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

[Freedom]

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.

From my discussions with them, they are not at a stake conference every weekend. They perhaps get an assignment once/month or less and when they attend, their role is administrative. And as for council, this is extremely rare. Again, what would be considered ministering would be a tiny portion of their duties and they certainly are not paid for this portion of their work so by no stretch of the imagination can it be said that we have a paid ministry. Even the apostles are not paid except for their work in running one of the church's corporations. Bishops get paid, for that matter, from their place of employment in addition to serving as a bishop but we do not consider them to be paid clergy.

You have to separate the source of their income (insurance, telecommunication, agriculture) from their part-time roll as ministers (the occasional stake conference and the very occasional one-on-one meeting with members). The two are not connected other than the fact that they both come from the same organization.

[DavidB]

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.

Do you know this as fact? Can you substantiate the claims?

[rpn]

MP aren't paid in the sense that they get a salary. They do have their living expenses covered during their service.

Edited December 27, 2012 by rpn

[CV75]

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.

They first and foremost serve the purposes of exercising the sacred priesthood keys--something not every member is asked to do. Their knowledge, skills, abilities, interests, talents, time, means, etc. are to be dedicated to the Lord--something every member is asked to do.

You will find that professional careers reflect the talents and opportunities the Lord has afforded them long before they are fully focused on building up the kingdom. The same is true of every member. So I think you have it backwards. The HR office may be helpful in doing due diligence for discovering opportunities, but the creation of the opportunities are in the Lord's hands, as the faithful will attest.

[Freedom]

Do you know this as fact? Can you substantiate the claims?

Go to the church office building. You will rarely if ever see a general authority performing any ministry work during the church. They rush in on a Saturday, hold training meeting throughout the day to make sure the stake is functioning property, then give a few talks to inspire the troops. They then rush off and leave the ministering to the local leaders. Attend seminars being held by church owned corporations and see who provided the training. The quotes have already been posted to prove where the income comes from. What more fact do you need? I mentioned my experience with three general authorities that I knew prior to their being called.

[CV75]

From my discussions with them, they are not at a stake conference every weekend. They perhaps get an assignment once/month or less and when they attend, their role is administrative.

We had Q&A with one of the Twelve who described his insane schedule--committees, boards, counseling, interviews, traveling, etc. There was no aspect of it that was administrative without the help of the Spirit. I cannot see how any of it could be separated from his exercise of the keys or totally reliant upon his innate or professional skills.

[CV75]

They then rush off and leave the ministering to the local leaders.

There is general and local ministering--they do the general ministering.

[Freedom]

They first and foremost serve the purposes of exercising the sacred priesthood keys--something not every member is asked to do. Their knowledge, skills, abilities, interests, talents, time, means, etc. are to be dedicated to the Lord--something every member is asked to do.

You will find that professional careers reflect the talents and opportunities the Lord has afforded them long before they are fully focused on building up the kingdom. The same is true of every member. So I think you have it backwards. The HR office may be helpful in doing due diligence for discovering opportunities, but the creation of the opportunities are in the Lord's hands, as the faithful will attest.

Of course the Lord is in control but you are missing the point. Their primary duties are administrative and they do not get paid for their ministerial duties. the next time you have the opportunity to meet a general authority ask them what their daily duties are. They are kept very busy running programs, putting out fires, reorganizing leadership and running the bureaucracy. This work is not done by angels. It begs the question, if the general authorities are not running the corporation because they are out giving blessings, then just who is?

Bottom line is, there is no paid ministry. Nobody gets paid for ministering in the church. Full time authorities work to make sure the local leaders can perform the ministering, and they get paid from the money making branch of the church not the tithes. They get paid through their business responsibilities not their ecclesiastical responsibilities. As Pres Hinkley announced in general conference, the first presidency does not select the general authorities.

[Freedom]

We had Q&A with one of the Twelve who described his insane schedule--committees, boards, counseling, interviews, traveling, etc. There was no aspect of it that was administrative without the help of the Spirit. I cannot see how any of it could be separated from his exercise of the keys or totally reliant upon his innate or professional skills.

