Joseph Smith Rings

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The whole corporate board thing makes me feel a little uneasy. It's like they are trading on their calling for money. I'm sure there must be GA's who were never on a corporate board, but were asked to be after they got their calling.

And then serve the Lord full-time, except when they are working to make sure some company is doing well, then they review the books, policies, plans, etc. of the corporation.

If I were a GA, I think I would campaign among the other GAs to end this practice.

I look at it as a way to offset the costs of an early, unexpected retirement.

The brethren (for the most part . . . I'm sure there are some exceptions) take a substantial financial hit to be a General Authority. If money were the overriding factor, they would still be at their other jobs.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The whole corporate board thing makes me feel a little uneasy. It's like they are trading on their calling for money. I'm sure there must be GA's who were never on a corporate board, but were asked to be after they got their calling.

And then serve the Lord full-time, except when they are working to make sure some company is doing well, then they review the books, policies, plans, etc. of the corporation.

If I were a GA, I think I would campaign among the other GAs to end this practice.

What's wrong with the church having GAs oversee as board members the wholly owned subsidiaries of the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

If I were a member, I'd be more concerned about people who ostensibly had a testimony of the gospel at one time, yet have fallen away and seem to derive some measure of enjoyment ripping on the church and its followers than about some fringe offerings of a book store that was owned by the church.

It seems that you and Rocky read the same book on rhetoric. You don't address the issue, but instead fall back on the tired retort that anyone who points out a problem with the Church must be some kind of "anti" -- consorting with Satan, no doubt -- who simply has an ax to grind with the Church. In your mind, the leaders can do no wrong; they talk with God on an hourly basis, and all their decisions have His stamp of approval. You're a perfect ambassador for your faith -- a mindless drone who will never challenge the party line. Let me know when that call from Salt Lake comes and you get kicked up to the COB. I'll be sure to send you a congratulatory basket of fruit.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

It seems that you and Rocky read the same book on rhetoric. You don't address the issue, but instead fall back on the tired retort that anyone who points out a problem with the Church must be some kind of "anti" -- consorting with Satan, no doubt -- who simply has an ax to grind with the Church. In your mind, the leaders can do no wrong; they talk with God on an hourly basis, and all their decisions have His stamp of approval. You're a perfect ambassador for your faith -- a mindless drone who will never challenge the party line. Let me know when that call from Salt Lake comes and you get kicked up to the COB. I'll be sure to send you a congratulatory basket of fruit.

Sure sounds like you have an axe to grind. Why should your criticism be taken as legitimate when you resort to name-calling and insults?

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What's wrong with the church having GAs oversee as board members the wholly owned subsidiaries of the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?

How come I'm not surprised that you feel this way? It's the guy who lives in the shit house who is always the last to know that his house smells funny.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

How come I'm not surprised that you feel this way? It's the guy who lives in the shit house who is always the last to know that his house smells funny.

Which means you think the problem with GAs being on corporate board of trustees is what...?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

It seems that you and Rocky read the same book on rhetoric. You don't address the issue, but instead fall back on the tired retort that anyone who points out a problem with the Church must be some kind of "anti" -- consorting with Satan, no doubt -- who simply has an ax to grind with the Church. In your mind, the leaders can do no wrong; they talk with God on an hourly basis, and all their decisions have His stamp of approval. You're a perfect ambassador for your faith -- a mindless drone who will never challenge the party line. Let me know when that call from Salt Lake comes and you get kicked up to the COB. I'll be sure to send you a congratulatory basket of fruit.

You're accusing ME of rhetoric? Listen, the mindless invective and baseless insinuations that come from you on a regular basis hardly constitute much of an argument to begin with.

Somehow extrapolating the sale of Joseph Smith rings or the presence of General Authorities on corporate boards of companies that are wholly owned subsidiaries of the church as being grounds for "be[ing] very concerned with the direction the Mormon Church is headed" is quite a reach, to put it mildly.

If you're going to call me a mindless drone, then at least go to the effort of explaining your position instead of just making some vague accusation or taking some minor oddity and going off on wild, extrapolative tangents with it.

Come up with something better than vague accusations that are based on something other than strained logic, if any logic is offered to begin with, and I'll provide a response worthy of your effort.

Thanks in advance.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What's wrong with the church having GAs oversee as board members the wholly owned subsidiaries of the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?

I'm not talking about this.

I'm talking about boards of companies that aren't in anyway owned by the church, and have no direct relation to the 3-fold mission of the church.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm not talking about this.

I'm talking about boards of companies that aren't in anyway owned by the church, and have no direct relation to the 3-fold mission of the church.

Which companies are you referring to?

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by All-American

I look at it as a way to offset the costs of an early, unexpected retirement.

The brethren (for the most part . . . I'm sure there are some exceptions) take a substantial financial hit to be a General Authority. If money were the overriding factor, they would still be at their other jobs.

I think there is a misconception that church leaders somehow live a life of poverty. I'm not saying that is what you in particular are implying. My Mission President was called to be a GA and he was asked how much he needed to be paid. He told them what he need and it was given to him. I know for a fact it was over $100,000. I've heard estimates that the Quorum of the Twelve make around $600,000 per year. Since the the church doesn't release any of this information, it would be next to impossible to confirm. I doubt their pay is that high, but I would guess it's high enough to not want to tell the members. I would be stunned if any of them make less than Bronco Mendenhall.