What Is The Difference Of Paid Employees Of The Lds Church And Other Christian Churches That Have Paid Positions?

[Tacenda]

I'm sorry to have this issue, but it's been bothering me. I feel we are no different than other Christian faiths as far as taking pay. The church is a conglomerate of paid employees. And because some faiths have much smaller individual parishes, they need paid employees to run them, just as our church needs employees to run the church and it's several businesses. In other faith organizations they have volunteer positions like we do, so really not a big difference. Usually their Pastors are somewhat like our GA's. They have given up their day job, to give 24/7 to their parishioners. Just as the GA's have done, and they are paid as well. Should we toot our own horns about being non paid? Or am I far off the mark here?

[wenglund]

You are off the mark. The issue isn't whether laborers in churches are worthy of their hire, but rather "priestcraft."

Thanks, -Wade Englund

Edited December 27, 2012 by wenglund

[Kenngo1969]

I see no problem paying those who are responsible for the day-to-day, nitty-gritty operations side of the Church of Jesus Christ. They have to make a living, too. And if General Authorities get a stipend, so what? By the time they're called, they've rendered thousands of hours of unpaid service to the Church of Jesus Christ.

[Tacenda]

I see no problem paying those who are responsible for the day-to-day, nitty-gritty operations side of the Church of Jesus Christ. They have to make a living, too. And if General Authorities get a stipend, so what? By the time they're called, they've rendered thousands of hours of unpaid service to the Church of Jesus Christ.

I've no problem with them getting paid. Any of them. But only when members say how we are different than other faiths and don't get paid. I've heard it several times throughout my lifetime, in Sunday School or outside of church.

[Damien the Leper]

A friend is paid clergy because that is what he does 6 days a week. The church is his full time job 8 hours a day plus on-call needs.

[Kenngo1969]

I've no problem with them getting paid. Any of them. But only when members say how we are different than other faiths and don't get paid. I've heard it several times throughout my lifetime, in Sunday School or outside of church.

For every General Authority who gets a stipend, there are a thousand members who render untold hours of unpaid service. I have no problem with people such as Valentinus's friend getting paid, to the extent that he brings people to Christ and does not engage in priestcraft.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

For every General Authority who gets a stipend, there are a thousand members who render untold hours of unpaid service. I have no problem with people such as Valentinus's friend getting paid, to the extent that he brings people to Christ and does not engage in priestcraft.

I'm glad the church pays the members that work at it full time. Maybe this topic is lame. Sorry....

Edited December 27, 2012 by Tacenda

[cdowis]

The issue is not "paid", but the church is organized around lay leadership. That means that they have no formal training in divinity, and virtually all leadership positions are filled by unpaid volunteers.

Now, let's look at priestcraft. One of the hidden secrets of many of the churches is that they compete with each other for membership. They may emphasize programs to encourage attendance by young couples, for example. They have paid musicians who specialize to the youth audience, and generally do a good job of attracting them. I saw a recent video put out by the Southern Baptists giving ideas on programs designed for young children -- puppet shows, group activities, etc, while their parents go to traditional classes.

Don't misunderstand my comments.

None of this is meant to be critical, but the observation that there is a professional quality to these programs missing from our church. But we don't have to compete with other LDS units, or TV, for membership.

[DBMormon]

prefaced note = These are my observations why this comes up and does not represent any problem I have

the issue is that we tout our "unpaid clergy" and yet every time I mention the general authorities are paid (including Mission presidents), members all report they did not know that and seem not to believe it. It goes against everything they have been taught or told. It is a misconception that get perpetuated generation to generation. Most members think the GA's are unpaid outside of essentials (food, housing, travel) when in reality they have a salary.

I also think it feels troubling when one wants to know what those amounts are and they are impossible to find. What does an apostle make? don't know - it's a secret.

It also goes against our understanding of the new testament where the apostles have nor purse or script.

It also has the appearance of a elite club, when half the church is outside of the USA and an overwhelming majority of the leaders come from Utah and are related to each other.

And lastly, while I distrust some critical sources that guess at the pay amount or where anonymous people post the exact amounts they have see with their own eyes having seen so&so's account or check stub, or was an auditor for the church ........ of course name withheld of the critic but not the GA. That said all sources seem to imply that the prophet gets more then the apostles and they get more then the seventies. The question would be - Does the prophet need more to live on then the apostles, do they need more then the seventies?

I would guess this would catch 90% of members off guard to learn of this.

Does that make it a problem - no, but we could be better about making members more aware.

Edited December 27, 2012 by DBMormon

[rpn]

If you simply compare church structure (at least for those churches which belong to a greater organization, then the only difference is at the pastoral level. Both the LDS church, the vatican, the Lutheran Synod, Methodists, an a whole lot of other faiths have paid administrators of the larger church. And there are certainly some pastors of other faiths who hold a full time job in addition to pastoring a church (pretty much only when the congregation is too small to support a pastor). But there aren't any other faiths were all of is pastoral duties is performed by volunteers who are not self-selected for the work they do. That is what is meant by a lay ministry, that and the specific religious training required in other faiths.