You described an administrator not a minister. These duties serve to facilitate the ministering. I never said their work was not inspired, I am making the point that ministers are not paid, and the general authorities are primarily consumed with running the church and not ministering to individuals. They repeatedly instruct members to go to their local leaders and not to write letters to the general authorities of the church. Just because a persons duties are administrative (ward clerk, executive secretary) this does not mean it is not governed by priesthood keys or inspiration. But a clerk does not council people or teach the youth. They are unpaid administrators who function by revelation and under the direction of priesthood keys.

Let me repeat: there are no paid ministers in our church, those who get paid are paid because of their administrative duties in running church corporations and not because of their ministerial duties.

[Freedom]

There is general and local ministering--they do the general ministering.

And for the general ministering that they do, limited as it is, they do not get paid.

[Alan]

As a serving Bishop I can honestly say that I think I could do a much better job ministering to the needs of the Saints if I didn't have a day job.

Bishops, especially outside of the Utah bubble, are under tremendous stress.

[Freedom]

As a serving Bishop I can honestly say that I think I could do a much better job ministering to the needs of the Saints if I didn't have a day job.

Bishops, especially outside of the Utah bubble, are under tremendous stress.

I think the evidence proves you wrong. The church has the best retention, lowest divorce rates, highest member involvement ect of any religion I know of. Those churches with full time clergy cannot match our success. It forces us to delegate.

[DavidB]

The quotes have already been posted to prove where the income comes from.

I must have missed the post, where were the quotes posted as to where the income comes from? Are you referring to your own posts?

What more fact do you need? I mentioned my experience with three general authorities that I knew prior to their being called.

As anyone could claim experience with General Authorities, but such claims do not substantiate the claim.

Can you demonstrate, with verifiable information, that your various claims are correct?

The way you have presented the duties of an Apostle or General Authority, is that first and primarily each are a CEO of sorts to a Church owned entity, with a secondary duty of being Prophet Seer and Revelator.

[Freedom]

I must have missed the post, where were the quotes posted as to where the income comes from? Are you referring to your own posts?

As anyone could claim experience with General Authorities, but such claims do not substantiate the claim.

Can you demonstrate, with verifiable information, that your various claims are correct?

The way you have presented the duties of an Apostle or General Authority, is that first and primarily each are a CEO of sorts to a Church owned entity, with a secondary duty of being Prophet Seer and Revelator.

No, I am saying that the duties of the general authorities of the church are to run the church. I do not understand why you are separating the two. A clerk is not a ministerial calling, yet it is a calling nonetheless. The thread is not that long, it will not take you long to find the references provided by Pres Hinkley that explains where the income comes from. Can you prove that all general authorities do is minister to members and get paid for it? The Prophet received revelation to lead the church. He forwards this inspiration on to the general authorities, who then send it out to the local leaders to assist them in their ministerial responsibilities. Being CEO and Prophet is one and the same. He is the president of the church because he is the president of the corporation.

[DavidB]

No, I am saying that the duties of the general authorities of the church are to run the church. I do not understand why you are separating the two. A clerk is not a ministerial calling, yet it is a calling nonetheless. The thread is not that long, it will not take you long to find the references provided by Pres Hinkley that explains where the income comes from. Can you prove that all general authorities do is minister to members and get paid for it? The Prophet received revelation to lead the church. He forwards this inspiration on to the general authorities, who then send it out to the local leaders to assist them in their ministerial responsibilities. Being CEO and Prophet is one and the same. He is the president of the church because he is the president of the corporation.

As best I can tell no one has quoted President Hinkley, though I did find the quote elsewhere.

It is not up to me to prove what the General Authorities receive a living allowances for; I am asking you about your claims.

Edited December 28, 2012 by DavidB

[blackstrap]

I recall a Stake President who lamented the fact that he had to spend so much time administering,that there was little left to minister. I suspect that is true with most GAs also.

[Kenngo1969]

As a serving Bishop I can honestly say that I think I could do a much better job ministering to the needs of the Saints if I didn't have a day job.

Bishops, especially outside of the Utah bubble, are under tremendous stress.

I'll admit I can't relate to how things are outside the Utah Bubble, but having sat at my Bishop's elbow for the last fourteen months, I can testify that the calling is challenging (though admittedly, not equally so) everywhere. Please accept my best wishes for success in your calling. God knows the burden of your mantle, even if no one else does.

[Freedom]

As best I can tell no one has quoted President Hinkley, though I did find the quote elsewhere.

