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

[ttribe]

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

Just pointing out your default position of cynicism with regard to all things Mormon.

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.

The pastor could go to another Baptist/Presbyterian/Lutheran/Non-Denom/Church of Christ/Church of God/Church of God of Prophecy/Methodist, etc. church down the road and get a new job as a pastor...just like any other job seeker (perhaps even for a raise); there is little or no spiritual element to the separation.

An excommunicated GA cannot go out and perform similar duties for a different church (likely having never been to divinity school) and he is cut-off from the Church in more important ways. Presumably, he would have to resume his previous job duties (if still able to to do so given the number of years away).

I understand how, from a high enough altitude all cars look the same, but up close they are different. The same principle applies here.

[geneticerror]

The pastor could go to another Baptist/Presbyterian/Lutheran/Non-Denom/Church of Christ/Church of God/Church of God of Prophecy/Methodist, etc. church down the road and get a new job as a pastor...just like any other job seeker (perhaps even for a raise); there is little or no spiritual element to the separation.

Why do you assume there is no spiritual element when another congregation relieves their minister of their duties? I can imagine that much thought and prayer goes into such decisions. Certainly, the fired minister can get another job probably in the same field. For that matter, I suppose an ex'd GA could start his own church and become self-employed performing the same duties he did while in his former position too. While you would like to continue to think that the lds position is special in some way, it really isn't. It's a job.

[LeSellers]

While you would like to continue to think that the lds position is special in some way, it really isn't. It's a job.

I understand. I'm sure that's what His Honor, Dallin Oaks, thought when he got his call to leave the Utah state Supreme Court to serve, or Russel M. Nelson, M.D., received his. Yeah, just a job.

Lehi

[MatthewG]

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

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.

Seriously? You can't see the difference? A minister can GET ANOTHER JOB or start his own "Mc" Church franchise. Just because said minister isn't preaching anymore doesn't remove him from the religion. Excommunication does. Excommunicated members, GAs even, are OUT. The only affiliation they can have is a visitor in a local congregation until the excommunicated person has a change a heart and starts the long road back to fellowship.

[ttribe]

Why do you assume there is no spiritual element when another congregation relieves their minister of their duties?

I was talking about the outright loss of membership in the Church; generally speaking, that's not what happens to the professional minister.

I can imagine that much thought and prayer goes into such decisions.

Never said it didn't. But then, this isn't what I was referring to.

Certainly, the fired minister can get another job probably in the same field. For that matter, I suppose an ex'd GA could start his own church and become self-employed performing the same duties he did while in his former position too.

Except that his duties would be QUITE different...and then there's that whole divinity school thing.

While you would like to continue to think that the lds position is special in some way, it really isn't. It's a job.

Another fine example of how your worldview rules the day? Who are you to tell us whether something is "special"?

The other thing you've failed to address in all of this is the relatively modest size of the stipends, the comparable excesses of wealth found amongst some of the "mainstream" evangelists (i.e. Benny Hinn), and the fact that there's not a SINGLE case in the history of the Church of a General Authority unjustly enriching himself off his Church responsibilities, whereas there are numerous examples on the EV side (Jim Bakker ring a bell?).

Again, quite different.

[sean0scott]

An excommunicated GA cannot go out and perform similar duties for a different church (likely having never been to divinity school) and he is cut-off from the Church in more important ways.

I bet the Tanners would hire him,

[geneticerror]

The other thing you've failed to address in all of this is the relatively modest size of the stipends, the comparable excesses of wealth found amongst some of the "mainstream" evangelists (i.e. Benny Hinn), and the fact that there's not a SINGLE case in the history of the Church of a General Authority unjustly enriching himself off his Church responsibilities, whereas there are numerous examples on the EV side (Jim Bakker ring a bell?).

Frankly, I don't care if GA's get paid or not. I can't understand why recieving payment is such a big deal in the first place. The only problem I see is that y'all keep denying that they get paid. However, modest the stipend it is still payment. Why can't you guys just admit that there are indeed paid clergy within your church. Granted, not all of them are paid but some of them certainly are.

