Wren wrote:
JLD wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Was it worth 1.2 when it was built? How much was it worth?

Is it a penthouse luxury extravagent condo?


Fact is, they are not given the condo, so the worth is not relavent,

Fact is, the condo is not extravagent, it has just appriciated in value, because of it's location and it is really one of a kind in that area. Big whoop.

Have you ever been to this condo? Think about it, dude . . . if the value of a FREAKING CONDO IN DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY is $1.2 mil that says a hell of a lot more than saying a 50 year old house in California is worth $800,000. My nephews house in Huntington Beach sold for $800,000 last year and it's a 3 bed, 2 bath bungalow. The same house in SLC would sell for maybe $150,000. Big difference in the markets, so don't try to compare it to your parents house. Doesn't work.

No one is arguing whether or not the condo is "given" to them. Everyone knows that it doesn't become personal property - why do you even keep bringing that up?

Like I said before, I think about it from the perspective of the average family who is struggling to pay for food, clothing, shelter, and tithing (willingly, I know) and I see it as a bit extravagant.

Why do you have such a hard time with anyone disagreeing with you even on minor little issues?

In that failed Midtown Village they have condos/appts (I'm not sure which they call them) valued up to 1.6mil. Crazy huh?

But back to the item you were discussing. Given the location, how extravagant would the residence of the Prophet be in reality? Taking into account the location (the biggest factor), size (who uses the suite, does it include conference rooms, waiting areas, servant amenities, guest amenities) comfortable furnishings, amenities (communications, security systems, etc.) I don't believe it would take much to add up to 1.2mil. I know that might sound crazy but without seeing what is provided in person it is hard to say one way or the other.

Also worth noting is that the Prophets are old men, often in failing health, that need reliable and functional surroundings. The suite is also host to a variety of tasks in addition to simply "living" including conferences, meetings, study, stuff like that. Given the crazy nature of the world the Prophet also needs security. Given his public persona he needs to take into account wardrobe and presentation as well.

I would wonder if it looks much like a playboy's penthouse or more like a cross between a suite in a nice geriatric hospital and the boardroom here at work.

Probably the latter, JLD. Nonetheless, it is a form of compensation, remuneration, for their services. They would not be given access if they weren't who they are.

True.

I wrote, "You are entitled to your testimony. We are talking about them receiving remuneration, which you earlier denied."

Dubbs wrote: "What a couple of dishonest people in San Deigo did with some money is no proof of renumeration and the claim the church denied it happening throughout the churches existance."

Oh, my. Remuneration, Dubbs, not renumberation.

I used the example in San Diego County as another one, similar to what BY did more than a century earlier, taking from the church monies.

Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
The BoM is equal only in your mind, Dubbs. You are not going to find any church publication that says otherwise.



If it is the keystone to our religion, I'd say it's pretty equal.


Even the Book of Mormon itself says it "shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace" (2 Nephi 3:12)

Pretty equal in my mind if it clears up contentions the Bible has caused.

The Church does not agree with you or you would have given us such documentation.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not binding on anyone else at all.


Let me guess, you don't have a reference to prove your point, except how they list it?

Of course I do. The church has organized them in order of importance, the Bible being first, in your compendiums.

You have nothing. Thought so.

Dubbs wrote:
JLD wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:

"I prefer not to say anything else about it," he said. "There is more involved, and he and I will have our meeting."


Yes, there's more involved, but that won't stop Jaye and others from ripping the church.



Danzig was not a professor. He was not a historian, or a theologian. He was simply a musician, and composer, and member of the Church who had served the Lord faithfully throughout his life, and who wondered if the Church allowed it's members any room to disagree with the Church on any given subject.

He got his answer. The Church allows for disagreement only inasmuch as that disagreement is kept to oneself.

If you are a representative of the church, that is the key you will never understand, the church has the right to decide if it wants people who represent the church bad mouthing it and disagreeing with doctrine.


Here is the letter from Mr. Danzig published in the SL Trib.

As a member of the LDS Church, returned missionary and member of the Orchestra at Temple Square, I am appalled at the intellectual tyranny that our leadership has exercised through the summary dismissal of Jeffrey Nielsen from his teaching position at Brigham Young University for speaking his mind in an op-ed published June 4 in The Tribune. I was troubled that my church requested that I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment (marriage) I feel is contrary to the Constitution and to the gospel of Christ.

