A Sub-Cult Within the Cult

[_Markk]

Look, we all know your big vendetta against CC - this forum is dedicated to Mormonism. You might want to take your questions to somebody who cares over on CARM where there is a forum to discuss CC. As far as I'm concerned, I want nothing to do with you.

Hi Catherine

You have a hard time dealing with facts and truth, did you read a word I wrote? I support CC pastors making a living? I attend a CC. Do you want me to just pretend that they make less than they do?

How much does your pastor make? ask him?

Catherine...folks make a big deal about LDS not disclosing income, and I agree. but it is kind of hard to make that argument when you attend a church that does the same thing...I can't do that, unless I do of a few things...quit being a hypocrite, accept it, or tell the truth? I choose the latter, God will deal with the rest,

This is not CARM, there is freedom here to speak what you want without being censored. You are not protected here and you are making a idiot of yourself, and of our faith.

thanks
MG

[_EAllusion]

So you don't see the glaring contradiction of claiming they must give up "board of director" positions right before saying they continue to make lots of money from their "board of director" positions?

I'm referring to the incestuous board appointments from the varied multi-billion dollar for-profit entities owned and run by the Corporation of the President. Since the books are closed, it is hard to know exactly how much is earned from this, but is well-attested that there is some earnings from it.

I know several general authorities, and they work more than anyone I have ever known. I don't think the lifestyles they maintain are particularly problematic.

Yes, rich people often think they work very, very hard compared to the rest of the world. That people who make due with far less also work incredibly hard - indeed have to work hard to get by - never seems to register.

If only you could see how general authorities live and work.

Yes, I'm sure a GA has it so rough compared to someone who shovels gravel for 70 hours a week to make under 30k a year. What kind of value do you place on having over a million people believe you are the next closest thing to God on earth? Maybe having a near endless supply of people to think your half-informed musings are the very font of wisdom is like a King Midas curse, but my suspicion is that this is actually quite fulfilling to experience.

I have no problem with ecclesiastical leaders drawing substantial compensation, but I do find it insulting when this is downplayed in such a way that diminishes just how good they have it compared to most people.

[_maklelan]

I'm referring to the incestuous board appointments from the varied multi-billion dollar for-profit entities owned and run by the Corporation of the President. Since the books are closed, it is hard to know exactly how much is earned from this, but is well-attested that there is some earnings from it.

And I'm referring to the trustworthiness of a site that makes such a flagrant contradiction.

Yes, rich people often think they work very, very hard compared to the rest of the world. That people who make due with far less also work incredibly hard - indeed have to work hard to get by - never seems to register.

I work with general authorities and have seen how much of their life is dedicated to serving the Church. You have not. Please don't impugn my integrity by pretending this is just a matter of me being deluded.

Yes, I'm sure a GA has it so rough compared to someone who shovels gravel for 70 hours a week to make under 30k a year. What kind of value do you place on having over a million people believe you are the next closest thing to God on earth? Maybe having nearly everyone you come into contact with think your half-informed musings are the very font of wisdom is like a King Midas curse, but my suspicion is that this is actually quite fulfilling to experience.

And your suspicion is wrong.

I have no problem with ecclesiastical leaders drawing substantial compensation, but I do find it insulting when this is downplayed in such a way that diminishes just how good they have it compared to most people.

And I have no problem with criticizing that downplaying, but I do take issue with naïve assumptions about how they live.

[_EAllusion]

And I'm referring to the trustworthiness of a site

I'm not referring to a site.

I work with general authorities and have seen how much of their life is dedicated to serving the Church. You have not. Please don't impugn my integrity by pretending this is just a matter of me being deluded.

Oh, so disagreeing with you is a personal attack on you, because it impugns the integrity of your beliefs? So because you personally believe GA lifestyles are modest, even if they comparatively are not, is a personal insult to you to have a differing opinion?

Look, I work in an agency where people routinely work over 80 hours a week in a high stress environment for less than 40k a year. No one is suggesting that GA's sip cocktails at the beach while underlings do all their work, but it is insulting to suggest that because they work a job commensurate with drawing a good income and incredibly good fringe benefits that this means it is a modest lifestyle. Compared to what? People who work 3 demeaning jobs to barely stay above the poverty line? People who save up their money for an entire year just so they can do the sorts of things GA's can routinely do for a couple of days?

And your suspicion is wrong.

You're basing that on what? I undersold my assertion with the term "suspicion," because this didn't seem like a thread to bring science in, but satisfaction research does indicate that having a position of leadership over people, having them agree with your ideas, and having a large degree of freedom to direct others is one of the most satisfying things people experience. And losing that is one of the most devastating things people can experience. This corresponds with lay assumptions that it is, in fact, nice to be popular.

[_Servant]

Look, we all know your big vendetta against CC - this forum is dedicated to Mormonism. You might want to take your questions to somebody who cares over on CARM where there is a forum to discuss CC. As far as I'm concerned, I want nothing to do with you.

Hi Catherine

You have a hard time dealing with facts and truth, did you read a word I wrote? I support CC pastors making a living? I attend a CC. Do you want me to just pretend that they make less than they do?

How much does your pastor make? ask him?

