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

[MatthewG]

An interesting question was brought up in an off-site forum where someone claimed our LDS GA's are in fact compensated for being GA's in certain ways. My argument is that living expenses does not = paid ministry. Another poster pulled the ol' "the laborer is worthy of hire" scripture to back up that he was a paid pastor. Personally, I think it's obscene the money some of these "mega" churches bring in just because they are a "religious laborer". A mega church down the way here in Charlotte, SBC I believe, you must have an annual income of $1M just to walk in the door or must be a guest of a member.

So, is there any info on how our GA's survive financially, particularly, our quorum of the 12 and 1st Presidency. Note: this discussion will in no way affect my testimony as I know these are men of God, I'm just trying refute claims that they are no different than Pastor Joe down the street who lives off of the donation plate.

[rpn]

Why do some people think that paying GA's is different from any other expense our bishops pay for families out of fast offerings when their circumstances prevent them from having income to support themselves?

[blueadept]

My argument is that living expenses does not = paid ministry.

Do you agree that most but not all GA's receive a stipend?

I'm not aware of any documentation on this issue so members believe it's modest where critics would disagree with 'modest.' It's simply not general knowledge. So your comment that 'living expenses does not = paid ministry cannot be debated without truly knowing what those numbers are IMO.

So, is there any info on how our GA's survive financially, particularly, our quorum of the 12 and 1st Presidency.

Nope

Note: this discussion will in no way affect my testimony as I know these are men of God, I'm just trying refute claims that they are no different than Pastor Joe down the street who lives off of the donation plate.

That's good!

Because it shouldn't affect one's testimony.

[simply_disappear]

An interesting question was brought up in an off-site forum where someone claimed our LDS GA's are in fact compensated for being GA's in certain ways. My argument is that living expenses does not = paid ministry.

***I used to argue that our General Authorities weren't paid. Yet, they are. However, they are not paid by the tithes or offerings of the membership which is what sets our "paid ministry" apart from other faiths. Our General Authorities are paid by the interest made from businesses owned by the Corporation of the President. At least that is what I found when I researched this topic many years ago for another forum.

Another poster pulled the ol' "the laborer is worthy of hire" scripture to back up that he was a paid pastor. Personally, I think it's obscene the money some of these "mega" churches bring in just because they are a "religious laborer". A mega church down the way here in Charlotte, SBC I believe, you must have an annual income of $1M just to walk in the door or must be a guest of a member.

While you may find it obscene, a good majority of the ministers really are working to bring souls closer to God and unto Christ. I don't think the wealth factor is appealing either but I don't find a thing wrong with those who are actively engaged in feeding the flock and are being paid for it....that's what they know and understand. That's where they are.

How did you come by the information about the SBC near you? That sounds a bit generalized.....well, really it sounds ALOT generalized.

So, is there any info on how our GA's survive financially, particularly, our quorum of the 12 and 1st Presidency. Note: this discussion will in no way affect my testimony as I know these are men of God, I'm just trying refute claims that they are no different than Pastor Joe down the street who lives off of the donation plate.

Our General Authorities draw a stipend if they aren't able to provide for themselves during their time of service. Many of them are independently wealthy. Others of them are not. Again, there's nothing wrong with Pastor Joe who lives off the donation plate, in my humble opinion, so long as he is actively engaged in bringing souls unto Christ. The ministers I know personally in my small oh so Southern community are genuine in their work and the pittance they are paid isn't near enough to cover their living expenses and their spouses and even in some cases their children help out iwth household expenses.

[ttribe]

^^Whoa! simply...what's with that font?! It's HUGE!

[cinepro]

An interesting question was brought up in an off-site forum where someone claimed our LDS GA's are in fact compensated for being GA's in certain ways. My argument is that living expenses does not = paid ministry. Another poster pulled the ol' "the laborer is worthy of hire" scripture to back up that he was a paid pastor. Personally, I think it's obscene the money some of these "mega" churches bring in just because they are a "religious laborer". A mega church down the way here in Charlotte, SBC I believe, you must have an annual income of $1M just to walk in the door or must be a guest of a member.