As for the poster who tried to imply that being a GA is not a job, really? Just because someone chose a good paying job (MD) for a crappy paying job (GA) doesn't disqualify that position.

[ttribe]

I bet the Tanners would hire him,

And he'd make even less.

BTW, your statement should read - "I bet Sandra Tanner would hire him." Mr. Tanner is dead.

[MatthewG]

Frankly, I don't care if GA's get paid or not. I can't understand why recieving payment is such a big deal in the first place.

Receiving "payment" to preach as a job is a problem because historically people peach to please their crowd to stay in their position, to stay gainfully employed.

The only problem I see is that y'all keep denying that they get paid.

The position isn't available on a JOB listing. It's a voluntary service, that is compensated much of the time at a loss to what the person was earning prior. The compensation is enough to cover the persons living expenses and travel. There isn't a way for these men to get rich unless they write a best selling book or something. THey have 0 access to tithing funds or "collection plates'.

However, modest the stipend it is still payment.

See above.

Why can't you guys just admit that there are indeed paid clergy within your church.

Because apples aren't oranges.

Granted, not all of them are paid but some of them certainly are.

Some of them are compensated as I stated above. The MAJORITY are not. There is no way these men could hold down a normal job. They are called to travel constantly.

As for the poster who tried to imply that being a GA is not a job, really? Just because someone chose a good paying job (MD) for a crappy paying job (GA) doesn't disqualify that position.

Were Peter, James, John, Matthew, or Christ paid for their positions?

[cksalmon]

Receiving "payment" to preach as a job is a problem because historically people peach to please their crowd to stay in their position, to stay gainfully employed.

Examples?

cks

[MatthewG]

Examples?

cks

Are you saying it doesn't happened? You're saying priests don't get transfered in certain religious organizations because certain prominent members aren't happy with them or don't agree with their teachings?

[cksalmon]

Are you saying it doesn't happened? You're saying priests don't get transfered in certain religious organizations because certain prominent members aren't happy with them or don't agree with their teachings?

Hi Matthew--

No, I'm not saying it doesn't happen (or has never happened).

You wrote:

Receiving "payment" to preach as a job is a problem because historically people peach to please their crowd to stay in their position, to stay gainfully employed.

"Historially people preach to please their crowd."

I'm just asking for the evidence upon which you base your claim that "historially people preach to please their crowd, to stay gainfully employed." It sounds like a demonstrable claim, as if you're referring to historical data to which you have access and upon which you're basing the claim. If what you have suggested is true, I assume in good faith that you have access to the data that supports your assertion.

I guess it's a CFR on my part. I'd like to take a look at your data, too, as pastor tenure is an area of concern in my own tradition (SBC).

Best.

cks

[geneticerror]

The position isn't available on a JOB listing. It's a voluntary service, that is compensated much of the time at a loss to what the person was earning prior. The compensation is enough to cover the persons living expenses and travel. There isn't a way for these men to get rich unless they write a best selling book or something. THey have 0 access to tithing funds or "collection plates'.

Ok, so it isn't a 'job' unless it gets posted on monster.com? That's ridiculus. Regardless of how much is being paid, they are indeed getting paid. Why is it so difficult for you to admit that? When people claim that mormons lie, this is precisly the type of example that I think of. Fact - GA's get paid. You deny it. I'm not sure why you deny it but you do. This my friend is lying and you know it.

I haven't claimed anyone was getting 'rich' by becoming a GA.

Were Peter, James, John, Matthew, or Christ paid for their positions?

Does it matter? I don't know if they were 'paid' and neither do you. Presumably, they would have made a living somehow.

[ttribe]

Ok, so it isn't a 'job' unless it gets posted on monster.com? That's ridiculus. Regardless of how much is being paid, they are indeed getting paid. Why is it so difficult for you to admit that? When people claim that mormons lie, this is precisly the type of example that I think of. Fact - GA's get paid. You deny it. I'm not sure why you deny it but you do. This my friend is lying and you know it.

