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

[MatthewG]

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:

Oh I wanna play

Lutheran Minister

Paid

Southern Baptist Pastor

Paid

Catholic Nun

Depends on her family situations. In the old days wealthy families gave dowries if I remember correctly to the church, money that would have been giving to a husband at marriage. Have no idea these days, but having a 50/50 shot I wanna say not paid, but has everything paid for.

Zen Buddhist Monk

Nope

Catholic Bishop

OH yeah.

Unitarian Minister

Mormon Missionary

Nope, in fact WE PAY to be a missionary.

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

So where are you coming from?

[cksalmon]

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.

Hi Matthew--

You stated: "Historially people preach to please their crowd."

When asked to document your claim with data, you stated, "I have no data."

And now, you're attempting to conflate the scandalous actions performed by Catholic priests who are transferred without censure with your claim that "Historially people preach to please their crowd." Not to mention the fact that your unsubstantiated example requires the displeasure of a cardinal, not the congregants. Your claim seems to have substantially changed in the face of a simple challenge for documentation.

Is the transfer of a a Catholic priest for scandalous actions (documentable, I'd say, but so far undocumented) tantamount to your assertion that "historially people preach to please their crowd?"

Quite obviously not. Since you, self-admittedly, "have no data" that "historially people preach to please their crowd," why on earth do you feel justified, if you do so feel, in asserting something for which you admit you have absolutely no data? I don't understand.

cks

[Tchild2]

Nope, in fact WE PAY to be a missionary.

Not always. In Argentina in the late 80's, the latino missionaries from Argentina and Chile who served in our mission, usually received their funds from the church. In fact, the $180.00 we were allowed to receive per month was much more than most of them made working full time. I remember on the 1st or 2nd when we got our money, some of the missionaries would be sporting new P-Day clothes or electronics that were never financially in their reach prior to the mission. The two year stint in Argentina gave respect and much more money than most if not all could make in private enterprise.

[ttribe]

Not always. In Argentina in the late 80's, the latino missionaries from Argentina and Chile who served in our mission, usually received their funds from the church. In fact, the $180.00 we were allowed to receive per month was much more than most of them made working full time. I remember on the 1st or 2nd when we got our money, some of the missionaries would be sporting new P-Day clothes or electronics that were never financially in their reach prior to the mission. The two year stint in Argentina gave respect and much more money than most if not all could make in private enterprise.

How about we not try to portray the exception as the rule, shall we?

[MatthewG]

Not always. In Argentina in the late 80's, the latino missionaries from Argentina and Chile who served in our mission, usually received their funds from the church. In fact, the $180.00 we were allowed to receive per month was much more than most of them made working full time. I remember on the 1st or 2nd when we got our money, some of the missionaries would be sporting new P-Day clothes or electronics that were never financially in their reach prior to the mission. The two year stint in Argentina gave respect and much more money than most if not all could make in private enterprise.

Yep there are dishonest people everywhere. On my mission a fraction that my family paid for me to serve actually ended up in my hands as my monthly allowance. My housing was always paid for by the mission. The money I receive was for food, utilities, travel, and the occasional treat like a new pair of socks or an ice cream. I knew of several missionaries as well in brasil who had similar problems like you talk about, and they always ended up doing stupid things and got sent home from disobeying mission rules. In fact in our mission if you had money in excess on your last day before you got on the plane to go home you were asked to return the money as it was sacred money from the Church.

[Tchild2]

How about we not try to portray the exception as the rule, shall we?

Many missionaries are paid a living stipend, and that pay is better than what they could earn in their respective countries. It may be less than the majority, but it is hardly the exception.

[MatthewG]

Many missionaries are paid a living stipend, and that pay is better than what they could earn in their respective countries. It may be less than the majority, but it is hardly the exception.

