JLD wrote:
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.

Agreed.

But it also stands that the members of said Church ought to be duly informed as to exactly how much is being paid...to whom...and for what services rendered.

Just as with any stockholder with interests in any given corporation can expect to receive reports.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat 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.
But it's NOT the cornerstone of our religion. Christ is!

I said Keystone dar dar. Read, comprehend.
You said cornerstone earlier, and you know it. Besides, there's not much difference between the two if any.

Betz is right. You are a totally arrogant SOB.


And I corrected it, even appolgized for making the error, guess you don't read much.

But in that post I didn't say cornerstone, now did I?
Yes, I read, and I saw it. So what? Keystone? Cornerstone? Technically, not much difference between the two.


There is a difference if you understand that the PRophets have taught that Christ is the Cornerstone, and the Book of Mormon is the Keystone to our religion, and study what those two words significance is. Course why would a LDS lady know this?

Do you even know that the church calls the Book of Mormon the keystone to your religion? They don't say that about the Bible now do they?

Here is what the LDS Church has to say about the Bible:

This found in LDS Newsroom LDS.Org

"SALT LAKE CITY 25 January 2008 During the past several years, scholars, religious leaders, journalists and the general public have steadily shown an increased interest in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Much of this attention has been focused on the question of whether it is a Christian faith. Central to this inquiry is the Church�s relationship with the Bible. Many have wondered whether Latter-day Saints believe in the Bible at all. Still others have supposed that the Church uses the Bible only when convenient, while shrugging it off as an inessential part of scriptural canon. With so many conflicting voices participating in this discussion, it may seem difficult to know where the Church stands on this issue.

The truth is that the Church reveres the Bible as a sacred volume of scripture. Latter-day Saints cherish its teachings and engage in a lifelong study of its divine wisdom. Moreover, during worship and instruction services the Bible and its teachings are pondered and discussed. To increase biblical understanding, the Church provides extensive resources and tools: lesson manuals, cross-reference materials, Bible maps, a Bible dictionary, and articles in various magazines. Thus, the Bible is much more than simply a collection of antiquated writings and revelations that have only scant relevance to the modern world. On the contrary, it stands in the center of the Latter-day Saints� spiritual lives.

In a recent sermon, Church apostle Elder M. Russell Ballard characterized the Bible as the �bedrock of all Christianity� and one of the �pillars� of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, he described the Bible as a miracle: �It is a miracle that the Bible�s 4,000 years of sacred and secular history were recorded and preserved by the prophets, apostles, and inspired churchmen. � It is a miracle that the Bible literally contains within its pages the converting, healing Spirit of Christ, which has turned men�s hearts for centuries, leading them to pray, to choose right paths, and to search to find their Savior.� It instills real, tangible power in the lives of Latter-day Saints and offers practical solutions and spiritual guidance that inspire them to overcome challenges and trials.

There is a broad range of approaches within the vast mosaic of biblical interpretation. For example, biblical inerrancy maintains that the Bible is without error and contradiction; biblical infallibility holds that the Bible is free from errors regarding faith and practice but not necessarily science or history; biblical literalism requires a literal interpretation of events and teachings in the Bible and generally discounts allegory and metaphor; and the �Bible as literature� educational approach extols the literary qualities of the Bible but disregards its miraculous elements.

The Church does not strictly subscribe to any of these interpretive approaches. Rather, in the words of Joseph Smith, it regards the Bible to be the word of God, �as far as it is translated correctly� (8th Article of Faith). Accordingly, Church members believe that during the centuries-long process in which fallible human beings compiled, translated and transcribed the Bible, various errors entered the text. However, this does not override the overwhelming predominance of truth within the Bible. As Elder Ballard noted, �Without the Bible, we would not know of His Church then, nor would we have the fullness of His gospel now.� Part of that fullness is the Bible�s seminal instruction that God reveals Himself to those who seek Him. The Bible is a living invitation to know personally the sacred revelatory experience that fills its pages.

The scriptures, or �standard works,� of the Latter-day Saints comprise the Old Testament and New Testament of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. According to Elder Ballard, these scriptures constitute a �great, indivisible whole� of God�s revealed word that help humankind understand the past, present and future. The great gospel plan contained in these works does not apply to one generation or one people alone but to all of God�s children throughout all time. Thus, in the words of Elder Ballard, �those who think that one part is more important or more true than the other parts are missing some of the beauty and completeness of the canon of ancient scripture.�

During previous periods of time when God organized His church, He added new revelations to pre-existing scripture, forming a connection between believers of the present and believers of the past. For example, the Old Testament book of Isaiah gives shape and meaning to the Gospel of Matthew. The two revelations need not be viewed as rivals competing with each other: the existence of one does not negate the relevance or legitimacy of the other. This ongoing revelation of scripture gives uniformity and continuity to an unfolding gospel narrative and unites people under one standard of doctrine.

Of all the standard works, the Bible remains the best source for an intimate understanding of the character and personality of Jesus Christ during His mortal mission. While the Old Testament offers a prophetic foretelling of that mission, the New Testament provides an unmatched account of the events, experiences, teachings and personal interactions of Christ. The Book of Mormon strengthens and reinforces His teachings through additional witnesses and provides moving accounts of the personal experiences many individuals had with Him. According to Elder Ballard, �The Book of Mormon does not dilute nor diminish nor de-emphasize the Bible. On the contrary, it expands, extends, and exalts it."

**************************************************

So...according to this official source...the Holy Bible 'stands in the center of the Latter-day Saints� spiritual lives'.

