the Ogre

A question: My sister and brothers all received checks on their missions. This was thirty years ago, so perhaps there's been a policy change. I'm not suggesting they got paid--I know they didn't, and I understand what you are saying. I'm just confused about the "check" part. Do you mean missionaries do not receive a "check" rhetorically or literally. Do they not receive one at all today? Just wondering.The question is: where did those checks come from? Do you deny a parent the option to support the missionary? Do you deny the church the ability to support the missionary? The money missionaries receive (check or not) is for their survival. You know rent, food, laundry. Now when I say church, I mean the population of the church. If you deny the church as a body the option of supporting missionaries, then you are putting the complete burden on the families of the missionaries and the missionaries themselves. I do not think the church wants to send missionaries to Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong and have the missionaries starve because their families could not send them enough money to get by on. In many nations it is illegal for missionaries to have jobs of any type unless they have appropriate degrees. In Asia the only jobs young American can really get is as an English Teacher. The hours are long and require a BA of some sort or another to do that. Not just that, the church needs the missionaries to work full time as missionaries. For these reasons the church has devised the option to allow families to support their children while they are out in the mission field. However, some missions are just too expansive. Some are extremely cheap. In order to balance this out the church has established the Ward and Church Missionary Donation Programs, where the general population of the church can pay to support the missionaries. Now the expense I have to pay for my son to go on his mission is 400$ a month. My parent have committed to pitch in 100$ a month, I will pick up the rest. I do not know where Andy is going to go yet, but I do know I want him to go even if I am poor. If the church did not have this system in place then poor missionaries, like Andy, would not be able to serve in the same capacity as families who were blessed with wealth. The church recognized this unfair economic status, but did not want to be seen as a religion that only allows the rich and privileged to serve. Regarding the issue of purse or scrip. One has to pay one's way in the world, but if you say that in even letting families support their children while they are missionaries, then I say to you I will happily uproot my family and follow my son and work in the nastiest fields and factories in the world giving him and my other children the chance to serve. That isn't the issue at hand for me or my question. I completely agree the LDS ministry is NOT a paid ministry. I address my "issue at hand," later in this post. Yes, I understand in their priesthood service to the Church, whatever that may be, they are not paid. The only money missionaries receive is the money they need to serve. In South Korea, the missionaries receive some money, but the older women of the area never let them spend that money on food or laundry, those old women take care of those mundane tasks. When I saw the missionaries jundowing, I would by them snacks or bring by pizza or something (if they were near the YongSan USO, I would get the a real cheese burger or some chili). Many members do this, because we love the young men who are out doing the L-rd's work. Now, I do not know what the missionaries do with the money they have left, I personally do not care, but I am sure it used for righteous purposes (though some missionaries are not perfect and might misuse this money, I still do not care). PC commented on this once and I think he is in a position to know. He said most pastors, or people in similar positions, do not make a great amount of money. They become leaders in the flocks because they feel called to do so. Of course, there are always the exceptions, but when I look around and see so many non-LDS churches in the area, that are no larger than the average LDS meetinghouse, I can't imagine whomever is leading that congregation is getting wealthy from it. This being said, and these same non-LDS preachers being held to the same command (it's in the New Testament too), then why is there no generosity toward the LDS missionaries or the retirement age GAs who receive only tiny amounts of money to live? First, while the Church's belief in a lay ministry is certainly a sign of its devotion, there is nothing inherently wrong with a hired minister buying a house, a car and putting his cihldren through college with his wages. Being a minister is his vocation. Your job is something else, but you would also buy a house and a car, and put your children through college with your wages. You both are taking care of your families. So I don't see the difference between the two of you as far as using your wages to take care of your children. Would you seriously condemn a minister for taking care of his/her family? You wrote: True. But once they come home, many of them have parents who will put them through college with their wages This is where I don’t see the difference Both sets of parents are taking care of their children regardless of where the parent’s wages come from. I feel like you're demonizing the ministers, who are just worshiping God in the best way they know how. I believe they love God as much as you do but have a different understanding of how to operate a ministry. While they do earn a wage, the few ministers I've known in Ogden were far from wealthy, and I believe PC when he says this is usually the case. After all, he would know. Back to my original question. Why is it different when a minister puts his children through college than a Mormon putting her children through college. I suspect your answer is because the minister used his wages earned as a minister while the Mormon did not. I think this is a very petty point. Both sets of parents should be applauded for giving their children the opportunity for a college education, and leave it at that. No parent should be condemned, unless illegal means were used, for making that happen. Please do not turn this into "Elphaba is against the Church." Read what I actually wrote, in context, and you'll see that is not the case. I am not against the Church. I admire its lay ministry and am always inspired by the commitment its members continually exhibit. However, I believe members of other churches demonstrate just as strong a love for God as well, and it is no one's right to feel personally superior, or to demean another person simply because of differences in belief that each can have without demonizing the other. The bottom line in this partiuclar issue re: college: Both of you love God, and both of you are taking care of your families. What else matters in this issue? Elphaba El, I agree with you on the second half of this post, but I am a little tired (exhausted really) of listening to people who would rather the GAs starved then receive any money from the church, even if the method of funding does come from revelation. I do not have a real problem with non-LDS ministers earning an income to feed their families. They are not LDS and generally do hold them selves to the same standards we do or have never heard such doctrine and so we can not hold them to the same standard. I know that many do make a lot of money. The ones that I am concerned about are those like Creflo Dollar and others like him who take advantage of other's ignorance in order to live the high life. This is Priestcraft. Is PC doing the right thing by being a professional preacher? I don't hold it against him, there is a need for people like him. There are LDS military chaplains (more like institute teachers in camo). They do much the same thing PC is dong, but many chaplains use their professional positions inappropriately.

