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

[Freedom]

Like the people renting out special temple clothing that are required to be worn during ordinances? Or the selling of said special clothing?

Members are advised to purchase their own and the items are sold at cost so nobody is making any money. Likewise, the rental fee does not cover the cost of cleaning and maintaining them which is why the church is getting away from providing this service. Also, we regularly purchase clothing for members who cannot afford it. I purchased mine over 25 years ago so to say I paid to participate in ordinances is flawed. Unless you consider my fee of $.01/ordinance to be an unreasonable fee. This is like saying purchasing a suite or dress for Sunday service is paying to go to church.

[go_utes01]

And that tithing money adds up to lots of moneyp. Where other churches might not even break even in comparison. Therefore the need to charge for some things.

I do not consider being required to declare that you are faithfully following the Lord's law of tithing, as "paying for an ordinance." You might.

[divinenature]

Members are advised to purchase their own and the items are sold at cost so nobody is making any money. Likewise, the rental fee does not cover the cost of cleaning and maintaining them which is why the church is getting away from providing this service. Also, we regularly purchase clothing for members who cannot afford it. I purchased mine over 25 years ago so to say I paid to participate in ordinances is flawed. Unless you consider my fee of $.01/ordinance to be an unreasonable fee. This is like saying purchasing a suite or dress for Sunday service is paying to go to church.

Paying is paying. Either people pay or they don't pay at all. It's pretty easy.

Are people allowed to partake of the sacrament in street clothes? Yes.

Are people allowed to receive their endowment in street clothes? No. Thus, a purchase is required by someone.

Once a person is washed and anointed are they required to put on garments that they bring in the package? Yes. Thus, someone was required to make a purchase.

We aren't talking about if the payment price of the ordinance is a fair market value or reasonable. We're talking about if there is a payment that must be made.

I am not aware of anyone who can receive temple ordinances without declaring themselves a full tithe payer...that is 10% of their income. That is a pretty hefty price tag.

You paid the full purchase price of the clothing for your own ordinances.

[DavidB]

I am not aware of anyone who can receive temple ordinances without declaring themselves a full tithe payer...that is 10% of their income. That is a pretty hefty price tag.

As I suspect those who do not pay a tithe, but are otherwise Temple worthy, would not make such public knowledge. There is a difference between those who can, those who will not, and those who do not.

Edited December 28, 2012 by DavidB

[Freedom]

You paid the full purchase price of the clothing for your own ordinances.

But your initial argument is that, if you are paying for it, why not pay the minister directly. The problem with your argument is that that minister would only make 60 cents/hour. The amount makes a huge difference. You are presenting a logical fallacy. If a person cannot afford to pay their tithing, the church provides them the funds to purchase food. If there was no charge then there would be no ordinance. The money has to come from somewhere and those that cannot afford it have the cost covered by others. But the cost is very low. I have been told that one cannot go into a public libary naked so perhaps we should start a class action law suite against the public library system for making us pay for clothing to go into a place that they insist is free.

[Tacenda]

I do not consider being required to declare that you are faithfully following the Lord's law of tithing, as "paying for an ordinance." You might.

Just comparing our tithes to some other small churches out there, is all. They are usually a small entity, since there are several ran seperately compared to our church being one whole, and would need to charge. Where we would not.

[Duncan]

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.

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2012/11/but-is-it-priestcraft/

read this, might help out a touch! Priestcraft like a lot of other religious terminology is difficult to define. FWIW I am related to two ordained ministers in other religions, yet I wouldn't characterize either is in it for worldy glory. I see suck ups in the church as doers of priestcraft

[DavidB]

http://timesandseaso...it-priestcraft/

read this, might help out a touch! Priestcraft like a lot of other religious terminology is difficult to define. FWIW I am related to two ordained ministers in other religions, yet I wouldn't characterize either is in it for worldy glory. I see suck ups in the church as doers of priestcraft

Thanks for the article, I found this tidbit from the article fitting for the present discussion

"Note that the Church has paid clergy—at least some General Authorities get a stipend." Sam Brunson, Nov. 2012, Times and Season,

[Duncan]

Thanks for the article, I found this tidbit from the article fitting for the present discussion

"Note that the Church has paid clergy—at least some General Authorities get a stipend." Sam Brunson, Nov. 2012, Times and Season,

it's the spirit of giving, no problemo

[Stargazer]

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.

Uh, no. Not quite. DOD requirements for post-graduate work certainly includes a divinity degree as a qualification, but it is not required.

The educationally qualified applicant must also possess a post-baccalaureate graduate degree in the field of theological or related studies from a qualifying educational institution. A qualifying degree program will require no less than 72 semester hours (108 quarter hours) of graduate-level work.

