Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote:
Cherry picking is taking one verse and making a point, taking a truck load would no longer be cherry picking you idjit.


I see it's okay for you to call names though isn't it? Here is a reminder of what you just said on another thread . . .

Ahh, there's the hypocrite preacher of "let's all act Christlike" Name calling, etc, next thing you know, he'll be in one of the religious threads preaching and deriding me for my name calling. Friggin hypocrite.


I guess in your mind it's ok in a political thread, but when we switch to a religious thread it's not?

Is all of this something that was taught in your Gospel Doctrine Class today?


What'd you learn? That you don't need authority, you don't need to be baptized, you don't need good works, just beliiiieeeeve in Jeeezzzusss!! As he thumps the bible and has his band sing some rocks songs in the back ground? (went to a friends church recently, this is the nonsense I saw) And the way "Christian" churches are moving towards. MOre of a concert than a sermon.

If you are an example of the teachings that come out of Gospel Doctrine, I'm glad I don't go. Amazing how you get all pissy if someone criticizes the way your church is run, but you are more than willing to call a friends services "nonsense". Do you deride their services behind their backs or do you have the balls to do it to their face? I bet you are very proud of the derision you just showed to your friend's beliefs. Do they do the same to you?

Yeah, you follow Jesus' example, don't you.

Betzz wrote:
Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote:
Cherry picking is taking one verse and making a point, taking a truck load would no longer be cherry picking you idjit.


I see it's okay for you to call names though isn't it? Here is a reminder of what you just said on another thread . . .

Ahh, there's the hypocrite preacher of "let's all act Christlike" Name calling, etc, next thing you know, he'll be in one of the religious threads preaching and deriding me for my name calling. Friggin hypocrite.


I guess in your mind it's ok in a political thread, but when we switch to a religious thread it's not?

Is all of this something that was taught in your Gospel Doctrine Class today?


What'd you learn? That you don't need authority, you don't need to be baptized, you don't need good works, just beliiiieeeeve in Jeeezzzusss!! As he thumps the bible and has his band sing some rocks songs in the back ground? (went to a friends church recently, this is the nonsense I saw) And the way "Christian" churches are moving towards. MOre of a concert than a sermon.

If you are an example of the teachings that come out of Gospel Doctrine, I'm glad I don't go. Amazing how you get all pissy if someone criticizes the way your church is run, but you are more than willing to call a friends services "nonsense". Do you deride their services behind their backs or do you have the balls to do it to their face? I bet you are very proud of the derision you just showed to your friend's beliefs. Do they do the same to you?

Yeah, you follow Jesus' example, don't you.


Best line of the day.....

Psssttt......... Betz.... You might want to tell "HIM" the definition of what they are. I REALLY don't think he has them..... or backbone to speak of either.

Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Percy Wetmore said:

"Yea, you know more than the current Prophets is what your saying, pretty arrogant, Pride goeth before the fall. Heed it Jaye.


Fact is, if your wine is fermented with Alchohol, it is breaking WOW, you can't deny this. Pure wine is interpreted as grape Juice, you don't use this, you use fermented, you are breaking WOW."

To which, I...Jaye reply:

I would venture to say that the current PROPHET may know more about certain things than I do...while I would also venture to say that I know more about certain things than the current Prophet does.

The PROPHET(S) is(are) certainly welcome to give counsel to the members of the faith regarding his(their) personal opinions. This is something that ALL the Prophets have done.

And as I deem their words to be wise, and their advice to be scripturally sound, and their counsel to be applicable to my own life...I have no problem heeding their words of opinion, as well as their doctrinal teachings.

But where I see that their words are only opinion, and not based upon solid doctrine...I exercise my right to free agency and free will...and the gift of discernment which our Father has gifted His children with...to decide whether I will heed them or not.

2. My wine is made in the manner in which it was made in the days of Jesus.

It is fermented, just as the wine which was made in the days of Jesus was fermented...and just as it was made by the members of the Mormon Church following the direction of Joseph Smith based upon that which he said was revealed to him by the Lord.

