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

[CV75]

They are not called because of their spiritual focus, they are called because of their business experience and their financial independence.

Would you mind expanding on this? How can men without a spiritual focus provide spiritual guidance for General Conference talks, stake and mission organizations and reorganizations, temple building and dedications, curriculum development, proclamations, and other aspects of their ministry? Granted, the Lord qualifies whomever He calls, but I don't see how business experieince and financial independence trump carrying out their duties contrary to the direction of the Spirit.

[Freedom]

Would you mind expanding on this? How can men without a spiritual focus provide spiritual guidance for General Conference talks, stake and mission organizations and reorganizations, temple building and dedications, curriculum development, proclamations, and other aspects of their ministry? Granted, the Lord qualifies whomever He calls, but I don't see how business experieince and financial independence trump carrying out their duties contrary to the direction of the Spirit.

Their testimony and personal worthiness is an important but only one factor. There is this false assumption that general authorities are somehow more godly than the average active and worthy member. This is not true. They are humans who love the lord but who have special talents that the church requires. A list is compiled of all the worthy men in in the church who have served successfully in leadership positions. From these men is drawn those with the administrative skills and financial resources to take on a full time position with the church. Many are called but few are accountant and lawyers. It is also important to note that the first presidency is not involved in the selection of general authorities, at least not as a general rule. The HR department identifies individuals who can fill specific roles. I am personally acquainted with three stake presidents who later became general authorities. One is an expert in eastern Europe and Russia and spoke several languages. Another is a very wealthy general contractor with a vast network of political connections. The third is a lawyer who is fluent in Spanish. Knowing their expertise, it does not take rocket science to figure out where they were put to work.

[Kenngo1969]

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"?

Nope! Missionaries pay their own freight!

[Kenngo1969]

... It is also important to note that the first presidency is not involved in the selection of general authorities, at least not as a general rule. ...

Calls of Bishops and Stake Presidents are approved by the First Presidency, but the First Presidency is not involved in the calling of General Authorities? Ooooh-kay. That seems a little Bass Ackwards to me, but ... whatever, Dude!

[Freedom]

Calls of Bishops and Stake Presidents are approved by the First Presidency, but the First Presidency is not involved in the calling of General Authorities? Ooooh-kay. That seems a little Bass Ackwards to me, but ... whatever, Dude!

Stake presidents are not approved by the first presidency. They are called by the visiting authority the day before conference. Read the conference talk by Pres Hinkley when his son was called to be a general authority. Again, these are not callings to the ministry, they are assignments to the corporation. Smug and ignorant are lethal combinations dude.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Freedom

[cesc101]

Nope! Missionaries pay their own freight!

Yea, i even contributed to mine. My Mission Presidents (i served under two) used to make the same claims too. So what am i missing here...?

[CV75]

Their testimony and personal worthiness is an important but only one factor. There is this false assumption that general authorities are somehow more godly than the average active and worthy member. This is not true. They are humans who love the lord but who have special talents that the church requires. A list is compiled of all the worthy men in in the church who have served successfully in leadership positions. From these men is drawn those with the administrative skills and financial resources to take on a full time position with the church. Many are called but few are accountant and lawyers. It is also important to note that the first presidency is not involved in the selection of general authorities, at least not as a general rule. The HR department identifies individuals who can fill specific roles. I am personally acquainted with three stake presidents who later became general authorities. One is an expert in eastern Europe and Russia and spoke several languages. Another is a very wealthy general contractor with a vast network of political connections. The third is a lawyer who is fluent in Spanish. Knowing their expertise, it does not take rocket science to figure out where they were put to work.

Thank you. I am also personally acquainted with one that was (and is, if not for his stipend) as poor as a church mouse.

[Kenngo1969]

Stake presidents are not approved by the first presidency. They are called by the visiting authority the day before conference. Read the conference talk by Pres Hinkley when his son was called to be a general authority. Again, these are not callings to the ministry, they are assignments to the corporation. Smug and ignorant are legal combinations dude.

