Posted on 01/31/2013 5:05:06 PM PST by Colofornian
Or perhaps distilled or derived from such.
if there be capacitance for uh, storage. OR one can just disconnect the wires if one dares to "let 'em flicker"* and/or drink 'em on up.
"*order given after successful battery confirmation test, to then swing the switch handle rapidly aside allowing an underlying depressed button to pop up suddenly, triggering current being sent down heavy gauge double stranded 'shooting wire' to blasting caps leads arranged in circuit
If we keep this up; we will have successfully highjacked this thread into a pun place to post!
Personally, I think the accusation is a gross over-simplification, one which leaves "them" alone holding the bag.
Which makes the accusation inaccurate thus false. Another case of mistaken identity, for it includes the innocent among the guilty in the RCC (the wheat/tares thing) on the one hand, while excusing the guilty hiding among other innocents in Christian and other arrangements or groupings (the same or much similar wheat/tares thing) on the other hand.
Seems there's lots of that sort of "mistaken identity" thing going around...
Catholics? I ain’t got a beef with them.
I abhor Moslems but am willing to discuss LDS but not their copycat JW.
Never read the article but after your comment this morning I did.
LDS must have some creative lawyers but, I can see both sides on this.
At first look it appears they are indeed providing income, in that every expense for the family is reimbursed. Down to dance lessons, tutors, all food etc.
Then again, it could be said that is how the church operates and they can’t predict each families needs. therefore, they leave it up to the family to choose the living arrangements and care, rather than provide a fixed situation which soul preclude a large number of families in some years and be far to large for families in other years.
So how does your home church support itself, if no one gives?
I have read a number of posts in this thread, and would like to add the following.
This threads title miss-represents the original article from mrm.org. Mission Presidents are NOT Bishops. The original poster mixes apples and oranges for, I suppose, their own deceitful purpose.
Whereas there are almost 30,000 Bishops, there are only a few hundred Mission Presidents. The situation is wholly different, Bishops serve in same area they live and are employed. Mission Presidents are sent to locations all around the world and do not own a home in the mission or have a income earning job there. Mission Presidents voluntarily server full time. Bishops part time.
I see at church on the bulletin board, a list of open volunteer positions, the church is seeking to fill. I’ll have to take a closer look and see if mission presidents are on it, but I do know that all the positions listed give an estimated cost per month the volunteer will need to pay.
In that light, When I served my mission, I (parents) paid “X” amount a month to serve. On occasions the mission provide a car. I suppose it was a benefit. But factoring in what I was already paying to serve, was it really? When I served, I had to find housing and cover rent from my “X” amount. Today the mission arranges apartments and that is covered by the “X” amount the missionary pays.
My current calling permits or allows for me to seek re-reimbursement from the church for miles driven with my car in service. As I am financially OK, and filing is a burden, I decline to seek the reimbursement.
The above scales all the way up to the highest levels in the LDS church leadership. Mitt Romney is wealthy, and if had won the US Presidency, had planned to decline the Presidential salary (Like George Washington). For all the Church positions which do qualify for stipends and such, it is ultimately based on need.
The LDS claim of an all non-paid clergy references the congregational leadership positions, ie Bishops, branch Presidents, and Councilors.
I know our critics always see a glass half empty in regards to the Saviors church, and can only spin negative that which is other wise a righteous practice or concept.
I bare testimony that The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints is just that, Christ’s Church upon the earth in these latter days. For those who seek and see such, it is a tremendous blessing unto them.
Yours in Christ, Brother Niv
The Lds church has 70 Presiding Bishoprics, do they not? These 70 Presiding Bishoprics are part of the 854 overall church leaders who receive a living allowance/stipend/salary (whatever game-playing people want to call it). See So How many Lds church leaders receive 'stipends'
The corrupt government extorting us that work for a living for 40% of our pay is a problem. Everything else is a sideshow.
It is sad when people continuously bash something they obviously know nothing about.
1) Mission Presidents and Bishops are not even remotely the same thing
2) Bishops DO NOT GET PAID (in any way, shape, or form). My husband is a bishop - there is no paycheck received (nor reimbursement or “tithing breaks” or any other such nonsense that people are claiming)
3) Mission Presidents are asked to leave their homes, leave their jobs (something bishops and other church leaders are not asked to do), and move to a new place to lead thousands of missionaries. Because they CANNOT work in another job during their tenure as a mission president, the church provides for their family during this call.
I know more about mormonism than you know.
My uncle was a bishop, he received about 35 grand a year in “reminbursments”. Please, don’t tell me they don’t get paid.
You have the talking points down pat, good job.
The 35grand was in the ‘70s.
It’s funny you are commenting on a two year old post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.