Mormons are ashamed of their own beliefs

[_harmony]

Actually, I've never taken a dime of tithing money, Pahoran. Not one. Packer can't say the same.

Open the books!

And are we supposed to believe that opening the books would lay your incessant carping to rest for even one second?

Well, you'll never know, until the books are open.

[_Runtu]

I guess I don't see anyone getting rich from being a GA. I met quite a few of them, worked closely with several, and with only a few exceptions, I found them to be admirable men of faith. I rode the bus to work with two General Authorities (apparently, the stipend isn't all that impressive), and I noticed that many of them wear cheap suits and shoes. One day President Monson cut me off in traffic in his nondescript Mercury. They did not give an aura of ostentatious wealth.

Obviously, I'll criticize the church when there's something worth criticizing, but I don't think this is one of those things. They have to live, and as far as I can tell, they are not living the high life on other people's sacrifice.

[_harmony]

I think that it's probably impossible to have a rational and even-handed discussion

For you, it obviously is.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pot, meet Kettle.

[_harmony]

They have to live, and as far as I can tell, they are not living the high life on other people's sacrifice.

So you think a million dollar estate built on the tithes of the poor and widowed is acceptable.

So noted. I don't agree.

[_Runtu]

So you think a million dollar estate built on the tithes of the poor and widowed is acceptable.

So noted. I don't agree.

I'm not going to argue with you. I just don't see this the same way you do. It is a little silly for the church to say they have an unpaid, lay clergy, and I think they should have transparency in their finances. But then I'm an apostate, so my opinion doesn't matter.

[_Pahoran]

More precisely, an infinitesimally small portion of the proceeds from an enterprise paid for one or more generations previously by a tiny proportion of other people's tithes went to pay your salary.

Tithes by any other name are still tithes.

And since the income of the GA in question bears absolutely no relationship to tithes paid by the members in his audience, your malicious accusation is false.

"Essentially so he can get paid and buy property"?

"Essentially"?

Good grief.

You forgot the important parts: 1) being able to afford to buy property, using the tithes of the poor and widowed, and 2) never admitting getting paid at all.

In answer to Lie 1: The GA is supported from the proceeds of business investments, not the tithes of the poor and the widowed.

In answer to Lie 2: President Hinckley explicitly discussed the GA living allowances from the pulpit of Conference in October 1985.

Stop lying, "Tithing Trough" Harmony.

We obviously disagree on the definition of slimy.

Indeed. You are brazenly lying, and can't see anything slimy about it.

So a person called to be a General Authority shouldn't be able to have a home, or any property?

Not when the people who are paying the tithes don't own homes or property... BECAUSE they are paying their tithes to the church for the building up of the Kingdom, not some GA's porfolio!

Yet again: the GA's are not living off tithing.

"Million-dollar estate" sounds a whole lot more spectacular than it really is, when one realizes that the estate consists essentially of land, purchased in a semi-rural area half a century ago that has now become suburban/urban.

Harmony simply won't acknowledge this, because her hatred of President Packer and of the Brethren is too blindingly intense to permit her to do so.

Acquit me; my beef is with Packer, not the Brethren (except in their culpability in allowing Packer to maintain his conflict of interest via the pulpit in general conference).

Speaking only for myself, I'm willing to be just as charitable to you as you have been with President Packer, whose great crime is to have bought a home half a century ago that is now worth something.

But it is clear from your constant parroting of "million-dollar estate" that you do all your "thinking" in bumper-sticker-sized sound bites.

I'm "paid with tithes" every bit as much as President Packer is. So is the non-LDS professor of French and associate dean with whom I had dinner on Tuesday night.

Am I morally bound not to invest my surplus earnings? Should I have none? Should I return everything that I make over and above what it takes to keep my wife and me in basic beans and rice? Should my kids not have had bicycles? Should their clothing all have come from Deseret Industries? Was it wrong to take them to the movies?

Do you really want to go there?

Yes, "Tithing Trough" Harmony; let's go there. Let's see by what logic a professor at a church-owned institution should be expected to live at bare subsistence instead of being compensated at a rate comparable to his colleagues in tax-funded institutions.

Because the poor pay taxes too, don't they?

Why should it not invest its surplus, wisely managed, to provide it income?

Because it's a church! God's money! Feed the people! Help the poor! Take care of the widowed! Nowhere does it say to buy up businesses and build a portfolio!

And where does it say not to?

This is simple financial prudence.

This is simple financial greed.

There's that worthless opinion again.

I'm delighted that the Church has the financial resources to build chapels and temples around the world, to fund seminaries and institutes and colleges, to maintain welfare farms and deploy humanitarian aid.

Me too. Valid expenditures of tithing.

Wow. You actually admit something the Church does is valid? I am surprised.

It's extraordinarily simplistic to assume that the two are inevitably opposed. To me, the extra income from prudent investments multiplies the Church's capacity to further God's kingdom.

