A link to the history and the cover-up of it all:

http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/How-Mormon-General-Authorities-are-Paid



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 01:06PM by steve benson.

Steve, did you see my blog on the apostle homes showing some of them (Dallin Oaks recently) have received property transferred to them from the LDS owned Property Reserve Inc? I'm hoping to provide a bit more documents on this soon.

LDSinc could silence critics of apostle finances and lavish business interests by showing the first hand evidence of their financials. Politicians release their taxes and business activities for public scrutiny. Why won't the mormon leaders do the same?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 01:09PM by Jesus Smith.

It would be interesting to know the church's definition of the word "modest". Modest by what standard? Modest in comparison, say, with the salary of the president of General Motors or Donald Trump? The vast majority of members of the church earning average type salaries would, I am sure, define modest as something less than theirs. It's an elastic term that the church uses in the full knowledge, I think, that the bulk of members will use the term in measurement against their own standards of income. The reality is likely light years away from the average members income experience.

Hi kentish. I was *just* thinking about you and here you are!

You raise an excellent point. In order to communicate effectively, agreeing on definitions greatly helps, as we see every day on this board.

I work with medical/legal matters and the lawyers instruct the physicians to refrain from using common terms such as "mild", "moderate" and "severe" in describing a patient's symptoms or condition, stating that these words are subjective and therefore not useful for them in managing their cases.

This holds true too for patients interacting with doctors. Pain is subjective and individualized. One patient will rate their pain as mild while another will call the same type and intensity of pain "off the scale". Physicians, in the interest of attaining some objective measure, will judge the degree of pain by the patient's level of activity. For instance, if you as the patient rate your pain as "10/10" in severity, yet you still work full time, play three sports and fly off to the Himalayas on vacation, the doctor will question your interpretation of the severity of your pain. Another patient may rate their pain as 3/10 in severity yet they are unable to walk a block or continue their demanding physical job. This is not to say that the patients should be criticized but just that interpreting their pain levels can be very subjective. Physicians try to find a way to make a more objective interpretation. This is for purposes of both diagnosis and treatment and is not a judgement against a patient.

But the point for this present discussion is that terminology and definitions matter and in many instances there should be a meeting of the minds about both.

I agree 100% with you, kentish, that referring to grand homes as "modest" too subjective. Reasons for doing so can include attempts to mislead, even to the point of being dishonest. Or dysfunctional, if the people responsible for such descriptions are that far out of the mainstream of life that they don't know what "modest" means to the average citizen.

Worldly wealth is not evenly distributed. That is a sad fact. Religious leaders are expected to lead by example but unfortunately they most often fail to do so. Greed or unpardonable ignorance are two of the reasons that explain this common phenomenon.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 06:30PM by Nightingale.

Nightingale, it is always nice to be thought of. Thank you.

In the workers comp arena, mild, moderate, and severe have objective definitions: mild, a pain that in spite of it,you continue the activity; moderate, a pain that causes you stop the activity; and severe, a pain the precludes you from beginning an activity. As in: I went to work and my back hurt all day (intensity doesn't count). I went to work and had to stop because my back hurt. I couldn't go to work because of back pain.

That makes sense, if the definitions are explained, as in your example. Many MDs, in my example, use the terms without defining them explicitly, as is needed for legal purposes. If they followed your example, that would solve the problem and keep the lawyers and judges happy.

So simple yet so far removed from daily practice. In our outside fields as well as many of our discussions here at RfM every day.

Thanks for the input. I am going to suggest we adopt those definitions and use them in the med/legal reports we do. Breakthrough!

Meanwhile, sorry Steve for the tangent.

There are very few reasons a highly visible organization would refuse to release financials:

1. To maintain a competitive advantage (N/A)

2. To hide illegal activity (I doubt it)

3. Because it knows--KNOWS--there are things that would not set well with its membership or the public were they to be published.

They know exactly what they are doing. But I keep hoping someone with inside information will publish what's been going on. Maybe we should start a reward fund.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 06:03PM by left4good.

+1!!!

He's stuck in a transit lounge, maybe forever.

Is that the definition of Perdition?

Not many business interests? The main purpose of the businesses is implied to be charity? I think it is more likely their purpose was to comfortably and richly employ GAs, apostles, prophets, and all their friends and family. What a bold faced liar Hinckley was.

==================

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1999/10/why-we-do-some-of-the-things-we-do?lang=eng

'Now, the next question: “Why is the Church in business?”

We have a few business interests. Not many.

...

Are these businesses operated for profit? Of course they are. They operate in a competitive world. They pay taxes. They are important citizens of this community. And they produce a profit, and from that profit comes the money which is used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Foundation to help with charitable and worthwhile causes in this community and abroad and, more particularly, to assist in the great humanitarian efforts of the Church."


==================

http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/How-Mormon-General-Authorities-are-Paid

"In addition there are a number of related businesses that are indirectly owned by the Morg, having been sold or turned over to key members or groups. Quinn reported that ranking General Authorities were partners, officers and directors of over 900 different businesses. It is estimated that the gross revenues of these businesses is in excess to 6 billion dollars per year. The net income or cash which would make its way into the coffers of the Morg would likely be in the 10%-12% range. Add here an additional $720,000 in cash."

...

""Now a comparison of Morg charity and humanitarian aid. Ostling (in 'Mormon America') compared the Morg to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA). They had a similar number of reported members in 1997. At that time, the ELCA had $152 Million in assets that was primarily the pension fund for the employees. This is compared to the assets of the Morg as reported above. In 1997 the ELCA raised $11.8 Million for humanitarian aid and $3.64 Million for disaster relief for a total of 15.44 Million in cash donations for charity. In the 14 year period from 1984-1997 the Morg reported cash donations for non-Mormon charity at $30.7 Million, or an average of 2.19 Million per year. This translates to ELCA donating a little over 10% (.10)of its holdings in 1997 and the Mormon Church donating approximately .2% (.002) of its holdings. Most businesses in the US have higher percentage charitable contributions than does the Mormon Church."

OF COURSE they're hiding illegal activity! The Cult was founded on a con by a convicted con. Financial fraud has been a part of the Mormon cult from the beginning. Utah is the fraud Capitol of the U.S.

The Cult doesn't hide it finances from the members, it hides its finances from the LAW!

It would be different if they didn't Parade around acting like they were unpaid ministry etc...

This reminds me of something that could get me in trouble:

Asking about a big payroll check I saw to my dad from the LDS church. He had been a mission pres & mtc presidency for a few years each, but it had been 8-10 years since he had done anything for the church except teach gospel doctrine.

So here's a check sitting there out in the open and they know I saw it, they quickly grabbed it and hid it, and gave a a funny look of guilt mixed with an unspoken threat for me not to bring it up because we both know I want to....

Imagine that, blackmailed by my own family about even talking about Mormon finances with them?

A microcosm of the bigger picture....

Sorry to keep Spewing on the Subject steve,

But wouldn't it make sense that if it was a good thing for the Mormons to have private businesses and lots of guys on the payrolls that they should just OWN IT, AND PARTY WITH IT! (Jack Black quote) Why keep the financial info hidden.

I remember being shocked the first couple of times I walked into Christian churches that had their complete financial breakdown posted for all to see in public view right by all their other announcements.

If the LDS church leaders are so ashamed to show their finances, to be accountable for their stewardship how is that not gigantic RED FLAGS that there is a problem with accountability ????