Related studies may include graduate courses in pastoral counseling, social work, religious administration, and similar disciplines when one-half of the earned graduate credits include topics in general religion, world religions, the practice of religion, theology/religious philosophy, ethics, and/or the foundational writings from the applicant's religious tradition.

[Stargazer]

I've heard that Mission Presidents are paid though.

Many if not most mission presidents are men who are called while still in their working years and could not serve unless they received a living stipend.

My mission president was Rudolf Poecker, and his pre-MP job was manager of a Deseret Industries store. There was no way he, his wife, and three young daughters could have served without receiving a living stipend.

My son's mission president, Monte J. Brough, was a millionaire. You better believe HE could afford it. I'd be surprised if he received a stipend. And later, of course, he was called to be a GA -- and I doubt he got a stipend then, either.

[Thinking]

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.

I'm curious what % you would assign to vast majority, and what a small fraction is? Of the nine I referenced, none seem to have been retired at the time of first being called as a GA.

Here are the remaining six members of the 12. None of them seem to have been retired either. I'll let you compile the list of seventies.

Robert D. Hales (44) was a business executive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Hales

Jeffrey R. Holland (48) was a church educator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_R._Holland

David A. Bednar (52) was an educator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_A._Bednar

Quentin L. Cook (55) was an attorney. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_L._Cook

D. Todd Christofferson (48) was an attorney. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._Todd_Christopherson

Neil L. Andersen (42) was a business executive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_L._Andersen

Again, here is your claim.

the vast majority are called after they have retired

[go_utes01]

I'm curious what % you would assign to vast majority, and what a small fraction is? Of the nine I referenced, none seem to have been retired at the time of first being called as a GA.

Here are the remaining six members of the 12. None of them seem to have been retired either. I'll let you compile the list of seventies.

Robert D. Hales (44) was a business executive. http://en.wikipedia....Robert_D._Hales

Jeffrey R. Holland (48) was a church educator. http://en.wikipedia....frey_R._Holland

David A. Bednar (52) was an educator. http://en.wikipedia....David_A._Bednar

Quentin L. Cook (55) was an attorney. http://en.wikipedia....Quentin_L._Cook

D. Todd Christofferson (48) was an attorney. http://en.wikipedia...._Christopherson

Neil L. Andersen (42) was a business executive. http://en.wikipedia....eil_L._Andersen

Again, here is your claim.

I'm pretty sure he was speaking about the majority of GA are called after they have retired (not just Apostles). Also, of the Apostles, the majority were in a position to retire (e.g. had sufficient wealth to not require they keep working) when they were called so that they were not in need of money from the Church. In any event, none of the Apostles, or any other GA, sought a calling in order to get wealthy (at least as to earthly wealth).

Edited December 29, 2012 by go_utes01

[KevinG]

As long as they are humble enough to go to the Bishop or family member for help no member of the LDS Church who is otherwise worthy misses out on ordinances because of a lack of funds.

[KevinG]

Stipends cover the housing, travel and other costs associated with being a full time minister to the world. These positions are rare (like mission presidents and general authorities) and require people to leave full time employment to serve long hours and at great personal expense.

As for the original question the critique in the Book of Mormon was about those priests who took advantage of the situation to live off of others labor, not the mere fact that there was support given to them by the people.

[Sleeper Cell]

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 might to the person performing the ordinance. And to the person who “has to pay" to receive the ordinance.

By your criteria, not only does the person receiving the ordinance “have to pay a fee” in order to receive the ordinance, the person performing the ordinance also “has to pay a fee” in order to be allowed to donate his time to perform the ordinance.

[Sleeper Cell]

I do know people who have been told they cannot get a TR because they did not pay a "full tithe."

Making certain specific sacred covenants is the essence of the temple ordinances. If one is unwilling to pay 10% (or looks upon tithing as a grudgingly paid admission “fee”) how can he, in good conscience, make a sacred covenant to the effect that he is willing to pay far more than 10%?

Viewed strictly as a secular transaction, one “has to pay” 10% for the privilege of being allowed to agree to pay far more than 10%.

[KevinG]

the word voluntary comes to mind. I have a pet theory that the families who raised some of these folks that think Mormonism is a control conspiracy failed to teach them agency by precept and proper example.

[thesometimesaint]

It might to the person performing the ordinance. And to the person who “has to pay" to receive the ordinance.

By your criteria, not only does the person receiving the ordinance “have to pay a fee” in order to receive the ordinance, the person performing the ordinance also “has to pay a fee” in order to be allowed to donate his time to perform the ordinance.

The tiny bit of money I pay in tithing only signifies the tiny amount of faith I have. Less than a grain of mustard seed.

[MiserereNobis]

Well, I must say that this has been a fascinating thread to read. I've got a couple of thoughts from a non-LDS perspective.

First, it is clear that some general authorities are being paid something, no matter what it is called. They are receiving money. Add to this that they are the highest leaders/clergy (apostles, prophets), it seems that making a claim that there is no paid clergy is not accurate. Perhaps Mormons could say that they have no paid local clergy, which would then be more precise and not come off as deceiving when people found out that the highest leaders are given money.

Second, the source of that money, to me, is irrelevant. They are given money by the LDS church to perform duties for the LDS church. Whether or not it comes from tithing or business ventures doesn't matter as to whether or not they are clergy and they are paid.

Third, it seems disingenuous to me to declare that general authorities are paid for their administrative duties but not for their ministering. Almost any paid clergy of any church could make that same claim, as paid clergy have lots of administrative duties. I also found it odd that someone would claim that LDS apostles and prophets are business administrators, not ministers. That seems to contradict the heavy emphasis placed upon them, especially on the president of the church, as God's true representatives.

Fourth, I think the one poster who tried to show that LDS people have to pay money to receive ordinances had a good point. Yes, I understand that you do not have to pay at the moment of going (except for temple clothing rental? I hadn't heard of that), but 10% tithing is required for temple admission, right? That is decent amount of money. Now, as a Catholic, I have no problem with the principle that the faithful are supposed to support the church. It is a sin in Catholicism not to, much like it sounds like it is a sin in the LDS church.

Finally, it is clear from this thread that there is no transparency in the issue of general authorities and their compensation. Why is that? I can go down to my diocesan offices and get a list of all employees for the diocese, including priests and the bishop, and the amount of money they are being paid. It is very open and clear. I suspect that if the same were done with general authorities, then the mystery would disappear and everyone would move on to something else. However, the lack of transparency, coupled with the declaration that there is no paid clergy, points people's perception toward the idea that something is being covered up. I understand that people feel that their salary is private, but many government agencies post the salaries of their employees. In my state, every public school employee's salary is posted on the internet for everyone to see.

So, to sum up, my outside advice would be to tell people that there are no local paid clergy, but that the highest clergy receive compensation, and then to have that compensation easily transparent.

[busybee]

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.

I know of a GA (Seventy) who was a medical representative by profession (ie, someone who promotes sales of a specific medication). I don't believe that that is the reason he was called. He is a spiritual giant who had served as a bishop, stake pres, area authority before he was called as a Seventy. The Lord may direct these men in certain paths which will help in building up the kingdom when they ARE called. I don't believe however that they are called solely because of their business credentials. The fact that they are put to work in areas where their skills will be most useful just speaks of common sense to me.

[busybee]

Being CEO and Prophet is one and the same. He is the president of the church because he is the president of the corporation.

I think you have that backwards. He is president of the corporation because he is president of the Church.

edited for spelling

Edited December 29, 2012 by busybee

[CV75]

I see a bit being said about various forms of payment (tithe, clothing purchase ad rental, etc.) for religious participation, ordinances, blessings, etc. If such payments are outgrowths of a broken heart and contrite spirit, what is the problem?

[CV75]

Well, I must say that this has been a fascinating thread to read. I've got a couple of thoughts from a non-LDS perspective.

First, it is clear that some general authorities are being paid something, no matter what it is called. They are receiving money. Add to this that they are the highest leaders/clergy (apostles, prophets), it seems that making a claim that there is no paid clergy is not accurate. Perhaps Mormons could say that they have no paid local clergy, which would then be more precise and not come off as deceiving when people found out that the highest leaders are given money.

Second, the source of that money, to me, is irrelevant. They are given money by the LDS church to perform duties for the LDS church. Whether or not it comes from tithing or business ventures doesn't matter as to whether or not they are clergy and they are paid.

Third, it seems disingenuous to me to declare that general authorities are paid for their administrative duties but not for their ministering. Almost any paid clergy of any church could make that same claim, as paid clergy have lots of administrative duties. I also found it odd that someone would claim that LDS apostles and prophets are business administrators, not ministers. That seems to contradict the heavy emphasis placed upon them, especially on the president of the church, as God's true representatives.

Fourth, I think the one poster who tried to show that LDS people have to pay money to receive ordinances had a good point. Yes, I understand that you do not have to pay at the moment of going (except for temple clothing rental? I hadn't heard of that), but 10% tithing is required for temple admission, right? That is decent amount of money. Now, as a Catholic, I have no problem with the principle that the faithful are supposed to support the church. It is a sin in Catholicism not to, much like it sounds like it is a sin in the LDS church.

Finally, it is clear from this thread that there is no transparency in the issue of general authorities and their compensation. Why is that? I can go down to my diocesan offices and get a list of all employees for the diocese, including priests and the bishop, and the amount of money they are being paid. It is very open and clear. I suspect that if the same were done with general authorities, then the mystery would disappear and everyone would move on to something else. However, the lack of transparency, coupled with the declaration that there is no paid clergy, points people's perception toward the idea that something is being covered up. I understand that people feel that their salary is private, but many government agencies post the salaries of their employees. In my state, every public school employee's salary is posted on the internet for everyone to see.

So, to sum up, my outside advice would be to tell people that there are no local paid clergy, but that the highest clergy receive compensation, and then to have that compensation easily transparent.

RE: your several points and summary:

1. I think the difference is that they accept and fulfill their calling irrespective of pay, and don’t seek out better religious opportunities for the sake of better pay.

2. I think this is part of the principle found in Mosiah 8:24, 26; alma 30:32.

3. See #2, and also Mosiah 27:5 in case of those who are quite elderly.

4. I agree with this sentiment (see post #148).

5. Faith with transparency is dead.

In summation, it is difficult to generalize that the highest clergy receive what is properly called compensation given the value they receive and the significant consecration required on their part. As far as transparency, I’m OK with the world exploring all that the Church does publish freely and making its own conclusions (correct or not), including that we are gullible.

[thesometimesaint]

Well, I must say that this has been a fascinating thread to read. I've got a couple of thoughts from a non-LDS perspective.

First, it is clear that some general authorities are being paid something, no matter what it is called. They are receiving money. Add to this that they are the highest leaders/clergy (apostles, prophets), it seems that making a claim that there is no paid clergy is not accurate. Perhaps Mormons could say that they have no paid local clergy, which would then be more precise and not come off as deceiving when people found out that the highest leaders are given money.

Second, the source of that money, to me, is irrelevant. They are given money by the LDS church to perform duties for the LDS church. Whether or not it comes from tithing or business ventures doesn't matter as to whether or not they are clergy and they are paid.

Third, it seems disingenuous to me to declare that general authorities are paid for their administrative duties but not for their ministering. Almost any paid clergy of any church could make that same claim, as paid clergy have lots of administrative duties. I also found it odd that someone would claim that LDS apostles and prophets are business administrators, not ministers. That seems to contradict the heavy emphasis placed upon them, especially on the president of the church, as God's true representatives.

Fourth, I think the one poster who tried to show that LDS people have to pay money to receive ordinances had a good point. Yes, I understand that you do not have to pay at the moment of going (except for temple clothing rental? I hadn't heard of that), but 10% tithing is required for temple admission, right? That is decent amount of money. Now, as a Catholic, I have no problem with the principle that the faithful are supposed to support the church. It is a sin in Catholicism not to, much like it sounds like it is a sin in the LDS church.

Finally, it is clear from this thread that there is no transparency in the issue of general authorities and their compensation. Why is that? I can go down to my diocesan offices and get a list of all employees for the diocese, including priests and the bishop, and the amount of money they are being paid. It is very open and clear. I suspect that if the same were done with general authorities, then the mystery would disappear and everyone would move on to something else. However, the lack of transparency, coupled with the declaration that there is no paid clergy, points people's perception toward the idea that something is being covered up. I understand that people feel that their salary is private, but many government agencies post the salaries of their employees. In my state, every public school employee's salary is posted on the internet for everyone to see.

So, to sum up, my outside advice would be to tell people that there are no local paid clergy, but that the highest clergy receive compensation, and then to have that compensation easily transparent.

Paul was a tent maker. No one here is suggesting that Paul should have not been paid for his work as a tent maker. Peter was a fisherman no one here is suggesting that Peter should have not been paid for his fish. What Peter and Paul didn't do was get paid for preaching.

No; They are paid for their secular services connected to the business properties owned by the Church.

All depends on whether someone is seeking after worldly fame and fortune or after Zion.

That is really a false equivalency. No one here is suggesting that Peter or Paul shouldn't have been paid for their secular activities.even though they were Gods' true representatives. I'll not go into Catholic Cardinals and Popes whom lived richer than Kings.

We don't have to pay any money to receive every thing this Church has to offer.

Unlike the Catholic Church we have a lay ministry. It is all voluntary work for us.

That is the difference between government and private. You don't get any say in how much I get paid.