divinenature Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 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 eitherThe church pays terrible. I had a friend whose husband worked in the temple cafeteria and made a very small salary.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.Is this nothing like the Catholic Church or other large churches? BTW, bishops and stake presidents used to receive payment from tithing.
go_utes01 Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) It can be easily ARGUED, as this thread attests to - I did not say that it can be easily definitively stated (for me, without definitive evidence either way, I will give the Church, organized and run by God and those He called, the benefit of the doubt). I have no problem with ministers being paid for work outside of their ministerial duties, just like I don't mind that my bishop gets paid for his day job. And I definitely have no problem with the Church's claim that the Church uses a lay ministry. All of those that regularly minister to me are unpaid. It is such a different setup from most other religions. There is no competition between leaders for members and their money. We do not have professional theologians leading our denominations or teaching our classes. We have unpaid volunteers who have been called by God and serve/sacrifice without any thought of monetary gain. Edited December 28, 2012 by go_utes01
Freedom Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 The church pays terrible. I had a friend whose husband worked in the temple cafeteria and made a very small salary.Is this nothing like the Catholic Church or other large churches?BTW, bishops and stake presidents used to receive payment from tithing.I suppose in this regard it may be but I have had clients who are directors of larger churches and they receive a pretty good income. They also have access to multiple revenue streams such as charging for seminars, selling audio recordings of sermons ect. Of course, many general authorities also make money by publishing books. The challenge with being paid to preach is that there is a tendency to preach what is popular to bring in the crowds. But I must admit that these directors were good honest people intent on doing good. But these directors do not have a specific congregation so they do not do much ministering. They are running the corporation of their church.
divinenature Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 We do not have professional theologians leading our denominations or teaching our classes.The Church doesn't have professional theologians at all, to my knowledge.
go_utes01 Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 The Church doesn't have professional theologians at all, to my knowledge.I am sure there are trained theologians that are members. What I was getting at is that it is not a pre-requisite to leading a denomination or teaching classes.
divinenature Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 I suppose in this regard it may be but I have had clients who are directors of larger churches and they receive a pretty good income. They also have access to multiple revenue streams such as charging for seminars, selling audio recordings of sermons ect. Of course, many general authorities also make money by publishing books. The challenge with being paid to preach is that there is a tendency to preach what is popular to bring in the crowds. But I must admit that these directors were good honest people intent on doing good. But these directors do not have a specific congregation so they do not do much ministering. They are running the corporation of their church.Is making a decent income evil? What is considered making too much vs the right amount? I've been on boards with many wives of young pastors and they make barely anything...just above poverty level depending on family size. From what I understand the leaders of the church have access to more than one income stream with all the different businesses the church owns and whatnot. Plus, as you mentioned, books they publish. Income they would not have access to without being in the Church leadership position they are called to.I don't see how making a small amount from ministering is not evil but making a larger amount from ministering is evil. A paid ministry is a paid ministry.
Freedom Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 Is making a decent income evil? What is considered making too much vs the right amount? I've been on boards with many wives of young pastors and they make barely anything...just above poverty level depending on family size.From what I understand the leaders of the church have access to more than one income stream with all the different businesses the church owns and whatnot. Plus, as you mentioned, books they publish. Income they would not have access to without being in the Church leadership position they are called to.I don't see how making a small amount from ministering is not evil but making a larger amount from ministering is evil. A paid ministry is a paid ministry.I think I clearly explained the dangers of being paid to minister.
rpn Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) In response to the claim that the First Presidency isn't involved in picking GA's --- President Hinckley only said he was not involved in picking his son as a member of one of the quorums of the seventy. For many reasons that could be an anomaly. But even if it isn't, the statement says nothing about other GA callings. In Stakes and Wards, the leaders of various organizations are tasked with figuring out whom the Lord wants called to help them discharge their duties. My guess is that the various GA levels operate the same (though having heard General RSP say they received their calling from the prophet, my guess is that the leaders of each of the levels does involve the First Presidency). Edited December 28, 2012 by rpn
divinenature Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 I am sure there are trained theologians that are members. What I was getting at is that it is not a pre-requisite to leading a denomination or teaching classes.Hmm. That would be interesting. I wonder what seminary they would go to.
divinenature Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 If a member has to pay to receive certain ordinances does it really matter if the person performing said ordinance is the one who retains the fee?
go_utes01 Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 Hmm. That would be interesting. I wonder what seminary they would go to.I did not mean to imply that the member would have went to an LDS divinity school - only that some members have almost assuredly graduated from a divinity school.
Freedom Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 If a member has to pay to receive certain ordinances does it really matter if the person performing said ordinance is the one who retains the fee?These are the very type of people Jesus chased out of the temple.
DavidB Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) It can be easily ARGUED, as this thread attests to - I did not say that it can be easily definitively stated (for me, without definitive evidence either way, I will give the Church, organized and run by God and those He called, the benefit of the doubt). I have no problem with ministers being paid for work outside of their ministerial duties, just like I don't mind that my bishop gets paid for his day job. And I definitely have no problem with the Church's claim that the Church uses a lay ministry. All of those that regularly minister to me are unpaid. It is such a different setup from most other religions. There is no competition between leaders for members and their money. We do not have professional theologians leading our denominations or teaching our classes. We have unpaid volunteers who have been called by God and serve/sacrifice without any thought of monetary gain.I suppose any false, baseless, or even unsubstantiated argument can be easily argued, so in the end almost anything can be easily argued.However, your rational reminds me once again of the "object lessons" I was taught to use a missionary, i.e. if everyone point in the same direction claiming that direction is North does that consensus mean the direction is North. Similarly the argument used against the Nicean Creed/Councils, just because a bunch of people agree does not make it fact, truth, or correct.In the end though, the Church does provide for a living allowance for General Authorities, and no one here can verifiably state what services that allowance is giving for; except for being a General Authority who receives a living allowance. Edited December 28, 2012 by DavidB
go_utes01 Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 If a member has to pay to receive certain ordinances does it really matter if the person performing said ordinance is the one who retains the fee?It may not matter, but then again it might. If a preacher/pastor/whatever knew that he/she would directly receive monetary gain from performing an ordinance, you could easily imagine a less-than-Godly desire to push for that ordinance to be performed. If even for appearances sake alone, I am grateful that there are no ordinances performed by LDS ministry that a member or perspective member is required to pay for.