According to Church apostle Elder M. Russell Ballard, the Bible is characterized as being the �bedrock of all Christianity� and one of the �pillars� of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, he described the Bible as a miracle: �It is a miracle that the Bible�s 4,000 years of sacred and secular history were recorded and preserved by the prophets, apostles, and inspired churchmen. � It is a miracle that the Bible literally contains within its pages the converting, healing Spirit of Christ, which has turned men�s hearts for centuries, leading them to pray, to choose right paths, and to search to find their Savior.� It instills real, tangible power in the lives of Latter-day Saints and offers practical solutions and spiritual guidance that inspire them to overcome challenges and trials.

And...of ALL the standard works, the Bible remains the BEST SOURCE for an intimate understanding of the character and personality of Jesus Christ during His mortal mission.

While the Old Testament offers a prophetic foretelling of that mission, the New Testament provides an UNMATCHED account of the events, experiences, teachings and personal interactions of Christ.

The Book of Mormon strengthens and reinforces His teachings through additional witnesses and provides moving accounts of the personal experiences many individuals had with Him.

According to Elder Ballard, �The Book of Mormon does not dilute nor diminish nor de-emphasize the Bible. On the contrary, it expands, extends, and exalts it."

That's all well and good, doesn't negate the fact that without the Book of Mormon our building would crumble and fall, we wouldn't have a church.

I'd say that is every bit as important as the bible, they are equal, all scripture is equal.

If you would say that...then you are contradicting your earlier claims.

Flip-flop...flip-flop...flippety-flop!

Now...without resorting to the usual..."That's all well and fine" happy crappy...address what Russell Ballard had to say regarding the Bible.

And...of ALL the standard works, the Bible remains the BEST SOURCE for an intimate understanding of the character and personality of Jesus Christ during His mortal mission."
************************************************

(This directly contradicts Joseph Smith's claims that the Book of Mormon was the best source for knowing God)
************************************************

And:

"While the Old Testament offers a prophetic foretelling of that mission, the New Testament provides an UNMATCHED account of the events, experiences, teachings and personal interactions of Christ."
*************************************************

When an Apostle says that "the New Testament provides an UNMATCHED ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS, EXPERIENCES, TEACHINGS AND PERSONAL INTERACTIONS OF CHRIST"...he means exactly that.

That it is unmatched. Even by the other books in the Standard Works.

Unmatched does not mean equal...it means superior.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs replies, "So again, what does gaslighting mean to you? And how was I gaslighted? // What I showed that if I found an LDS person using LDS computers and time to bash the church, I would turn them in, yes, I would, as would most good LDS people who want to protect the church. // So how was I 'gaslighed again?"

By revealing your rotten character for one, and that you were made a fool of for two.


How is it rotten character protecting my church? I look at that as an honorable person.

Dubbs what you do doesn't protect your Church, it just makes you and your church look bad.....

and by trying to get someone fired from their job for having a different opionion then you!!! there is NOTHING honorable in that......nothing at all....

Don't want to get fired? Don't use company resources and time to bash said company. Espeically my church, I'll turn you in in a heart beat, deal with it.

What ever you say Judas Iscariot....

Interesting isn't it? The teachings found within the gospel indicate that Christ's followers are not to seek ways to put stumbling blocks, or occasions to fall in the paths of their brothers and sisters.

Yet old Kent is just ITCHING to cause trouble, and to do real harm to someone just because he disagrees with him on this forum.


This is not a matter of putting stumbling blocks, it's a matter of looking after the welfare of the church, and having an employee bad mouthing the church, while sitting at a desk and drawing a paycheck from the church, which is wrong, and I would turn them in everytime.

No Kent...you are most decidedly NOT looking after the welfare of the Church. A man who uses the kind of language you've used on this forum is not acting in the best interests of the welfare of the Church.

A man who has treated fellow members, ESPECIALLY those of the fair sex the way you have done on this forum is most decidedly NOT looking after the best interests of the Church.

What you are doing is this...you are obsessing and concerning yourself about another individual's motes and neglecting the old growth forest of your own shortcomings.

Wren wrote:
There goes Dubbs: flippety flop, flippety flop, flippety flop.

Like a fish out of his element, flopping around in the bottom of a boat.

Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs replies, "So again, what does gaslighting mean to you? And how was I gaslighted? // What I showed that if I found an LDS person using LDS computers and time to bash the church, I would turn them in, yes, I would, as would most good LDS people who want to protect the church. // So how was I 'gaslighed again?"

By revealing your rotten character for one, and that you were made a fool of for two.


How is it rotten character protecting my church? I look at that as an honorable person.

Dubbs what you do doesn't protect your Church, it just makes you and your church look bad.....

and by trying to get someone fired from their job for having a different opionion then you!!! there is NOTHING honorable in that......nothing at all....

Don't want to get fired? Don't use company resources and time to bash said company. Espeically my church, I'll turn you in in a heart beat, deal with it.

What ever you say Judas Iscariot....

Interesting isn't it? The teachings found within the gospel indicate that Christ's followers are not to seek ways to put stumbling blocks, or occasions to fall in the paths of their brothers and sisters.

Yet old Kent is just ITCHING to cause trouble, and to do real harm to someone just because he disagrees with him on this forum.


This is not a matter of putting stumbling blocks, it's a matter of looking after the welfare of the church, and having an employee bad mouthing the church, while sitting at a desk and drawing a paycheck from the church, which is

No, Dubbs, you would not. You had the opportunity and bailed. You are a flippety-flop coward.

give me your real name wrenster and i will call Jean today. You dare? Or are cowardly?

Wouldn't change anything since I don't work at the FHC, but rather more than a thousand miles and more away.

But if I gave you my name, you would harass my employers. You are a flippety-flop bunny, who runs away every time.