And since there is NO doctrine within the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Doctrine and Covenants forbidding the use of fermented wine for Sacramental purposes...and indeed these books all INSTRUCT the use of wine for Sacramental purposes...then wine is what I use when my small vinyard of 3 vines can supply enough grapes for a small amount of new-made wine.

Ergo...my use of homemade wine for Sacrament is NOT against the Word of Wisdom at all.

3. The scriptures which you have posted regarding wine and strong drink have one thing in common.

They warn against excess.

A wine bibber, as mentioned in the Bible, was a drunkard. A man given to excess in drinking his wine until he was passed out in drunkenness.

The Pharisees accused Jesus of being a wine bibber, or a drunkard...as well as a glutton...because they saw him sitting at table with tax collectors and sinners.

Was He a glutton? No. He ate to sustain life, just as every mortal man must do.

Was he a drunkard? No. He drank wine at table, with meals, and for social gatherings and celebrations... just as every other man did in His time. And He also turned water into wine at a wedding celebration.

Joseph Smith also enjoyed drinking wine for celebratory purposes...and at the dinner table, and at meetings with his apostles, and even in the temple in Kirkland as well from accounts by various apostles.

I use my homemade wine only for Sacramental purposes. If it is not available, as it has not been since last fall...I use organic grape juice instead.

I do not drink it by the glassful. I do not drink it with dinner, or after dinner, or to celebrate any occasion other than Sacrament...and then only by the same little paper cup which the LDS Church uses each Sunday for Sacrament.

You have no cause to gainsay me Percy. You have no cause to accuse me of wrongdoing.

Especially when you have long excused Joseph Smith for failing to heed the Lord's Word of Wisdom to the absolute letter...(as the current leaders of the Church have interpreted it to be.)

You excuse him because he was human, and nobody ever said he was perfect or infallible.

And at the same time you attack and accuse me for following the instructions regarding the use of newly made and pure wine found within Sections 27 and 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

In other words...you hold ME to higher standards than you would hold a man who claimed to commune face to face with the Most High.

Get over it Percy. And while you're at it...get over yourself.


blah blah blah, arrogance, blah blah prideful, blah blah blah, shouldn't have a recommend. Blah.

Then by the same standards...Joseph Smith and his apostles and followers, Brigham Young and his apostles and followers, and every other Mormon who CONTINUED to drink beer, wine, coffee, tea, and used tobacco AFTER the Word of Wisdom was revealed can kiss the Celestial kingdom goodbye as well.


No, because it wasn't made a recommend question until the early nineteen hundreds, course how would an LDS man know this?

It was never intended to be a recommend question. It was never intended to be a commandment.
It was intended only to be a greeting to the Saints, expressing God's suggestions for their health and well being.

And while Joseph Smith never adhered to the restrictions on alcohol...he stated that any man who did not adhere to the principles of the Word of Wisdom was not fit to wear the mantle of leadership within the Church.

Joseph's approach to the Word of Wisdom, in stating that it was not a commandment, but a salutation to the Saints, when viewed in historical perspective seems rather sensible and quite rational.

In the late 1830's, the Kirtland Stake had dissolved due to apostasy, the Missouri Saints were being driven from the state with accompanying hardships, and Joseph himself was imprisoned.

At a time when the Church was struggling for mere existence, it would seem small and petty to quibble about a drink of tea or coffee. Similarly, after a comparatively comfortable initial existence in Nauvoo, Mormon society was torn apart by internal dissension and by the controversy and persecution which resulted from the promulgation and practice of peculiar religious doctrines. Emphasis on a rigid interpretation of a health code during such a period of turmoil would seem ill-timed and inappropriate.

Moreover, there is some evidence that Joseph sought to avoid needless dissension among the Saints by urging moderation and charity. It would appear that some Mormons had been influenced by the fanaticism that characterized sermons of some of the radical temperance reformers, and tended to be intolerant of those with professed Word of Wisdom weaknesses.