I am even more discouraged to see how they deal with an honest difference of opinion I wish to express to Jeffrey Nielsen that I admire his courage and that I stand with him. I hope that rank-and-file members of the church as well as members of the lay clergy who also find this troubling will have the courage to step forward and let themselves be known. To do anything else would be to hide in the shadow of an injustice.

You can see he clearly identifies himself as not only a member of the LDS church, but as a returned missionary and a member of the Temple Square Orchestra. He goes on to use some firm language to voice his concern over the way the LDS leaders dismissed Mr. Nielsen and says that he chooses to stand, instead, with him (on the issue). He makes a plea that other members will stand up and do similar regarding the issue.

I'm sure Mr. Danzig felt he was doing the right thing, but he had to understand there would be consequences from within the church. The treatment towards him by fellow church members was/is appalling. The actions of the leaders to his statements are, I feel, understandable.

The stance of the LDS church, to my knowledge, is that you can disagree and you can seek council concerning that disagreement. But you cannot take that disagreement public and asks others to do the same.

On the one hand, I commend Mr. Danzig for sticking to his convictions. On the other, I understand why the church leaders took action.


Just as a missionary is an unpaid volunteer, so was Mr. Danzig, and the church get's to decide if you are representing the church in a way they would like it to be presented. Jaye and others can bad mouth them all they want, but that is their right.

Mr. Danzig left the church, that was his choice, I know jaye will argue it was because he was harrassed, i doubt that, I feel he just didn't agree with the doctrine of homosexuality, and decided he didn't want to be a member anymore.


I feel he just didn't agree with the doctrine of homosexuality

What the hell are you talking about Percy?

The LDS doesn't have a "doctrine of homosexuality".

They have a position on homosexuality.

To say they have a "doctrine of homosexuality". Is to say that homosexuality is a tenant of church doctrine.

I think I'm beginning to understand. This whole "getting all the way in to the bed" thing of yours. Sounds like it must also involve, getting all the way out of the closet first.

Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
The Doctrine and Covenants 42:70-73 states that bishops (as well as elders and high priests who assist these bishops) are to receive a just remuneration for all their services.

"The priests and elders shall have their stewardships, even as the members.

And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned.

Or they are to receive a just renumeration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.

And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the Church."
?


Oh Brother Jaye, another example of you not being in bed far enough, and misunderstanding simple scriptures.


These versus in the D&C were talking about a time during when the law of consecration was inacted.


It also shows your claim that the church "hid" that the people in the church were paid to be false, this was written in 1831 DOH!

That is not what Jaye said. That is what you said. You are getting confused again, Dubbs.


He is comparing an time period when the saints were in the law of consecration, to now. Are we in the law of consecration? No, we are not, so his comparison is of two differing set of commands. And he bads mouths the church for not following it's own scriptures, when he doesn't understand what he's reading TO BEGIN WITH!

Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
This was told to me by a son of one the original investors. The local church leaders in North San Diego County took a good portion of the ward clerk's estate, which was supposed to go to the LDS church. Instead that money was used to invest in properties in San Luis Rey Valley. They all made a killing, they paid the money back into the church funds (without interest), and the church nor the law did nothing about it.

The integrity of the teller is beyond question, one of the most honorable people that I have ever met. He paid his father's debt out of his own funds after he father died when he had no legal reason to do so.

Heresay.

You are learning new terms, Dubbs: how impressive, even if used wrongly.

It was a privileged communication. If it comes to the folks on the forum here accepting your verdict or being willing to accept what I have said as worthwhile for investigation, who do you think they will believe?

By the way, that is exactly what BY used to do for his business ventures. Dip into the tithing, then pay it back.


More heresay

Everything you've ever learned regarding the history of the world is HEARSAY...unless you personally witnessed history in the making.

The Bible is HEARSAY. The Book of Mormon is HEARSAY. Joseph's accounting of his vision is HEARSAY. Every last claim of Joseph receiving revelation from the Lord is HEARSAY.


Ahh grasshopper, but the key is you can recieve spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of the Bible, BofM etc,

I recieve nothing but the spirit of Satan reading you and Wren's deriding of the brethren.

That is the first right thing you have said today.

Indeed, the spirit of Satan is whispering in your ear that Jaye and I are wrong. Of course he is.


Well you just agreed you are filled with the spirit of satan.