Replies

the Mormon church -- that literally owns almost 1% of Florida real estate...where most of their laborers actually pay them to work there...it really doesn't matter what area of the Mormon church is the source of the funding.

I don't care what your motivation is for posting. What I care about is the logic and soundness of the point being made, of which you're asking me to accept as truth.

From what I can see your post creates a false dilemma, then a straw man, and then you attack your own straw man.

You haven't addressed the "why". Why are they getting the stipend? Is the stipend for "preaching" or is it for non "preaching" related activities. This makes or breaks your whole argument.

You're trying to show the Mormon Church as "lying" about a lay clergy. Ok, then as the reader I say "prove it". You have this big frigg'n black hole in your argument which you haven't addressed.

Your latest response is just one big facepalm. You make an appeal to the size of the reimbursement as proof of your claim, which is that the Mormon Church pays it's clergy.

It could be 1 cent or 1 billion dollars, in relation to your argument it's meaningless. It's a reimbursement.

Your whole argument so far points to just the opposite. By your own evidence you show that the Mormon Church practices a policy of "courtesy" and "compassion" towards the people that have financially difficult positions with in the church.

Jesus Himself condemned those that didn't do this.

Luke 11:46 46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

So if more people, organizations, and governments would do what the Mormons (and I'm sure others) do, 1) they would please God. and 2) there would be a lot less pain this world.

You're trying to show the Mormon Church as "lying" about a lay clergy. Ok, then as the reader I say "prove it".

I refer you back to the end of the original article posted on which our discussion is based: ...this particular mission president—who, remember, is considered a “volunteer”—is getting compensation for at least $110,000! Not bad for someone who is NOT supposedly getting a wage!”

When someone announces to me that they are a "volunteer" who receives ZERO wages for the church work they do...but then tell me that not only expense reimbursements, but their entire family budget (100%) is taken care of for their...
* food,
* clothing,
* household supplies,
* family activities,
* dry cleaning,
* personal long-distance calls to family,
* and modest gifts (for example, Christmas, birthdays, or anniversary).”
* support for children serving full-time missions;
* dance lessons (and the like) for elementary and secondary school-aged children
* school tuition, fees and books;
* undergraduate college tuition;
* a gardener; a housekeeper;
* internet
* utilities;
* babysitters;
* transportation expenses including the use of a car and all fuel and maintenance expenses...

Then their announcement as a "volunteer" no longer passes the straight face test.

It could be 1 cent or 1 billion dollars, in relation to your argument it's meaningless. It's a reimbursement.

ALL: MeOnTheBeach's comments on this topic also no longer passes the straight face test, when he claims 100% of the list above is mere "reimbursements" that ANY church leader of any OTHER denomination would EVER claim...IF THAT is true for so-called "professional" churchworkers, then it's absolutely ludicrous for MeOntheBeach to conclude that this is somehow "typical" for the average or even above-average church "volunteer" worker...