I think the difference is that leaders of other religions (pastors, ministers etc.) get paid, while our Bishops and Stake Presidents don't. The General Authorities may get a stipend or "living allowance", but that's expected, because they are totally dedicated to the Church, whereas Bishops and SP's still have their other jobs. So we don't have a paid ministry, but we have a "living allowance ministry". Since we never claimed not to have a living allowance ministry, there shouldn't be a problem.

General Authorities also receive money from sales of books that they author, but that is totally unrelated to their role as GA's.

[BCSpace]

Does living allowance = being a paid disciple of Christ?

No. This is akin to Matthew 12:1-5 imho only the Sabbath Day is not the main thrust of the point in this case.

[peeps]

I don't understand the distinction between receiving a "living allowance" and "being paid." For most of us, we take our salaries and pay our living expenses. The net result is the same - monies are provided to take care of one's needs (housing, food, clothing, transportation, necessities). I have no problem with those who dedicate 100% (and seemingly more!) of their time to church leadership receiving payment (in whatever form).

Frankly, I think the whole "paid ministry" argument is overblown.

I don't see GAs tooling around town in their Bentleys or living in 20,000 square foot palaces - it's not like any of them accept the calling with an idea of becoming rich. Instead, many of them give up lucrative careers to serve their God. They shouldn't have to worry about how to provide for their families on top of that.I don't understand the distinction between receiving a "living allowance" and "being paid." For most of us, we take our salaries and pay our living expenses. The net result is the same - monies are provided to take care of one's needs (housing, food, clothing, transportation, necessities). I have no problem with those who dedicate 100% (and seemingly more!) of their time to church leadership receiving payment (in whatever form). Frankly, I think the whole "paid ministry" argument is overblown. I don't see GAs tooling around town in their Bentleys or living in 20,000 square foot palaces - it's not like any of them accept the calling with an idea of becoming rich. Instead, many of them give up lucrative careers to serve their God. They shouldn't have to worry about how to provide for their families on top of that.

[charity's child]

Our General Authorities draw a stipend if they aren't able to provide for themselves during their time of service. Many of them are independently wealthy. Others of them are not. Again, there's nothing wrong with Pastor Joe who lives off the donation plate, in my humble opinion, so long as he is actively engaged in bringing souls unto Christ. The ministers I know personally in my small oh so Southern community are genuine in their work and the pittance they are paid isn't near enough to cover their living expenses and their spouses and even in some cases their children help out iwth household expenses.

The difference I see is that Pastor Joe is hired by his church. They interview applicants, or audition them, and select the one they like. So Pastor Joe has to please his congregation or get the boot. Although many can rise above this, it does suggest a certain conflict between preaching God vs. preaching the world.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I believe that any "monies" the GA's receive (and most would accept nothing if wealthy enough to see to their own needs) are not taken from Tithing, but from other "Church" enterprises, as many of them oversee "Church businesses". As they are in Church employ full time.

[Truth]

IMO, the difference lies in the fact that LDS GAs do not decide/choose to become such, they are called by church authorities/God to the position. Anyone can go to Bible college and train to become a minister and get paid. To me that is a crucial difference.

[shipwreak]

Majority of the Pastors in this area are bi-vocational and do not receive money for their works for the LORD. Most Churches around here pay their light bill and the rest is given to help people in need. There are probable more pastors that do not receive a paycheck than what you might think.

[cksalmon]

An interesting question was brought up in an off-site forum where someone claimed our LDS GA's are in fact compensated for being GA's in certain ways. My argument is that living expenses does not = paid ministry. Another poster pulled the ol' "the laborer is worthy of hire" scripture to back up that he was a paid pastor. Personally, I think it's obscene the money some of these "mega" churches bring in just because they are a "religious laborer". A mega church down the way here in Charlotte, SBC I believe, you must have an annual income of $1M just to walk in the door or must be a guest of a member.

So, is there any info on how our GA's survive financially, particularly, our quorum of the 12 and 1st Presidency. Note: this discussion will in no way affect my testimony as I know these are men of God, I'm just trying refute claims that they are no different than Pastor Joe down the street who lives off of the donation plate.

MatthewG--

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that there is no SBC church anywhere in the entire world that (1) requires a minimum annual income of any amount for entrance or that (2) requires guests to be connected to a member for entrance. A possible exception to (2) would be underground churches where Christianity is suppressed or illegal, but I gather that that's not what you had in mind.

What is the name of the church?