The Prophet, recognizing that the revelation must be seen in perspective with other matters and doctrines pertaining to the growth of the "Kingdom," urged them to be slow to judge or condemn others. Joseph's rather curt reaction to a talk advocating "temperance in the extreme" was illustrative of his desire to teach the Saints to be charitable and merciful, rather than vindictive and unforgiving.

As for Brigham Young...I found this quite enlightening:
Bibliography
"An Economic Interpretation of the Word of Wisdom" by Leonard J. Arrington, Published in BYU Studies 1959, Vol. 1, No. 1, p.37.

"The Word of Wisdom in Early Nineteenth-Century Perspective" by Lester E. Bush in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1981.

"I have always wondered why it was that abstaining from 4 or 5 specific things is the only part of the Word of Wisdom that is enforced, when most of those 4 or 5 specific things aren’t even prohibited in the revelation? The second question is: how did a "not by commandment" revelation turn into a commandment?

The most satisfactory answer to these questions is Economics. A major goal of Brigham Young was Economic self-sufficiency--he wanted his people to thrive independently of the rest of the nation. He didn’t want the Saint’s scarce and hard-earned dollars leaving the territory of Utah to import the unneeded luxuries of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea. Thus, more and more emphasis was placed on abstaining from these things as time went on. Brigham Young said:

How much do you suppose goes annually from this Territory, and has for ten or twelve years past, in gold and silver, to supply the people with tobacco? I will say $60,000. Brother William H. Hooper, our Delegate in Congress, came here in 1849, and during about eight years he was selling goods his sales for tobacco alone amounted to over $28,000 a year. At the same time there were other stores that sold their share and drew their share of the money expended yearly, besides what has been brought in by the keg and by the half keg. The traders and passing emigration have sold tons of tobacco, besides what is sold here regularly. I say that $60,000 annually is the smallest figure I can estimate the sales at. Tobacco can be raised here as well as it can be raised in any other place. It wants attention and care. If we use it, let us raise it here. I recommend for some man to go to raising tobacco. One man, who came here last fall, is going to do so; and if he is diligent, he will raise quite a quantity. I want to see some man go to and make a business of raising tobacco and stop sending money out of the Territory for that article. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.9, p.35, Brigham Young, April 7, 1861)"

So...on the one hand, I have seen claims from Brigham Young stating that 'ANY WORD THAT COMES FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD IS BINDING UPON THE MEMBERSHIP.'

And on the other hand he apparently decided to disregard the words that came from the mouth of God because it made good economic sense to grow their own tobacco.

And not only did the Saints to the South of Utah in St.George attempt to raise tobacco to provide the Saints throughout Utah...but they grew their own vinyards to make their own wine as well.

A Mormon (one that was oft accused of killing people) started the first Utah brewery. Indeed, the infamous Orrin Porter Rockwell established the Hot Springs Brewery Hotel in 1856 (Valley Tan; November 6, 1858).

According to an October 1995 History Blazer article, it was in 1861 that Brigham Young established the Cotton Mission in a little place called Toquerville, its ultimate goal being for Church members to raise enough cotton for Utah to break off its expensive importing ties. Yet the fertile fields that the Church members worked in soon provided something more: grapes. Lots of grapes. In fact, the wine that was derived from these grapes soon became hoarded by the LDS Church, largely because they were still using wine in their sacraments until the 1870s, when the teenage boys of the Aaronic Priesthood became allowed to prepare the sacraments themselves (soon replacing wine with water for their own protection, citing D&C 27:2 ["… that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the Sacrament"] as the reason for the switch). The Mormon-owned and operated Zions Cooperative Mercantile Institution outlet (ZCMI for short) soon began selling wine and beer to the general populace at its downtown location, providing much joy to the hard-working residents of Salt Lake City.

