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

[DBMormon]

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.

That sounds great. It was obviously made up of ward members who took the mantle of their stewardship upon them. But outside of the giant wards where you have 20 brethren who could be fantastic bishops and 20 sisters who could be fantastic Relief Society Presidents. You are lucky if in most areas you have 2-3 of each and maybe another 1 or 2 that would be a giant stretch. And you can step in here and tell me, the Lord will make ready anyone he chooses, but the sad reality is until you have been in a small ward with a small group of people who actually carry through, your struggling to get anything done and always falls back on the bishop's shoulders. The Ward I live in is a great Ward but it falls into this problem. My ward takes up 3-4 counties, about 7-9 cities, and has an attendance of about 90-120 on a given Sunday. Many members see the church as what can it do for me. and those who desire to serve get burned out quickly.

[CV75]

the sad reality is until you have been in a small ward with a small group of people who actually carry through, your struggling to get anything done and always falls back on the bishop's shoulders.

Having been a bishop in a ward as you describe, the bishop need not ever feel alone. It is the Lord's Church and His problems as well. Sometimes the best course of action is to let the Lord help, or even leave matters in the Lord's hands. It worked for me, and over the years the ward enjoyed constant improvement.

[Freedom]

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."

The church does not publish the official duties of their general authorities. What I know is from personal interaction with them or with the organizations they lead. The information is readily available if you but ask the right people. General Authorities are called to run the church, that is their primary responsibility.The church requires professional to keep the organization functioning property, and these professionals are identified and called as general authorities. How else do you think such a large organization would function? What exactly do you suppose general authorities do 40 hours each week - go visit old people in hospitals? You tell me what you suppose their duties would include and how it is that the church can rationalize with the tax man why these men are getting paid.

[Freedom]

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!

It seems to be futile but it works. It is how God wants it to be. Bishops should not be ministering, this duty needs to be placed on the plate of the Elders Quorum and High Priests Quorum. Bishops in large wards have a whole different set of problems that can consume their time - imagine having 10 active women without a calling, without a purpose to come to church. In small wards, everybody is required to be involved. If the home teacher does not do their job, it serves no purpose for the bishop to do it for them. They are the minsters, you are the administrator Your job is to make sure the ministers do their job. You don't see general authorities stepping in to take over wards or stakes because the work is not getting done, they simply encourage and train.

[DavidB]

The church does not publish the official duties of their general authorities. What I know is from personal interaction with them or with the organizations they lead. The information is readily available if you but ask the right people. General Authorities are called to run the church, that is their primary responsibility.The church requires professional to keep the organization functioning property, and these professionals are identified and called as general authorities. How else do you think such a large organization would function? What exactly do you suppose general authorities do 40 hours each week - go visit old people in hospitals? You tell me what you suppose their duties would include and how it is that the church can rationalize with the tax man why these men are getting paid.

You can not demonstrate what the "living allowance" is for.

We only know that the living allowance comes from the business ventures of the Cuurch and not from tithing.

Also you keep using the phrase "paid" yet you can not show paid. I would assume President Hinkley was being very precise when he used the phrase "living allowance". I am sure he did this for tax purposes and for the sake of the sayers of nay; ie there an employee-employer relationship between the Church and General Authorities; for GA's in the United States is the living allowance considered reportable/taxable income - I suspect this is closely guarded information that can not be verified just like the what the living allowance is for can not be verified.

Edited December 28, 2012 by DavidB

[Freedom]

You can not demonstrate what the "living allowance" is for.

We only know that the living allowance comes from the business ventures of the Cuurch and not from tithing.

Also you keep using the phrase "paid" yet you can not show paid. I would assume President Hinkley was being very precise when he used the phrase "living allowance". I am sure he did this for tax purposes and for the sake of the sayers of nay; ie there an employee-employer relationship between the Church and General Authorities; for GA's in the United States is the living allowance considered reportable/taxable income - I suspect this is closely guarded information that can not be verified just like the what the living allowance is for can not be verified.

As stated, the church does not publish this information. I have first hand knowledge that any person can get by simply asking a general authority what they do on a daily basis. Since you have zero evidence to contradict what I know from first hand knowledge, we are at an impasse.

[DavidB]

As stated, the church does not publish this information. I have first hand knowledge that any person can get by simply asking a general authority what they do on a daily basis. Since you have zero evidence to contradict what I know from first hand knowledge, we are at an impasse.

not an impasse, we are at a situation where you want everyone to take your word for it. So were we are is, we are only left with what amounts to your hearsay - not a bad thing necessarily - just that we should be very careful about speaking on things that can not be substantiated.

Edited December 28, 2012 by DavidB

[Freedom]

not an impasse, we are at a situation where you want everyone to take your word for it. So were we are is, we are only left with what amounts to your hearsay - not a bad thing necessarily - just that we should be very careful about speaking on things that can not be substantiated.