It is not up to me to prove what the General Authorities receive a living allowances for; I am asking you about your claims.

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

[Thinking]

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.

Vast majority? After retirement? CFR

Wait. I'll CFR for you.

The list below is of the first presidency and the six senior members of the 12. The number in ( ) is the age at which each was first called to be a GA.

Thomas S. Monson (36) was working for the Deseret News. http://en.wikipedia....homas_S._Monson

Henry B. Eyring (59) was an educator. http://en.wikipedia....Henry_B._Eyring

Dieter F. Uchtdorf (55) was a pilot for Lufthansa Airlines. http://en.wikipedia....ter_F._Uchtdorf

Boyd K. Packer (37) was a church educator. http://en.wikipedia..../Boyd_K._Packer

L. Tom Perry (50) was involved in business/retail. http://en.wikipedia....ki/L._Tom_Perry

Russell M. Nelson (59) was a surgeon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_M._Nelson

Dallin H. Oaks (51) was a lawyer. http://en.wikipedia..../Dallin_H._Oaks

M. Russell Ballard (48) was involved in business. http://en.wikipedia....Russell_Ballard

Richard G. Scott (49) was a nuclear engineer. http://en.wikipedia....ichard_G._Scott

Edited December 28, 2012 by Thinking

[Freedom]

Vast majority? After retirement? CFR

Wait. I'll CFR for you.

The list below is of the first presidency and the six senior members of the 12. The number in ( ) is the age at which each was first called to be a GA.

Thomas S. Monson (36) was working for the Deseret News. http://en.wikipedia....homas_S._Monson

Henry B. Eyring (59) was an educator. http://en.wikipedia....Henry_B._Eyring

Dieter F. Uchtdorf (55) was a pilot for Lufthansa Airlines. http://en.wikipedia....ter_F._Uchtdorf

Boyd K. Packer (37) was a church educator. http://en.wikipedia..../Boyd_K._Packer

L. Tom Perry (50) was involved in business/retail. http://en.wikipedia....ki/L._Tom_Perry

Russell M. Nelson (59) was a surgeon. http://en.wikipedia....ssell_M._Nelson

Dallin H. Oaks (51) was a lawyer. http://en.wikipedia..../Dallin_H._Oaks

M. Russell Ballard (48) was involved in business. http://en.wikipedia....Russell_Ballard

Richard G. Scott (49) was a nuclear engineer. http://en.wikipedia....ichard_G._Scott

You do understand that the quorum of the 12 are a small fraction of the total number of general authorities don't you? Of the nine you have identified, 6 had very successful and lucrative careers. So you are left with 3 examples of over a hundred that would require financial support, financial support which has been proven to be from the church owned corporations and not from tithing. There are of course other general authorities that were relatively young, but the vast majority are financially independent.

[DavidB]

As best I can tell no one has quoted President Hinkley, though I did find the quote elsewhere.

It is not up to me to prove what the General Authorities receive a living allowances for; I am asking you about your claims.

http://en.fairmormon..._living_stipend

There is only one citation in that article and it is for President Hinkley's quote about where the "living expense" monies come from. Yes, in that link President Hinkley is quoted, but that link does not substantiate the other claims you made.

"They ... 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."

"The general authorities primarily function as administrators and get compensated for their roles in directing the corporate side of the church."

"They do not go around full time preaching and ministering This is the role of the local authorities."

"They work in an office as accountants, legal advisors, engineers, and so forth"

"Their primary duties are administrative and they do not get paid for their ministerial duties"

"They get paid through their business responsibilities not their ecclesiastical responsibilities."

[Alan]

I think the evidence proves you wrong. The church has the best retention, lowest divorce rates, highest member involvement ect of any religion I know of. Those churches with full time clergy cannot match our success. It forces us to delegate.

I'm not sure the evidence does prove me wrong. I'm not talking about other faiths or the way they do things, I'm talking about the situation we have. I remember a few years ago we had a Bishop who was retired. He got so much done, had so much time for everyone, and seemed so full of energy and direction. I often meet myself coming backwards! We have a little over 300 members here, with barely 100 active. We don't even know if the less-actives are dead or alive. So the present system isn't working that well. The answer is home/visiting teaching of course, but it is just not possible to do it given the number of active and motivated priesthood we have. And even when it is done the home teachers invariably uncover family problems etc which means even more work for the Bishop.

