Where does Gordon live?

[Guest]

Brilliant! Please let me buy you a beer. I wish there was a smilie buying another smilie a beer, because I'd use it right now.

GoodK

Now perhaps you or Moniker can tell me how much a GA makes.

I don't care. I was merely responding to an erroneous post (yours?) that said the Church didn't have to disclose financial records. You silly willy!

Here's the UK:

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/re ... +of+Jesus+
Christ&searchby=name&keytype=N&limit=200&position=2&submit=+Run+Search+&opArea=S&Area_of_op=

Copy and paste above link.

[_charity]

Feedback time.

Not that this applies to all or any of you or this is what I think about all or any of you, but those who inquire into matters that are none of their business often appear to others to have impure motives.

Just a little feedback so you can determine whether or not you want to make a behavioral change.

[_GoodK]

I admit my experience with my grandfather (backed up by my grandmother) is hearsay, but it is stronger than bare assertions you've made.

Which bare assertions did I make, exactly? If this wasn't merely a "I know you are, but what am I" statement I'd spend more time on it.

You accuse me of dishonesty pretty quickly.

It doesn't take me long to recognize a statement is lacking intellectual honesty. Especially after spending some time on MAD.

And anonymously too.

What exactly does Anonymously mean? Are you suggesting that I use my social security number as my username, my drivers license picture as my avatar, or what. Please explain how I can disregard my privacy to your likening. Give me a break...

Why were you banned from MAD? Hmm.

Hmmm...Well, I suspect you already know why, since you seem to be echoing Peterson's frustration with my "anonymous" identity, but if you don't here is why GoodK was banned from MAD:

As KimberlyAnn mentioned on another thread, the poster called "GoodK" has made quite a splash over on the aptly named MADboard, specifically on a terrific thread called, "Anti-mormon: the label, what it means, and how it's used." Here is GoodK's opening post:

What does the label mean - and what is the difference between an anti-mormon and a non-mormon?
Can someone be a skeptic, or does that make them an anti-mormon?

Why is the label used?

I suspect it is used because the term plays into the idea : "The righteous will be persecuted by the wicked, but God will lead his people, and his work will go forward."

I think the term is pretty rude.

This is a topic which has come up many times before, of course. Critics and skeptics frequently object to the term, since, as it is used by more rabid TBMs (e.g., Pahoran), it carries a bite akin to "anti-Semite." But some TBMs, and especially some Mopologists, don't want to commit to this particular semantic interpretation. They want to be able to freely dole out the term "anti-Mormon" without making a clear declaration as to its power to insult or harm---in short, they don't want to be held responsible for the phrase.

Here is "Scotty Dog" Lloyd weighing in:

The prefix anti- means "against." So if a person positions himself in overt opposition to (not just disagreement with) Mormonism, he has no reasonable grounds to object to being denoted as anti-Mormon.

This is what I think we might refer to as the "soft" definition of "anti-Mormon." I.e., it is safe, it just describes opposition, it isn't freighted with all sorts of negative and harmful and hurtful connotations.

But wait, here is Scotty L. waffling already:

Merely being skeptical about Mormonism does not necessarily make one an opponent of it.

Again, you would have to oppose, not just disagree with Mormonism for the definition to apply.

And here's GoodK making a solid point:

I don't think it is rude to call someone an anti-mormon who indeed considers themself to be anti-mormon, but I don't think people using the label care if the label is appropriate or not.

Can you guess what the TBM reply to this might be? Sure you can!

It makes no difference whether or not the person likes the term. If he is behaving in a way that puts him in active opposition to Mormonism, he is, by definition, anti-Mormon.

Uh, right. And it makes no difference whether LDS consider themselves to be "real Christians." If they embrace beliefs which are wildly divergent from traditional Christianity, then they are, by definition, not traditional Christians! Boy, isn't it fun how definitions can work?

A bit later, The Great Professor comes lumbering in:

What does the label mean - and what is the difference between an anti-mormon and a non-mormon?

There must be at least a dozen threads devoted to this topic.

A non-Mormon is, simply, not a Mormon. Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Catholics, Presbyterians, Sikhs, Jews, and Armenian Orthodox are all non-Mormons.

An anti-Mormon is opposed to Mormonism (and/or to Mormons). That's what the prefix anti- means. Very few Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Catholics, Presbyterians, Sikhs, Jews, or Armenian Orthodox are anti-Mormons.

We also speak of anti-coagulants, anti-abortionists, anti-Communists, antilock brakes, antihistamines, antacids, anti-bacterial soaps, anti-logging activists, anti-Semitism, antitrust laws, the nineteenth-century anti-Masonic movement, and hundreds of other such things.