Find me the scriptures that say this is God's church's task.

Right after you find us the scriptures that say it is the Church's task to be financially imprudent.

When I was a bishop, ladling out financial and other assistance to needy people in sometimes fairly alarming quantities, I was very happy to know that the Church could back me up in such cases.

Rabbit hole.

In other words, you have no counterargument.

Got it.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Actually, I've never taken a dime of tithing money, Pahoran. Not one.

I was talking about your malicious obsession TTH, not the source of your income.

So is your obsession based upon jealousy, then?

Packer can't say the same.

Actually President Packer (that's what Latter-day Saints who can truthfully claim to sustain their leaders call him) can say the same. He is paid from the proceeds of the Church's business investments.

And despite your conscious and intentional lie that he is paid from tithing, you know that he really isn't. That's why you go into paroxysms of rage every time those investments are mentioned: because they rob you of your darling line of attack against the Church.

You really are a thoroughly typical anti-Mormon, "Tithing Trough" Harmony.

Well, you'll never know, until the books are open.

Oh, I know all right.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Jason Bourne]

Pahoran

The Church did spend money on the mall. Sure it spent it on other assets, some of which are depreciable. The asset may or may not generate a reasonable rate of return and it may or may not appreciate in value. Time will tell whether it was a good investment or not.

Of course the question is whether The Church of Jesus Christ should be investing in such assets at all. There are good arguments for yea and nay on that subject.

[_harmony]

And since the income of the GA in question bears absolutely no relationship to tithes paid by the members in his audience, your malicious accusation is false.

Every tiny penny of money the church or ever had is based on tithing, Pahoran. Everything traces back to the tithes. So yes, there is a relationship, and no, my accusation is not malicious. You can blather on forever, but you can't cover up the origin of ALL of the church's money.

In answer to Lie 1: The GA is supported from the proceeds of business investments, not the tithes of the poor and the widowed.

And the businesses started out as tithes. Try again.

In answer to Lie 1: President Hinckley explicitly discussed the GA living allowances from the pulpit of Conference in October 1985.

Pres Hinckley has been known to skirt unpalatable truths on occasion. And the unpalatable truth about the church-owned businesses is they all started out as tithing.

Stop lying, "Tithing Trough" Harmony.

I don't have to lie, Pahoran. You can't weasel out of this one.

Indeed. You are brazenly lying, and can't see anything slimy about it.

Unfortunately for you, the church is one that isn't being truthful. And until they publish an honest annual report of the financials, we won't be seeing the truth coming out.

Speaking only for myself, I'm willing to be just as charitable to you as you have been with President Packer, whose great crime is to have bought a home half a century ago that is now worth something.

And when my paycheck as a GA starts coming in, you can point out my inconsistency. Until then, we can all wait on the accurate annual report of the church's financials.

Yes, "Tithing Trough" Harmony; let's go there. Let's see by what logic a professor at a church-owned institution should be expected to live at bare subsistence instead of being compensated at a rate comparable to his colleagues in tax-funded institutions.

Not going there, Pahoran, unless Dan wants to.

And where does it say not to?

Do you really want me to quote the endowment ceremony? I didn't think so.

Wow. You actually admit something the Church does is valid? I am surprised

Why? I've always said there are valid things for the church to pay for. Temples, church buildings, toilet paper for the bathrooms in church buildings, etc. Hidden GA stipends is not one of them.

Right after you find us the scriptures that say it is the Church's task to be financially imprudent.

You find supporting widows and helping the poor to be financially imprudent? Got it. In writing. Excellent!

[_harmony]

Actually, I've never taken a dime of tithing money, Pahoran. Not one.

I was talking about your malicious obsession TTH, not the source of your income.

So is your obsession based upon jealousy, then?

Uh, no. I'm not that shameless. You won't find me standing at the pulpit in general conference, telling members to pay their tithes, while taking tithing-supported money in secret. Ever. Not gonna happen. I have too much pride for that.

Packer can't say the same.

Actually President Packer (that's what Latter-day Saints who can truthfully claim to sustain their leaders call him) can say the same. He is paid from the proceeds of the Church's business investments.

Which can all be traced back to tithing. And his name is Boyd Packer. Packer for short. I'll call him by his name, same as I call my bishop, my SP, and everyone else. The only person I give a title to is President Monson.

And despite your conscious and intentional lie that he is paid from tithing, you know that he really isn't. That's why you go into paroxysms of rage every time those investments are mentioned: because they rob you of your darling line of attack against the Church.

This is not a paroxysm of rage. This is actually quite fun. I only go into fits of rage when I think of Joseph and Fanny.

You really are a thoroughly typical anti-Mormon, "Tithing Trough" Harmony.

And my TR gets me into the same celestial room as yours does.

Well, you'll never know, until the books are open.

Oh, I know all right.

No, you don't. Don't be telling lies, Pahoran! Someone might call you a liar!