Where does Gordon live?

[_GoodK]

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.

Obviously you just don't get it:


"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.[3] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


The only criticism you've made that I feel obligated to respond to is the fact that I didn't call for Infamys' sources. And this just goes to show you haven't read this entire thread.

(You never did post your impressive conversation with DCP either. I'd love to see that.)

[_the road to hana]

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?

People frequently use the words "apartment" and "condo" interchangeably in this country. Not all apartments are condos, and not all condos are apartments. But there are some apartments that are indeed condominiums, and vice versa.

In the case of Eagle Gate Apartments, either word would be perfectly appropriate if the unit is individually owned and has a maintenance fee, as is the case with most of those units, including the one that is kept for the use of the President of the LDS Church.

[_Jason Bourne]

Untrue. The Church is not a charity.

For tax purposes, to qualify for tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) organization, one must have as its purposes "charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals." One may be a "scientific" organization, for example, and not be "charitable." The Consumers Union (Consumers Reports) is just such an example; it is not charitable. Similarly, one may be "religious" and not "charitable."

OK. It is a religous organization. I stand corrected. However it seems that one of its functions is charitable activities. I have noted already however that the Church has other obligations to meet over and beyond humanitarian issues. Operations, facilties, instructiona manuals, preaching its message are all integral to this. One can argue and debate how much should go where, but none of us know anything about that in any detail because the Church does not tell.

Once one claims to be a "religious" organization, the First Amendment kicks in and disclosure requirements do not apply. So, there is no US law which requires religious organization disclosure.

I agree. In fact Churches are specifically excluded from disclosure required by seemingly all other organizations that are given tax exempt status. It is understandable given First Amendment issues. That does not mean non disclosure is a good thing.

People who are apostates, such as yourself, really have no dog in the race.

You were doing quite fine Bobby boy till you got personal again. But listen up. I do have a dog in the race. I am a member, in good standing, I pay tithes and offerings, hold a calling have served in many positions in the church. It is really a sad reflection on you that anything I have posted about financial issues cause you to call me apostate. I am even defending the issue of a home for the Church president here. So I have an interest. It is my church as much as it is yours. I know you are a monolithic Mormon though and so rigid that any differing opinions cause you great fear.

If you think the church is financially corrupt, then you are a fool to continue to contribute to it.

And you are a fool to imply that I think it is because I have carefully avoided saying so and in fact have said I do not think it is. Seems you need to practice your reading comprehension skill Mr Crocket.

[_Jason Bourne]

GoodK should be able to rip into idiots wherever he/she finds them. I am personally offended that you use the old hand attack on the newbie. Jason -- you are an idiot. I am not a newbie.

Crocket

You are a disgrace to the LDS Church and to what it means to be Christian. I'd rather be an idiot then be as nasty and mean as you are.

[_Jason Bourne]

Sheeesh. No need to be rude. I am sorry you feel that way. Why so strident?

Only because I've wasted some of my time time trying to get you to be more specific, cite your sources, and justify my intentions to you. I guess I was just a little low on patience, and I figured you were trying to impede my inquiry.

But thanks for your help, I do appreciate your feedback.

GoodK

Perhaps it would be helpful if you got to know us a bit before making blanket assumptions about us. Just a suggestion.

Who is us and what assumptions have I made?

Jason is a regular here. He's been part of "us" for a long time, since near the beginning of "us". You're a newcomber, at least using your current nickname. You've only been here a short time. You assumed some things about Jason that you might not have, had you known him a bit longer. He was trying to be helpful. You jumped on him like Tigger on Pooh.

And Tigger and Pooh were still friends.

Now you're saying you wasted your time. You figured he was trying to impede your inquiry. Not at all. He was telling you what he knows.

He was offering speculation as fact. That is an impedement to my inquiry.

You discounted it and demanded references.

And he had none.

Had you known him a bit better, you might not have jumped quite so quickly.

I stand by my statement: perhaps it would be helpful if you got to know us a bit before making blanket assumptions about us. It's just a suggestion.

You say I assumed some things. You still don't say what those things were... I'll wait for more specific examples...

You are correct though, I am new here. So what exactly is your point? I have to put in my time before I can respond in a manner you find to be in poor taste? I'm sure that would suit you rather nicely, but I can't say that I'll be doing that. They'll have to ban me from this forum too.