Yet there is more to this story than just buds drinkin’ suds. According to Mark Twain’s hilarious 1871 Wild West travelogue Roughing It, "Valley Tan is a kind of whisky, or first cousin to it; is of Mormon invention and manufactured only in Utah. Tradition says it is made of (imported) fire and brimstone." Indeed, the Mormon-curated Valley Tan was soon sweeping the west by storm, with prominent figures like Twain and Porter Rockwell drunkenly singing its praises. Yet the big turning point for Utah’s brew dance came in the form of an 1873 session of the (Mormon-dominated) territorial legislature in which a motion was passed that gave Brigham Young and only Brigham Young the right to manufacture and distribute "spirituous liquors" in Utah. Though this wasn’t the first time that an individual or group has tried to monopolize the Utah liquor market (a decade prior, the Provo City Council petitioned to be the only group responsible for Provo’s liquor output, but their petition was ultimately denied by the Utah County Court [J. Marinus Jensen’s Early History of Provo, Utah]), it was the first time that said individual succeeded. Now why, pray tell, would Brigham Young do that?

Though we can only theorize about what motivated Young’s wheelings and dealings to qualify the statement, it’s safe to make the assumption that Young – already known as a smart businessman – was in it for the money. The whole point of establishing Utah breweries (and cotton missions and factories) in the first place was to cultivate business and – more importantly – to prevent Utah from wasting money by importing valuable items like beer, whisky and fabrics. Young saw an economic opportunity and immediately seized it, even though he never drank the stuff. So, in an unofficial sense, the Church controlled all of the liquor in Utah; an 1874 edition of The Gazetteer of Utah even has a listing for the Salt Lake City Brewery being housed in Salt Lake’s Tenth Ward! Yet beer and whisky weren’t the only dealings that the Church had with "spirituous liquors". It wasn’t very long until the Valley was swarming with beer and wine. There was so much, in fact, that some Mormons actually began paying their tithing in wine (a report from the St. George Tithing Office [later republished Leonard J. Arrington’s 1966 book Desert Saints] showed that the office had collected more than 7000 gallons of wine by early 1887). Everyone had their own idea of how much wine constituted a full tithing payment, eventually leading a Church tithing-clerk to issue instructions on how to standardize the wine/tithing process in a letter dated September 20, 1879."

Now...the Mormons were brewing their own beer, and making their own wine...and public drunkenness became an issue.

And this, along with a growing temperance movement throughout the United States is what inspired the later outright ban on alcohol altogether.

This is what inspired the next three successors of the LDS Presidency to declare that the Word of Wisdom was now to be considered as a commandment.

One of my favorite Sacrament hymns still states:


"O God, the Eternal Father, who dwells amid the sky, In Jesus' name we ask thee to bless and sanctify. If we are pure before thee, this bread and cup of wine, That we may all remember, that offering Divine."

Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Decaf wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Decaf wrote:
Wren is an atheist, and you love sin. If my words disturb your little fantasy world, then I suggest you stop reading them

Did God appear to you to tell you all of this? Tell me, what sin do I love?

I'm not the one living in a fantasy world, dude. You just don't appreciate any reality bursting into the fantasy world you've built. I imagine it hurts when that bubble gets burst . . . but I'm sure you can work through it and come out a better person on the other side.

Are you without sin? Well, we both know you are not; so the real question is, do you repent of your sins, or would you rather battle with me in order to defend & justify your sins?

Well, since you know me so well, please tell me what my sins are so that I can go see my pastor and repent?

Now tell me, and be honest (if you really can from that fantasy world you live in), are you without sin?


Well getting away from a man who is preaching for money would be a start, preistcraft is explicably condemned in the Bible, yet your preacher continues this sin.



Brigham Young's Estate

Brigham Young, second president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was born on June 1, 1801 in Vermont. He came from a family of eleven children and went on to become a farmer and carpenter. Before joining Mormonism in 1832, Brigham Young was a member of the Methodist Church. He was made an LDS apostle in 1835 and secretly took his first plural wife in 1842. Joseph Smith had not presented polygamy publicly to the church, only to a few select leaders. Brigham had 57 children by sixteen women but was married to possibly as many as 57 women. Brigham took over the leadership of the Mormon Church after the death of Joseph Smith in 1844.

