Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Yes...it is possible that you could be wrong JLD. I don't remember ever promising not to take my shirt off while posing for a picture.

And I do, on occasion, take my shirt off if it gets hot enough on a parking lot we're paving or sealing.

That's why I don't wear the G's to work. And that's probably why LDS pro-athletes don't wear the G's to work.

Time and place for everything I suppose.

Which brings us to these young Mormon men who posed for the calender.

If they are still currently serving missions...so long as they don't go door to door preaching the gospel without a shirt...who really cares?

I suppose that there are those in the LDS faith who are letter of the law types who even wear their G's while they're having intercourse.

But I've never been a letter of the law kind of guy myself.

Have you?



It was in poor taste period, it doesn't matter your opinion on the subject, the church has the right to decide if it wants it's name and image on a product, and if that product is what they would portray the church missionary's, what you and I think is irevelant, the church thinks it was wrong, I agree.

1. You believe it was in poor taste. That is your own personal opinion.

2. Your personal opinion is not the basis for determining good taste. Especially in light of the fact that you betrayed and violated your own wife's trust by sharing that particular 'pet name in the bedroom' which no doubt she never thought would go beyond the two of you.

Not to mention the FACT that you have, throughout your participation on this forum, used language which no self-respecting and/or decent priesthood bearer would use.

3. I agree that the Church has the right to decide if it wants it's name and image being advertised on a particular product.

If the Church decides to file legal suit over this issue...I believe that they are within their legal rights to do so.

4. Methinks that you are making this relatively insignificant mole of an issue into a mountain of epic proportions.

5. Very little of what you think is relevant.

THIS IS TO THE "WENCHES OF THIS FORUM..



I Truly love the thought...... ENJOY


To all the powerful women in my life:

Live your life
in such a way
that when your feet
hit the floor in the morning,
Satan shudders
and says:

'Oh Shit - she's awake!!!'OY

BBBB wrote:
"Hi, guys and wrenches
I am thinking: someday I might have a chance to meet many of you on here, in person, in order to show you all my complaints letters to the Church leaders, to discuss my doings, and to digest my own experience, to re-structure my own psychology."



How many complaint letters have you sent to Church leaders, local and/or Church headquarters?

Dubbs wrote:
JLD wrote:
Jaye wrote:
JLD wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Here's one more for the edification of Dubbs.



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 polygam 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.

Yup, and that is why you see them wearing designer threads and cruising around in Maseratis.

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)

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."

I wouldn't exactly consider a $1.2 million dollar condominium to be a modest perk.

And I have no idea what kind of automobiles the brethren drive.

But I doubt they buy their suits off the rack at D.I. stores.

Just what IS your problem with me lately JLD? You'd think I was personally insulting you, or peeing in your Cheerios.

I wasn't attacking you Jaye, I was just being facetious.

I'm sure the Prophet lives very comfortably. I also think his condo doubles as an office and a boardroom and heaven only knows what else. I imagine it is in a prime location and well constructed of fine, long-lasting materials. It probably has state-of-the art telecommunications materials, spare rooms, etc. All of this is going to cost money. All of this for an old man who is going to live there how long? I just don't see the Prophet as this rich old man wasting the church's money just to waste money.

As the church doesn't release how and what the leader uses the money for it is only speculation isn't it?


Exactly, it's not as if the condo is given to them, and it's not as if it is an extragent residence like a park avenue condo or Vegas penthouse.

Jaye will find anything to bash the brethren over.

1. The condo is given to them for as long as they live.

2. I wouldn't consider a condo worth $1.2 MILLION dollars in SLC to be a modest little cottage either.

3. To point out that the hierarchy of LDS Church leadership DOES receive salaries and perks is not bashing them, Kent. It is simply pointing out facts.

And as I pointed out by the article I posted on that subject...the Church leadership has always made it a point to boast that it's clergy are not paid in filthy lucre...all the while it's leaders WERE receiving salaries.

Read the article again. Some of these men were even taking personal loans against Church finances...and some of them never repaid what they owed.

And THAT goes against what the LDS Church leadership have long been counseling it's members...to repay their debts...and to stay OUT of debt.

Girl Raised in the South wrote:
BBBB wrote:
"Hi, guys and wrenches
I am thinking: someday I might have a chance to meet many of you on here, in person, in order to show you all my complaints letters to the Church leaders, to discuss my doings, and to digest my own experience, to re-structure my own psychology."



How many complaint letters have you sent to Church leaders, local and/or Church headquarters?

Apparently quite a few...from what I've been able to ascertain from his comments.

Blog801 wrote:
Tch tch tch. Will you just look at those posts?! Some people are definitely struggling with deep-rooted religious hate issues, aren't they? [Laughing]

I'm sure most of us are smart enough not to bite the baloney Keeper and utocoman are selling, but just in case...

Please note that "The Brethren at Temple Square" do in fact accept tithing earned by people in honest occupations, even if they live in Las Vegas. The church does not, however, accept tithing from excommunicated members of the church. Nor does the LDS Church accept tithing on proceeds from gambling, including lottery winnings.

Apparently, that makes the Church a Mammon-grubbing cult in some people's eyes.

I don't know. I'd stick around to ponder that, but I'm off to my returned-missionary photo shoot.

And if you could please excuse utocoman and Keeper, they are late for a cross burning.

I thought Provo city changed their minds and decided not to require everyone but non-Mormons to submit to background checks.

"God's word" the holy Bible speaks of the mark of beast being 666 but apparently in Provo city a Mormon temple recommend or membership is currentlyin place.