Are Ga's Paid Because They Are Ga's?

[MatthewG]

And, as has been your practice in this thread, you assert these things without any evidence whatsoever. You continue to pile one unsubstantiated claim upon another. Obviously, a rah-rah team tactic. But, certainly not compelling in even the slightest degree to the visitors.

So stop responding. If I'm sooooo beneath your time and intelligence don't respond. Judges: -5 points for being rude.

For any readers of the thread still tracking: Matthew has made repeated assertions without any sort of evidence whatsoever. In fact, he has claimed that his assertions are true even though he self-admittedly has no evidence to support them. I would just call more responsible LDS believers to a higher standard of interchange than he has heretofore evidenced himself capable of. Merely repeating an assertion, even ad nauseum, doesn't make it true.

I'm talking about the fact that you have provided no useful evidence whatsoever for your claim(s). I stand by my former post. If you truly don't understand that very, very clear fact, I'm not sure what I can do to help you see it at this point.

I have supported my claim I post a website that took me all of 30 seconds to find that showed that thousands of pastors are fired each year and it listed the reasons why including and I'll repost that damn quote just so you can read it again:

Last year (1999) 72,000 pastors and clergy were fired across America. For reasons that were partially their fault, for reasons that were not their fault, some for reasons no one knows but God Himself. Nevertheless, they and their families were fired, force terminated, pushed out into the streets' (http://www.thecents.org/ )

~~~

* 'A 1984 study on forced terminations in the Southern Baptist Convention indicated 1,056 pastors were terminated annually. Among causes cited in that study were lack of unity and the presence of factions in the church, conflict over leadership styles, relational incompetence and tenure. Four years later, the survey was repeated, and forced termination totals had increased to 1,392 pastors annually. Primary reasons included lack of communication, problems related to immorality and unethical conduct, performance dissatisfaction, authoritarian leadership style, power struggles and personality conflicts.

'(But by 1999) forced terminations among Southern Baptist pastors and other full-time church staff appear to have leveled off, results of an annual survey of state Baptist conventions indicates.

'The survey, coordinated by the LeaderCare ministry of LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention, shows the total number of forced terminations reported by 22 state convention church-minister relations directors has dipped to 987 in 2000. The 1999 total, which also reported on full-time pastors, bivocational pastors and full-time staff, was 1,077 in 26 state conventions.

'The 1999 survey found once again the most common causes for firings cited by directors of missions in reports to state convention church-minister relations directors were:

control issues regarding who will run the church, poor people skills of the pastor, pastoral leadership style perceived as too strong, the church's resistance to change and the church was already conflicted when the pastor arrived.'

What part of this don't you understand? If pastors don't preach to please their crowds they're fired and the reasons are listed above: "poor people skills" "leadership style to strong" "Church's resistance to change" 72000 pastors the site lists were fired in 1999. That's a lot of ministers out of the job for upsetting people. Judges: another -5 points for insults

If you are actually interested in truth, then you will see that your assertions, at least as you've presented them (God save the Mormons from their non-rational, amateur MB apologists), are bunk.

Amateur am I? Really? I'D LOOOOOVEE to see where I claimed to be a professional? At least I have 1 thing you don't and probably never will: GOD'S AUTHORITY. I could careless if I'm a bad apologist. -5 points for being rude.

If not, throw yet another unsubstantiated assertion on the grill.

+5 points for using a grill analogy.

Goodness. Zeal is not necessarily a bad thing, Matthew. But, then, there's zeal without knowledge. That is a bad thing.

I may not be as good as DCP or some of the other people around here but so what? Again if I'm not worth your time stop responding.

I think I'm going to have to throw you into my purple tank of incorrigibles.

-5 points for owning something purple.

[Freedom]

How do the scriptures define them exactly? For that matter, where do the scriptures say anything about the need for General Authorities at all? According to you, at least 'minister' are reference.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. We believe in modern revelation, and the modern growth the church requires general authorities. My point is that general authorities are not ministers as defined by the scriptures as those who minister to the sick and the widows. A world wide centeraly run church is unique to this century, made possible through global communication systems. The role of the general authority is to direct the affairs of the church. The unpaid ministry is at the local level.

[Mudcat]

If not, throw yet another unsubstantiated assertion on the grill.

I like my unsubstantiated assertions, served over easy with a dash of red herring. A side of ad hominems and a fresh squeezed glass of tu quoque. If your out of plates, you can just toss it on a slippery slope.

[Calm]

I like my unsubstantiated assertions, served over easy with a dash of red herring. A side of ad hominems and a fresh squeezed glass of tu quoque. If your out of plates, you can just toss it on a slippery slope.

Yum yum, I'm hungry.

[Yirgacheffe]

I have no data, just past history of organizations like the Catholic Church. A priest does something that a cardinal doesn't like, scandalous even, what happens to him? He's not fired, he's transfered.

How does that support "people preach to the crowd to stay gainfully employed" since the priest is still "employed" just somewhere else?

(And I'm still not convinced of your story about income requirements on members.)

[MatthewG]

How does that support "people preach to the crowd to stay gainfully employed" since the priest is still "employed" just somewhere else?

(And I'm still not convinced of your story about income requirements on members.)

Well I'm certainly not going to to go knock on the door. I only have the first hand experience from my co-worker.

I'm not familiar with how the Catholic CHurch pays it's priest, but I would have to assume that a powerful well liked, well attended priest in New York tends to make more than a priest in africa or in a failing slum somewhere here in the USA.

[Yirgacheffe]

Well I'm certainly not going to to go knock on the door. I only have the first hand experience from my co-worker.

So he says and you believe him because you know him so well. For others though it's still just hearsay, there is no way to know if he's misunderstanding or viewing it from a jaundiced position. And since you won't go and knock on the door and get the other side for us well.... if you did though it would be an interesting story. I'm not meaning to be critical here, I just want you to understand why someone (me) might not place as much weight on this as you do.

I'm not familiar with how the Catholic CHurch pays it's priest, but I would have to assume that a powerful well liked, well attended priest in New York tends to make more than a priest in africa or in a failing slum somewhere here in the USA.

Well I don't know how they get paid either and on the surface I'd agree with your "pay" (quoted since I don't know that the pay isn't equivalent to your GA situation) judgment but it still doesn't quite meet the "pleasing the crowd" thing. It seems if he angers his Bishop he could be punished, but in all that's been written over the last few years about Catholic members and Bishops behavior I don't see that the Bishops are inclined to pay any attention to the dissatisfaction of Catholic membership. And seeing that Catholic Bishops keep flaying politicians for their positions, yahoo just had something about a Bishop denouncing Obama and Biden, it doesn't look to me like crowd pleasing or ear tickling.

Do I get points for flaying, that's a food word right?

[gmormon]

I like my unsubstantiated assertions, served over easy with a dash of red herring. A side of ad hominems and a fresh squeezed glass of tu quoque. If your out of plates, you can just toss it on a slippery slope.

I am glad your back !!! I have missed your wisdom and your humor !!!