So then we can throw out the entire thread. But I will ask again, what is it you believe general authorities do Monday to Friday full time?

[Biz]

Or am I far off the mark here?

Not off the mark at all.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

This is a subject on which my view has broadened over the years. I no longer feel that paid ministers of other churches are engaged in Priestcraft. Many are very sincere, loving people that dedicate their lives to helping and serving people and trying to help them know Jesus at the level of understanding that they do have. I cannot and will not fault them for that.

In the Book of Mormon, it is individuals and churches that set themselves up to be the light of the world for glory and riches that the LORD condemns- not ALL non-Restoration churches or pastors.

Edited December 28, 2012 by BookofMormonLuvr

[DavidB]

So then we can throw out the entire thread. But I will ask again, what is it you believe general authorities do Monday to Friday full time?

No we not throw out the entire thread.

President Hinkley has stated, openly, that General Authorities are given a living allowance. Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, like to proclaim that the Leaders of the Church are not paid or otherwise receive monies. This is certainly not true as we have a Prophet of the Church saying General Authorities receive a living allowance.

What would need to be thrown out is the wild speculation and wrestling about minister/clergy v CEO/Director that many have espoused.

Leader of the LDS Church receive a living allowance, what that entails - housing, food, transportation, housekeepers, grounds keepers, tuition for children, services rendered to Business arm of the Church, etc, is not clear nor available for verifiable discussion.

[DavidB]

This is a subject on which my view has broadened over the years. I no longer feel that paid ministers of other churches are engaged in Priestcraft. Many are very sincere, loving people that dedicate their lives to helping and serving people and trying to help them know Jesus at the level of understanding that they do have. I cannot and will not fault them for that.

In the Book of Mormon, it is individuals and churches that set themselves up to be the light of the world for glory and riches that the LORD condemns- not ALL non-Restoration churches.

Excellent.

How terribly offensive and arrogant is it of us to label all non-LDS ministers with the evil and negative connotation of "priestcraft"; I am sure there are some who are, but a blanket label is simply unjustified.

[Freedom]

No we not throw out the entire thread.

President Hinkley has stated, openly, that General Authorities are given a living allowance. Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, like to proclaim that the Leaders of the Church are not paid or otherwise receive monies. This is certainly not true as we have a Prophet of the Church saying General Authorities receive a living allowance.

What would need to be thrown out is the wild speculation and wrestling about minister/clergy v CEO/Director that many have espoused.

Leader of the LDS Church receive a living allowance, what that entails - housing, food, transportation, housekeepers, grounds keepers, tuition for children, services rendered to Business arm of the Church, etc, is not clear nor available for verifiable discussion.

Let me ask you again, what is it you suppose general authorities do 40 hours/week?

[divinenature]

Let me ask you again, what is it you suppose general authorities do 40 hours/week?

Maybe the same sort of things that paid clergy of other religions do 40 hours a week...

[CV75]

Let me ask you again, what is it you suppose general authorities do 40 hours/week?

Maybe it is easier to descibe how what they do differs from the activities this website describes as employment in the Church.

https://www.lds.org/church/employment/about-church-employment?lang=eng

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Maybe the same sort of things that paid clergy of other religions do 40 hours a week...

I believe you are correct...

- Go to meetings with local leaders

- Counsel with members

- Travel

- Preside where assigned

- Special speaking assignments

- Organize districts and stake

It's all the same type of things people.

Edited December 28, 2012 by BookofMormonLuvr

[go_utes01]

What exactly is the point of this thread? It is clear that some GA's are provided "living expenses," what is not clear is what that entails. All I know is that I have literally given thousands of hours working in the "lay ministry" and assume that anybody called to be a GA has done likewise (probably more as they are usually older than myself and probably served in more time-consuming callings prior to be called as a GA). What is also clear to me is that nobody has an ambition to be called as a GA in order to become wealthy. If the point is the Church is being disingenuous when it claims to be run by a "lay ministry," I flatly believe that is incorrect. In point of fact, the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the ministry is conducted by lay ministers - without pay.

[DavidB]

If the point is the Church is being disingenuous when it claims to be run by a "lay ministry," I flatly believe that is incorrect. In point of fact, the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the ministry is conducted by lay ministers - without pay.

You disagree then agree. I think to the outside that is the issue. We LDS claim lay ministry, while also acknowledging that General Authorities receive a living expense. This allowance, likely in no way equates to rate of reasonable pay for hours services rendered.

Do local wards/Stakes maintain due to the diligent efforts of unpaid volunteers? Absolutely.

Could the Church as a whole maintain without the efforts of the General Authorities? Absolutely not. As a missionary I taught from the discussion that "The Great Apostasy" occurred because of the loss of Apostles or otherwise General Authorities.