Can someone be a skeptic, or does that make them an anti-mormon?

Being a skeptic doesn't necessarily make one an anti-Mormon.

Why is the label used?

For the same reason that words are typically used: to refer to things or actions in the real world, and, thus, to communicate.

I suspect it is used because the term plays into the idea : "The righteous will be persecuted by the wicked, but God will lead his people, and his work will go forward."

I know of no basis for your suspicion. It certainly isn't true in my case.

I think the term is pretty rude.

Do you also regard it as rude to use words like anti-fungal and anti-trust? Would it have been an insult to have called a member of the French Resistance "anti-Nazi" or to refer to a member of Christian Women for Life as "anti-abortion"?

Very interesting! Is DCP really willing to head down this rabbit hole? Does he really want to try and make the case that you get to call your opponent whatever you'd like, even if said opponent objects strenuously to the label?

Later, Scotty Dog slips up (which GoodK notices) and admits that, in fact, he actually does use the term "anti-Mormon" as derogatory, rather than purely descriptive:

If however, someone does behave in opposition to my religious faith, I reserve the right to use a serviceable term such as anti-Mormon to aptly and accurately describe that person.

I think this captures the spirit of my question rather well. It seems like the term is wielded as more than just an innocent definition like anti-trust, as Professor Peterson so cleverly put it.

Indeed. DCP's anxious flailing about reveals yet another weak spot in the Mopologists' verbal artillery. It seems clear that TBMs would like to place critics and skeptics on a par with the same kinds of "anti-Mormons" who were responsible for Haun's Mill and Carthage.

Here is another intriguing exchange:

This would be more convincing if people outside of Mormonism used the word too. In fact, it seems that only Mormons use the term

Robert McKay, formerly of Utah Missions Inc., referred to himself quite cheerfully as an anti-Mormon, and I've known others.

I haven't been able to find one self proclaimed anti-mormon on the web.

You can't have looked for very long.

Here's somebody who was once president of the National Anti-Mormon League:

http://www.digital-editions.com/HUNTINGTON.htm

And here's a statement from Rhonda M Abrams, who was at the time the Regional Director for The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith -- and, manifestly, a Jew:

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/nccj.htm

Those took me less than a second to find.

Like I said, I think labeling someone a label that they don't think applies to them, or that doesn't apply to them is rude.

I've met appallingly racist people and disgustingly anti-Semitic people. They may or may not like being identified as bigots, racists, and/or anti-Semites.

Tough luck.

Hold on, though. Most of us here are well aware of the fact that DCP typically does not like to cite sources. Here's why:

F.Y.I neither of those links were to a website of someone who was labeling themself/themselves anti-mormon. Maybe you looked too quickly.

Tough luck?

Lol.... He quickly tries to backtrack and laugh the whole thing off:

I presume that the National Anti-Mormon League named itself. Do you have any reason to suggest otherwise? And the fact that they're probably defunct and, thus, lack a website, is reason to rejoice.

Give it up, GoodK. This is silly.

And the reply:

Sounds like you'd rather give up Professor. I don't see anything silly about me being right about the links you provided? They are in fact links to people labeling others as Anti-Mormons, which seems to prove my point.

You are more than happy to disconnect from this thread if you'd like, although it is a pleasure to speak to you.

Elsewhere, DCP elaborates a bit more on the definition of "anti-Mormon":

I see the term, "anti-mormon" as on par with "anti-Semite."

While the term anti-Semite refers to a hostility to Semitic people, and never is used to denote opposition to "Semitic architecture" or Semitic history for the simple reason that such concepts scarcely exist, the term anti-Mormon cannot be presumed to have the limited semantic range that you wish to assign to it because the adjective Mormon is used to refer to a wider range of phenomena than merely the animate human or personal.

In other words, this only re-affirms what I said earlier: Mopologists want to be able to put relatively benign critics of Mormon doctrines and policy on a par with the murderers at Carthage. It is more convenient for them, from a polemics standpoint, to lump everything together. DCP is a good writer, and he even boasts about his grasp of the English language at one point on the thread, and yet here he is advocating for hazy definitional clarity? It's either that, or he and S. Lloyd and other pro-"anti-Mormon" advocates are clinging to this usage out of pure spite. The two options available to TBMs here---definitional laziness or abject hate---don't seem very good, in my opinion.

Just in case there were any doubts remaining about whether or not DCP had gotten his butt handed to him, here is one of his de rigueur "see ya" posts:

Let me know when you are ready to explain why you don't think cult should be used in polemics, and anti-mormon should.

