Where does Gordon live?

[_GoodK]

Only because I'm still awake right now:

He did not know where President Hinckley lived.

How quickly you forget:

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

Jason wrote, on page one at precisely 2:57 pm today:

Pres Hinckley lives in a church owned condo in downtown SLC.

Close, but no. I appreciate the "church owned condo" part, but this answer is hardly satisfactory, nor was it accurate. I believe he lives in an apartment, no?

Are you serious right now, or just arguing to argue?

Now which part of this sentence didn't you understand the first time? Or the second time you asked?

#1. You never said where you read that Pres Hinckley lives in a multi-million dollar mansion. Where did you read that? I see no source for that statement.

Fair question. To be honest, I don't know for sure where I read it. I believe it was on a message board, and I really didn't trust the source. Thus prompting me to post the question... and before posting here, I asked at two of my LDS friends, who had no clue... But I never pretended that what I read was true, which is why this statement is more than just a little silly....

#2. Pres Hinckley lives in a church-owned condo (called Eagle Gate) in downtown SLC. Just like Jason said he does.

Wait, Jason said that? Why don't you quote where he said that he lived on the top floor of the Eagle Gate apartment building? All I can find is church owned condo worth 1.5 million.

And all I wanted was his sources! I said I'd believe him, I just wanted his sources! I feel like I'm talking to a teenager... Please, I beg you, go back and read this thread from page 1. You'll see that all I wanted was sources of Jason's information, and you insist that I should know better than to ask for sources. You should take correction here. You're logic is bordering on insanity. And where is Jason? Can't he speak for himself?

Give it up, sis. We expect you to take correction here. If you can't, this is going to be a very uncomfortable place for you.

Why do you keep speaking in "we" and as if this is your forum. Are you even a moderator here? Has anyone here joined you in the construction and attack of this straw man you call GoodK?

PS. I do feel special with my invitations, especially after Mr. Scratch provided the blow by blow summary of Peterson and I. Sometimes I go back and read it when I can't sleep... I wish I had the friends smilie from MAD. Skippy?

If you think Scratch gives you special status here, you have a lot to learn. And the blow by blow of my initial engagement with the dear doctor took up about a dozen threads, several dozen pages, over 3 days and shut down the frickin' board. And I didn't get banned for it. But that was before your time.

I've heard of penis envy, but thread envy.... now it's time for me to go to bed.

Like I said, you're going to have to do better than that.

[_moksha]

To me, whether it be individuals or organizations of any type (for profit or charitable), the issue of financial disclosure falls under the right to privacy, and may only be violated when there are more compelling interests, such as trust issues and accountability.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, what about that thought of avoiding the appearance of impropriety we hear so much about in other Church addresses? The seeming contradiction between that and refusing financial transparency seems confusing. I usually associate organizations hiding their finances with some shenanigans of sorts. I am not saying such shenanigans occur, but it is hard to keep financial reins on a multi-billion dollar organization without the clarity of certifiable audits. Almost all other Churches provide annual financial reports. Does it really do the LDS Church justice to withhold information?

[_GoodK]

To me, whether it be individuals or organizations of any type (for profit or charitable), the issue of financial disclosure falls under the right to privacy, and may only be violated when there are more compelling interests, such as trust issues and accountability.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, what about that thought of avoiding the appearance of impropriety we hear so much about in other Church addresses? I usually associate organizations hiding their finances with some shenanigans of sorts. I am not saying such shenanigans occur, but it is hard to keep financial reins on a multi-billion dollar organization without the clarity of certifiable audits. Almost all other Churches provide annual financial reports. Does it really do the LDS Church justice to withhold information?

It does them justice if they are paying the leadership executive level salaries.
And what exactly are they paying them for? Revelation? Do these gentlemen work? Do they deserve to be paid at all?

[_the road to hana]

Is it the Eagle Gate apartments that he lives in? My Ex did some work there several years ago, and if I remember right, that's where at least one Prophet lived.

Yes, he does reside in the Eagle Gate apartments.



It may be of interest to note that the green glass in the picture supplied by Infamous is bullet proof. Would it surprise anyone here to learn that there are frequent and serious threats on the Prophet's life (which also explains the need for tunnels?

