harmony wrote:The point is... it wasn't his money to spend. Neither side comes out looking good in that transaction:
If a minister is paid by his congregation or Church is it his money to spend? Why would Elder Packer or any other GA that is paid not be able to spend this money as they wish?
Packer didn't earn enough as a CES employee to buy the property.
I am not sure how you know this.
He couldn't bear living in what he considered to be lesser housing.
fellow GAs of the time were pretty modest.
So when the church offered to buy the house for him with the tithes of the poor and widowed, he showed his true colors:
When did the Church offer to buy his a house?
The church comes off looking worse: they used tithing, which is supposed to be for the building up of the kingdom, not for the building up of a piece of property for man. And they've hid it ever since. They've been pouring money into it ever since. Houses don't go from $50K to $1million without some sort of investment.
Yes sometimes they do. Check out California and a home that was bought 40 years ago or many other markets. See my post above about SLC.
Will the property come back to the church after Packer's death? Or is it part of his estate that will go to his family? Yeah, the answer to the question makes a difference.
I have no idea. It might not be a bad idea for him or any GA to leave property acquired with their salary/stipend that appreciated to the Church.
It's dishonest to say GAs aren't paid, and then have the example of Packer's estate as a glaring example.
Who says that they are not paid?
They've all lived the lie for decades. Pay them, then own up to it. Open the books to the public, admit those payments over the pulpit in GC. Don't sugar coat it, don't try to hide it behind corporate profits, don't lie, for God's sake! Own it for what it is: a salary. And when push comes to shove, understand that this subject is a deal breaker.
I am all for full disclosure.