Best.

cks

[geneticerror]

The difference I see is that Pastor Joe is hired by his church. They interview applicants, or audition them, and select the one they like. So Pastor Joe has to please his congregation or get the boot. Although many can rise above this, it does suggest a certain conflict between preaching God vs. preaching the world.

Aren't GA's interviewed? Haven't they been interviewed their entire lives? Also, if they do not please their audience they too will get the boot so to speak.

This inherent conflict that you cite can also be attributed to GA's. It suggests that there may be a certain conflict between preaching 'God' vs. preaching the 'Prophet'.

[dude]

My wife's uncle is a GA.

I cannot prove all the following, but its been what "we've heard" thru the family grapevine over the years, and I believe its fairly accurate.

He came up thru the CES system, and has always been an employee of the church, making a very meager salary in my opinion over the years, considering trying to live in a decent house for a family of 7 in SLC. He's been a mission president and is now First Quorum of the Seventy. He's always lived off the "stipend" which like I said is very conservative, before he was made a GA, it was somewhere around 50-60K per year as CES administrator. His kids (my wife's cousins) went to BYU for free, one of the other perks of GA-hood. I never heard exact numbers of his stipend when he became 2nd Quorum GA, but my wife heard "ballpark" figures of 60-70. That was over 15 years ago. She remembers her dad discussing with his brother his finances because they (GA family) wanted to buy a bigger house (a very average sized semi-custom house in slc suburb, not fancy at all), but were afraid to commit because as 2nd quorum, there was no guarantee that position would be for life. So his brother (my father in law, who has financial means), basically told him "don't worry, go for it, I'll cover you". She remembers her dad using the phrase: "take the step of faith" (I guess even GA's have to "take steps of faith" when it comes to finances). When he became 1st quorum, it solved the concerns, I assume because of a "raise" and the life-time assignment. We've always guessed with adjusted inflation, most GA's stipend's are getting close to six figs. That really isn't rich anymore, just comfortable without making the wife work. Stipends are "modified" to each individual, with many not taking any at all because they are financially independent. And yes he pays tithing on his stipend.

[John Larsen]

People keep saying that GA's don't draw a salary. CFR.

[MatthewG]

MatthewG--

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that there is no SBC church anywhere in the entire world that (1) requires a minimum annual income of any amount for entrance or that (2) requires guests to be connected to a member for entrance. A possible exception to (2) would be underground churches where Christianity is suppressed or illegal, but I gather that that's not what you had in mind.

What is the name of the church?

Best.

cks

I humbly concede I was wrong it was SBC, it is a Presbyterian Church, and I am going on the first hand experience of a co-worker. He was questioned if he was a member, when he said no, they asked if he was friends with a member when he said no, the asked if he lived in the neighborhood (a multimillion dollar neighborhood) he said no, he was told there wasn't any available seats. I know him well enough I don't think he'd lie about it especially since we were just having a religious discussion about the LDS Church and happened to drive by this church coincidently when he told me what happened. He's Pentecostal.

I started another thread about the Calvary Church as they have an odd similarity to the LDS Church, Articles of Faith on their web page.

[simply_disappear]

^^Whoa! simply...what's with that font?! It's HUGE!

I absolutely love it to be huge and purple! Thanks for taking notice :0)

[simply_disappear]

The difference I see is that Pastor Joe is hired by his church. They interview applicants, or audition them, and select the one they like. So Pastor Joe has to please his congregation or get the boot. Although many can rise above this, it does suggest a certain conflict between preaching God vs. preaching the world.

I can totally understand your point of view. It's actually one of the things my dh found in the gospel which helped convert him. The folks here weren't being paid to make anybody happy.

[ttribe]

It may also be helpful to point out that our GA's aren't accumulating vast amounts of wealth from the patrons of the Church whereas the Benny Hinn's of the world are pretty "fine" examples of what a "mainstream" Christian pastor can end up doing.

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

I've heard many things said about this issue and rather than make a single point, I'll just share a portion of my personal articals that I write for myself and archive as a quick reference or debating issues, its entitled Priestcrafts, the section entitled Hypocrisy I: The Living Stipends;

" ...given that we have a couple thousand stakes and tens of thousands of wards, all functioning without paid leaders, it's a pretty good first-order approximation to preference saying we don't have paid ministry. No Sunday School teachers nor Bishops get paid. The General authorities are rather much more than ministers; but administrators. Full time administering in a church with 6 million active members. The problem with extending a calling for full time administrating is a bit obvious. Unless General Authorities need to either be, or draw from, the independently wealthy, they would not be able to serve full time like they do.