Living stipend is different than making a living. If you had info about missionaries "making money" then you should have voiced your concerns to your MP. I'm sure the problem would have been corrected. The money they are receiving came from someone, if not their families, their ward, and if not, Church headquarters. Missionaries are supposed to pay into the pool and what they need for their perspective missions is paid back to them. I'm sure the mission president has a lot to do with the monthly allowance levels. In my mission if you had a valid reason for needing more than what the MP dictated it was raised. In some cases, in my mission, when a new area was opened a missionary would almost get double what he had been because there wasn't an infrastructure of members to provide daily meals and other comforts. For the most part things balance out. Missionaries in Japan I'm sure get more than place like the poorest areas of Africa. A native brazilian in my mission had problems controlling his monthly allowance so it was deposited with the District Leader whom he lived with, he was then given a weekly allowance instead until he learned how to appropriately control his cash.

You're talking about a small percentage of missionaries, not even close to "less than the majority".

[MatthewG]

Hi Matthew--You stated: "Historially people preach to please their crowd."When asked to document your claim with data, you stated, "I have no data." And now, you're attempting to conflate the scandalous actions performed by Catholic priests who are transferred without censure with your claim that "Historially people preach to please their crowd." Not to mention the fact that your unsubstantiated example requires the displeasure of a cardinal, not the congregants. Your claim seems to have substantially changed in the face of a simple challenge for documentation.Is the transfer of a a Catholic priest for scandalous actions (documentable, I'd say, but so far undocumented) tantamount to your assertion that "historially people preach to please their crowd?" Quite obviously not. Since you, self-admittedly, "have no data" that "historially people preach to please their crowd," why on earth do you feel justified, if you do so feel, in asserting something for which you admit you have absolutely no data? I don't understand.cks

I'm not asking you to understand nor care if you do. It has happened, it does happened, because I lack data doesn't mean it doesn't. I'm not a scientist or analyst nor have I claimed to be. If I felt motivated I'm sure I could find instances necessary to support it, but what would it do to your opinion? Not much and this would drag on for endless pages like a topic does when Billy or Markk get involved.But just a quick google that took me all of 30 seconds to find turned up this: Pastor fired for not being "cool enough"

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

Yet another evangelical asking for information that is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS just like the detail books of our church. We don't ask to see your info, nor do I care too. As long as you aren't committing any sort of fraud, what your church does with it's money is it's business.

[MatthewG]

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)

Ah well, I have yet to find anyone associated with the SBC I respect. My feelings on the organization are still between "dislike" and "disgust" but then again I've had plenty of very negative experiences with it.

[cksalmon]

Hi Matthew--

I'm not asking you to understand nor care if you do. It has happened, it does happened, because I lack data doesn't mean it doesn't. I'm not a scientist or analyst nor have I claimed to be. If I felt motivated I'm sure I could find instances necessary to support it, but what would it do to your opinion? Not much and this would drag on for endless pages like a topic does when Billy or Markk get involved.But just a quick google that took me all of 30 seconds to find turned up this: Pastor fired for not being "cool enough"

You made the claim, Matthew. Just for the benefit of this thread's readers, I think it is enough for you to have admitted that you have no data (no examples to share), merely an unsupported assertion. I'm okay with that.

You realize that your linked example, were it true, would actually work against your assertion, right? But, more fundamentally, it would seem that you missed the fact that Weber's article is satirical.

Yet another evangelical asking for information that is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS just like the detail books of our church.

Not really. I was wondering how ttribe got his information.

Best.

cks

[blueadept]

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.

Times are changing. I acknowledge this has been the case in recent past, but with all the priest/child abuse cases, the policies have changed drastically in our diocese. But it's up to each bishop in each diocese to enforce policies in regards to protecting children.

At our church, NO ONE under 18 is permitted in the rectory unless accompanied by a parent.

If there is a charge against a teacher that's scandalous, the teacher IS immediately removed until an appropriate investigation can be done. Essentially a person is now guilty until proven innocent. We had this happen to an individual at the high school ministry w/ a girl 'known' for making accusations to teachers. He was eventually proven innocent, but he has never returned to teach.

Policies are changing, but it's still up to the bishop in each diocese to enforce.

[geneticerror]

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

ttribe, That is indeed an impressive resume. (Please accept that as a compliment as it is intended as such.)