As for the GA or MP subsistence --- I see this as no different from what the church does with fast offerings for all others who for reasons beyond their personal control, cannot fully support themselves through earning a paycheck. And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if I found out that one of the reasons the amounts are not made public (apart from the simply personal privacy and dignity all fast offering recipients are offered), is that the amount is according to need, and some get more than others, or some take none and others in similar circumstances do.

Edited December 27, 2012 by rpn

[thesometimesaint]

I've no problem with them getting paid. Any of them. But only when members say how we are different than other faiths and don't get paid. I've heard it several times throughout my lifetime, in Sunday School or outside of church.

In the Church no one gets paid for preaching. Paul was a tent maker no one said he had to not get paid for the tents he made.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm sorry to have this issue, but it's been bothering me. I feel we are no different than other Christian faiths as far as taking pay. The church is a conglomerate of paid employees. And because some faiths have much smaller individual parishes, they need paid employees to run them, just as our church needs employees to run the church and it's several businesses. In other faith organizations they have volunteer positions like we do, so really not a big difference. Usually their Pastors are somewhat like our GA's. They have given up their day job, to give 24/7 to their parishioners. Just as the GA's have done, and they are paid as well. Should we toot our own horns about being non paid? Or am I far off the mark here?

Some jobs within the Church require full time attention, thus the Church has employees. Our clergy do not get paid.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I think that we tend to forget that the context for the "unpaid" aspect of the church goes back to general distrust of paid clergy at the time the church was formed. And the fact that most of the early members had a real distrust of paid clergy. Within the lifetime of Joseph Smith it became apparent that you cannot have a religious organization with individuals who are devoted to the work of that organization (full time) without finding a way to provide for their material needs (and there were swings of opinion as to the extent that the church could or should support individuals even in the first couple of decades). Given our history, I think that we over-emphasize this idea of paid clergy. It doesn't have the same sort of cultural impact that it did two hundred years ago. And the members of the church really don't have the same sort of bad taste for paid clergy because we aren't in the middle of an ongoing societal debate over the value (or corruption) of a class of paid clergy.

The real problem isn't necessarily that we are misrepresenting our own conditition (even if we are), I think, its the fact that we tend to use this ideal as a way of castigating other faiths. It may well be that there are clergy who are not believers and who continue with it as a career. But I doubt that this is entirely representative. And of course we have our own examples of this (as in, say, a ceertain former institute instructor). But having a paid clergy is not in and of itself a terrible thing. It's when the issue of money becomes a greater motivator than the things of God (and this can happen to any of us really).

Ben M.

[cinepro]

I think in the modern LDS Church, we do have a "paid clergy". Only, since we don't pay Bishops and other religious leaders, LDS who feel "called" to teach and study and want to pursue a lifetime of service in the Gospel instead serve as Seminary and Institute teachers in the CES program.

In other words, I suspect if you filled a room with CES instructors and "paid clergy" from other religions, you would find their motivations and experiences to be very similar.

[CV75]

I'm sorry to have this issue, but it's been bothering me. I feel we are no different than other Christian faiths as far as taking pay. The church is a conglomerate of paid employees. And because some faiths have much smaller individual parishes, they need paid employees to run them, just as our church needs employees to run the church and it's several businesses. In other faith organizations they have volunteer positions like we do, so really not a big difference. Usually their Pastors are somewhat like our GA's. They have given up their day job, to give 24/7 to their parishioners. Just as the GA's have done, and they are paid as well. Should we toot our own horns about being non paid? Or am I far off the mark here?

We are different in that our General Authorities do not seek out their positions or a preferred organization in which to work or a preferred location in which to carry out their labors; they do not "call" themselves to the ministry; they do not depend on their calling as a means to earn a living; and, their popularity with the congregation is not a factor in the position they hold.

The local leadership and memebrship serving in various other capacities are definitely unpaid.

Church employees must be paid by definition.

I would be interested in seeing how it is the norm rather than the exception that pastors without other or independent means of support leave a more profitable day job to "answer the call."

[Tacenda]

We are different in that our General Authorities do not seek out their positions or a preferred organization in which to work or a preferred location in which to carry out their labors; they do not "call" themselves to the ministry; they do not depend on their calling as a means to earn a living; and, their popularity with the congregation is not a factor in the position they hold.

The local leadership and memebrship serving in various other capacities are definitely unpaid.

Church employees must be paid by definition.

I would be interested in seeing how it is the norm rather than the exception that pastors without other or independent means of support leave a more profitable day job to "answer the call."

I'm not sure but do most pastors need to go to some schooling first before they are allowed to preach? Say a Trinitarian college or something likewise?

[CV75]

I'm not sure but do most pastors need to go to some schooling first before they are allowed to preach? Say a Trinitarian college or something likewise?

Yes, they do. I don't se how this shows that it is the norm rather than the exception that pastors without other or independent means of support leave a more profitable day job to "answer the call."