(and considering I was personally invited here by more than a couple of you after I joined MAD I feel rather welcome here)

Hey look. No big. You asked for sources. I told you I had nothing solid other then an article I had read at least for the condo issue. I did refer you to GBH bios about his home in the Millcreek area. I am not mad. I look forward to future disussions with you.

But no worries. According to my fellow LDSer Crocket I am just a hypocrite anyway, and now an apostate and an idiot on top of it all.

[_wenglund]

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?

To me, those of us who are trusting of Church leadership (and I suspect that the Church leaders are trusting of themselves), have no reason to believe there is impropriety nor reason to think there is even the appearance of impropriety--at least not sufficient to surmount the right of privacy.

I can't speak to the level of trust and the nature of accountability in other Churches. But, to each their own.

Having owned several small businesses, and having been subjected to frivolous lawsuits that pried unnecessarily into my private business affairs, perhaps I am a bit more mindful of the down-side to financial and other disclosures--something that those who are quick to call for full disclose tend not to consider. My experiences have given me a greater appreciation for the right of privacy and the value of trust.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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?

Are the answers to those questions any of your business? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Moniker]

GoodK should be able to rip into idiots wherever he/she finds them. I am personally offended that you use the old hand attack on the newbie. Jason -- you are an idiot. I am not a newbie.

Crocket

You are a disgrace to the LDS Church and to what it means to be Christian. I'd rather be an idiot then be as nasty and mean as you are.

I'd rather be a nut, slut, heathen then what crocket is -- a hateful, redundant, condemning others to hell, dingdong (he gets that title because of his ridiculous stance on anonymity and completely ignoring the implications because it fits his need to call people cowards), pisser of a CHRISTIAN??!! I think Jesus would like me better. I KNOW the founding fathers would like me better!!

Oh, and since God is concerned about appearance (according to Charity) God likes me more too! So just all around I rule!

Naa naa naa naa naa

[_GoodK]

Sheeesh. No need to be rude. I am sorry you feel that way. Why so strident?

Only because I've wasted some of my time time trying to get you to be more specific, cite your sources, and justify my intentions to you. I guess I was just a little low on patience, and I figured you were trying to impede my inquiry.

But thanks for your help, I do appreciate your feedback.

GoodK

Perhaps it would be helpful if you got to know us a bit before making blanket assumptions about us. Just a suggestion.

Who is us and what assumptions have I made?

Jason is a regular here. He's been part of "us" for a long time, since near the beginning of "us". You're a newcomber, at least using your current nickname. You've only been here a short time. You assumed some things about Jason that you might not have, had you known him a bit longer. He was trying to be helpful. You jumped on him like Tigger on Pooh.

And Tigger and Pooh were still friends.

Now you're saying you wasted your time. You figured he was trying to impede your inquiry. Not at all. He was telling you what he knows.

He was offering speculation as fact. That is an impedement to my inquiry.

You discounted it and demanded references.

And he had none.

Had you known him a bit better, you might not have jumped quite so quickly.

I stand by my statement: perhaps it would be helpful if you got to know us a bit before making blanket assumptions about us. It's just a suggestion.

You say I assumed some things. You still don't say what those things were... I'll wait for more specific examples...

You are correct though, I am new here. So what exactly is your point? I have to put in my time before I can respond in a manner you find to be in poor taste? I'm sure that would suit you rather nicely, but I can't say that I'll be doing that. They'll have to ban me from this forum too.

(and considering I was personally invited here by more than a couple of you after I joined MAD I feel rather welcome here)

Hey look. No big. You asked for sources. I told you I had nothing solid other then an article I had read at least for the condo issue. I did refer you to GBH bios about his home in the Millcreek area. I am not mad. I look forward to future disussions with you.

But no worries. According to my fellow LDSer Crocket I am just a hypocrite anyway, and now an apostate and an idiot on top of it all.

Jason, I agree, no big deal. I don't know why Harmony has taken such a big issue with this, and I said the only reason I wanted sources was so that I could verify and use them myself. I didn't mean it to come across as an attack, but apparently it did. I'm not mad either. Skippy - friends smilie?

[_skippy the dead]

Skippy - friends smilie?