Mostly because it is easier to belittle then to empathize. Belittling also makes one feel superior.Many people think that what Lehi teaches applies to human interaction. There is certainly opposition in all things, I just do not think people are capable of finding commonality. If there is a shred of disagreement, then the opposite is always wrong. BTW, Liberals demonize conservatives as well and both demonize moderates. I think the real issue should be demonizing, but what do I know.

Ogre here, but thanks for asking. Missionaries then did not pay rent (sleeping in barns or hay cots was an acceptable way for travelers to bed down for the night) and often had the option of shooting their food and so took their guns and fishing rods with them. This is simply no longer an option (see now what I'm talking about? The world will not allow what once was). The then problem came up as the world changed that some missions were more expensive than others. Poor families simply can not afford missions to Japan. To respond to this, the church came up with a plan where every missionaries pays the same amount thus spreading the costs of all missions every where. There was also the problem that some missionaries simply had no money and no families to support them so the church missionary fund also pays their way. Move to Asia and you will see. H- does, that is why we have prophets to make changes to practice and procedure when it is needed. But does this scripture circumvent modern revelation and prophets. Thank you for the idea of a continual search. I do not think the points you bring up are of the nature to threaten your eternal salvation. The system the church has now is quite inspirational. It would be nice if the world stayed the same (in some instances), but it did not and as such the church must change in the face of these changes. What is interesting about all this is that the Atonement still exists and Joseph Smith is still a prophet of G-d.Aaron the Ogre

Interesting survey, but again to polemic. Is there one to show the connections between American Liberals and their Conservative counterparts?

I worked too long for AMEX to have this kind of trust. I don't trust AMEX, nor any large company to actually do what is right except what is right for themselves.Regarding the pension problems you mention, the Asian countries have an unfair advantage. When Korea and Japan adopted European style retirement programs, they nationalized every private retirement plan thus freeing up capital. There we go for laissez-fair economics.

Interesting food, but I guess it would be if you thought is was okay for the FP to starve. I don't think the stipend is very much and it was BY (I believe, I might be wrong, but it was the then prophet who was inspired enough to set up their living expenses in whatever time) who set up the system.Some of the GAs live in small apartments in the Hotel Utah (Church Headquarters). Some live elsewhere. If the money is for living expenses, then who should care? If you do, write them a letter. Maybe Pres. Hinkley will get a job at the downtown Gandolfos to pay for his groceries and rent, if anyone will hire a ninety-year old man. If this is not enough, I am sure there are many very rich members of the church who would only be more than happy to contribute to the lives and well-being of the GAs. However, many people would interpret this as favoritism. In order to stop that, the church came up with a system for the GAs to receive a little money to feed and clothe themselves and play a little putt-putt or drive the go-carts at Trafalga out of the proceeds of some companies the church owns for this and other purposes. But then there are some people who will just complain about anything. Pres. Hinckley could be a successful businessman or farmer and still people would complain about that. I guess for people who only find joy in complaining will always find something with which to be angry about. BTW, one of the ways for missionaries to get over needing prepared lessons was for the missionaries to use the new "Preach My Gospel" handbook. It is a great book that helps the young and immature people who go out know how to present their Love of the L-rd who need it. But I guess even this is not enough. Everyone has to be perfect.

