Mormons are ashamed of their own beliefs

[_Pahoran]

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.

The "cover up" is yet another of your intentional falsehoods.

As you perfectly well know, "Tithing Trough" Harmony, the GA's are supported from the proceeds of the Church's business investments.

As you perfectly well know, "Tithing Trough" Harmony, those business investments trace back to the Church's pioneer days in early Utah.

This means, as you perfectly well know, "Tithing Trough" Harmony, the tithing that you or I (well, just I) pay today makes not a blind bit of difference to the stipends of current GA's.

Therefore, as you perfectly well know, "Tithing Trough" Harmony, the GA's have absolutely no pecuniary interest in the tithing that members pay.

Therefore, as you perfectly well know, "Tithing Trough" Harmony, your manufactured accusation about "conflict of interest" is as false as all the others.

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.

Generations ago. Your knee-jerk accusation was a lie.

In answer to Lie 2: 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.

You are consciously shifting the goal posts, "Tithing Trough" Harmony. I pointed out that President Hinckley, who told fewer falsehoods in his entire life than you do in an average post, explicitly mentioned the fact that GA's receive living allowances -- and mentioned it from the pulpit -- because you previously lied that the GA's "never admitting getting paid at all."

Except that President Hinckley explicitly talked about the fact that they were.

You lied.

As you do.

Habitually. Obsessively. And stubbornly.

I don't have to lie, Pahoran.

If that's true, then why do you persist in doing it?

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.

Evidence, please. Can you support that accusation?

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.

You're the one who asked to be treated charitably while boring in with your unsupported -- and vile -- accusations. That's the inconsistency.

I realise that it is SOP for you, as a thoroughly typical anti-Mormon, to assume, without evidence, that the Church is always lying; real Latter-day Saints who rightfully hold Temple Recommends that they did not lie to get, know better.

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.

Yes, I thought you'd weasel out of that one. Dan was the one who raised the subject; he opened the door. I'm sure he can deal with whatever laughably absurd arguments you can muster in support of your boundless spite.

And where does it say not to?

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

I told you: Matthew 7:6. But you referred to scripture. Where in scripture does it say that the Lord's Church must not be financially prudent?

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.

So "hidden" that President Hinckley (among others) explicitly mentioned it from the pulpit in GC. You can't give up your lies, can you?

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!

So compulsive is your lying that you'll even lie to my face about what I wrote. I did not say, and will not say, that I "find supporting widows and helping the poor to be financially imprudent," and only a barefaced liar would impute such a view to me. I do, however, say that we are far better placed to do such things when we are financially prudent than when we are not.

Of course, the real reason you don't want the Church to have investments is so that you can have some miniscule kernel of fact behind your vicious accusation that the General Authorities are enriching themselves from tithing.

Pity.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_moksha]

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.

Harmony, we've always been told that were the Church to release any financial information, anything they reported would be used against them by enemies. Wouldn't it stand to reason that GA renumeration would be one of special sensitivity in terms of predicted attacks?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't recall having ever -- ever -- raised that issue. Not in print. Not even on a message board.

I see anti-Mormon ministries as rarely if ever motivated by material interest, and have never criticized clergymen for drawing a salary, either.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=282

My name is "Daniel Peterson," not "Louis Midgley."

I do distinctly recall you saying something here on this board about Decker, Martin, et al. (you might not have named those individuals specifically, but it was a list of well-known Mormon critics) as doing anti-Mormonism for a living.

Ed Decker does (and Walter Martin did) do anti-Mormonism for a living. It is a full-time job for Decker. And criticizing non-evangelical religious beliefs (including Mormonism) was a full-time job for Martin.

But that, by itself, does little or nothing to demonstrate that such people are or were motivated solely or primarily or even a teensy little bit by greed.

But my point here, more simply and basically, is that there is an unreasonable and reactionary defensiveness on the part of the Mopologists when it comes to the issue of the Church and money.

I don't think I'm being "unreasonable," "reactionary," or overly "defensive" to object to Harmony's accusation that President Packer has corruptly built up a lavish estate by exploiting widows, orphans, and the poor.

I've been in his home. I've seen it. Her accusation is flatly false.

***

I don't see much point in continuing this. Harmony has expressed her views on this matter. I've said that I find them absurd, unjust, and hateful.