Over the years there has been significant "responsibility creep" on Bishops. We are now responsible for so much more than a Bishop was ever supposed to be according to the D&C. We function as the Pastor for the whole congregation, president of the Aaronic Priesthood, financial officer, judge, administrator, welfare officer, psycologist, IT specialist ................. the list goes on.

Delegation is great when it is possible. In some Utah wards there are 400 active members and finding something for everyone to do is the problem. Here I have literally a handful of people I can delegate to, some of whom won't do it even when they say they will.

So if the church said to me "Hey Bishop. How about we take care of your bills and you serve full-time for the next 5 years or so" I would snatch their hand off!

[cdowis]

We don't even know if the less-actives are dead or alive. So the present system isn't working that well. The answer is home/visiting teaching of course, but it is just not possible to do it given the number of active and motivated priesthood we have. And even when it is done the home teachers invariably uncover family problems etc which means even more work for the Bishop.

Over the years there has been significant "responsibility creep" on Bishops. We are now responsible for so much more than a Bishop was ever supposed to be according to the D&C. We function as the Pastor for the whole congregation, president of the Aaronic Priesthood, financial officer, judge, administrator, welfare officer, psycologist, IT specialist ................. the list goes on.

Delegation is great when it is possible. In some Utah wards there are 400 active members and finding something for everyone to do is the problem. Here I have literally a handful of people I can delegate to, some of whom won't do it even when they say they will.

I was in a ward where the bishop was the "cheer leader", where the leaders were excited about doing their job. The motto, the attitude was that we were shepherds, not a hireling. The bishop directed traffic, rather than being a driver in all of the cars.

For example, once a year all of the leaders would meet in an informal setting, with refreshments, and we went through the entire ward directory, person by person. Someone in that group usually knew something about that individual. We then would identify people where we did not know if they were "dead or alive" and assign one leadership to check on them and report back back. Of course we had to meet several times to get thru the entire ward.

If someone did not "do their job", well, that's unfortunate. It was not a perfect system, but we equally shared the burden and responsibility, including not only the priesthood and RS, but also the youth leaders and Primary. Even the primary were given a visit assignment if appropriate.

I think you would agree that we should see the bishop as a cheer leader, to motivate, rather than to do all the work. Each leadership group should have a informal sit-down and talk about what's going on in their group, at Christmas, or once a year.

It should be fun and exciting. Have special projects, such as a small Christmas basket for the elderly sisters, or perhaps the "do not contacts", etc.

Edited December 28, 2012 by cdowis

[DBMormon]

I'm not sure the evidence does prove me wrong. I'm not talking about other faiths or the way they do things, I'm talking about the situation we have. I remember a few years ago we had a Bishop who was retired. He got so much done, had so much time for everyone, and seemed so full of energy and direction. I often meet myself coming backwards! We have a little over 300 members here, with barely 100 active. We don't even know if the less-actives are dead or alive. So the present system isn't working that well. The answer is home/visiting teaching of course, but it is just not possible to do it given the number of active and motivated priesthood we have. And even when it is done the home teachers invariably uncover family problems etc which means even more work for the Bishop.

Over the years there has been significant "responsibility creep" on Bishops. We are now responsible for so much more than a Bishop was ever supposed to be according to the D&C. We function as the Pastor for the whole congregation, president of the Aaronic Priesthood, financial officer, judge, administrator, welfare officer, psycologist, IT specialist ................. the list goes on.

Delegation is great when it is possible. In some Utah wards there are 400 active members and finding something for everyone to do is the problem. Here I have literally a handful of people I can delegate to, some of whom won't do it even when they say they will.

So if the church said to me "Hey Bishop. How about we take care of your bills and you serve full-time for the next 5 years or so" I would snatch their hand off!

Amen Brother

[CV75]

Let me repeat: there are no paid ministers in our church, those who get paid are paid because of their administrative duties in running church corporations and not because of their ministerial duties.

­This is a welcome clarification—thank you. They are not paid to exercise their priesthood keys, as ministers of other faiths are paid to exercise their acknowledged authority.

My observation is that the whole purpose of the Church is to minister to individuals (directly or indirectly). I would say that to the extent they have contact with individuals, or testify and otherwise convey the Spirit to individuals, our GAs are indeed ministering to them in that way. But they are not paid for that.