How about this? Yes, GA's are paid money, but it is not "pay" in the traditional sense - there is no merit element, there is no "bonus", there is no raise (other than small cost of living increases), there is no pay-grade scale, there is no pay for promotion, there is no negotiation over amounts. Can you accept those as fundamental differences between compensation received at a traditional career/job and the stipend the GA's are PAID (just to make you happy and stop you from calling us all liars)?

[John Larsen]

How about this? Yes, GA's are paid money, but it is not "pay" in the traditional sense - there is no merit element, there is no "bonus", there is no raise (other than small cost of living increases), there is no pay-grade scale, there is no pay for promotion, there is no negotiation over amounts. Can you accept those as fundamental differences between compensation received at a traditional career/job and the stipend the GA's are PAID (just to make you happy and stop you from calling us all liars)?

Since most ministers do not receive "merit element", "bonus", "raise" and there is no "pay-grade scale", "promotion" and "negotiation over amounts" I think that it is fair to say that by your definition there is no paid ministry at any of the Churches.

There is really only one way to measure. How does the IRS view their money? You will find that it is ordinary income and taxed as such.

[peeps]

How about this? Yes, GA's are paid money, but it is not "pay" in the traditional sense - there is no merit element, there is no "bonus", there is no raise (other than small cost of living increases), there is no pay-grade scale, there is no pay for promotion, there is no negotiation over amounts. Can you accept those as fundamental differences between compensation received at a traditional career/job and the stipend the GA's are PAID (just to make you happy and stop you from calling us all liars)?

Heh - I've had plenty of jobs that did not pay in the "traditional sense" you describe, but I'm not a GA.

At any rate, I'd say they earn whatever they get.

[geneticerror]

How about this? Yes, GA's are paid money, but it is not "pay" in the traditional sense - there is no merit element, there is no "bonus", there is no raise (other than small cost of living increases), there is no pay-grade scale, there is no pay for promotion, there is no negotiation over amounts.

Sounds like my first job (except they get small cost of living increases).

the GA's are PAID

Thank you. I still don't understand why that was so difficult for some of you to admit.

[cksalmon]

How about this? Yes, GA's are paid money, but it is not "pay" in the traditional sense - there is no merit element, there is no "bonus", there is no raise (other than small cost of living increases), there is no pay-grade scale, there is no pay for promotion, there is no negotiation over amounts. Can you accept those as fundamental differences between compensation received at a traditional career/job and the stipend the GA's are PAID (just to make you happy and stop you from calling us all liars)?

Hi ttribe--

But, how would one know these things? I'm not saying you're wrong (or, more importantly, a liar, for heaven's sake). But, do you have access to the books detailing the payment arrangements made with GA's? Your statements seem to be founded upon sure knowledgr about these things, which is why I ask. Is your information available somewhere?

Best.

cks

[ttribe]

Since most ministers do not receive "merit element", "bonus", "raise" and there is no "pay-grade scale", "promotion" and "negotiation over amounts" I think that it is fair to say that by your definition there is no paid ministry at any of the Churches.

You know what "most" ministers get in their pay? You have data to back up your "most" statement" or is this just another opinion that you'll deny a CFR on?

There is really only one way to measure. How does the IRS view their money? You will find that it is ordinary income and taxed as such.

Well, you must not be all that familiar with the Code if you are relying on it for substantiation of your point.

Perhaps I should have added - there is no "pay by the hour" to keep peeps, ge, and John Larsen happy.

[John Larsen]

You know what "most" ministers get in their pay? You have data to back up your "most" statement" or is this just another opinion that you'll deny a CFR on?

I sit on the finance committee at my Church. The term salary and living stipend tend to be used quite interchangeably in my faith tradition. I have spoke with several friend who serve on similar committees in other denominations about this issue specifically because it has interested me. In business school, we studied compensation rather extensively and I have a pretty good idea how managers tend to be financially compensated.

And you?

Well, you must not be all that familiar with the Code if you are relying on it for substantiation of your point.

