TrueTomHarley

Moreover, the confidential letter that you quote as though experiencing sexual climax does no more than expand on the consideration already announced publicly. Witnesses are well used to hearing about how that this or that circuit expense will be met if everyone contributes such and such an amount. This is always followed by the clarification that it is not suggested each member pony up that amount, but rather that the congregation in aggregate do so. What your 'secret letter' reveals is that even that fair policy is not held fast to. Elders know their flock. A poor congregation can lessen their share. A well-off congregation can increase it. Ours increases it regularly because @The Librariantells them I make a bundle off my books, the meddling hen. But others lessen theirs. Any Witness stumbling across your coup de grace will come away with increased respect for Bethel's consideration. They will also not be surprised. For decades they have heard about their surpluses benefiting other lands with deficits. They know it is hopelessly out of the reach of many third world congregations to afford their own Kingdom Hall, and they are thrilled to know their funds are spent thereby. Even @James Thomas Rook Jr., who rails about giving up local control of his money, probably does not begrudge that. You consistently try to advance the notion that Witnesses are being fleeced by their organization. You consistently have your ears pasted back. In the end you are reduced to saying 'well - you have your opinion. I have mine.' It gets old.

Yes. But it is like most classics - very slow and cumbersome in its developing, but all the more gripping when it gets to action and emotional pull on that account. I didn't actually 'read' it. I listened to it via Books on Tape while working a hum-drum job. An entire chapter, the 3rd I think, is dedicated to the architectural details of Paris during that time. Or maybe it is just the architectural details of that church - I forget which.

I liked "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" where Hugo explained that the number of floors beneath the surface of the church was roughly the same as those above.

And please do not quote this cognitive dissonance nonsense, for it is no more than: 'You do not agree with me. Therefore you must be suffering massive cognitive dissonance.'

What is it with your infantile obsession over this? Do you expect me to gasp at discovering they know what money is? In your 'secret letter' that you gleefully post, you somehow manage to ignore how the elders may choose to adjust any contribution total up or down depending upon the economic abilities of the congregation. Nobody running an organization puts less emphasis on specific money donations than does the Watchtower. More telling is the fact that, at that same meeting, finances were atypically discussed at length, yet you somehow do not even notice it: From the God's Kingdom Rules book, the subject has, at long last, got around to 'how the work is funded': ON ONE occasion, Brother Charles T. Russell was approached by a minister of the Reformed Church who wanted to know how the activities of the Bible Students were managed. “We never take up a collection,” explained Brother Russell. “How do you get the money?” asked the minister. “If I tell you what is the simplest truth you will hardly be able to believe it,” replied Russell. “When people get interested in this way, they find no basket placed under their nose. But they see there are expenses. They say to themselves, ‘This hall costs something . . . How can I get a little money into this thing?’” The minister looked at Brother Russell in disbelief. “I am telling you the plain truth,” continued Russell. “They do ask me this very question, ‘How can I get a little money into this cause?’ When one gets a blessing and has any means, he wants to use it for the Lord. If he has no means, why should we prod him for it?” * 2 Brother Russell was indeed telling “the plain truth.” God’s people have a long history of making voluntary contributions to support true worship. In this chapter, we will examine some Scriptural examples of this along with our modern-day history. As we consider how Kingdom activities are being financed today, each of us would do well to ask, ‘How can I show my support for the Kingdom?’ And there is much more. Whereas you do not hesitate to publish confidential letters, I am reluctant to publish excerpts from public books out of regard for copyright law. I don't think I have done it before. I do so now only to address your childish tantrum. Of course any organization uses money - any ten-year-old knows it . The real point is that no one seeks it less obtrusively or stewards it more wisely, even with techniques that your colleague in arms, @James Thomas Rook Jr., rails about, coming from the other side, where he tries to portray wise stewardship as stealing 'his' Kingdom Hall. He didn't really 'give' anything, did he? He just put his assets in another pot that he wants not to let go of. Your leaked letter makes us look good, not bad, as you have hoped. An ungodly organization would say "put the screws to them, no matter what!" Ours says "the elders may choose to raise or lower the amount based on the economic abilities of the congregation." And should their goal comes up short nonetheless, they simply readjust the goal, confident that those of greater means will make up for the deficiency of those of lesser means.

I have an entire Mormon category on my blog. And it isn't all negative. Though we are anything but "two peas in a pod," there are some similarities. Such as a child superstar of the 70's. Our Michael Jackson soared far higher than their Donny and Marie Osborn, but he singed his wings on the sun and plummeted to ruin, leaving us with only the two Mormon dullards.

Would you be content with that relationship with your employer? - hope that you may get a 'green handshake?' @Shiwiii

Yes. Does God pump his fist at the Ritchter Scale - that it is the best thing since sliced bread? They're covering all bases. Recent doozies made them rethink, as it did me.

This is just plain dumb. When you start railing about Donald Duck or Fred Flintstone I'll know you are sincere.

If you were going to put your throne somewhere, the Pleiades is the place to be. I'd put mine there.

In both the cases you mention, the GB seeks to mitigate, not propagate, fat-headed notions that the friends may have.

Oh. So now generosity is wrong, too? Would you be content with that relationship with your employer? - hope that you may get a 'green handshake?'

It's a good idea.

Anything with significant upside is likely to have a downside. Some of these things are like State's laws still on the books to regulate some arcane practice that has long been discontinued, like "no ice cream cones on Sundays" it is not necessary to repeal each one. Not reiterating it is enough. That said, i was somewhat bummed when they doubled down on toasting after I had hoped it would go the way of all the earth. At a non-Witness wedding reception, our table of Witnesses was caught flat-footed when a crew came around to record everyone toasting to the bride. Had I had my wits about me, I would have rose and said: "We don't toast but we want to to wish the bride the greatest joy in life & we thank her for the honor of inviting us & etc etc." That's all they wanted. No need to explain toasting. Instead, I just sat there and looked a bit dumb.

On what? Wait - no matter. My system is that good. The probability is 72.4962% give or take.