Operating on limited funds, he led the majority of the Latter-day Saints west in 1847. Brigham Young went on to become extremely wealthy. Stanley P. Hirshson reported that "in the 1870 census he [Brigham Young] declared personal property worth $102,000 and real estate valued at $1,010,600." ( The Lion of the Lord, by Stanley Hirshson, Knopf Pub., 1969, p.247) Evidently Young did not have a problem with using or borrowing funds from the LDS Church for his personal use. This practice created considerable problems after his death in determining what was actually his and what was in fact the property of the church.

LDS historian Leonard J. Arrington wrote:

"Brigham Young and other church authorities, when need required it, drew on the tithing resources of the church, and at a later date repaid part or all of the obligation in money, property, or services. No interest seems to have been paid for the use of these funds.... This ability to draw, almost at will, on church as well as his own funds, was a great advantage to Brigham Young and was certainly one of the reasons for his worldly success.... while Brigham Young was probably the largest borrower of funds from the trustee-in-trust, he was certainly not the only one." ("The Settlement of the Brigham Young Estate," 1877-1879, Reprinted from the Pacific Historical Review, vol. 21, no. 1, Feb. 1952, p.7-8)

LDS scholar Jeffrey Johnson observed:

"By his death on 23 August 1877, Brigham Young had married fifty-five wives. Nineteen had predeceased him, ten had received divorces, four are unaccounted for, and twenty-three survived him. Seventeen wives received a share of his estate while the remaining six apparently had nonconjugal roles." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, ("Defining �Wife�: The Brigham Young Households," by Jeffrey Johnson, 1987, Vol. 20, No. 3, p.62)

LDS historians James Allen and Glen Leonard observed:

"It was finally determined that his estate was worth approximately $1,626,000, but obligations of more than a million dollars to the Church plus other debts and executor's fees reduced the family's claim to $224,000. When seven of his dissatisfied heirs challenged this settlement, however, that matter was settled out of court and the Church agreed to give the heirs an additional $75,000." (The Story of the Latter-day Saints, by James Allen and Glen Leonard, second ed. 1992, Deseret Book, p.385)

LDS historian B.H. Roberts told about the lawsuit filed by some of Young's heirs:

"During the three years� presidency of the council of the twelve [after the death of Pres. Young] the affairs of the church quite generally were prosperous. Some difficulty arose, however, in the matter of settling the estate of the late President Brigham Young. Some claims were made by a number of the late president�s heirs respecting the possession of property that President Young held for the church as trustee-in-trust. It was alleged by them that President Young died seized of an estate valued at two and a half millions of dollars. This, however, was denied by his executors, and also by President John Taylor...that the property to which Brigham Young held the legal right or title was not worth over $1,626,000; and further they affirmed, that much of said estate was held by the testator in trust for the Church...and that Brigham Young was largely indebted at the time of his death 'and justly owed to said church over $1,000,000.� " (Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 5, by B. H. Roberts, p.524-525, BYU Press 1965)

In the Encyclopedia of Mormonism we read:

"Because the Church has no professional clergy, it is administered at every level through LAY PARTICIPATION AND LEADERSHIP, and officials other than the General Authorities contribute their time and talents without remuneration. ...Because the General Authorities are obliged to leave their regular employment for full-time Church service, they receive a modest living allowance provided from income on Church investments." (p.510)

That Brigham Young would be able to run up a debt of a million dollars from the church funds plus draw a salary certainly raises questions about LDS claims of not having a paid clergy. After leading the Mormon Church for over 25 years Brigham Young preached:

"How much tithing do you pay? The professing Christians, apostates and others have a great deal to say about the Saints paying tithing. Now let us compare notes. The Elders of this Church travel and preach without purse or scrip, and labor at home as Bishops, Presidents, High Counselors, and Ministers, free of charge. Now take the Christians, how many of their Ministers preach without pay? Go to their meetings, in their churches, halls, schoolhouses, or any of their public gatherings, and you have a box, a plate, or a hat put under your face, and it is, 'Give me a sixpence, give me a sixpence, give me a sixpence!' Show me the Elder of this Church that does this? We preach the Gospel without purse or scrip and work for our own bread and butter. Yet the Christian world whine about our paying tithing. The Saints should pay the tenth of their income with glad and thankful hearts, and help to bring home the poor. We have supported and helped the poor to the amount of millions." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, p.44-45, Brigham Young, May 18, 1873)

While it is true that the local leaders of the LDS Church do not receive a salary, the top men in leadership do receive financial remuneration.