go_utes01 Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 I suppose a false baseless unsubstantiated argument can be easily argued, so you are correct there.In the end though, the Church does provide for a living allowance for General Authorities, and no one here can verifiably state what services that allowance is giving for; except for being a General Authority who receives a living allowance.You added the false, baseless, and unsubstantiated part. How can you say an argument is false, without some way to substantiate your claim? Furthermore, there has been substantiation provided in this thread alone. You may not want to accept anecdotal evidence as evidence, but it is evidence nevertheless. Likewise, you may claim that claims made by an anonymous member of a Mormon discussion forum is not substantiation, but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and would not jump to the conclusion that other members of this board are lying without some substantiation of that claim.
DavidB Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 If even for appearances sake alone, I am grateful that there are no ordinances performed by LDS ministry that a member or perspective member is required to pay for.A matter of perspective. Though I understand what you generally mean, we do not pay monies for tickets to Sacrement Meeting, or have to purchase a ticket to take the sacrement, or purchase a license to receive baptism or a rental fee on the font.
divinenature Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 I did not mean to imply that the member would have went to an LDS divinity school - only that some members have almost assuredly graduated from a divinity school.Oh, I know. Just the thought of an LDS at any divinity school intrigues me. I would love to talk to someone who did that and ask about the experience. It just seems like it would be strange coming from the LDS perspective.(sorry to tangent)
divinenature Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 These are the very type of people Jesus chased out of the temple.Like the people renting out special temple clothing that are required to be worn during ordinances? Or the selling of said special clothing? 1
go_utes01 Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) Oh, I know. Just the thought of an LDS at any divinity school intrigues me. I would love to talk to someone who did that and ask about the experience. It just seems like it would be strange coming from the LDS perspective.(sorry to tangent)I think it would be very interesting. There could be different reasons to attend divinity school. For example, there are probably those that attended divinity school prior to becoming LDS. There are also those that are interested in theology that might attend a divinity school. Furthermore, I was recently listening to a "Mormon Matters" episode with two Mormon Chaplains (one Air Force and one Army), and apparently to serve as a military chaplain you are required to have graduated from a divinity school - so that could be another reason. They mentioned that because of this requirement, the military has a very difficult time finding qualified LDS chaplains. Interesting. Edited December 28, 2012 by go_utes01
divinenature Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 I am grateful that there are no ordinances performed by LDS ministry that a member or perspective member is required to pay for.So, a member making $30K a year can go to the temple in their regular church attire and go through all the ordinances there without having to make any payments in the form of tithing or purchases in the form of special clothing?
divinenature Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 I think it would be very interesting. There could be different reasons to attend divinity school. For example, there are probably those that attended divinity school prior to becoming LDS. There are also those that are interested in theology that might attend a divinity school. Furthermore, I was recently listening to a "Mormon Matters" episode with two Mormon Chaplains (one Air Force and one Army), and apparently to serve as a military chaplain you are required to have graduated from a divinity school - so that could be another reason. They mentioned that because of this requirement, the military has a very difficult time finding qualified LDS chaplains. Interesting.Oh, yeah, I had never thought of those circumstances! I should look up that episode, I don't usually listen to podcasts.
go_utes01 Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 So, a member making $30K a year can go to the temple in their regular church attire and go through all the ordinances there without having to make any payments in the form of tithing or purchases in the form of special clothing?I am positive that allowances would be made if the circumstances required it. I cannot imagine a temple worker or for that matter any leader telling a member that was otherwise worthy and willing, that he/she would not be allowed to attend the temple for lack of funds to rent clothing- can you?
divinenature Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) I am positive that allowances would be made if the circumstances required it. I cannot imagine a temple worker or for that matter any leader telling a member that was otherwise worthy and willing, that he/she would not be allowed to attend the temple for lack of funds to rent clothing- can you?I do know people who have been told they cannot get a TR because they did not pay a "full tithe."And if they have to wear garments...someone must purchase them. Edited December 28, 2012 by divinenature
Tacenda Posted December 28, 2012 Author Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) I do know people who have been told they cannot get a TR because they did not pay a "full tithe."And if they have to wear garments...someone must purchase them.And that tithing money adds up to lots of $$. Where other churches might not even break even in comparison. Therefore the need to charge for some things. Edited December 28, 2012 by Tacenda
bdouglas Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 I have a family member who was a Seventy for 10 years. I am not aware of any biz responsibilities he had (i.e., administering church owned businesses) during his time as a Seventy. He was not rich when he was called to be a Seventy but he was well enough off that he didn't need to work anymore. I can verify that he did receive a "stipend", and this stipend was...well I never asked him "How much does the church pay you?", but it would be hard for me to believe this stipend covered his living expenses only. I also know he drove a new church-leased Toyota Avalon. I rode around with him in this car and he told me how much he liked it. I also know that during the 10 years he was a Seventy he worked harder than he'd ever worked before. He had some interesting stories to tell.
Recommended Posts