The Mormonism Research Ministry

[CoreIssue]

The Mormonism Research Ministry (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/archive/viewtopic.php?t=1021&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=)

[Sid]

Business interests

They make a lucrative income by controlling the gambling licenses that regulate Las Vegas casinos. Also reported that they supply electricity to Las Vegas casinos (Ed Decker, former Mormon/Freemason).

Mormon prospectors had first visited the Nevada landscape over 100 years ago and to this day, have kept a strong foothold in this multibillion-dollar entertainment hotspot.

It may also be of interest to the reader that the eccentric billionaire hotel owner, Howard Hughes, not only owned the most prestigious hotel in the world then, the Sands Hotel, but also the film studio (RKO) and several other hotels in Las Vegas and Reno. Hughes was also well known for employing predominantly Mormon staff towards the end of his life, and with the famous Osmond family (more on them at the end of this article) constantly performing in Vegas, one might be forgiven for wondering if the Mormons own Las Vegas hotels too?

What is not commonly known, however, is the fact that the Mormons own the worldwide Marriott hotel chain.

Mormons have also accumulated $529 million in stocks and shares and $529 million in real estate ('Arizona Republic Newspaper', 1991).

It has been estimated that total Mormon wealth is $30 billion. Only Roman Catholicism can compete with this.



The Mormons: Latter-Day Saints (http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com/articles.php?PageURL=Mormons.htm)

[Erundur]

Hey Sid, I've got to question some of the claims you posted.

They make a lucrative income by controlling the gambling licenses that regulate Las Vegas casinos.
As near as I can tell, gambling licenses are issued by the state of Nevada. How exactly do the Mormons make money on them?

Also reported that they supply electricity to Las Vegas casinos (Ed Decker, former Mormon/Freemason).
From what I've gathered online, Las Vegas electricy is supplied by Nevada Power, which is owned by the holding company Sierra Pacific Resources, a publicly traded company, not by the Mormons.

What is not commonly known, however, is the fact that the Mormons own the worldwide Marriott hotel chain.
Actually, Marriott International is a publicly traded company.

Mormons have also accumulated $529 million in stocks and shares and $529 million in real estate ('Arizona Republic Newspaper', 1991).
Why is this remarkable? Non-Mormons also own stock and real estate.

[CoreIssue]

The key is that the LDS invest as a church. Which is financed by mandatory tithing, 'volunteering,' and a whole lot of other things where the members render to Salt Lake City, who uses those things to make a fortune.

Are they a church or an investment company? Non-profit or for-profit?

If for-profit, why are they not paying taxes on income?

It is interesting that the farther a group goes from the Bible the more materialistic they are.

[Jessie]

here in Oregon they own big car lots.

and boy are they used car salesmen if ya get the drift....

far from that wholesome image they project.

they've said they can do what they want that the church (mormon) was behind them.

[Erundur]

The key is that the LDS invest as a church.
Really? Mormons only invest through their church? Do they get a good return on their investments?

[Erundur]

here in Oregon they own big car lots.
Why is this remarkable? Are Mormons not allowed to own car lots (or only small ones)?

they've said they can do what they want that the church (mormon) was behind them.
Who said this, and what were they talking about?

[CoreIssue]

Really? Mormons only invest through their church? Do they get a good return on their investments?

Nope. They get zero.

LDS, Inc. and the leadership are the only ones to get the big bucks.

Yes, they have aid and welfare, as in kinds of insurance type helps. But nothing that compare to handing over 10% of every penny of income they make.

There is a huge distinction between giving for God's work and prospering individuals and corporations.

Just another sign they are a cult.

[CoreIssue]

Quote:
they've said they can do what they want that the church (mormon) was behind them.
Who said this, and what were they talking about?


If you live where Mormons control commerce and government, you are going to have a rough road of it.

Study the history, from Smith on. Authoritarian the whole way. Smith even had his own secret police. They used Indians as troops to eliminate those who opposed them.

Try to exit the LDS and you get ex-communicated, meaning you loose all your friends, family and everthing else they can strip from you.

If others do not turn on you, they get ex-communicated as well.

Nice group on the face, but nasty underneath.

[CoreIssue]

Erundur, by the way, I know you are a Mormon.

And before you ask how do I know, let me make it very revealing, just tell us if you are or are not?

