Looking for explanation that means MPs aren't required to be a**holes
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:58 pm
So it seems like the church requires mission presidents to be total assholes. But I can't always think of charitable explanations anymore, so maybe I'm missing something.
Mission president's handbook, 2006 edition, page 25, in the context of dealing with missionaries who want to go home:
If a missionary were actually required to reimburse the church, what are the legal implications?
I wonder if my FIL has ever done this.
Oh, I did it! Maybe this is leftover policy from days of yore when missionaries actually did have to reimburse the church. But then, it was the church being the asshole then instead of the MP now.
Mission president's handbook, 2006 edition, page 25, in the context of dealing with missionaries who want to go home:
According to various exmos, MPs do use this tactic, but I haven't read any firsthand accounts of anyone actually being required to pay up. So it seems like they're instructed to lie in order to manipulate missionaries into staying. Possibly gives new meaning to Elder Zwick's "demolition wrecking ball."Explain that if the missionary returns home at his or her own insistence, the missionary and the family are to reimburse the Church for the cost of the return trip home.
If a missionary were actually required to reimburse the church, what are the legal implications?
I wonder if my FIL has ever done this.
Oh, I did it! Maybe this is leftover policy from days of yore when missionaries actually did have to reimburse the church. But then, it was the church being the asshole then instead of the MP now.