[Tacenda]

Yes, they do. I don't se how this shows that it is the norm rather than the exception that pastors without other or independent means of support leave a more profitable day job to "answer the call."

Just trying to bring in the idea that they sacrificed money too, I guess.

[DavidB]

The issue is not "paid", but the church is organized around lay leadership. That means that they have no formal training in divinity, and virtually all leadership positions are filled by unpaid volunteers.

Now, let's look at priestcraft. One of the hidden secrets of many of the churches is that they compete with each other for membership. They may emphasize programs to encourage attendance by young couples, for example. They have paid musicians who specialize to the youth audience, and generally do a good job of attracting them. I saw a recent video put out by the Southern Baptists giving ideas on programs designed for young children -- puppet shows, group activities, etc, while their parents go to traditional classes.

Don't misunderstand my comments.

None of this is meant to be critical, but the observation that there is a professional quality to these programs missing from our church. But we don't have to compete with other LDS units, or TV, for membership.

When was the last time you visited LDS Nurserey or LDS Primary?

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not sure but do most pastors need to go to some schooling first before they are allowed to preach? Say a Trinitarian college or something likewise?

I don't know as it is a formal requirement, but from what I understand it is the norm rather than the exception. Interestingly enough a Chaplin in the US Military must have a Divinity degree even the LDS ones.

[Freedom]

We do not have a paid clergy and our general authorities that do receive funds are not paid through the tithes. They are administrators not ministers. There is a huge difference. Although they do provide training for regional leaders, their primary function is to run the corporation and not to minister to the members. There is no need for a small church to have a paid minister, they can function just fine with volunteers. The problem with the paid ministry model is that the general membership never have to take on any responsibility because the hired help will take care of it. Gods model is to have all members involved in the ministry, Satans model is to have a select few (give me all the glory) and have everybody else dependent upon these few for their salvation.

From my discussions with general authorities, their pay is earned. They are assigned directorial duties in one of the church corporations in addition to their church responsibilities These men are not like bishops and stake presidents They are not called because of their spiritual focus, they are called because of their business experience and their financial independence. Few received additional funds, most are retired and have a healthy retirement plan in place. Stake Presidents are asked on a regular basis for a list of members who would be eligible for such callings and the criteria includes financial independence.

So no, we do not have a paid ministry not even at the very top.

[DavidB]

Yes, they do. I don't se how this shows that it is the norm rather than the exception that pastors without other or independent means of support leave a more profitable day job to "answer the call."

I work with a man who is training to be a Pastor. I asked him what he will do about his current fulltime job, which provides very nice benefits and a retirement to envy. He stated that at one time he wanted to stay with the current employer and move up in the structure, then he had an experience, that showed him that Kingdom of Heaven is more important than worldly achievement.

[CV75]

Just trying to bring in the idea that they sacrificed money too, I guess.

Sacrificng for an education and career preparation is generally about how to earn a living. Our GAs do not sacrifice for an education and career preparation with the intent to earn a living by being called to exercise the keys of the kingdom.

[cesc101]

prefaced note = These are my observations why this comes up and does not represent any problem I have

the issue is that we tout our "unpaid clergy" and yet every time I mention the general authorities are paid (including Mission presidents), members all report they did not know that and seem not to believe it. It goes against everything they have been taught or told. It is a misconception that get perpetuated generation to generation. Most members think the GA's are unpaid outside of essentials (food, housing, travel) when in reality they have a salary.

I also think it feels troubling when one wants to know what those amounts are and they are impossible to find. What does an apostle make? don't know - it's a secret.

It also goes against our understanding of the new testament where the apostles have nor purse or script.

It also has the appearance of a elite club, when half the church is outside of the USA and an overwhelming majority of the leaders come from Utah and are related to each other.

And lastly, while I distrust some critical sources that guess at the pay amount or where anonymous people post the exact amounts they have see with their own eyes having seen so&so's account or check stub, or was an auditor for the church ........ of course name withheld of the critic but not the GA. That said all sources seem to imply that the prophet gets more then the apostles and they get more then the seventies. The question would be - Does the prophet need more to live on then the apostles, do they need more then the seventies?

I would guess this would catch 90% of members off guard to learn of this.

Does that make it a problem - no, but we could be better about making members more aware.

I must admit this an interesting thread, and i just thought to ask this: Do full-time missionaries fall under the bracket of "paid clergy"?

[CV75]

I work with a man who is training to be a Pastor. I asked him what he will do about his current fulltime job, which provides very nice benefits and a retirement to envy. He stated that at one time he wanted to stay with the current employer and move up in the structure, then he had an experience, that showed him that Kingdom of Heaven is more important than worldly achievement.

Taking him at his word, on what basis do you beleive this is the norm for non-LDS pastors (especially to leave one profession for the sake of the ministry, having been called by some other entity than their own conscience)? I know people who have taken less financially rewarding positions for other non-religious (some noble, some not-so-noble) reasons, but this is not the norm.