Please, point out where I am mistaken.

[Mudcat]

Hi Matthew,

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.

Ok, I am game. Why are living expenses not paying the ministry?

BTW... do you know how much GA's receive as living expenses today?

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".

I agree that there are some that 'fleece the flock'. It would be unfair to include the upper echelon of the CoJCoLDS, because we have no financial figures on the matter.

However, I would point out, that the fact that we don't have those figures, does not absolve anyone from speculation. In fact, it invites it. If the CoJCoLDS would be more forthcoming about such information, it would be a moot point.

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.

Really. If you are not a millionaire, you should just come down the isle some Sunday with a sincere profession of faith and see if they let you in. I think they will, regardless of your income.

What makes you think you have to be a millionaire to be a member there?

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.

I remember reading some figures on what GA's made. However the figures were old. I think in they were from 70's or 80's and the GA's were paid a stipend of about 40K per year.

I suppose you could bring up non-LDS ministers who have their income disclosed, which are much higher than the last released figures from the CoJCoLDS.

However, the fact that the CoJCoLDS has ceased to release such figures of their own ministry, which receives some sort of stipend, will be a stigma you will have to contend with Matthew.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[ttribe]

I sit on the finance committee at my Church. The term salary and living stipend tend to be used quite interchangeably in my faith tradition. I have spoke with several friend who serve on similar committees in other denominations about this issue specifically because it has interested me.

So, your anecdotal evidence is sufficient for you to use the term "most"? Please note that I was using my "list" of compensation features to identify differences between payment for a "job" as ge was using the term.

In business school, we studied compensation rather extensively and I have a pretty good idea how managers tend to be financially compensated.

And you?

Oh boy...are you really trying to go down the ego-driven path of "what's your education"? I guess if that's where you want to go, I'll respond - CV

Please, point out where I am mistaken.

Did I say you were mistaken in your characterization of that issue? No. However, I submit that the Code is not the best source for capturing the substance of underlying financial transactions.

[John Larsen]

So, your anecdotal evidence is sufficient for you to use the term "most"? Please note that I was using my "list" of compensation features to identify differences between payment for a "job" as ge was using the term.

Oh boy...are you really trying to go down the ego-driven path of "what's your education"? I guess if that's where you want to go, I'll respond - CV

Did I say you were mistaken in your characterization of that issue? No. However, I submit that the Code is not the best source for capturing the substance of underlying financial transactions.

Alright, I am trying to understand your position. I will list the following clerical positions, and you tell me which are paid and which are not:

Lutheran Minister

Southern Baptist Pastor

Catholic Nun

Zen Buddhist Monk

Catholic Bishop

Unitarian Minister

Mormon Missionary

This might help us get a better idea of where you are coming from.

[ttribe]

Alright, I am trying to understand your position. I will list the following clerical positions, and you tell me which are paid and which are not:

Not sure how this has anything to do with anything I've said since I was simply trying to point out how GA "pay" is different (not non-existent) from that of a traditional job. The only comparisons I made to other ministry was in regards to the Benny Hinn types. I guess I'll play though, but I don't know how helpful it will be.

Lutheran Minister

Paid

Southern Baptist Pastor

Paid

Catholic Nun

No idea.

Zen Buddhist Monk

No idea.

Catholic Bishop

No idea.

Unitarian Minister

No idea.

Mormon Missionary

Not paid.

This might help us get a better idea of where you are coming from.

Who's "us"?

[MatthewG]

Hi Matthew--

No, I'm not saying it doesn't happen (or has never happened).

You wrote:

"Historially people preach to please their crowd."

I'm just asking for the evidence upon which you base your claim that "historially people preach to please their crowd, to stay gainfully employed." It sounds like a demonstrable claim, as if you're referring to historical data to which you have access and upon which you're basing the claim. If what you have suggested is true, I assume in good faith that you have access to the data that supports your assertion.

I guess it's a CFR on my part. I'd like to take a look at your data, too, as pastor tenure is an area of concern in my own tradition (SBC).

Best.

cks

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.