But does the Bible teach that ministers, or priests are not to receive renumeration? In both the Old and New Testament those who served the Lord full-time were compensated from the tithes and offerings of the people. When the Levitical priesthood was originally set up, God made provision for the support of the priests. In Halley's Bible Handbook, p. 134, we read:

"Levites, one tribe out of the Twelve, were set apart for the work of God. God took them, in lieu of First-Born sons. ...They were supported by Tithes; and had 48 cities (Numbers 35:7; Joshua 21:19). One Family of Levites, Aaron and Sons, were set apart to be Priests. The Rest of the Levites were to be Assistants to the Priests."

The practice of a paid ministry was continued in the New Testament church. Paul instructed Timothy: "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." (1 Timothy 5:17-18) While Paul sometimes labored with his own hands, he wrote that he had the right to ask for support from the Christians. Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?" (1 Corinthians 9:5-6) Further on in the same letter Paul wrote: "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?... Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:11, 14)

In Paul's second letter to the church at Corinth he again raises the issue of his support. He states that when he was among them they did not give him financial support, but he received it from other churches: "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service." (2 Corinthians 11:7-9)

When Paul wrote to the church at Philippi he acknowledged their financial support: "For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity. ...I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God." (Philippians 4:16-18)

The LDS Church boasts of not having a paid clergy. Many of them believe that when a man receives a salary from a particular group it compromises his integrity. Even though their leaders on the local level receive no pay for their services, this is not true of their top leadership. President Gordon B. Hinckley stated: "What of the Mormon clergy? ...There is no paid or professional ministry. Thirty-nine general officers and the presidents of missions are given living allowances."

"Because the Church has no professional clergy, it is administered at every level through LAY PARTICIPATION AND LEADERSHIP, and officials other than the General Authorities contribute their time and talents without remuneration. ...Because the General Authorities are obliged to leave their regular employment for full-time Church service, they receive a modest living allowance provided from income on Church investments." (p. 510)

Since the Mormon Church concedes the right to pay those who serve in a full-time capacity we are left to wonder why they have such strong objections to ministers receiving a "modest living allowance." The claim is made that these funds do not come from tithing but from business investments. Why this should make a difference is not explained. Any money given to or earned by the church should be considered as equally sacred.

The president is also supplied with a home. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Aug. 27, 1994, p. E1, the president of the LDS Church lives in a "downtown condominium, the official residence of church presidents." In the Salt Lake Tribune, Dec. 8, 1988, we read "The $1.2 million condominium at 40 N. State that is home to the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be exempt from property taxes, Salt Lake County commissioners ruled Tuesday."

ven though Mission Presidents (men who oversee the missionaries in various geographical locations) resign from their secular jobs during their three years of church service, they still receive financial help. In the Encyclopedia of Mormonism we read:

"The calling [to be a Mission President] is not a regular remunerative position,...The family involved gives of its time and energies without salary, though there is a modest allowance for living expenses." (p. 914)

Again we are left to wonder at the Mormon distinction between "living expenses" and "salary."

Another puzzling aspect of Mormonism is that there is no accounting to the membership of church funds. They are never informed as to the amount of the "modest living allowance" given to their top leaders. In the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 9, 1983, the salary given to a Seventy (second tier of LDS General Authorities, lower than an Apostle) was reported to be $40,000. Obviously, with inflation this salary would be much higher today. If housing is factored in (as in the case of the president of the church) the salary would be quite substantial. When George P. Lee, former Seventy, was terminated in 1989, the LDS Church immediately confiscated his church credit card (Salt Lake Tribune, Sept. 10, 1989). We are left to wonder about what other benefits go with "full-time Church service."

In Christian churches the financial statement is a matter of public record. There is no guesswork as to the amount a church pays its minister.