization that the home is "modest" is inaccurate based on the available public data.

It is precisely accurate based on personal visual inspection.

President Packer lives in an older and pretty normal-looking house.

The house may be 5239 on several levels. The public record indicates, however, a structure consisting of 5239 feet on the main level. I have made no reference to a basement, nor

does the public record.

The public record indicates a structure totaling 5239 feet, as well.

This puts BKP's house among the top 6.3% in size.

In what percentile, among Utah families, does a family of twelve fall?

Personally, I could care less.

It's rather odd, in that light, that you've chosen this thread on which to post.

The house value puts it in the top 1.2% in the county.

Two acres in what is now (but was not, more half a century ago) a rather nice suburban area will do that.

This is the same way, exactly, in which Idaho potato farmers have become multimillionaires.

There is nothing in this whatsoever to suggest that young Boyd K. Packer was extravagantly compensated as a CES teacher and administrator, nor that he received lavish rewards upon being called as an assistant to the Council of the Twelve. That was, and has always been, my point. You may even agree with it. So why the resistance? Why the insistence on posting on a topic in which you profess to be entirely uninterested?

I am not sure where you derive your definition of modest as it relates to houses in SL County. Go visit some neighborhoods on the west side or Sugarhouse for that matter.

I've spent a fair amount of time in both areas.

There are actually only 374 residential properties currently listed on the Wasatch Front Regional MLS that are priced greater than 1.7 million. So, no, there are not tens of thousands

of homes in Utah that are more expensive.

I was, of course, speaking of the house itself, which, as you have helpfully shown, is valued at less than $500K. President Packer didn't show me the boundary lines of his property, nor even take me outside. I have nothing to say about the two acres that he's supposed to own, except that, when he purchased them more than fifty years ago, they were probably pretty cheap.