One of Concerned's comments to the second entry before this one is that Mr. Hartsook is not known to check his sources carefully. This argument is nothing but a red herring, the real import of which is that his sources invariably have something unpleasant to report about Board goings-on and are therefore, by definition, highly suspect. The only real issue is, was the Banner report regarding Brown's detestable behavior correct or incorrect? I have not heard of one peep of refutation. I know I'd hop on the story quicker than a starved flea on a fat dog if I were wrongly accused. The silent non-response to this, as well as to the Planet Waves revelations, gives a fig to any nosy Church member who feels he deserves an explanation. To paraphrase the old adage, they think it better to remain silent and thought to be afflicted with a bad case of moral dry rot than to open their mouths and remove all doubt.
It is ironic that the only denial by the Board I can recall was that knee-slapper when they claimed the publishing of Bliss Knapp's "Destiny of the Mother Church" had nothing to do with the $93 million (they hoped, of course, for the whole enchilada of $186 million) in loot, this in light of the Church's refusal for half a century to sell out and publish it. It's a good thing the Pinocchio effect didn't follow that one. The Board would have looked like a cluster of tryouts for the role of Cyrano de Bergerac.
Silly question: When you have empty or soon to be empty buildings gawking at you all across the Church Center, why do you throw up a new one and create yet another blazing sink hole that requires constant financial stoking--after the rosy prediction of haj-like throngs of visitors? Emboldened, it would seem, instead of chastened by past megalomaniacal disasters, most notably the $750 million (give or take a few tens of millions) Monitor Telivision/Monitor debacle and its equally inexplicable sibling, the aforementioned library, it looks like the Captains Crunch are turning their Titanic once again into an ocean infested with icebergs of risk and folly and going intrepidly for an all-or-nothing calamitous hat trick, this time in real estate development. Say it ain't so, Joe.
Concerned also said if you don't like what's in the periodicals send in something yourself. On the surface that's good advice, especially for members of the cozy inner circle, who obviously aren't the ones with a problem, but if one can stand the sight of his tender little pullet emerging from editorial processing plucked and eviscerated, then it might be worth trying, but you had better have a well-stocked hen house and a strong stomach for mayhem inflicted on innocent things.