A forensic accountant with court experience? Let me ask you this - Would you use the same arguments that a GA is not paid in a court of law? I can picture it now, "No your honor, our church has no paid clergy. The meger stipend that our GA's earn is not considered income because it's not merit based, they cannot negotiate their salary, and mathew, mark, luke, and john were not paid either. Therefore, this income was not reportable as taxable income and all tax evasion charges should be dropped."

Since you appear to be successful at your career, I suspect that you do not handle your clients this way. Why do you apply this sort of logic to your church? So the GAs are paid. Who cares? Y'all should just stop using the 'My church has no paid clergy'. It's simply not true, it doesn't indicate the truthfulness of the lds church, and you don't have the market on unpaid (or megerly paid) clergy.

[MatthewG]

Hi Matthew--

You made the claim, Matthew. Just for the benefit of this thread's readers, I think it is enough for you to have admitted that you have no data (no examples to share), merely an unsupported assertion. I'm okay with that.

You realize that your linked example, were it true, would actually work against your assertion, right? But, more fundamentally, it would seem that you missed the fact that Weber's article is satirical.

Not really. I was wondering how ttribe got his information.

Best.

cks

Another 30 seconds on google:

'Last year (1999) 72,000 pastors and clergy were fired across America. For reasons that were partially their fault, for reasons that were not their fault, some for reasons no one knows but God Himself. Nevertheless, they and their families were fired, force terminated, pushed out into the streets' (http://www.thecents.org/ )

~~~

* 'A 1984 study on forced terminations in the Southern Baptist Convention indicated 1,056 pastors were terminated annually. Among causes cited in that study were lack of unity and the presence of factions in the church, conflict over leadership styles, relational incompetence and tenure. Four years later, the survey was repeated, and forced termination totals had increased to 1,392 pastors annually. Primary reasons included lack of communication, problems related to immorality and unethical conduct, performance dissatisfaction, authoritarian leadership style, power struggles and personality conflicts.

'(But by 1999) forced terminations among Southern Baptist pastors and other full-time church staff appear to have leveled off, results of an annual survey of state Baptist conventions indicates.

'The survey, coordinated by the LeaderCare ministry of LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention, shows the total number of forced terminations reported by 22 state convention church-minister relations directors has dipped to 987 in 2000. The 1999 total, which also reported on full-time pastors, bivocational pastors and full-time staff, was 1,077 in 26 state conventions.

'The 1999 survey found once again the most common causes for firings cited by directors of missions in reports to state convention church-minister relations directors were:

control issues regarding who will run the church, poor people skills of the pastor, pastoral leadership style perceived as too strong, the church's resistance to change and the church was already conflicted when the pastor arrived.'

[ttribe]

ttribe, That is indeed an impressive resume. (Please accept that as a compliment as it is intended as such.)

A forensic accountant with court experience? Let me ask you this - Would you use the same arguments that a GA is not paid in a court of law? I can picture it now, "No your honor, our church has no paid clergy. The meger stipend that our GA's earn is not considered income because it's not merit based, they cannot negotiate their salary, and mathew, mark, luke, and john were not paid either. Therefore, this income was not reportable as taxable income and all tax evasion charges should be dropped."

Since you appear to be successful at your career, I suspect that you do not handle your clients this way. Why do you apply this sort of logic to your church? So the GAs are paid. Who cares? Y'all should just stop using the 'My church has no paid clergy'. It's simply not true, it doesn't indicate the truthfulness of the lds church, and you don't have the market on unpaid (or megerly paid) clergy.

Please point out where I made such an argument. You're attributing words to me that I didn't say. Rather, I argued that the nature of the pay (in other words, what it's for, etc.) is fundamentally different than what is typically earned in a "job". And, as I recall, I was the one who used the phrase (at your request) "GA's are paid". I thought we were past this at this point.

BTW, you'd be surprised at the types of arguments that are made in front of the court; though not by me.

And, thank you for the compliment.

[Tchild2]

Living stipend is different than making a living. If you had info about missionaries "making money" then you should have voiced your concerns to your MP. I'm sure the problem would have been corrected. The money they are receiving came from someone, if not their families, their ward, and if not, Church headquarters. Missionaries are supposed to pay into the pool and what they need for their perspective missions is paid back to them. I'm sure the mission president has a lot to do with the monthly allowance levels. In my mission if you had a valid reason for needing more than what the MP dictated it was raised. In some cases, in my mission, when a new area was opened a missionary would almost get double what he had been because there wasn't an infrastructure of members to provide daily meals and other comforts. For the most part things balance out. Missionaries in Japan I'm sure get more than place like the poorest areas of Africa. A native brazilian in my mission had problems controlling his monthly allowance so it was deposited with the District Leader whom he lived with, he was then given a weekly allowance instead until he learned how to appropriately control his cash.

You're talking about a small percentage of missionaries, not even close to "less than the majority".

I have never had any problem with professional clergy, LDS missionaries or LDS general authorities receiving pay, stipends, or paid in Monopoly money. I am merely pointing out that despite the objections otherwise, LDS missionaries in some cases made more money as missionaries than they would have working full time in a factory someplace. In such cases whether you label it a stipend or pay, is a distinction without a difference.

[cksalmon]

Hi Matthew--

Another 30 seconds on google:

'Last year (1999) 72,000 pastors and clergy were fired across America. For reasons that were partially their fault, for reasons that were not their fault, some for reasons no one knows but God Himself. Nevertheless, they and their families were fired, force terminated, pushed out into the streets' (http://www.thecents.org/ )

