Where does Gordon live?

[_GoodK]

Sure, but you haven't answered mine yet.

Sure I did. I told you I read it a few years back. That is the best I can do. I tried to find a better source last night. THe only thing I found was a link to Infymus's web site and that is as undocumented as my figure.

I also would like to hear Infymus's sources, I never said I believed his estimate over someone else's, though it is curious that I read that it was 2.5 million, and he does provide a picture, but I'm sure he'll post or send me a message with his source to back up his claims.

He may or may not.

Why do you care?

When did I give the impression that I care?

Well you did start a thread about it. Thus I presume you had an interest and cared about this topic.

Why should we answer you?

No one is saying you should answer me, in fact I feel like it's a waste of time for you to even post if you don't have an answer. I

I had an answer you just were not happy with it and wanted better documentation. I have provided the best I have.

f I were you (or an active member) I guess I would feel a little embarrased if I did not know the answer.

But I did have an answer, just not a ready reference. This was in the SLC Tribune a few years ago. I am sorry I cannot find the exaact source but I did try after your request.

What is your intent?

To find out if something I read was true. See, you've uncovered my true anti-mormon motives!

I did not and have not called you an anti-Mormon. It seems that you are hung up about people using that term. But you do not have to concern yourseld about it with me. I use the term LDS critic in almost all cases, not anti. In fact, while I am a Mormon I am more "liberal" in my views. I can be critical when crticism is needed and defend when I think defense is needed.

Why did you insinuate he lived in a mansion when you apparently had no idea where he lived?

Did I really "insinuate" something? Or did I do the intellectually honest thing, and say that I read something, and ask if anyone knew if it was true and could help me find out if it was true? And you are correct in your assumption, I have no idea where he lived, though I imagined it was in Utah. That's why I asked. Maybe you should read more carefully and not be so defensive.

I was not defensive at all nor am I know. You felt it appropriate to question me and my source so I am questioning you back. And yes you insinuated in your OP that he lived in some sort of "Mansion"

Conversing with you is tiresome. I did not insinuate anything. I posted a question and stated what I had heard. I never implied it was true, and if I thought it was I probably wouldn't have asked. Tiresome.

And I've gotten a lot of useful information, I am glad I asked.

[_personage]

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?

[_guy sajer]

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 have no proof. It just isn't true, based upon the general authorities I know. Although some were wealthy men before they were called to church service, my grandfather who was a wealthy man would support financially the families of one or two apostles at a time. Things have changed since then, but their stipends are most modest. 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.

The fact that records are closed to the public is not proof that stipends and benefits are high. Your evidence is evidence of nothing that records are closed.

rcrocket

With due respect, Robert, nor is your limited anecdotal evidence proof that stipends and benefits are moderate. We wouldn't need to speculate if the Brethren simply opened the books as do most other large, non-profit organizations.

All else equal, of an organization refuses to open its books, is it more reasonable to assume that it has something to hide or that it does not?

[_Jason Bourne]

Okay, Jason. But the Church is not under the same laws as solely charitable institutions such as Red Cross, etc. I am sure the Church does have a 501(c)3 designation (or some other IRS status) so that our contributions will be tax deductible. That does not mean its primary purpose is a charity.

There are a number of types of charities and organization can be in order to qualify under Sec, 501(c)(3) of the IRC. Sec. 170 provides some guidelines for what type of charity in organization is. It can be a public charity, a private charity a foundation and so on. Typically the type of contributions that the organization will receive for it primary support determine this.

The Red Cross and other simlar organizations are public charities because most of their support is from the public. Churches are typically public charities as well.

An exempt organization must also spell out its purpose and that purpose must qualify under the law in order to obtain tax exemption. If it does not operate within it stated purpose an exempt organization can lose its exemption or it can also be subject to a tax.

The LDS Church is a public charity. It stated purpose is more likely then not its religious mission. Thus it is a charitable organization. Sure it has as its primary mission the promotion and maintenance of it faith and its organization. That includes building, temples, missionary work, fast offering assistance, humanitarian aid and so on. So while that purpose is different from the Red Cross it is still a charity.

[_Jason Bourne]

Conversing with you is tiresome. I did not insinuate anything. I posted a question and stated what I had heard. I never implied it was true, and if I thought it was I probably wouldn't have asked. Tiresome.

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

And I've gotten a lot of useful information, I am glad I asked.

well if I helped I am glad. If not I am sorry.

[_guy sajer]

Okay, Jason. But the Church is not under the same laws as solely charitable institutions such as Red Cross, etc. I am sure the Church does have a 501(c)3 designation (or some other IRS status) so that our contributions will be tax deductible. That does not mean its primary purpose is a charity.

There are a number of types of charities and organization can be in order to qualify under Sec, 501(c)(3) of the IRC. Sec. 170 provides some guidelines for what type of charity in organization is. It can be a public charity, a private charity a foundation and so on. Typically the type of contributions that the organization will receive for it primary support determine this.

The Red Cross and other simlar organizations are public charities because most of their support is from the public. Churches are typically public charities as well.

An exempt organization must also spell out its purpose and that purpose must qualify under the law in order to obtain tax exemption. If it does not operate within it stated purpose an exempt organization can lose its exemption or it can also be subject to a tax.

The LDS Church is a public charity. It stated purpose is more likely then not its religious mission. Thus it is a charitable organization. Sure it has as its primary mission the promotion and maintenance of it faith and its organization. That includes building, temples, missionary work, fast offering assistance, humanitarian aid and so on. So while that purpose is different from the Red Cross it is still a charity.

You need to understand Jason that Charity is fishing for reasons to hold LDS Inc. to lower standards of financial transparency that those practiced by the overwhelming majority of large, mainstream, charitable organizations.

[_wenglund]

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.

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.

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.

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?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_bcspace]

I also want to know about salary/stipend pay for General Authorities

About 80-85K per year last I heard (late 90's).

[_Mercury]

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.

However, some are mistaken in assuming that his apartment comprises the entire floor. It doesn't. I know this because not more than a month ago my brother just about rented the apartment across the hall (which had been occupied by a GA), but decided to live in an apartment down on one of the lower floors.

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")?

If anyone here has any questions about the legitimate need for security, I suspect that Brent Metcalfe would be happy to oblige. For a time he was a part of the Church's seurity service.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Implementation of security does not imply the need for security. Also, the crazies that might want to harm the dipsh*t come from the organization he lords over. No one else gives a damn, including me. Hes just the biggest head of the hydra. Another one will sprout up if its cut off anyways.

[_Mercury]

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?