NOM

Korihor wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:00 am

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:37 am

2bizE wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:44 am Several years ago, bishops used to receive a living expense as well. I wonder why they eliminated it?

They and stake presidents got a percentage of tithing if I remember D. Michael Quinn"s Dialogue paper on finances correctly.

Really? Wow, I didn't know this. I could easily envision this in the first 100 years of the church, but not in fairly recent history.
Yes, I wonder why the eliminated it....?

Yes it was the old way of supporting the local leaders who also served for a lot longer terms than today's bishops. Ended in the early 1900's. Stake Patriarchs also charged fees for blessings of both lineage and healing and competed with each other. That is why people in the late 19th century and early 20th century often had multiple patriarchal blessings.

Here's the sunstone article:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/102-17-29.pdf

Stakepresidencies can still claim expenses.
The previous one claimed abt EUR 900 every month.

The document is back up and the legal response from the mormonleaks lawyer is a very entertaining read. It will be interesting to see if Kirton-McConkie presses the issue further.

http://kutv.com/news/local/controversia ... ack-online

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:55 am The document is back up and the legal response from the mormonleaks lawyer is a very entertaining read. It will be interesting to see if Kirton-McConkie presses the issue further.

http://kutv.com/news/local/controversia ... ack-online

I couldn't the link from the news article to the full letter to work, here is a direct link for anyone who needs it:

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/7 ... -03-13.pdf

Too bad the Church is probably going to just ignore their response, because they make some excellent, excellent points. It's a great read. And kudos for them for not letting the Church intimidate them. The Church is a pretty big bully, they need to be pushed back against sometimes. Three cheers for Mormonleaks!

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:07 am

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:55 am The document is back up and the legal response from the mormonleaks lawyer is a very entertaining read. It will be interesting to see if Kirton-McConkie presses the issue further.

http://kutv.com/news/local/controversia ... ack-online

I couldn't the link from the news article to the full letter to work, here is a direct link for anyone who needs it:

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/7 ... -03-13.pdf

Too bad the Church is probably going to just ignore their response, because they make some excellent, excellent points. It's a great read. And kudos for them for not letting the Church intimidate them. The Church is a pretty big bully, they need to be pushed back against sometimes. Three cheers for Mormonleaks!

Thanks for providing the link. In the story comments someone posted a ton of links to fraud news stories about the lawyer working for mormonleaks. Turns out he is about the most slimey choice one could pick given the accusations. Perhaps a poor choice for them.

From the above link (https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/7 ... -03-13.pdf)

"You tried to blow out a single candle, but in the process, you
knocked it over into a field of dried leaves."

This little gospel light of mine, I'm going to let it shine...
This little gospel light of mine, I'm going to let it shine...
This little gospel light of mine, I'm going to let it shine...
Let it shine-till it burns-off the vine.............

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:58 am Thanks for providing the link. In the story comments someone posted a ton of links to fraud news stories about the lawyer working for mormonleaks. Turns out he is about the most slimey choice one could pick given the accusations. Perhaps a poor choice for them.

This is one of the slimiest lawyers you could find. It's bittersweet, he's like a real life Saul Goodman. My opinion is that I love this decision. It's a one man band that will cause a big headache for an entire legal army. This guy has nothing to lose, and no matter what happens it will only enhance his resume. How much would a traditional lawyer cost, one who can't afford to lose?

I must assume the mormonleaks team is operating on a shoe string budget. I think their options for legal representation are fairly limited and this guy will give them the most bang for the buck. And it's going to be hilarious to watch this 3 ring circus.

With Trump on Twitter, MormonLeaks battling the COB, North Korea firing 4 missiles, Putin/Russia doing whatever they're doing, the stock market at all time highs on the brink of a cliff, SpaceX selling tickets to the moon, March Madness around the corner and 90+ deg days in Phoenix - I picked a hell of a time to start drinking!!!

That attorney letter is the dumbest thing ever. How can anyone take that seriously? If I was a billion dollar corporation I would keep fighting this guy purely on principle.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:21 am

Korihor wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:00 am

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:37 am

They and stake presidents got a percentage of tithing if I remember D. Michael Quinn"s Dialogue paper on finances correctly.

Really? Wow, I didn't know this. I could easily envision this in the first 100 years of the church, but not in fairly recent history.
Yes, I wonder why the eliminated it....?

Yes it was the old way of supporting the local leaders who also served for a lot longer terms than today's bishops. Ended in the early 1900's. Stake Patriarchs also charged fees for blessings of both lineage and healing and competed with each other. That is why people in the late 19th century and early 20th century often had multiple patriarchal blessings.

Here's the sunstone article:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/102-17-29.pdf

Strange. Now, it's a much more subtle way of priestcraft.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:59 pm That attorney letter is the dumbest thing ever. How can anyone take that seriously? If I was a billion dollar corporation I would keep fighting this guy purely on principle.

First, that letter was hilarious. That guy is slick
Second, the COB must pay token attention to this guy. He really is a lawyer, and if they don't play by the rules he'll snag them with something
Third, A pig is rolling in the mud in the church's front yard. If they engage this guy, you can't wrestle a pig in the mud without getting some on ya. Their best option is to remain silent until the pig is bored and leaves.

Of course they can call animal control to remove the pig and clean up the mess, but it's gonna be pricey. In the end, this won't do much to harm the church. But if they engage now, it will be one more thing to try and clean up later.

Yeah after reading through the reddit post and understanding who the attorney is, I can see some strategy at play. Most likely the church will ignore it to avoid discovery and unwanted attention/publicity.