I've done so. Here on this thread. Twice. I've also explained my problems with the term cult at length, in print. That explanation is also now on line.

I leave for Egypt a week from today. I'll be gone for a little more than two weeks. By the time I return, I won't be interested in making any further attempts with you on this topic. If you want to engage what I've written on the subject here and elsewhere prior to my departure, I may be able to respond, though my time is running short. If you don't care to engage what I've written, that's perfectly fine with me.

Uh huh. And here is the coup de grace delivered by GoodK:

I contend that the term anti-Mormon has a perfectly clear meaning

The fact that words can be abused, or that they can't always be clearly and unambiguously defined, doesn't mean that they're useless. And the fact that they might carry bad connotations in some circles (or even in all circles) doesn't demonstrate them to be without value.

By contrast, I've argued at length and in some detail that the term cult (in the sense that evangelical countercultists use it, rather than in its bloodless and uncontroversial anthropology-of-religion sense) has no coherent meaning.

Now to quote your Mormonism as a cult paper: http://www.farmsresearch.com/publicatio ... chapid=549

"In at least two important ways, the terms "cult" and "Sekte" are alike: both words maintain an "in-group–out-group" division, and both pack a strong negative charge." -- so does the word anti-mormon, correct?

"But if Mormons and others are to be classed as "cults," the word must be defined. "

"The arbitrary and ad hoc character of such attempts at definition is clear..."

"But if polemics about "cults" inhibit an understanding of groups so designated, and close doors to them, such words occasionally turn against their own masters."

"the word remains "vague and unsatisfactory."

"Those polemicists who use the term "cult" seem—and like to seem—to be conveying by its use hard, objective information about the groups they so designate."

"Instead of the abused, and abusive, term "cult," we propose more neutral terminology, such as "religious movement," "religious group," or "church."


"Perhaps the best approach would be to apply to each group the name that its adherents use in referring to themselves."


That didn't take long.

Ouch! I haven't seen a smackdown of this caliber in quite some time. GoodK really eviscerated DCP's argument in short order. Truly, this was a sight to behold.

I don't know what a single GA makes; none has ever told me.

Wait, What?! Didn't you imply that you knew....:

At one time, a close of friend of mine who worked for the Church said that he had the highest salary in the Church, and it wasn't that high.

But I see how they live. Except those who were multimillionaires before they were called, they live very modestly.

You're speaking in vague terms so that you don't have to admit you are just speculating, so it sounds like you know what you are talking about. I don't care if the president of the church lives in a 2 bedroom 1 and a half bath in Van Nuys California, I just want to know.

Records are not "sealed." They are not disclosed publicly. I don't need to prove that to anybody; it is axiomatic in Mormon discussions.

I think you misunderstood, I was asking how do you know how much or how modest the stipend is if the record is sealed. Or not disclosed. Or kept in a filing cabinet....

So, you have from me hearsay statements from persons I have known who have supported GAs, a person who works for the Church, and my own eyewitness evidence as to how they appear to live. Sorry, I don't have a spreadsheet to give you. I do know the Church doesn't pay me a dime for the 30 hours a week I put in as a bishop.

A spreadsheet from you certainly wouldn't be that convincing, however if you were more specific with the claims (e.g) "support", "persons", "most modest" I might even take your word for the benefit of the discussion. Please forgive me, but you it sounds like you are doing nothing more than just yapping here, friend.

[_Mercury]

I read somewhere it was a multi-million dollar mansion, anyone know anyother details??

GBH occupies the top floor of an apartment building in downtown SLC. (I believe this is correct. I recall seeing a photo of the building at Infymus's website.)

I also want to know about salary/stipend pay for General Authorities and any other indicators that the executives of the church have a compelling interest to keep attendance high.

Thanks!

GoodK

This is a tough question since the books have been sealed since around the late 1950s. During Spencer Kimball's administration, GAs were urged to let go of their secular positions, since those positions made it seems as if the Church were more interested in secular accomplishment than spirituality. (Many GAs at the time were heads of big corporations and so forth.) As to how much they make.... Again, all we can go by is estimates, and anecdotal accounts from both believing and lapsed LDS. The range appears to span from about $75,000 (on the low end) to over $500,000 on the high end. And again: I'm not sure if there is variance based on seniority---I.e., if, say, Oaks gets more money than somebody lower down on the totem pole.