Anti-Mormons sell their books by sensationalizing otherwise sensible positions to describe something as being sinister. They claim that we are hypocrites, that we are a money making industry lining the Church's leaders' pockets, that our "tithes" go for "paying" the leaders a "salary" and that it is spent on "extravagant" lifestyles. As proof of splurgery (I think that's not a word); their nice suits, etc. make it self-evident to Anti-Mormons that they get pampered. Often times the devil is in the details.

It is true that some general authorities, being called to full-time Church service, can receive a very modest living stipend (not a salary) to defray their living expenses, out of non-tithing income. As opposed to a salary that is "compensation for work done", the stipend is a back door form of it, which is to "cover minimal living costs". If you are in the Americorps you receive a "stipend" for the 'volunteer' work you do, as opposed to what someone would receive doing the same job as an 'employee'. To state the opposite to someone would give the wrong impression. They give them their life, and they give him a car to ride in. Big deal.

As for their "extravagance", for things like food when they're home, personal items like books, clothing, toothpaste, etc. are not covered by the stipend. It can take care of things like housing, a car and in some cases a driver, gas, medical expenses, insurance, etc. No one who examines the schedule or workload of the general authorities can claim that these men are in any way pampered the way anti-Mormons are imagining it.

Also, this is for those that [need] it, its only used out of [need] (and some don't need the help and don't use it). Surely we shouldn't weed out our General Authorities because they chose professions like education or public service before they were called to serve in the church. This isn't by design, as much as default; we have to do it. I simply would prefer to see it as "charity"; the Church is not obliging the leaders to starve to death or spending their retirement on traveling when we have them serving full-time, often taking somewhere between five year and several decade hiatus from their careers. Its not a compensation rather a given, considering what it is they do. I think it is ridiculous to think that the church would not provide some means for people who serve full-time. After all, they do need food, clothes and a roof over their heads. There are expenses that come with carrying out their duties. To deny this would mean that only those who are independently wealthy would be able to serve. It's not a paid clergy. What we have are men who, if not independently wealthy, are able to secure a modest living allowance and travel expenditures. In a word, its "subsistence" or "charity", as the alternative results in General Authorities living in poverty. I really donâ??t care all that much, but I think its very different from "a job", its not like they get "honoraria" when they are preaching nor a "wage" based on how many hours they work each day. "

[charity's child]

Aren't GA's interviewed? Haven't they been interviewed their entire lives? Also, if they do not please their audience they too will get the boot so to speak.

This inherent conflict that you cite can also be attributed to GA's. It suggests that there may be a certain conflict between preaching 'God' vs. preaching the 'Prophet'.

But the GA is selected for the position before the interview. And he only stops being a GA if he's excommunicated. Ministers can be fired.

[geneticerror]

But the GA is selected for the position before the interview.

Interesting, so the prophet has never met the GA candidate before? He has never consulted with someone that knows him and has interviewed him before they are 'Called'? I find that very unlikely.

And he only stops being a GA if he's excommunicated. Ministers can be fired.

Is there a difference?

[ttribe]

Interesting, so the prophet has never met the GA candidate before? He has never consulted with someone that knows him and has interviewed him before they are 'Called'? I find that very unlikely.

Well of course it must be the case that the prophet HAS previously met all GA candidates before...since anything which runs contrary to your worldview is, by definition, incorrect.

Is there a difference?

Ummm, yes, and if you applied the tiniest sliver of objectivity you might see it.

[geneticerror]

Well of course it must be the case that the prophet HAS previously met all GA candidates before...since anything which runs contrary to your worldview is, by definition, incorrect.

Why the jab ttribe? Was I incorrect in my statement?

Ummm, yes, and if you applied the tiniest sliver of objectivity you might see it.

Provide me the difference and let me judge for myself if I can see it. I'm not sure how I can be objective without something to be objective about. As I see it being fired and excommunicated has the same net effect. Both persons are removed from their previous positions in the church. Unless the lds continue to provide the stipend to ex'd GAs then both have lost their income as a result.