SUH-Lammmmmmm! Ohhhhh, hurts sooooo goood! We got ourselves a regular WWE Wrestlemania Match Royale goin' on here! You gotta love it, Baby! (P.S.: don't you mean that "smug and ignorant is a lethal combination"? Just wonderin'!

Edited December 27, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Yea, i even contributed to mine. My Mission Presidents (i served under two) used to make the same claims too. So what am i missing here...?

I have no idea, because I was under the impression that the question arose out of genuine lack of knowledge about how missions are funded. Since that wasn't why the question was asked (silly me! ) I have no clue as to your motivations. In any event, I'm getting battered pretty good here, so I think I'll bow out of the thread ... before you and Freedom decide to "Tag Team" me! See ya!

[CV75]

Here's a reasonably good exlpanation:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_church_finances/No_paid_ministry/General_Authorities_living_stipend

[Tacenda]

Nope! Missionaries pay their own freight!

I've heard that Mission Presidents are paid though.

[Tacenda]

Here's a reasonably good exlpanation:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_church_finances/No_paid_ministry/General_Authorities_living_stipend

Some on the fringes are touting that it is in the CEO range of pay. Maybe to those GA's that are handling the corporation side of the church.

[Freedom]

Thank you. I am also personally acquainted with one that was (and is, if not for his stipend) as poor as a church mouse.

yes, and those that are earn an income by serving as directors of church owned corporations. I think calling it a stipend is misleading. They are employees of the church with some ministerial duties.

[Freedom]

Some on the fringes are touting that it is in the CEO range of pay. Maybe to those GA's that are handling the corporation side of the church.

it is not a maybe. The church corporations are directly controlled and administered by general authorities who received compensation for their work in order to support their families. To equate this to a small 300 member evangelical church is ignorant. There is no comparison. No congregation requires a full time staff.

[CV75]

yes, and those that are earn an income by serving as directors of church owned corporations. I think calling it a stipend is misleading. They are employees of the church with some ministerial duties.

I wouldn't say that--it is approrpiate to say that members of boards of directors to receive stipends.

As far as misleading, it is inapprorpiate to say that virtually all GA's meet an HR requirement for specific roles, rather than "Many Church General Authorities come from respected professions..."

Edited December 27, 2012 by CV75

[cdowis]

Some on the fringes are touting that it is in the CEO range of pay. Maybe to those GA's that are handling the corporation side of the church.

Forgot who said this, but one GA had been a very successful corporate executive. He indicated that his stipend from the church was close to what he had been paying in tithing.

Edited December 27, 2012 by cdowis

[Saints Alive]

I don't see the problem with a relatively small number of administrative personnel getting paid to do non-spiritual work. Priest craft in its ugliest form is charging for spiritual work, i.e. baptisms, marriages, indulgences, counseling / pastoring, etc. I'm not sure about all denominations but I know there are still churches that require payment for baptisms.

[Freedom]

I wouldn't say that--it is approrpiate to say that members of boards of directors to receive stipends.

As far as misleading, it is inapprorpiate to say that virtually all GA's meet an HR requirement for specific roles, rather than "Many Church General Authorities come from respected professions..."

Then what purpose do you feel general authorities serve? If you get to know them and as what they do, you will find that their work for the church reflect their professional careers.

[cesc101]

I have no idea, because I was under the impression that the question arose out of genuine lack of knowledge about how missions are funded. Since that wasn't why the question was asked (silly me! ) I have no clue as to your motivations. In any event, I'm getting battered pretty good here, so I think I'll bow out of the thread ... before you and Freedom decide to "Tag Team" me! See ya!

LOL!!!

Quite frankly i was asking out of genuine interest to know, and of-course my interest came from reading DBMormon's comment.

[DBMormon]

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"?

And yet no one addressed my post other then you to repost it. I thought my post stated the crux of the problem as critics and questioning members perceive it. yet it seems we want to debate realities rather then the problem of perception.