~~~

* 'A 1984 study on forced terminations in the Southern Baptist Convention indicated 1,056 pastors were terminated annually. Among causes cited in that study were lack of unity and the presence of factions in the church, conflict over leadership styles, relational incompetence and tenure. Four years later, the survey was repeated, and forced termination totals had increased to 1,392 pastors annually. Primary reasons included lack of communication, problems related to immorality and unethical conduct, performance dissatisfaction, authoritarian leadership style, power struggles and personality conflicts.

'(But by 1999) forced terminations among Southern Baptist pastors and other full-time church staff appear to have leveled off, results of an annual survey of state Baptist conventions indicates.

'The survey, coordinated by the LeaderCare ministry of LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention, shows the total number of forced terminations reported by 22 state convention church-minister relations directors has dipped to 987 in 2000. The 1999 total, which also reported on full-time pastors, bivocational pastors and full-time staff, was 1,077 in 26 state conventions.

'The 1999 survey found once again the most common causes for firings cited by directors of missions in reports to state convention church-minister relations directors were:

control issues regarding who will run the church, poor people skills of the pastor, pastoral leadership style perceived as too strong, the church's resistance to change and the church was already conflicted when the pastor arrived.'

Two points:

(1) You claimed: "Historially people preach to please their crowd," and here you provide material about churches firing their pastors. I'm not sure what you're inferring, but the data do not support your claim. (Surely, you're not inferring that all the pastors who have not been fired are, for that reason, obviously ear-ticklers? That would be another unsupportable and unwarranted [not to mention uncharitable] claim, so I won't attribute it to you.)

(2) Note that, among the reasons for pastoral firings you've conveniently bolded above, the content of the pastor's preaching is conspicuous for its absence.

Best.

cks

[ttribe]

BTW, I should mention that I believe (but do not know for sure) that some of the GA's may be assigned to oversee or manage some of the Church's business enterprises. To the extent that is the case, then I would have absolutely no problem with them receiving compensation for their time and contributions in those areas.

[geneticerror]

BTW, I should mention that I believe (but do not know for sure) that some of the GA's may be assigned to oversee or manage some of the Church's business enterprises. To the extent that is the case, then I would have absolutely no problem with them receiving compensation for their time and contributions in those areas.

Do you have a problem with them receiving compensation for their time and contributions if they were simply a GA and not associated with the church's other business enterprises? If so, why?

[gmormon]

BTW, I should mention that I believe (but do not know for sure) that some of the GA's may be assigned to oversee or manage some of the Church's business enterprises. To the extent that is the case, then I would have absolutely no problem with them receiving compensation for their time and contributions in those areas.

Isn't more like being on the various boards as opposed to direct management?

[ttribe]

Isn't more like being on the various boards as opposed to direct management?

Maybe...like I said, I don't know for sure.