PC, I'm still trying to figure out what chocolate bunnies and jelly-beans have to do with the resurrection. I just don't get it.

Sorry to bug ya six, but would you say the number of cows is the US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and Australia and the rest of the world is normal? I donno, but I somehow think that we humans have artificially supported the planetary bovine pop. If you think we are supposed to have that many cows and that there have always been that many, okay then. What about the pigs? Don't they stink as much as the cows and are we supposed to have that many of them. Don't get me wrong. I love a good cow. I like bacon even more. I also like the red kool-aid and the green jello. It just seems that if it is gassy cows that are ruining the environment, and we are the ones who want all the cows around in the first place, then we should be doing something to control the pollution caused by the cows we like so much (you're not using a Gateway are you?).

Frank,I agree with most of what you are saying and will have to think about some of the rest. I think the problem comes Adam Smith and getting what we want. The investors in the car companies often have interests in Oil or are Oil Related companies. It is not in the interest of these investors to produce something that might in the long run hurt them. If fuel efficient cars will hurt their overall profits why would they allow companies to even invest in researching these types of vehicles. I think the current system needs a careful relook, but who has the real courage? I do not think the car companies do. Big Oil is not interested and in fact might be combative. So then do we trust a mercurial market or biased government?

I won't call you an SUV owning nut, if you promise to never call me a liberal again. I really hate labeling, reductionism, and name-calling. :) :) :) Hating pollution isn't liberal and hating big government isn't conservative and can't someone hate both?And if you don't like the tax, how are we going to get people to voluntarily stop driving their tanks?

My question is: Were those really flames? I've been on so called Chr-stian sites for years, and that was nothing compared to the flaying I get on a regular basis.

Elphie I know. I'm going to email the church about garments. What could be hiding there? I agree to a certain point with you G. I want to note that there is more than personal consciensciousness. There has to be point where we step up and make requirements of society even if they think it is okay the burn the planet down. I ride a bike everywhere I go except when I need to buy the monthly groceries (I then use Heffa my truck) or go to Salt Lake (go go-go go UTA-the worst bus service in the world). When the service is available, I recycle. I also do not use AC unless it is unbearable at night and in the winter I keep the heater at 60(f-for everyone who uses the other system). However, people tend to be less the caring about the environment and this is when people and companies need legislative controls. I would love to see SUVs and all Pick-ups pay a luxury tax based on annual mileage, weight, real gas-mileage, and color (maybe then we'll get rid of the ugly Red Dodges that clog-up the roads) to the tune of double the original value spread over five years. People who drive them less pay less, people who drive more, pay more. People who insist on driving the giant vehicles, will then pay more. People who insist on driving the biggest gas-hogs pay more. This should also be applied to large sedans like Cadillac, Lincoln, RR and all sports-cars. I like cars, but there has to be a way to control their impact on the environment. The nice thing is that if you don't drive, then you don't pay. What should the taxes be used for? Education.

Only with an iMac, all you PC users are just out to lunch.

Or his newest girlfriend/secretary.

Well if we had a measly 13 degrees (Fahrenheit that is) here in Utah, I think every one would think the end is near.

Yes, this is my understanding as well. I don't understand it, because quite a few people, and not just children and older people, are dying from respiratory diseases. But it was clear they "refused" to do anything. Very sad.Elphaba This is the difficult part of the dialogue. South Koreans say we are the older brother that they will follow. They put the responsibility on us. The Chinese think that if we screwed up the environment in order to grow and modernize, then they should be given the same courtesy. I dislike both excuses, but then I'm an American and I think differently (not better, just differently).

Ben, I wonder if the list of worse polluters is based on population. None of those nations have large populations. I wonder what the numbers would be if they were calculated based on volume. I am not trying to excuse their pollution, but I think statisticians have skewed the data a little. (Edited) I found the following article: I know we are trying to improve our pollution record, but even if China does over take us, does that mean we should quit?