I expect your normal answer of asking what difference does it make.

You see, I have debated too many Mormons. Including ones from Brigham Young, so I am very aware of the semantical game play used.

[Erundur]

Nope. They get zero.
That's just nuts. I think I'll stick with E*Trade.

LDS, Inc. and the leadership are the only ones to get the big bucks.
The leaders keep it all, do they?

[CoreIssue]

Since you are a Mormon, you already know. :yessmile:

Really, I don't know why Mormon's are into such game playing in discussions. Just discuss what you believe straight out.

[Erundur]

If you live where Mormons control commerce and government, you are going to have a rough road of it.
Then I'm glad I don't live there.

Study the history, from Smith on. Authoritarian the whole way. Smith even had his own secret police. They used Indians as troops to eliminate those who opposed them.
Whew, it's a good thing those days are over.

Try to exit the LDS and you get ex-communicated, meaning you loose all your friends, family and everthing else they can strip from you.

If others do not turn on you, they get ex-communicated as well.

Nice group on the face, but nasty underneath.
Unbelievable. I can't imagine why anyone would want to live under those conditions.

[Erundur]

Erundur, by the way, I know you are a Mormon.

And before you ask how do I know, let me make it very revealing, just tell us if you are or are not?
Why do I need to tell you if you already know? Perhaps you aren't so sure after all.

At any rate, if I am a Mormon, would I agree that what you've been claiming here is accurate?

[CoreIssue]

But did you agree?

Sorry, debated too many Mormons. And saying:

Unbelievable. I can't imagine why anyone would want to live under those conditions.

Isn't an admission to a Mormon. Later, the statement would be there was no actual agreement it is true, just you cannot imagine anyone living under those conditions.

Add that to the readings of your posts on other forums, where you seem to focus on Mormonism, with the same resistance to candor, and where you are always pegged as Mormon, kinda hard not to see you are Mormon. :tiphat:

[Erundur]

But did you agree?
I haven't claimed to agree with anything you have said. If you recall, I began participating in this thread because Sid posted some claims that seemed to me unlikely to be true. And you'll notice that my questions are as yet unanswered. Instead of addressing the issues I raised, you're trying to make me the topic of the thread.

But my question to you (which you didn't answer) was, would a Mormon agree that the claims you have made in this thread are accurate?

Sorry, debated too many Mormons. And saying:

Isn't an admission to a Mormon.
It shouldn't be an admission to anyone.

Later, the statement would be there was no actual agreement it is true, just you cannot imagine anyone living under those conditions.
In other words, the statement would be that I meant exactly what I said, and not something that I didn't say.

[CoreIssue]

:roflmbo: Is there a school Mormons take for the semantical games in replying to others?

Yea, you are a Mormon.

So, let us move one, which doesn't include defending Mormons without admitting you are one. That is really a dishonest way to go.

And no, contrary to what Mormons believe, it is dishonest to try to defend while refusing to answer. Answering with a question deliberately couched as an amazed rejection is dishonest, as if you are not sure it is or isn't true.

[Erundur]

Still dodging the issues, I see. Oh well, I'll be back when someone tries to defend the falsehoods Sid posted.

[CoreIssue]

Still dodging the issues, I see. Oh well, I'll be back when someone tries to defend the falsehoods Sid posted.
Straight from the standard Mormon play book on how to try to spin a dodge.

Let me make the arguement short.

Mormon material is posted from the Temple and so on.

You refuse to respond, thus you continue demanding proof since Temple materials are supposedly secret, thus you will neither confirm on deny, so you claim the claims prove nothing.

Ex-Temple Mormon testimony are all lies. After all, leaving the Temple proves them untrustable.

Smith's failed prophecies are dismissed by spinning whether he was speaking for himself or as a prophet of the church.

Been there and done that.

There is plenty of other topic within this forum for you to read. Please stop pretending this topic is the sum total.

Try here (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1908).

Then here (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/oldboardposts/mormonmiracles.mht),

Alma and DocT were very much, maybe still are, not pikers in the LDS. One at Brigham Young and one teaching and doing review for FARMS.

Same semantical games and spin you are trying here. And did not work for them any better than it will work for you.

This approach may work for some. But it will not work on anyone who recognizes the semantics and spin style.

You are a Mormon. And this approach of debating is dishonest. From Alma, Doc or you.