Wren wrote:
Dubbs doesn't love the Bible. Here is proof: "I love to read where Joseph has corrected the Bible, and made given back many of the plain and precious parts that were taken out."

He has already admitted he has no historical evidence to believe that anything important was missing, but hey . . . it's America and it is his right. Except when that arrogant stupidity tries to make it truth.


It is my faiths belief, I don't need to provide historical evidence no more than you need to provide historical evidance that Jesus is the Christ.

Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:

Wren counsels Dubbs, "Giving one's time for the cause of Christ is always commendable, Dubbs. You should work often in such opportunities not connected with your church. You will meet situations and peoples that will your growth as a Christian."

I do my share wren, worry about your own life, I'm sure you don't do a tithe in your faith, or offer much service to your community, unless you call a "mormon men militia" service (smirk)


"However, the point originally was that your church leaders did not receive compensation, which we have found not to be the truth. Some do, particularly in the elevated regions of leadership."


Course nobody denied this, so not sure why you keep bringing it up.

What I'm looking for is evidence the church used to hide this fact.
Are these personal attacks and "smirks" really necesary? Are you capable of answering a question without throwing them in?

Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:

Wren counsels Dubbs, "Giving one's time for the cause of Christ is always commendable, Dubbs. You should work often in such opportunities not connected with your church. You will meet situations and peoples that will your growth as a Christian."

I do my share wren, worry about your own life, I'm sure you don't do a tithe in your faith, or offer much service to your community, unless you call a "mormon men militia" service (smirk)


"However, the point originally was that your church leaders did not receive compensation, which we have found not to be the truth. Some do, particularly in the elevated regions of leadership."


Course nobody denied this, so not sure why you keep bringing it up.

What I'm looking for is evidence the church used to hide this fact.

We do tithe and give offerings. Our little congregation gives over a 1000 hours community serve a month. We try to live Christ-like lives.

Yes, you denied it earlier. Go back and look it up. It was not stated for years that some earned money for service; it has only been the last decade that it has been overtly expressed.

Move on, Dubbs, and consider counel.

Betzz 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.

JLD, I don't disagree with anything you are saying. This discussion goes back to a comment Dubbsy made about the type of house the pastor of my church lives in. I, for one, don't have a problem with clergy being paid or compensated in any way for the time they spend, but if said clergy is living in a residence that is well beyond the means of most of the people that pay for their expenses, I would have some questions.

Understood. Personally, I don't care if clergy is paid or not - it should be up to the members of said Church.

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!

The scriptures are doctrinal. They consist of revelation from God, pertaining to His will that clergy be financially compensated for their services.

This is precisely why so many people diss 'Mormon doctrine'. Because Mormons like YOU like to claim that all LDS doctrine is found within scripture...yet when it is pointed out to you that the Church has gone directly against it's own doctrine...you wave it off by saying...different era.

Doctrine is doctrine. And the LDS Church has proved, numerous times, that it does not hold it's own doctrines to be sacrosanct.

Kent...take a moment and try to listen.

The LDS Church has, from the time it was founded, made a great deal over it's belief that other Christian Churches were in error in their practice of paying their clergy.

They continued to make a great deal over that belief, and continued to deride other faiths who 'preached for filthy lucre'...even during the time they were adhering to the law of consecration and living the United Order.

Why? This is hypocrisy of the highest degree. I don't give a flying fart if Joseph Smith claimed that God instructed him that the Church ought to give financial remuneration to it's clergy for any given period of time...or that his successors claim that God instructed them to cease financial remuneration to anyone but the hierarchy of the Church.

What I care about is that all this time, the LDS leadership continued to deride other faiths who financially supported their clergy.

Just as YOU continue to make remarks to forum members about their spiritual leaders preaching for filthy lucre.

This is a good indication of your own ignorance, and your own hypocrisy...especially in light of the fact that your own faith pays salaries, and offers financial and other perks to the hierarchy of the Church.