http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Hierarchy-Extensions-Power/dp/1560850604/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/104-6055794-8214322

“http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Hierarchy-Extensions-Power/dp/1560850604/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/104-6055794-8214322

One thing to remember regarding a Bishop vs. a Stake President is that “Bishop” (in addition to a calling) is actually an office within the Aaronic Priesthood – Deacon, Teacher, Priest, Bishop. This is why the Bishop is actually the president of the Priest Quorum within a ward. So, both positions are callings, but only the calling of Bishop is associated with an actual ordination to an office within the priesthood.

This is aside from the fact that one must be ordained to the office of High Priest within the Melchizedek Priesthood prior to serving as Bishop or Stake President.

Also, the subject of the priesthood (really, the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel) and to whom the Lord designates, through his prophets, that they be given: there is doctrine regarding this in both the Old and New Testaments. One example from the Old Testament is Abraham’s desire to find a wife for his son Isaac. In Genesis 24, Abraham instructs his eldest servant to journey North to the city of Nahor to find a wife for Isaac because the Canaanites, among whom Abraham and his family lived, were of the Hamitic tribes (descendents of Ham) who could not enjoy the blessings of the priesthood at the time. Thus, if Isaac had married a Canaanite, the priesthood lineage could not have been passed on (because any children born to a Canaanite could not receive the priesthood) and the promises made to Abraham by the Lord that his seed would “bear the ministry and priesthood unto all nations” would have been frustrated.

Also in the Old Testament: among the tribes of Israel, only the tribe of Levi was given the priesthood and allowed to officiate in certain ordinances.

In the New Testament during the Savior’s ministry, the gospel and the priesthood were preached and given only to the Jews. It was not until after Christ’s death and resurrection that Peter received the revelation to take the gospel and priesthood blessings to other Gentile nations.

Again, good discussion. I find myself checking i-tunes just about every day to see if a new “potluck” podcast starts downloading.

And lastly, love the joke, Brother Sean! That and Brother Mitchell’s pause when the knock on the door was heard (right as he was mentioning his “html version” of a certain source of information – tisk, tisk). Too funny! Keep the humor coming. I need it!

Mitchell will have to be released from Primary before he ever gets called to the Quorum.

Also, the church does have ownership of certain companies which do make a profit. For instance, the revitalization project of downtown SLC is running over a billion dollars (if my memory is correct) and it is being financed by the Church’s non-church related assets. Every time the church talks about this project they are quick to add that no tithing money is used (you can find General Conference related quotes about it too). I understand the idea of reinvesting assets into new companies, but I don’t know how the businesses were acquired in the first place. Don’t you need money (i.e. from tithing perhaps) to spend money? Did some wealthy individual donate the company to the Church? I’m curious to know how and when these entities were acquired: Bonneville Communications, the Deseret News, etc. I agree in good faith that the finances of church and company are separate, but how did the Church get them in the first place?

As a rule, the Church always buys all materials and labor in full before any building is built. No debt is acquired at any moment during the process. This has been a practice of the Church since President Snow or Grant (before WWII). I personally know that any new building that is built at BYU must have enough money from donors before any ground is broken. If alumni want better buildings, they should donate more.
/end rambling