I personally do not have an issue with acknowledging that some "ministers" in the Church receive a living allowance and that some "ministers" do not.

Edited December 28, 2012 by DavidB

[Freedom]

Maybe the same sort of things that paid clergy of other religions do 40 hours a week...

other paid clergy are similar to a bishop and work directly with their congregation, general authorities are not assigned a congregation. A way to get perspective is to consider what councilors do for the bishop or what the Stake High Council does for the Stake President. These callings are not involved in ministering but rather are assigned administrative duties such as organizing activities, taking care of facilities, providing technical support, assisting the seminary and institute program and so forth. Their callings does not involve visiting the sick, teaching Sunday school, home teaching or any other ministerial duties. They have have these callings in addition to their administrative callings, that is a different matter. The higher you go up the food chain, the more removed from direct ministering you become.

The General Authorities I have dealt with over the years had duties such as research and development, curriculum, building maintenance, building construction, scouting, finance, investments human resources, business relations, diplomatic relations, and so forth. They work full time in these duties because, as is obvious, the church is a huge organization. On some weekends they do attend conferences but at these conferences they only perform incidental ministering. Their primary duty is to provide training, enforce policy, make corrections, and issue callings.

[go_utes01]

No, I do not agree. From this thread, it could easily be argued that no person GA or not receives money (even a "living allowance") for their work in the "ministry" - depending on how that word is defined. In any event, it is such a small percentage of any members that receives any money in conjunction with a calling, that the Church claiming and missionaries teaching (as I did) that our religion is different from some other religions because we have a lay ministry is completely justified.

Edited December 28, 2012 by go_utes01

[Freedom]

What exactly is the point of this thread? It is clear that some GA's are provided "living expenses," what is not clear is what that entails. All I know is that I have literally given thousands of hours working in the "lay ministry" and assume that anybody called to be a GA has done likewise (probably more as they are usually older than myself and probably served in more time-consuming callings prior to be called as a GA). What is also clear to me is that nobody has an ambition to be called as a GA in order to become wealthy. If the point is the Church is being disingenuous when it claims to be run by a "lay ministry," I flatly believe that is incorrect. In point of fact, the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the ministry is conducted by lay ministers - without pay.

Exactly, and from my experience, few of the general authorities receive a living expense because they are already financially independent.

[Bob Crockett]

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.

No it isn't. If it bothers you, you can obtain this information from the General Authorities if you go through your stake presidents. A member of my ward was bothered by this and did exactly that, meeting with an apostle, eventually.

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

It is "scrip." That was only a temporary assignment in the New Testament. Otherwise, they operated with purse and scrip. See Luke 25:35-36 where this requirement was rescinded.

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.

One of Jesus' apostles was his own brother. There were brothers who were original apostles. I don't see your criticism as having anything to do with the way general authorities are paid.

As to your criticism about what general authorities make, I work with other major religious groups at what would be their general authority level, in my profession. And their bureaucracies. Every religion is different. I do note, however, that the Church is going to a much more pervasive system of volunteer missionaries called to Salt Lake to staff the bureaucracies, a move which has another set of criticisms from the critics.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Duncan]

I have no problem at all with people working for the Church as in accountants, computer techs, travel people, secretaries, etc. I do have a problem with priestcraft though. I have a friend who's dad worked in confidential records at the COB for 25 years. I asked him about this and he said they weren't rich at all, so much so his Mom had to work to help support the family. His dad never really talked about what he did there either

[DavidB]

No, I do not agree. From this thread, it could easily be argued that no person GA or not receives money (even a "living allowance") for their work in the "ministry" - depending on how that word is defined.

No it can not be easily argued. Because there is no verifiable proofs for what services rendered the "living allowance" is recieved.

In any event, it is such a small percentage of any members that receives any money in conjunction with a calling, that the Church claiming and missionaries teaching (as I did) that our religion is different from some other religions because we have a lay ministry is completely justified.

again an admission that monies are received by some who basically are ministers. And to reduce the claim to a matter of statistics is not justified. If I rob a bank only once a year over a span of many years, can I justifiably deny that I have robbed a bank?

The small statistics do not justify a denial.

Edited December 28, 2012 by DavidB

[DavidB]

I have no problem at all with people working for the Church as in accountants, computer techs, travel people, secretaries, etc. I do have a problem with priestcraft though. I have a friend who's dad worked in confidential records at the COB for 25 years. I asked him about this and he said they weren't rich at all, so much so his Mom had to work to help support the family. His dad never really talked about what he did there either

What do you define as "priestcraft", from the Book of Mormon it appear a multifaceted practice and not limited exclusively too the receipt of monies by a "minister" or religious authority of a Church.