Catherine...folks make a big deal about LDS not disclosing income, and I agree. but it is kind of hard to make that argument when you attend a church that does the same thing...I can't do that, unless I do of a few things...quit being a hypocrite, accept it, or tell the truth? I choose the latter, God will deal with the rest,

This is not CARM, there is freedom here to speak what you want without being censored. You are not protected here and you are making a idiot of yourself, and of our faith.

thanks
MG

I'm not the one here attacking Christians. Leave me alone. I'll take this stuff to the CC forum and share it over on CARM where it belongs. You can get by on CARM with Ralf who thinks Mormons need more Christians like you (for obvious reasons), but others know what's going on. Now stop stalking me.

[_maklelan]

I'm not referring to a site.

I am.

Oh, so disagreeing with you is a personal attack on you, because it impugns the integrity of your beliefs? So because you personally believe GA lifestyles are modest, even if they comparatively are not, is a personal insult to you to have a differing opinion?

No, it's a personal insult to imply that my direct personal experiences are nothing more than a delusion. I work with GAs and their staff and know many of them personally. I see how busy they are and what kind of work they do. You appear to be telling me that I'm just one of the rich people pretending I have a tough life.

Look, I work in an agency where people routinely work over 80 hours a week in a high stress environment for less than 40k a year. No one is suggesting that GA's sip cocktails at the beach while underlings do all their work, but it is insulting to suggest that because they work a job commensurate with drawing a good income and incredibly good fringe benefits that this means it is a modest lifestyle. Compared to what? People who work 3 demeaning jobs to barely stay above the poverty line?

No, I am not saying they work harder than people who kill themselves just to get by. I am saying the assumption that their lifestyle is a fair compensation for giving up all their money and making $60-80K a year is completely and totally ludicrous.

You're basing that on what?

Based on working with them and their staff and seeing their schedules and knowing how they work and what they worry about. There's nothing in the world that would make me think that job is worth having.

I undersold my assertion with the term "suspicion," because this didn't seem like a thread to bring science in, but satisfaction research does indicate that having a position of leadership over people, having them agree with your ideas, and having a large degree of freedom to direct others is one of the most satisfying things people experience. And losing that is one of the most devastating things people can experience. This corresponds with lay assumptions that it is, in fact, nice to be popular.

And what about the primary responsibility of the GAs, up to and including the 12, is to be obedient? What of the expectation that they'll be available basically 24 hours a day? These are not things that fit well into your conceptualization of their lifestyle.

[Guest]

Good for you and for standing up for yourself, EA. I'm reading a couple of books about the Mark Hoffman forgeries and murders. I can't believe the massive amounts of money spoken of. In one case a highly-placed Mormon, Hugh Pinnock, covered Hoffman's signature loan of $185,000:

http://launiusr.wordpress.com/2011/07/2 ... nd-murder/

The wealth floating around in SLC is incredible!

[_EAllusion]

I undersold my assertion with the term "suspicion," because this didn't seem like a thread to bring science in, but satisfaction research does indicate that having a position of leadership over people, having them agree with your ideas, and having a large degree of freedom to direct others is one of the most satisfying things people experience. And losing that is one of the most devastating things people can experience. This corresponds with lay assumptions that it is, in fact, nice to be popular.

You actually see this play out all the time. People who are in leadership positions that require a lot of stress and work, or even personal danger, continue to cling to those positions even though they could step down and retire with a level of wealth they could never hope to spend. Why don't captains of industry or dictators in uneasy circumstances just step down while they can and live a luxury vacation for the rest of their lives? Turns out that losing that much leadership is really psychologically hard for people and having it is deeply satisfying. That makes it hard to let go. When thinking about the best possible jobs, you might think it is just being an independently wealthy investor who can afford any recreational activity possible. But you're probably better off being the Pope.

And both of those are so far ahead of the circumstances the vast majority of the world's population is in that it is difficult to wrap one's head around it.

[_EAllusion]

And what about the primary responsibility of the GAs, up to and including the 12, is to be obedient? What of the expectation that they'll be available basically 24 hours a day? These are not things that fit well into your conceptualization of their lifestyle.

Sounds like my job. I've yet to receive transportation via private jet or a luxury condo as compensation. Lots of people work hard Mak. Some are better compensated for it than others. Apostles have it good. Hand-waving it as a pittance compared to their work is really insulting to the actual distribution of wealth in this or any country. Their posts are like political offices: modest, if good income, fantastic fringe benefits, and enviable social status and power. It's nice, far nicer than what most people can ever hope to achieve, and not something that is a mere afterthought.

As I said, I don't begrudge the top leadership in a religio-business from drawing good compensation. I just have a problem with it being downplayed or when LDS attempt to contrast their all volunteer clergy with the wicked financial incentives infecting the rest of Christiandom.

[_maklelan]

You actually see this play out all the time. People who are in leadership positions that require a lot of stress and work, or even personal danger, continue to cling to those positions even though they could step down and retire with a level of wealth they could never hope to spend. Why don't captains of industry or dictators in uneasy circumstances just step down while they can and live a luxury vacation for the rest of their lives? Turns out that losing that much leadership is really psychologically hard for people and having it is deeply satisfying. That makes it hard to let go. When thinking about the best possible jobs, you might think it is just being an independently wealthy investor who can afford any recreational activity possible. But you're probably better off being the Pope.

And both of those are so far ahead of the circumstances the vast majority of the world's population is in that it is difficult to wrap one's head around it.

I'm sure the GAs around the world appreciate your generalized and remote psycho-analysis.