I can't imagine that much will be achieved by each of us reasserting our positions.

I see nothing wrong with a church or any other non-profit investing its funds so as to maximize its ability to carry out its core missions. That seems to me merely prudent.

Harmony disagrees.

Harmony does not believe that churches should sponsor colleges and universities.

I disagree.

I've been in President Packer's home, and I find it quite modest.

Harmony has not, but finds it obscenely lavish.

Harmony believes that people who work for the Church, even indirectly, should not have homes or bicycles for their children or savings accounts or non-essential nutrition.

I disagree.

Our disagreement is manifestly clear, and there's little prospect that either of us will shift toward the other's position.

[_Shulem]

Well, bottom line is: I'm ashamed of my Mormon beliefs. I would think DCP is too.

Damn, some of them are written in Facsimile No. 3.

But. I know better.

Paul O

[_Jason Bourne]

Pahoran

I am not sure whether it matters if the businesses the church owns come from contributions during pioneer days or more recent days. It still comes from members contributions at some point. However in think your position is suspect. It seems untenable that ALL. The current for profit activities came from ventures started over 120 to 150 years ago. But there is really no way for us to tell since such information is not disclosed.

But really what does it matter? All funds the Church derives whether from business ventures, other investments or member donations it is there to be used for the missions and purposes of the church. Does it make it better or worse if the GAs are paid out of some bank account that comes from business ventures rather than tithing? It would make no difference to me. But I don't have a problem with them being paid. Nor do I have an issue with president Packer buying a then modest home and later some adjacent property that based on growth of the population base appreciated substantially. This is one that Harmony and I have discussed before and we just disagree on it.

That said the issue for me is disclosure of the finances to those the church asks for support from as well how much of after reasonable operations are paid does the church spend on the poor and down trodden. Also, what is a reasonable level of investing in income producing assets? I am sure I don't have the answers but at the sand time I don't know what the church does with any of this nor what it's balance sheet looks like because it is hidden. I think that is wrong. I know that is an unpopular position for most believing members which honestly often surprises me.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think it does matter, not hugely, but somewhat, whether money comes from tithing funds or not.

Precisely because critics of the Church like Harmony seek to use the emotive power of the word tithing in order, for example, to blacken the reputation of President Packer and paint him as a corrupt, greedy, hypocritical oligarch who gluts himself upon the sacrifices of widows and orphans and the poor, it matters.

[_Runtu]

I think it does matter, not hugely, but somewhat, whether money comes from tithing funds or not.

Precisely because critics of the Church like Harmony seek to use the emotive power of the word tithing in order, for example, to blacken the reputation of President Packer and paint him as a corrupt, greedy, hypocritical oligarch who gluts himself upon the sacrifices of widows and orphans and the poor, it matters.

As much as I disagree with Harmony on this issue, I don't believe she's posturing but rather is expressing her honest opinion. This issue is clearly important to her, and it's not helpful to suggest that she's found a convenient club with which to beat President Packer.

[_Daniel Peterson]

As much as I disagree with Harmony on this issue, I don't believe she's posturing but rather is expressing her honest opinion. This issue is clearly important to her, and it's not helpful to suggest that she's found a convenient club with which to beat President Packer.

I'm sure she's sincere, and, though I regret her views very much, I didn't accuse her of "posturing."

I simply say that the distinction between tithing funds and non-tithing funds is, in my opinion, not without significance, and I object vehemently to her portrayal of President Packer as selfishly glutting himself on the offerings of widows, orphans, and the poor.

[_Runtu]

I'm sure she's sincere, and, though I regret her views very much, I didn't accuse her of "posturing."

I simply say that the distinction between tithing funds and non-tithing funds is, in my opinion, not without significance, and I object vehemently to her portrayal of President Packer as selfishly glutting himself on the offerings of widows, orphans, and the poor.

We agree, but your previous post said harmony "seek[s] to use the emotive power of the word tithing in order, for example, to blacken the reputation of President Packer." That sounded to me like you were suggesting that her views on tithing were just a method of creating emotive power. I took that as you saying it was just a rhetorical ploy, not her honest opinion. I'm glad you cleared that up.

[_Joseph]

"very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions."
***************************

Most would be modest compared to CEO's earning a few million a year.

It is a PAID MINISTRY - a priestcraft factory.