Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to.you are trying to make something that is not there. the Prophet does not recieve a Salary. he has a living allowance which comes from the church's own investments.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to.you are trying to make something that is not there. the Prophet does not recieve a Salary. he has a living allowance which comes from the church's own investments.
He's provided with a comfortable convenient place to live, but it isn't given to him. He doesn't own it. There's no fortune or wealth in exchange for the sacrifices of the job.The president is also supplied with a home. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Aug. 27, 1994, p. E1, the president of the LDS Church lives in a "downtown condominium, the official residence of church presidents." In the Salt Lake Tribune, Dec. 8, 1988, we read "The $1.2 million condominium at 40 N. State that is home to the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be exempt from property taxes, Salt Lake County commissioners ruled Tuesday."
Sounds like the president is a "captialists" also.
The president is also supplied with a home. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Aug. 27, 1994, p. E1, the president of the LDS Church lives in a "downtown condominium, the official residence of church presidents." In the Salt Lake Tribune, Dec. 8, 1988, we read "The $1.2 million condominium at 40 N. State that is home to the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be exempt from property taxes, Salt Lake County commissioners ruled Tuesday."
Sounds like the president is a "captialists" also.
We all have
Ed Dufresne Ministries
Juanita Bynum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
just 2 in a list of hundreds
Ten minutes with Pres. Eyring should do it.No offense, but you're speaking from the perspective of one who is not familiar with the lives and accomplishments of the LDS Apostles.
I really believe that if a non-believer were to get to know each Apostle at a personal level and truly understand the nature of their apostolic claims, that person would either feel a new inclination to believe or would become perplexed as to how to explain it all. They would no longer blow them off as obvious frauds as some do. Nor would they blow them off as weak minded fools, who while they may be sincere, are easily suseptible to being deceived through hallucinations, mental disorder, etc.
I'm not suggesting that this, in and of itself, would be sufficient for one to convert, but it would quiet most people down on the quick accusations and conclusions and would give them pause to think and wonder how it is that such remarkable men make such remarkable claims.
To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to.
Oh, I don't have any problem with them getting paid. I'd much rather discuss post #99.In all seriousness Storm, in the entire LDS Church, there is a small handfull of men who are asked to leave their careers and do church work full time, either until they turn 70, or in the case of the Apostles, until they die. Those men are given some type of living allowance. Heck, call it a salary if you want. The point is that most of them are living on far, far less than they earned in the private sector. How can they and their families eat if they don't get something from the church?
Other than these few who are called to full time/life time service, the other millions of LDS throughout the world serve in leadership and other positions wihout pay of any sort. They keep their full time jobs, while serving in the church.
I realize that the corruption we see in so many places, unfortunately sometimes in alleged Christian ministries that are fronts for generating personal wealth, people become wary and synical. A careful analysis of the LDS Church's financial system will convince you that such doubt is misplaced in the case of the LDS Church.
Ten minutes with Pres. Eyring should do it.
I would have loved that. Are we allowed to have favorites? Cause he's mine. He's my former college president.I had the privilege, through a somewhat unusual circumstance, to be able to take a Teacher's Quorum (small goup of 14-15 year old boys) to meet with Elder Eyring in his office a few years ago, while he was a member of the Twelve. He talked with us for about 20 minutes.
It was remarkable and inspiring. The experience surpassed by expectations.
Sure we're allowed! Mine's M. Russell Ballard.I would have loved that. Are we allowed to have favorites? Cause he's mine. He's my former college president.
But that's where the problem lies. The reality is like the old joke that ends like this:Your summary of what I'm suggesting is pretty accurate.
I don't have any reason to doubt that I would find the LDS Apostles to be interesting people; perhaps I might even find them remarkable. However, I get the same impression from the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Guru Granth Sahib, and numerous other prophets and religious leaders whose own remarkability speaks just as much to the truth of ideas that conflict with LDS teaching as the remarkability of the LDS Apostles speaks to the truth of what they preach.No offense, but you're speaking from the perspective of one who is not familiar with the lives and accomplishments of the LDS Apostles.
I really believe that if a non-believer were to get to know each Apostle at a personal level and truly understand the nature of their apostolic claims, that person would either feel a new inclination to believe or would become perplexed as to how to explain it all. They would no longer blow them off as obvious frauds as some do. Nor would they blow them off as weak minded fools, who while they may be sincere, are easily suseptible to being deceived through hallucinations, mental disorder, etc.
I'm not suggesting that this, in and of itself, would be sufficient for one to convert, but it would quiet most people down on the quick accusations and conclusions and would give them pause to think and wonder how it is that such remarkable men make such remarkable claims.
Just curious . . . how accessable are these men to the people of their faith? How much to Catholics get to hear from the Pope, for example?However, I get the same impression from the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Guru Granth Sahib, and numerous other prophets and religious leaders whose own remarkability speaks just as much to the truth of ideas that conflict with LDS teaching as the remarkability of the LDS Apostles speaks to the truth of what they preach.
I can't think of a reasonable alternate explanation that takes all things into proper consideration.
The personal integrity of one who claims to be a prophet does not prove that he's a prophet. I hope my earlier posts did not suggest otherwise.
The effect of expectancy on results...
But, I know in my heart that I'm sincere in my LDS convictions. Someone might argue that I'm deceived, but nobody can successfully argue that I lie about what I believe. I am no different in this regard to most other members of my church.
I may have given a false impression in some of what I said.
Why must there be an alternative explanation? Is is not possible that they are prophets as they claim?
They testify that they have absoulte, positive knowledge of Jesus Christ, by revelation.
A Catholic would probably be able to give a complete answer, but AFAIK the Pope has a fairly full calendar of events. For example, the World Youth Day celebrations in Sydney begin tomorrow, last for a week, and are led by the Pope.Just curious . . . how accessable are these men to the people of their faith? How much to Catholics get to hear from the Pope, for example?
I really have no idea.
Thanks.
But that's where the problem lies. The reality is like the old joke that ends like this:
"Why are we running? We can't outrun a bear."
"I don't have to outrun the bear - I just have to outrun you."
You've listed three options that all seem to me to be fairly unlikely... but apparently, one of them has happened. It's not the absolute probablity that matters, it's the relative probabiliy. It's not just the likelihood of options 1 and 2 that matter; the likelihood of option 3 also has to factor into our assessment of which of the three is the most likely, other you're just playing a trick of rhetoric.
You've given three options and presented a case that two of them are "slower than the bear"... but that by itself doesn't tell us which ones will be "eaten".
I don't have any reason to doubt that I would find the LDS Apostles to be interesting people; perhaps I might even find them remarkable. However, I get the same impression from the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Guru Granth Sahib, and numerous other prophets and religious leaders whose own remarkability speaks just as much to the truth of ideas that conflict with LDS teaching as the remarkability of the LDS Apostles speaks to the truth of what they preach.
I can't think of a reasonable alternate explanation that takes all things into proper consideration.
The expectancy effect?
I'm afraid I find 2 (specifically the misinterpretation) to be the most likely, followed by 3.
I haven't trudged through the whole thread, but let's take a moment to discuss what you mean by "prophet." Does it include making prophecies, or does it simply mean one who speaks with the authority of God?
That's an awfully convenient prohibition.
And, having been so called, they must be under enormous pressure to live up to that calling. I don't find it at all unreasonable that one might lie about that.