Those tunnels have been around a long time, and while they might be helpful in security, I doubt that was their original purpose.

[_harmony]

Close, but no. I appreciate the "church owned condo" part, but this answer is hardly satisfactory, nor was it accurate. I believe he lives in an apartment, no?

Isn't a condominium simply an apartment that someone owns? and a thus a "church owned condo" would be an apartment that the church owns? Now I'm willing to admit I could be wrong about that, because I've never lived in an apartment or a condo, but I thought the only difference between the two was one of ownership.

Are you serious right now, or just arguing to argue?

I was never serious. You're the one who's bent out of shape.

#1. You never said where you read that Pres Hinckley lives in a multi-million dollar mansion. Where did you read that? I see no source for that statement.

Fair question. To be honest, I don't know for sure where I read it. I believe it was on a message board, and I really didn't trust the source. Thus prompting me to post the question... and before posting here, I asked at two of my LDS friends, who had no clue... But I never pretended that what I read was true, which is why this statement is more than just a little silly....

Well, you can't blame me for the silliness of your statement. Why didn't you ask the person who posted that on the message board, like you asked Jason for references for his answer here? Surely you don't have a double standard, do you, GoodK?

Wait, Jason said that? Why don't you quote where he said that he lived on the top floor of the Eagle Gate apartment building? All I can find is church owned condo worth 1.5 million.

Jason said Pres Hinckley lives in a church owned condo in downtown SLC. Why didn't you post the entire sentence? Because it's accurate on its face, and you didn't take his word for it until a few others had collaborated it? Just because he didn't post the name of the building doesn't distract from the accuracy of what he posted.

And all I wanted was his sources! I said I'd believe him, I just wanted his sources!

No, all you wanted was to be a jerk. And you did a fine job of it.

Tori's source was her ex-husband, which is quite on the level of Crock's grandfather. I didn't see you hound her like you hounded Crock. Infymus didn't bother to post his source, but you didn't hound him like you did Jason.

I feel like I'm talking to a teenager...

55.

Please, I beg you, go back and read this thread from page 1.

I did. How did you think I knew what time Jason posted his first post? Fascinating to watch you accept information selectively.

You'll see that all I wanted was sources of Jason's information, and you insist that I should know better than to ask for sources.

You didn't ask Tori to verify her source, as if her ex- is more reliable than Crock grandfather. And you certainly didn't hound Infymus for his information, even though it was exactly the same as Jason's... an apartment building in downtown SLC. No verification there.

You should take correction here. You're logic is bordering on insanity.

Well, I am harmony, after all.

And where is Jason? Can't he speak for himself?

We stick for each other occasionally.

Why do you keep speaking in "we" and as if this is your forum. Are you even a moderator here? Has anyone here joined you in the construction and attack of this straw man you call GoodK?

Attack? Sis, this isn't an attack. This is a suggestion. You're the one who keeps escalating. And no one has to join me. If they did, you'd complain about piling on, and rightfully so.

PS. I do feel special with my invitations, especially after Mr. Scratch provided the blow by blow summary of Peterson and I. Sometimes I go back and read it when I can't sleep... I wish I had the friends smilie from MAD. Skippy?

If you think Scratch gives you special status here, you have a lot to learn. And the blow by blow of my initial engagement with the dear doctor took up about a dozen threads, several dozen pages, over 3 days and shut down the frickin' board. And I didn't get banned for it. But that was before your time.

I've heard of penis envy, but thread envy.... now it's time for me to go to bed.

You're the one who thought she could win at One Up. If you'd shut down the MAD board, I'd allow you to crow. As it is, you're just one of many who've been banned for arguing with Daniel. Big deal. Welcome to MDB.

Like I said, you're going to have to do better than that.

Been there, done that... years ago.

[_cacheman]

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.

Was he, by any chance,a football coach? Just wonderin'

cacheman

[_Abinadi's Fire]

Sure you can. All you have to do is pay tithing. And as far as paying admission to get into the chapel, you absolutely do, and money is the least of the commodities that are ultimately extracted.

Keep swallowing camels Charity.