[ttribe]

Do you have a problem with them receiving compensation for their time and contributions if they were simply a GA and not associated with the church's other business enterprises? If so, why?

I guess I'm still not making myself all that clear so I'll try again. I know that the GA's are paid a stipend (except those who are already independently wealthy - at least that's my understanding). I don't have a problem with that, they are devoting their efforts on a full-time (or more) basis to the Church and they need to take care of themselves and their families.

Now, would I have a problem, if there were merit "rewards" (i.e. bonuses) for being a "good" GA who kept their "customers" (or congregations) happy? Or had pay incentives based on tithing and membership activity goals in their region, for example? Or GA's were having mansions built for them on the Church's dime? You bet I would; but I'm quite confident that isn't happening so this whole discussion is rather academic.

[MatthewG]

(1) You claimed: "Historially people preach to please their crowd," and here you provide material about churches firing their pastors. I'm not sure what you're inferring, but the data do not support your claim. (Surely, you're not inferring that all the pastors who have not been fired are, for that reason, obviously ear-ticklers? That would be another unsupportable and unwarranted [not to mention uncharitable] claim, so I won't attribute it to you.)

Um yes that is what I'm saying, if you don't please your crowd YOU GET FIRED. That is a major problem in the evangelical world. I saw a report the other day when a preacher changed his stance on abortion from being completely against it to allowing it in certain cases. He voiced his opinion from his pulpit and lost 2/3 of his congregation to another church. Must have hurt his wallet.

(2) Note that, among the reasons for pastoral firings you've conveniently bolded above, the content of the pastor's preaching is conspicuous for its absence.

Sorry I'm not "Edukated" I'm a simple chef, you're going to have to dumb this point down for me to understand what you're talking about. "

Primary reasons included lack of communication, problems related to immorality and unethical conduct, performance dissatisfaction, authoritarian leadership style, power struggles and personality conflicts.

[cksalmon]

Hi Matthew--

Um yes that is what I'm saying, if you don't please your crowd YOU GET FIRED. That is a major problem in the evangelical world. I saw a report the other day when a preacher changed his stance on abortion from being completely against it to allowing it in certain cases. He voiced his opinion from his pulpit and lost 2/3 of his congregation to another church. Must have hurt his wallet.

And, as has been your practice in this thread, you assert these things without any evidence whatsoever. You continue to pile one unsubstantiated claim upon another. Obviously, a rah-rah team tactic. But, certainly not compelling in even the slightest degree to the visitors.

For any readers of the thread still tracking: Matthew has made repeated assertions without any sort of evidence whatsoever. In fact, he has claimed that his assertions are true even though he self-admittedly has no evidence to support them. I would just call more responsible LDS believers to a higher standard of interchange than he has heretofore evidenced himself capable of. Merely repeating an assertion, even ad nauseum, doesn't make it true.

Sorry I'm not "Edukated" I'm a simple chef, you're going to have to dumb this point down for me to understand what you're talking about. "

I'm talking about the fact that you have provided no useful evidence whatsoever for your claim(s). I stand by my former post. If you truly don't understand that very, very clear fact, I'm not sure what I can do to help you see it at this point.

If you are actually interested in truth, then you will see that your assertions, at least as you've presented them (God save the Mormons from their non-rational, amateur MB apologists), are bunk.

If not, throw yet another unsubstantiated assertion on the grill.

Goodness. Zeal is not necessarily a bad thing, Matthew. But, then, there's zeal without knowledge. That is a bad thing.

I think I'm going to have to throw you into my purple tank of incorrigibles.

cks

[Freedom]

General Authorities are not ministers in the sense that the scriptures define them. They do not minister to the saints in any capacity. They are church administrators. They run the corporation that allows the ministers to serve as volunteers. General Authorities do not meet with individual members unless it is a unique church court or to call a stake presidency. If they home teach, it is separate from their duties as a general authority. I think it is better to compare them to CES directors than to a bishop.

[geneticerror]

General Authorities are not ministers in the sense that the scriptures define them. They do not minister to the saints in any capacity.

How do the scriptures define them exactly? For that matter, where do the scriptures say anything about the need for General Authorities at all? According to you, at least 'minister' are reference.