Jayhawk2421

Being that teachers are unionized and require a college degree, $50k is not a great starting salary. I am currently struggling to hire pipefitters with no experience and only a high school diploma for $80k to start in Denver. This is the pay for their 1 year apprenticeship after which they can take overtime and boost their earnings to 120-150k a year.

I am in the process of being called as Scoutmaster and was told to expect to be in the calling at least 5 years and that I was called in part becuase it is known that I would be in the ward that long.

Since she is graduating at 17, look at it the opposite way of what has been suggested here. She could go off to college, complete all 4 years and then go on a mission at 21. Just becuase the eligible age has been lowered to 19 does not mean that is the age at which she needs to leave. Also if a mission is something that she has been planning on for some time now, she had been planning to leave at 21 up until the announcement in October. She might be best off staying with that plan inf she is planning to attend university in a foreign country.

Try lds.org Log in, select the Tools menu drop down, and then select Maps. This will allow you to see the boundaries of each ward within your Stake, as well as the Stake as a while. It will also populate the maps with the locations of each member.

The problem though is that many of these corporations and wealthy individuals have lobbied the government to create tax loopholes through which they reduce their tax liabilities. While I agree that there is no legal or moral responsibility to maximize one's taxes due, there is a moral responsibility not to game the system. If lawmakers decide to create tax loopholes so as to promote investment in certain areas or sectors or to tax advantage certain activities that they deem as beneficial to society that is their pergotative and it is yours to steer your financial decisions to react to those incentives and disincentives. However, once you seek to influence lawmakers to create tax law to benefit you and not to benefit society or the governed as a whole, then you have crossed into the realm of the immoral.

It is not for weekly sacrament meetings. There is a large chapel for Stake Conferences and then administrative offices for the 48 wards and 4 stakes. The wards will continue to meet weekly in rooms on campus. This new building is meant to serve as a conference and administrative building.

LM, you provided the proof yourself. I was referring to the first set of regulations, not the ones that go into effect in 2020. As you stated the requirement is that bulbs need to be 30% more efficent (similar to a halogen lamp). As I said incandescant bulbs cand be made to meet this requirement and you said the same thing. A halogen lamp is an incandescent bulb with a tungsten filament and halogen gas inside the bulb. I still hold that the goal was not to eliminate incandescant bulbs, but to increase the efficency of bulbs being used. If incandescant bulbs cannot be made more efficent then maybe they do not have a place any longer. However, if you feel that there is some great value to this technology start working to improve the technology.

Now that everyone has gotten worked up over the government banning incandescant lightbulbs and mandating that everyone use CFL's instead, it should be clarified that neither is true. Incandescant lights are not being banned and no one has to switch to CFL's. The government is implimenting efficency standards for all lightbulbs. If you can make an incandscant that is meets the standard (which has been done by using halogen gas in the bulbs) then you can still use them. Any other type of bulb that meets the efficency standard can be used, be it CFL, LED, or anything new that one can invent and make work. So those stocking up are not doing so becuase they like one type of bulb or another, but because they oppose using the resources of this earth efficently. No technology is being banned, we are instead being required to be more efficent.

By chosing to use incandescant bulbs you are using additional electricity, a large portion of which is produced by burning coal, which releases mercury into the air. The amount of extra coal that will be burntby using an inefficent incandescant bulb instead of a CFL is greater than what is released if a CFL is broken. So if your concern is to reduce the mercury, then you would be better off with CFL's even if everyone disposed of them by smashing them when they burnt out. However, many are responsibly recycled creating an even greater reduction in mercury pollution. As for not wanting the government dictating what you do, I am in agreement with that sentiment. However, your desire to not go along with what is best for all concerned simply because you don't like being told what to do seems a bit juvenile. If you had switched to CFL's long ago, there would have been no reason for the government to have felt the need to improperly impose its will. When the free market fails to correct a problem because of the stubborn refusal of people of act in their and society's best interest, the idiots in government start to feel empowered to fix it themselves. So next time do the right thing to avoid tempting lawmakers to overstep their power.

There are assumptions that are missing from the study that dash77 so frequently quotes and holds in such high regard. It assumes that all else is held constant in the world except that the current US healthcare system is replaced by a socialized one. That is simply unrealistic. If the for profit model were done away with the quality of healthcare both in the US and abroad would slip as the profit incentive to innovate was taken away. The US currently attracts top doctors and researchers under its current system. The US has the highest quality of care even if it lacks the most fair distribution of that care. The advances that are created here are spread across the globe and improve the healthcare of millions. Even if the study were correct that 18,000 die each year because of not being able to get healthcare they cannot afford to pay for, that does not mean that a socialized system would not lead to more deaths than that in the US and worldwide. Without the advances that are occuring under a privatized system, many more deaths would result.

There is not limit. If you look into Church History you will find that Orson Pratt was excommunicated and later went on to be re-baptized and became a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. This is the highest that one has risen after ex-communication, however there is no bar to prevent one from rising to the Presidency, if they were long enough lived.

The question you need to ask is not how much it cost them to make, but how much it would cost you too make. Then you know if it is a good deal or not for you to purchase. If you can get something for less than your cost to make it and the company can make a profit making and selling it to you, then it is a benefit to all both parties. Why should you care if they made a penny profit or a hundred dollar profit? Either way they are providing you the opportunity to be better off. And they do not ask you how much or even if you could have made those shoes your kids want. They do not adjust their prices based on your skills as a cobbler, so why should you adjust what you would pay based on their ability to reduce their costs of production?

The area just has that few members that a temple was not a warrented until recently. The Church does not build temples unless there is a population to support them. Nauvoo had been proposed for many years before being rebuilt and the reason given was always how few members there were in that area. Northwest Missouri is also not very highly populated with LDS members. That has been changing through growth though and the Liberty Temple is a great blessing.

My primary suggestion would be to stop thinking of it as praying to the Virgin Mary or to saints and instead think of it like you do when you kneel down and pray as you do. The thinking is really not that different. You pray to Heavenly Father, but do it in the name of Christ and most likely have asked for the assistance of the Holy Ghost in you life or the life of others in some way. You would not say that you pray to Christ or to the Holy Ghost, although you are not really doing anything all that different that what a Catholic does in their prayer. They are praying to the Lord in the name of Mary or some other saint and asking for that persons assistance in some way. No, it is not exactly the same, but seeing the similarity and using that as the starting point of explaining the difference will work better in my oppinion. I am a former Catholic who has a deep understanding of Catholic tradition and doctrine; and have found that much of what Catholics do has been passed down from the early Church that Christ founded. As such, they had it right at one point and have distorted and chaged things over the past almost two millenia. But, this means that there is a base of truth that you can go back to. In being converted myself, I found that being told I was wrong did little to help change my heart or mind, but being told the truth and being allowed to see how it better explained things and fit what the Spirit told me helped a lot more.