Something which shouldn't be overlooked is the rather large sums commanded by the GAs for their publications. I think it's fair to assume that they pull in beaucoup profits from their books, which have a built-in readership. (Just ask Paul Dunn.) The real issue at stake beneath all of this, I think, is the tendency among TBMs to want to insist---strenuously---that the GAs don't "profit" from their high position in the Church. I think that is a falsehood. It seems transparently obvious that the GAs profit enormously from the positions. The fact that Church mythology tries to pooh-pooh away GA financial profit in the midst of so much financial secrecy cannot help but raise more than a few eyebrows.

You are missing the point scratch, its the influence they steer that is the most profitable aspect. Its all about their false power the serfs give them.

[_Jason Bourne]

Feedback time.

Not that this applies to all or any of you or this is what I think about all or any of you, but those who inquire into matters that are none of their business often appear to others to have impure motives.

Just a little feedback so you can determine whether or not you want to make a behavioral change.

Why do you think it is nobodies business? Whose business is it. For my part I think the Church should disclose financial matters including how much the top leaders are paid. I pay tithing. Is it my business to know?

[_GoodK]

Feedback time.

Not that this applies to all or any of you or this is what I think about all or any of you, but those who inquire into matters that are none of their business often appear to others to have impure motives.

Just a little feedback so you can determine whether or not you want to make a behavioral change.

Let me make a confession then. I don't think that the world is better because of the Mormon church. And I grew up in the church, so I have a particular fascination with it. But I don't think Mormonism is any more ridiculous than mainstream Christianity, Islam or religion in general.

GoodK

[_GoodK]

Pres Hinckley lives in a church owned condo in downtown SLC. It is estimates to be worth about 1.5 million but probably has dropped since then as realestate is Utah is on the decline. The Church bought this condo years ago for their church president and he lives there primarily for security reasons and also for assistance with living and health issues as he ages. His home before that was in the Millcreek area, a modest home that he bought many years ago himself and bilt on to it himself as he needed to. Neither of these is anywhere near mansion status. All other GAs live in their own homes that most bought before they were ever called to be GAs.

Do you mind divulging the source of your information, or explain why I should believe you. I'm willing to believe you, I just need more than a little faith to do so.

Thanks!

GoodK

I am not sure what you are looking for. This is fairly public knowledge. You can read about his home in Millcreek in any bio about his life.

I'm looking for the reason you believe his condo is worth $1.5 million, as opposed to $5.1 million, or $36,000, or any other amount. You seem to know the value, so I would just like to know how you know this.

[_Infymus]

This is a picture of the Mormon Prophet's 2400+ sq foot Condo estimated at $2.8 million dollars. The entire top floor belongs to the Prophet. There are "special" elevators that are guarded by Mormon Secret Police (men dressed in all black suits, white shirts and dark ties, ear pieces and microphones in their sleeves, who carry actual police looking "badges"). These elevators go down underground where tunnels allow the Prophet to travel to any part of Tempe Square without having to be driven. The tunnels are large enough that Hinckley can be taken by private golf-cart.

[_GoodK]

This is a picture of the Mormon Prophet's 2400+ sq foot Condo estimated at $2.8 million dollars. The entire top floor belongs to the Prophet. There are "special" elevators that are guarded by Mormon Secret Police (men dressed in all black suits, white shirts and dark ties, ear pieces and microphones in their sleeves, who carry actual police looking "badges"). These elevators go down underground where tunnels allow the Prophet to travel to any part of Tempe Square without having to be driven. The tunnels are large enough that Hinckley can be taken by private golf-cart.

I heard about the tunnels before, but I figured it was just a rumor.
Sounds a little like the Batcave...

[Reflexzero]

<snip pic>

This is a picture of the Mormon Prophet's 2400+ sq foot Condo estimated at $2.8 million dollars. The entire top floor belongs to the Prophet. There are "special" elevators that are guarded by Mormon Secret Police (men dressed in all black suits, white shirts and dark ties, ear pieces and microphones in their sleeves, who carry actual police looking "badges"). These elevators go down underground where tunnels allow the Prophet to travel to any part of Tempe Square without having to be driven. The tunnels are large enough that Hinckley can be taken by private golf-cart.

I heard about the tunnels before, but I figured it was just a rumor.
Sounds a little like the Batcave...

Just to keep things consistent…

Infymus,
I'm looking for the reason you believe his condo is estimated to be worth estimated at $2.8 million dollars. Also, how do you know the whole top floor belongs to the prophet? Have you ever been up there? How do you know there are secret tunnels? Do you have blueprints, building receipts, etc.? How do you know he has a private golf cart that he uses to travel through the tunnels? Do you have receipts, pictures, etc.?

I'm willing to believe you, I just need more than a little faith to do so.

(Tongue-in-cheek, lest there be confusion).