El,I suffered through eight yellow winds from Gobe Samak and I can say that China is a major polluter as is the rest of Asia. There is a river in South Korea that glows in the dark with the pollutants dumped into it from companies that export primarily to us. My understanding is that the US still far outstrips China as to the production of water and airborne pollutants, but I may be wrong. The next thing about this pollution is that most of it is from industry that targets the American market, so indirectly we are still the ones generating this pollution, we just outsourced it. After living in Asia for so long though I know they are amazingly defensive and refuse to change until we do. They also will not change unless the American market forces them to. Profits are where the Asian rice bowl is and those profits all come from us. When we decide to require change through market strength then Asia will change. This requires us to change. Not changing makes us culpable in the destruction of the only home we have. (Edited) Ben: I like the work you have done. You obviously know more then I do. This however does not change the fact most of the pollution produced by these nations comes from trying to serve the demands of the combined American and European markets. Aaron the Ogre

I love the King Follett Discourse, but I wonder if you were really paying attention to what was being said, or did you pick out a little snippet to get a bunch of LDS going. It is an interesting approach to ruffling feathers.Aaron the Ogre

Right.I like that Obama is a good family man. It is important. I would not say Hillary is much a human and as interesting to listen to as Al Gore and George Bush, but these are not the reasons to pick a person as president, but what they have represented, do represent as politicians, and if they have the background to show they have the ability to govern. I have only listened to Obama once. He is interesting, but that one speech is not enough to sway me. I however can say the same for just about everyone else running for president. I do know I will not vote for Romney or Clinton. I hope there will be better options available when the day comes up regardless of there abilities as parents and spouses. Aaron the Ogre

Gandalf, nice to meet you; on many of boards I am involved in I go by Boromir.Okay, I appreciate the nature of your question, but there are no professional missionaries in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The only way an exception to this can be seen is the Ward and General Mission Fund. These funds are sometimes used to help young people who would like to go on missions, but do not have the ability to pay for their missions themselves. My son is going on his mission this winter. We are very poor, but to pay for his mission, my parents are going to pay part of the expenses and I am going to pay for the rest. I am going to postpone grad-school or only go part-time so that I can pay. Now then comes the question, why do we even take money with us on missions. The world today requires it. There is no way to go forward into the mission field without money. When my dad went on his mission, my grandparents paid, but my dad and his companion decided to drive back from Argentina (mostly because they were twenty-something idiots who looking for a little fun) and in order to do this they had to get jobs on their way back as dairy engineers (what my dad did as a teenager in Michigan) to buy fuel, the twenty-year old caddy, repairs, and food. They had a lot of fun, but while they were missionaries, their parents paid for everything and as such were able to focus on the work and not a job. I support this. This happens because times have changed and we live in a time of less generosity and friendliness. A missionary cannot ask for a meal in exchange for lessons and conversation. The lonely farmhouses in the US and around the world have television and do not need a visitor to lighten up a boring evening with strange, though glorious, tales of J-sus in the New World, Lamanites, and eternal salvation. People today do not see the need to continue a habit that once was how missionaries of all denominations were able to go into the wild without purse or script. The world has changed, not the gospel. My final point is that the world has changed not the gospel. We deal with everyday and in the face of this change, this new actuality, the church has had to make changes in how it sends missionaries out into the world. Now my questions for you: Would you deny poor missionaries the option to go out and preach? Is their desire less because they are poor? Would you say the church should discontinue the world missionary program because funding methodologies have had to change reflecting changes in the world? How do you know the changes in the funding of missions was not by way of revelation? How is the matter of getting missionaries out into the field a matter of eternal salvation? Should we not be focusing on that which will gain us eternal salvation be our focus and all other trivialities be ignored?

I haven't been paying attention, but has anyone accused him of being a poor parent?

I agree with this. I think the pattern of nay-saying by American conservatives is much like the three monkeys or the claim and proclaim evangelicals who deny just to deny. The actuality of increasing planet temperatures, not recognizing it, and doing nothing will be one of the ways that humanity destroys itself when it has the ability to do something. I think we aught to be doing what we can to improve the environment of the entire planet. As the leading producer of pollution, the US should be up and doing instead of putting a bag over our heads and still claiming to see fine.Are we the only polluters? No, but we are the worse especially when we are the ones who are capable of doing something about it.

Strange Brew, Dumb and Dumber, and Napoleon Dynamite. Some horribly great movies.

I really feel for the boy and his parents. I had to deal with the teen-aged stupidity of my own sons (my daughter too). The biggest fear is that they will do something that will ruin their lives at so young an age. I was especially stupid in my youth and my choices unalterably changed how my life is. I have tried to tell my kids to make their choices pay them instead of paying for them, but often they are impetuous or spontaneously and then do something that gets them into trouble. My boys got caught TPing a teacher's house and the teacher's husband was so upset, he pressed charges. The kids had to go to classes and paint graffiti for about a month. The youthful crime is now off their records (well, my oldest's, my youngest still has to wait until he is eighteen), but this kind of behavior and worse is what leads to a life of disappointments and possible bitterness.