As you stated in your article, "I wanted to include the following information in the essay above, but the piece was already so long I didn't have the heart to put you readers through a longer stretch."......the excerpt I DID post is quite long, thus the emphasis on certain points. As I explained, a lot of readers are inclined to see a long post and rather than wade through it, will move on. I feel that the information you have made available is of interest to the readers of the mormon threads.
As to the "meat" of the article, I pull this quote from you...You cant claim Christ as the head of your church if you have to first petition the State for permission to exist.
I'm sure I am speaking for many when I change it just a little.."You cant claim Christ as the head of your church if you have to first petition the State for permission to exist answer to a leadership consisting of businessmen and attorneys and a "prophet" who requires a "sustaining vote".
While the Church employs an independent auditing department which provides an annual report to the Church[1], it has not published full financial reports since 1959.
The Council was established by church founder Joseph Smith, Jr. on 8 July 1838.[2] As of April 2009, the members of the Council are:
I invite you to stick around and join in the discussion here. We welcome new voices to the debate.
Oh, I don’t fault you at all for not excerpting more of my piece, Greyfox. It is most certainly very long, and as you mention, even the part you excerpted is looooong. Conciseness is not one of my better traits.
I hope nothing I said led you to think I was critical of your offering the excerpt, and I do understand your motivation for highlighting certain lines. But when I saw Elsie’s recommendation that it be put into a word processor and straightend out, I felt a mention of where it could be found would be helpful. I’m very grateful to you for plugging it.
(That piece, by the way, has had an astonishing run, getting more than 11,000 hits in its first twelve days and thousands more since, so I do believe Daymon Smith’s research has hit a chord with a lot of people.)
Thanks for the welcome. I was an early reader of FR, but parted ways during the Bush administration because I’m a traditional conservative (constitutionalist)and FR seemed to have skewed heavily toward a Neocon philosophy in those days.
I concur completely with your reworking of my quote above. And MrReaganaut, I’m not at all upset with you, either. Happy to have stumbled onto this forum and happy to be aboard with you, mates.