A person who thinks that all they have to do is pay tithing to get into the temple is really, really mistaken. That is the easiest of the requirements.

That is a very interesting statement charity. Can you please explain what some of the harder requirements are?

I'm interested in an expansion on this as well, charity.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

It times past, it was described as easy:

Alma 37:44 For behold, it is as easy to give heed to the word of Christ, which will point to you a straight course to eternal bliss, as it was for our fathers to give heed to this compass, which would point unto them a straight course to the promised land.

Matthew 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Ironically, it is the simplicity of "looking to Christ" that becomes a stumblingstone to many:

1 Nephi 17:41 And he did straiten them in the wilderness with his rod; for they hardened their hearts, even as ye have; and the Lord straitened them because of their iniquity. He sent fiery flying serpents among them; and after they were bitten he prepared a way that they might be healed; and the labor which they had to perform was to look; and because of the simpleness of the way, or the easiness of it, there were many who perished.

Romans 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

[_Jason Bourne]

For those of us who trust the leaders of the Church, and who believe they are accountable to God and not us or mankind, tend to think it not only okay not to disclose their finances, but they are morally obligated to do so under the right of privacy. We tend to feel the same way about our personal finances--I.e. it is nobody's business but our own.

So when the LDS Church did publish financials then I assume you would have pushed for them to close the books. Right?

Also, there is a grave difference between your finances and the Churches. The Church is a public charitable organization. It enjoys special privileges you do not have. It receives all its support from donations. You are not and do not. The comparison is not accurate at all. In addition there is also the idea that stewardship generates accountability. We all admit our leaders are human and fallible. We know there has bee mismanagement in the past and in fact it seems that since the books were closed at the same time the mismanagement was going on the Church leaders were embarrassed and decided secrecy was best. By disclosing the finances they become transparent in the area of money and demonstrate they are in fact doing the right things with the money that is entrusted to them.

For those who do not trust the leaders of the Church, or who believe they are accountable to contributors, or who are concerned about the perceptions of others who may be distrustful, may think it appropriate to surmount the right of privacy and disclose the finances.

1: There is no inherent right to privacy here.

2: While others here my not trust the CHurch leaders I do. And I believe it is likely that they handle the finances quite well and that there is no malfeasence going on. From what little information is available it seems they are doing a good job. I may not always agree with how money is spent, like on a large mall-I personally thought that a bad move- but that is ok. I don't have to agree. But transparency puts them above reproach. It is interesting that most large Churches chose to publish their finances for that reason-transparency as well as stewardhip-to show that they are doing the right thing with the widows mite.

Clearly, there is a disagreement--and that is fine. It just that it it doesn't make sense for the distrusters to expect that those who are trusting (which I presume is the case with the Church leaders) to cater to the distrust, and violate their right to privacy. Likewise, it wouldn't make sense were the Church to expect the distrusters to make contributions absent financial disclosure--even given that certain activities in the Church may be somewhat tied to the contributions. Right?

No, I respectfully do not think you are right at all about this.

[_Jason Bourne]

To me, whether it be individuals or organizations of any type (for profit or charitable), the issue of finacial disclosure falls under the right to privacy, and may only be violated when there are more compelling interests, such as trust issues and accountability.

This statement is total TBM-speak. As a corporation the presidency is a holding company, not a church. Through creative accounting practices finances are shifted to close parties and associates of the LDS elite.

Trust and accountability are created by transparency. If there werent anything funny going on then they would be transparent. Since they are not we are forced to assume there is something going on that we are unaware of.

The LDS corporation has gone to court to protect its financial transparency and claimed that on religious grounds it should be protected. This is a move that is ridiculous and further clarifies that there is something fishy going on with the books.

If you are a Mormon who stands behind the blockade on financial transparency then you need to examine why you believe this and stop making silly assertions of privacy. They are transparent TO YOU even. This is either grossly ignorant or blindly following your leaders.

Have you been effective at praying the gay away Wade?

I'd get a refund on your GED course, my friend. If English is not your first language, I apologize for that slight.

rcrocket

When all esle fails make a personal attack. Nice Job rcroket.

I think Merc made some fair points.