Once you change the false perception, the problem disappears!

Edited December 27, 2012 by DBMormon

[Freedom]

And yet no one addressed my post other then you to repost it. I thought my post stated the crux of the problem as critics and questioning members perceive it. yet it seems we want to debate realities rather then the problem of perception.

Once you change the false perception, the problem disappears!

What more can be said that has already been said to change the false perception? They are not paid by the tithes, they work for the church running the corporations they are not ministers. They get paid by the corporations they run but do not get paid for their ecclesiastical duties, and only those who do not have the resources to pay their own expenses get paid. Since the vast majority are called after they have retired, there are few who receive pay. Also, most of them turn to writing books to supplement their income.

[DavidB]

What more can be said that has already been said to change the false perception? They are not paid by the tithes, they work for the church running the corporations they are not ministers. They get paid by the corporations they run but do not get paid for their ecclesiastical duties, and only those who do not have the resources to pay their own expenses get paid. Since the vast majority are called after they have retired, there are few who receive pay. Also, most of them turn to writing books to supplement their income.

Do you know this information as fact? Or are we just to take your word for it? It would seem if they were paid by corps of the church, then that information and knowledge would be widely known.

[DBMormon]

What more can be said that has already been said to change the false perception? They are not paid by the tithes, they work for the church running the corporations they are not ministers. They get paid by the corporations they run but do not get paid for their ecclesiastical duties, and only those who do not have the resources to pay their own expenses get paid. Since the vast majority are called after they have retired, there are few who receive pay. Also, most of them turn to writing books to supplement their income.

I am unable to process that "they are not ministers" anymore then Paul "was not a minister" or Peter "was not a minister"

The apostles while overseeing corporate dynamics within the church, there primary purpose is to minister and bring all unto Christ.

Please explain more if I am off base

[Freedom]

I am unable to process that "they are not ministers" anymore then Paul "was not a minister" or Peter "was not a minister"

The apostles while overseeing corporate dynamics within the church, there primary purpose is to minister and bring all unto Christ.

Please explain more if I am off base

Paul was a minister in the same way that a bishop or a stake president is a minister but the church was much smaller and the society much different than it is today. The general authorities primarily function as administrators and get compensated for their roles in directing the corporate side of the church. They also function as advisers to local authorities. We see them as coming to the odd stake conference and giving inspiring talks but this is a tiny fraction of their duties and certainly does not fit the definition of a minister. They do not go around full time preaching and ministering This is the role of the local authorities. They do not council married couples, attend church courts, direct home teaching, or even collect tithing. They work in an office as accountants, legal advisors, engineers, and so forth. The church is a very large multinational corporation and requires the same talent that IBC, Microsoft and GM needs to keep it functioning smoothly. The difference is that the managers are temple worthy. They train the area and stake leaders who then train the ward leaders who then fulfill their duties as ministers.

[DBMormon]

Paul was a minister in the same way that a bishop or a stake president is a minister but the church was much smaller and the society much different than it is today. The general authorities primarily function as administrators and get compensated for their roles in directing the corporate side of the church. They also function as advisers to local authorities. We see them as coming to the odd stake conference and giving inspiring talks but this is a tiny fraction of their duties and certainly does not fit the definition of a minister. They do not go around full time preaching and ministering This is the role of the local authorities. They do not council married couples, attend church courts, direct home teaching, or even collect tithing. They work in an office as accountants, legal advisors, engineers, and so forth. The church is a very large multinational corporation and requires the same talent that IBC, Microsoft and GM needs to keep it functioning smoothly. The difference is that the managers are temple worthy. They train the area and stake leaders who then train the ward leaders who then fulfill their duties as ministers.

I see their being at a Stake Conference every weekend as ministerial in duty. Maybe a smaller piece then we think but not non existant. And yes they do still council people...... For I have been on the receiving hand of that.