Wow. For all this hoarding of wealth by the top dogs it is amazing we do not see them living so extravaganlty.
When do you really see GAs or apostles at all? President Hinckley already indicated what ballpark he was playing in when he said they weren't earning much compared to other high ranking corporate CEOs. It's a lot more than the average tithe payer. From what I've seen of the GAs they do live very well.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Analytics wrote:That Stephen English quote is bizzare. It seems to me that the point of "free expression" is the freedom to get information into the public. Now the church wants to use that right to hide information? Bizzaro.
Actually there are times when the disclosure of information could greatly limit one's freedom. That's why we don't know everyone who works for the CIA, secret service, is an undercover cop, was a key witness at a trial.
So what would disclosed financial information cost the church in terms of freedom? Well, I suspect it may put undue pressure on the church to place more funds in projects that the public wants (pay for more welfare) than for what would further the church's goals (more temples, more translations of scriptures, etc). Then again, I don't know. Why else would the church want to hide the information? I truly suspect it's because people want the church to spend more resources supporting their particular cause over spreading the word or doing temple work for the dead (and living).
I personally agree with both helping the poor and building temples. The Church runs a very tight ship when it comes to helping the poor. They teach you to pay them first before all other creditors, but ask them for help last, after you've asked everyone else. It doesn't seem like a very good friend to me, but we're told to view the Church as good friend regardless.
What I would love to know is just how much money the GAs, MPs, Brethren etc. are pulling out for themselves directly. MPs seem to live very well and I have a strong hunch that some of them didn't earn all that money before they started the mission.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
ajax18 wrote:I personally agree with both helping the poor and building temples. The Church runs a very tight ship when it comes to helping the poor. They teach you to pay them first before all other creditors, but ask them for help last, after you've asked everyone else. It doesn't seem like a very good friend to me, but we're told to view the Church as good friend regardless.
I have never reflected on this policy before. You are right though! We are to pay the church its due, first and foremost. If we are found wanting, we are to exhaust other options, including pandering to our relatives for support before getting that block of cheese from the bishops store house. Thanks for the thought of the day.[/list]
ajax18 wrote:I personally agree with both helping the poor and building temples. The Church runs a very tight ship when it comes to helping the poor. They teach you to pay them first before all other creditors, but ask them for help last, after you've asked everyone else. It doesn't seem like a very good friend to me, but we're told to view the Church as good friend regardless.
What I would love to know is just how much money the GAs, MPs, Brethren etc. are pulling out for themselves directly. MPs seem to live very well and I have a strong hunch that some of them didn't earn all that money before they started the mission.
In my experience the Church asks you to pay them first but they are second in line for being who you go to for support when in trouble after your family. That's not far down the list.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
moksha wrote:So does this mean they will be forced into a settlement each time financial records are demanded, in order to avoid showing any financial records?
Is there any chance they will appeal this ruling to a higher court?
If so this will hamstring the church as precedent like this is powerful.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning