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

[DavidB]

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.

A good point, on no paid local clergy. Though, I would not use the word "paid" to refer to the living allowance General Authorities receive.

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.

The source of the living allowance is relevant, as it shows that tithing monies are not used.

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.

I agree.

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.

10% tithing is not required for Temple admission, generally yes, an all encompassing requirement, No. As I posted earlier, there is a difference between those who can and do give a full tithe, those who can not, and those who will not.

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.

Providing the amounts for the living allowance would only provide more fodder critics.

[MiserereNobis]

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.

But that doesn't change the fact that they are paid. I assume we are both in agreement that seeking out religious positions solely for pay is wrong. I know my parish priest didn't accept his vocation because of the money... in fact, he was making better money before he went to seminary.

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.

Would you (or someone) mind giving me the principle explained in those chapters? Thanks! (it's often easier to have someone explain their scriptures than to read it and try to get their interpretation out of it)

5. Faith with transparency is dead.

I am a little confused here. I understand that faith and perfect knowledge (if there is even such a thing) seem to be mutually exclusive, but I don't know what this has to do with the amount of money the general authorities are being paid. Surely monetary compensation for general authorities doesn't fall under the umbrella of faith?

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.

This is not relevant to whether or not they are paid/compensated/whatever you want to call it. It appears to be inaccurate to say that the LDS church has no paid clergy, when the highest clergy members receive money from the LDS church, even if that money isn't very much (but no one knows how much they receive, right?) and even if they work very hard. My parish priest receives little money and works incredibly hard, yet that doesn't mean he isn't paid clergy.

[MiserereNobis]

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.

I'm not sure how much time Paul had to make tents and sell them while he was running all over the Roman empire making converts. I suspect he was helped financially/materially along the way

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

Clarify, please. The prophet and the apostles are paid to run businesses?

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

I absolutely agree.

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.

No need to go red herring on the excesses of the Catholic clergy. We all agree it was sinful -- Dante had no problem putting Popes in hell, for example. I'm not criticizing the LDS church for paying the highest clergy; I'm simply saying that LDS members should admit as much. I thought saying "we have no paid local clergy" is a more accurate statement.

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

One can receive temple ceremonies without paying tithing?

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

You should go to a Catholic parish and see all the things that the lay people do on a volunteer basis. Only the priest is paid.

ETA: My apologies -- I forgot that our parish secretary is paid, too. But that is clearly an administrative position only.

Edited December 29, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[DavidB]

What sets us apart from other religions is gospel we claim as LDS.

We only look foolish in trying to claim that our General Authorities who receive a living allowance do not receive a living allowance. We border on absurdity in making factual claims as to what services rendered are the reason for the living allowance - when we have no evidence to support the claim.

It is known that General Authorities and Mission Presidents receive a living allowance or some form of monies from the Church. It is known that living allowance for General Authories is monies from the business arm of the Church. To make claims beyond that is wild speculation.

Edited December 29, 2012 by DavidB

[CV75]

But that doesn't change the fact that they are paid.

I believe it does, but it does depend on how deep an appreciation one has of the other principles I mentioned. Most superficially, are they paid well, or competitively, or commensurate with performance or in a way that can even be fully or rightly considered “pay” at all? I personally don’t think so.

Would you (or someone) mind giving me the principle explained in those chapters?

Mosiah 18:24, 26: “And he also commanded them that the priests whom he had ordained should labor with their own hands for their support… And the priests were not to depend upon the people for their support; but for their labor they were to receive the grace of God, that they might wax strong in the Spirit, having the knowledge of God, that they might teach with power and authority from God.” How this relates to LDS GAs is that those who receive support from the business arm of the Church are performing business-like tasks for the Church.

Alma 30:32: “Now Alma said unto him: Thou knowest that we do not glut ourselves upon the labors of this people; for behold I have labored even from the commencement of the reign of the judges until now, with mine own hands for my support, notwithstanding my many travels round about the land to declare the word of God unto my people.” This ties in with the comment above.

Mosiah 27:5: “Yea, and all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God.” This principle allows for clergy receiving Church support in sickness, want, etc.

I understand that faith and perfect knowledge (if there is even such a thing) seem to be mutually exclusive, but I don't know what this has to do with the amount of money the general authorities are being paid. Surely monetary compensation for general authorities doesn't fall under the umbrella of faith?

My comment was not about the money, but the relationship between faith and transparency (which allows knowledge). The level of transparency one expects is a function of faith, and the more the expected transparency, the less the faith. Some may call low transparency / great faith “gullibility” but I can’t attest that it is.

It appears to be inaccurate to say that the LDS church has no paid clergy, when the highest clergy members receive money from the LDS church

It seems just as inaccurate to say that the LDS Church has a paid clergy. Those who care about it will delve into the details and make a determination for themselves as well as understand and even appreciate the other point of view.

I described above how what the GAs receive may not even rightly be considered pay. LDS clergy hasn’t asked to be paid, doesn’t expect to be paid, wouldn’t refuse the call if not paid, and wouldn’t quit if it wasn’t paid—they do not make getting paid a condition for their involvement in either the spiritual or business affairs of the Church. If they did, they would no longer be clergy.

[DavidB]

"The primary call of a General Authority is his ecclesiastical responsibility. Except for family responsibilities, all others are secondary to this."

And

"[T]he need for our brethren [General Authorities] to give their full time and energies to the work of the ministry.

Source: ldschurchnews.com

Edited December 30, 2012 by DavidB

[Duncan]

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.

if you served in the early 70's in Germany how can your son be on a mission in the late 70's with Pres. Brough?

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

I agree. Rather than say that we have no paid clergy, we should say that over 99.99% of our clergy is unpaid, including all of our full time missionaries and all of our local leaders. Only those few serving in those leadership positions whose duties require them to give up their regular employment and serve full time are paid. I would add that even most of those are only paid for 3-5 years, after which they return to their status as unpaid clergy.

I would also add that our few paid clergy are chosen from those who have spent decades serving as unpaid clergy. and that leaving their professions to accept a full time paid church leadership position typically requires considerable financial sacrifice.

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.

I think that those who say that we have to pay money to receive temple ordinances have a bad point and that they miss the entire point of temple ordinances.

As I pointed out earlier:

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%?

I would add that as a devout Roman Catholic, you probably have encountered more than your share of misunderstanding. Ultimately, your religious practices mean what they mean to you and other devout Catholics, not what they mean to outsiders. Likewise, paying tithing means what it means to those devout LDS who actually pay tithing -- an act of religious faith, not a quid pro quo admission fee to the Temple.

　

However, if one insists in viewing tithing as a quid pro quo transaction, why stop with the temple? By that reasoning, paying tithing is a quid pro quo for being permitted to donate two years of your life to full time missionary service (for which you pay your own expenses, to boot). Paying tithing is a quid pro quo for subsequently being permitted to donate thousands of hours serving in unpaid (and time consuming) local leadership positions. And the fewer than 0.01% of the LDS clergy that actually become full time paid leaders have, by that reasoning, not only typically spent decades serving in unpaid local leadership positions, they have paid 10% of their income for decades, merely to be eligible to be considered for a position as full time clergy. And if you are one of the few who are actually selected, it will probably be a temporary position lasting 3-5 years or so.

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.

I can go down to the my stake offices and get a list of all of the clergy employed in our stake, including the bishops and the amounts they are paid. It is zero.

Is the compensation of the Pope and other high ranking Vatican clergy published? If not, I would have no problem with the fact. After all, what they are paid, if anything, is none of my business.

As for financial transparency causing people to move on to something else, please peruse any of the numerous threads about the City Creek Mall.

　

[

[Chaos]

Do not discuss what goes on in the temple. Those who continue will be removed.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not sure how much time Paul had to make tents and sell them while he was running all over the Roman empire making converts. I suspect he was helped financially/materially along the way

Clarify, please. The prophet and the apostles are paid to run businesses?

I absolutely agree.

No need to go red herring on the excesses of the Catholic clergy. We all agree it was sinful -- Dante had no problem putting Popes in hell, for example. I'm not criticizing the LDS church for paying the highest clergy; I'm simply saying that LDS members should admit as much. I thought saying "we have no paid local clergy" is a more accurate statement.

One can receive temple ceremonies without paying tithing?

You should go to a Catholic parish and see all the things that the lay people do on a volunteer basis. Only the priest is paid.

ETA: My apologies -- I forgot that our parish secretary is paid, too. But that is clearly an administrative position only.

It is really quite simple Peter and Paul weren't paid for their preaching. They earned money by working in their trades.

GA's earn money by being on the Board of Directors of Church owned business.

The most accurate statement is that no one in the Church is paid for their preaching. Side incomes are irrelevant, and a distraction.

We're far from perfect. So I'm not going to cast stones at the many wonderful Catholics that served and serve in their church. In many way I admire the time, effort and devotion to God Catholics at all levels give. Ours is just a different way promoting the Kingdom. It fits me.

Yes, and I know several that do. We are simply asked to give 10% of increase to our Church. We individually decide what, if any, that increase is. There are many more qualifications for Temple worship. A wrong answer to any one of them makes a Temple Recommend problematic.

I have no problem with how the Catholics run their church activities. In HS I went to a Catholic one. I always admired the devotion and time those good Fathers and lay teachers put into their work trying to teach a bunch of numb skull teenagers.

[DavidB]

GA's earn money by being on the Board of Directors of Church owned business.

CFR

The most accurate statement is that no one in the Church is paid for their preaching. Side incomes are irrelevant, and a distraction.

The most accurate statement is no one is paid, however General Authorities receive a living allowance, which allowance comes from monies of the business ARM of the Church. We do not know which General Authorities receive this allowance. We know that the primary duty is his ecclesiastical duty.

[thesometimesaint]

CFR

The most accurate statement is no one is paid, however General Authorities receive a living allowance, which allowance comes from monies of the business ARM of the Church. We do not know which General Authorities receive this allowance. We know that the primary duty is his ecclesiastical duty.

They sure as heck don't sit on director boards for their health.

My guess would be that few if any past the administration of David O. McKay got much if anything of a living allowance. Mostly in the form of the in kind type. IE; The Prophets gets the use of a car and the chauffeur at no cost to him.

[DavidB]

They sure as heck don't sit on director boards for their health.

My guess would be that few if any past the administration of David O. McKay got much if anything of a living allowance. Mostly in the form of the in kind type. IE; The Prophets gets the use of a car and the chauffeur at no cost to him.

Wouldn't it be wiser to not speculate?

General Authories receive a living allowance, that is all we know. We also know a General Authority primary duty is his ecclesiastical duty. We do not know why a General Authority receives a living allowance.

We most certainly do not know the itemized services render for which a living allowance is provided.

Rather than create a myth to be taken as fact how about we just stick to what we know.

General Authorities receive a living allowance which is provided by monies from the business arm of the Church and not from tithing funds.

Edited December 30, 2012 by DavidB

[omni]

I don't understand why were so embarrassed to admit that some of the top leadership is paid. These are men who are working full time for the church and who were often called at the highest income earning potential of their careers. They didn't as for the position, so you bet they should be paid, especially those who weren't independently wealthy.

About this whole living stipend everyone keeps mentioning. It makes it sound as if they getting some kind of voucher towards their mortgage and some food stamps. Does anyone really believe that President Monson is just getting a small stipend to barely cover his living expenses? I would hope not, he's been an apostle since he was 36 and should be taken care. I would have no problem if he was paid in the low six figures and believe that he probably is (don't ask me to prove this).

[Tacenda]

Wouldn't it be wiser to not speculate?

General Authories receive a living allowance, that is all we know. We also know a General Authority primary duty is his ecclesiastical duty. We do not know why a General Authority receives a living allowance.

We most certainly do not know the itemized services render for which a living allowance is provided.

Rather than create a myth to be taken as fact how about we just stick to what we.

General Authorities receive a living allowance which is provided by monies from the business arm of the Church and not from tithing funds.

I read online where several GA's sit on boards of the various businesses owned by the church. I don't have that now, but can look for it. But pretty sure it's not a big deal. Maybe if they didn't sit on the boards it would feel like the church is just a corporation like any other.

[DavidB]

I read online where several GA's sit on boards of the various businesses owned by the church. I don't have that now, but can look for it. But pretty sure it's not a big deal. Maybe if they didn't sit on the boards it would feel like the church is just a corporation like any other.

General authorities to withdraw from posts on corporate boards

Published: Saturday, Jan. 20, 1996

Print | Email | Share

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve issued the following statement Jan. 18:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is now established in more than 150 nations and political entities. Its membership presently exceeds 9,300,000. Within a short time membership outside the United States will exceed that in the United States. With this growth comes an ever increasing responsibility for the world-wide supervision of the work and the training of local leadership. This is placing greater demands upon the General Authorities of the Church."The primary call of a General Authority is his ecclesiastical responsibility. Except for family responsibilities, all others are secondary to this.

"In view of this situation the First Presidency has suggested that General Authorities withdraw from membership on the boards of directors of business corporations. This will include membership on boards of Church-owned corporations, as well as those of a public and private nature.

"So that there will not be any sudden disruption occasioned by the release of a number at one time, it is proposed that those involved will continue until the next regular annual meetings of the corporations with which they are associated, at which time they will resign or will not stand for re-election.

"We recognize that officers and boards of various corporations highly value the talents and wisdom of General Authorities presently serving. We are hopeful, however, that they will accept the need for our brethren to give their full time and energies to the work of the ministry.

"It is anticipated that there will be one exception. With reference to Church-owned corporations, most of these are now subsidiaries of Deseret Management Corporation, which is owned by the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In these circumstances this will continue as a holding company with its board comprised of representatives from the ranks of the General Authorities."

Edited December 31, 2012 by DavidB

[DavidB]

From the Church, general authorities are to devote full time to the work of the ministry.

From the Church, it is acknowledged that General Authorities recieve a living allowance.

Conclusions?

General Authorities living allowance is in part due to their full time service to the ministry.

Edited December 31, 2012 by DavidB

[Batgirlsmom]

Question:

What is the difference between a "living allowance" a "stipend" and a "salary"? They all appear to be synonyms. I mean, my husband is paid a series of allowances (including a housing allowance) for his job - and all of that is included under "salary" - both in vernacular usage of the term and for the purposes of the tax man.

[DavidB]

Question:

What is the difference between a "living allowance" a "stipend" and a "salary"? They all appear to be synonyms. I mean, my husband is paid a series of allowances (including a housing allowance) for his job - and all of that is included under "salary" - both in vernacular usage of the term and for the purposes of the tax man.

My guess is whether the tax man considers it income, which might depend on whether there is an employer/employee relationship; all speculation on my part.