Cobalt-70 Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 Where do the scriptures say that going without purse or script meant the church organization was the pay for the missionaries? That seems to be an interpretation without support.The word translated in the KJV as "purse" means money, the word "scrip" means travelers bag. If a missionary literally takes no money of his own, and no luggage, then who--other than the church or, potentially, investigators--is supposed to supply them with money, food, and clothing?Also, missionaries ARE supported by donations from members: either it is a donation from the missionaries parents, one from the missionary themseles, from a member/members of their ward, or from donations of members in other wards. No missionary is ever stopped from going on a mission because they don't have the money. You can bet that in JS's day, if a missionary had the means to support themselves, they would not have been asking other members to do so.And, in the U.S. anyway, missionaries do live in members' houses free of charge whenever that is possible.Couple missionaries still directly pay their own way. And in any event, there is an expectation that the missionary herself or himself donates money to the fund from which her or his expenses are drawn. That, in addition to paying tithing on 10% of his or her income. Historically, we've been moving away from requiring more than 10% of tithing from members. Buildings and activity expenses are now paid from tithing funds. Why not missionary expenses? Which is more central to the basic function of the church--clothing for a missionary, or hiring a DJ for the YSA dance? Yet we pay for the DJ with tithing funds.
volgadon Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 The word translated in the KJV as "purse" means moneyNot quite. Ballantion means something into which things are thrown, often coins. So, I'm afraid you are being imprecise. The meaning could also be not to carry anything for collecting funds either.
Cobalt-70 Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 Not quite. Ballantion means something into which things are thrown, often coins. So, I'm afraid you are being imprecise. The meaning could also be not to carry anything for collecting funds either.I don't think so. That's not now Joseph Smith interpreted it, as evidenced by D&C 84, which links the "without purse or scrip" idea with the passage in Matt. 6:25 which says "take ye no thought...for what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, or wherewithal ye shall be clothed," and then notes that "he who feeds you, or clothes you, or gives you money, shall in nowise lose his reward." Missionaries are not supposed to be concerned about money, or financing themselves, because God will provide. In Smith's day, missionaries passed around a hat for donations and asked for free room and board, relying on the kindness of nonmembers who acted as instruments of God's will. But today, the church itself is big enough, and widespread enough, to act as God's best instrument in providing for missionaries from general church funds.
volgadon Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 I don't think so. That's not now Joseph Smith interpreted it, as evidenced by D&C 84, which links the "without purse or scrip" idea with the passage in Matt. 6:25 which says "take ye no thought...for what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, or wherewithal ye shall be clothed," and then notes that "he who feeds you, or clothes you, or gives you money, shall in nowise lose his reward." Missionaries are not supposed to be concerned about money, or financing themselves, because God will provide. In Smith's day, missionaries passed around a hat for donations and asked for free room and board, relying on the kindness of nonmembers who acted as instruments of God's will. But today, the church itself is big enough, and widespread enough, to act as God's best instrument in providing for missionaries from general church funds.It is ok, another of your imprecisions which you kind of brush away. It would also help if you were to read my posts. Also, as some have mentioned, missionaries are provided for from general church funds. However, one is also expected to sacrifice what one can.
go_utes01 Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 I think that means while on a mission, the missionary should not be concerned about money, but rather be focused on spreading God's word/love. I don't think that precludes the idea that a missionary-to-be should not save and sacrifice for their mission. When people plan for and sacrifice for something, they tend to appreciate it and take it more seriously. And, as already been pointed out, no would-be missionaries are prevented from going on missions for lack of funds, after all they can do. 2
Calm Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 Missionaries are not supposed to be concerned about money, or financing themselves, because God will provide. Missionaries aren't concerned about money because arrangements are made prior to the mission to ensure financing.
Calm Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) Historically, we've been moving away from requiring more than 10% of tithing from members. Buildings and activity expenses are now paid from tithing funds. Why not missionary expenses? Which is more central to the basic function of the church--clothing for a missionary, or hiring a DJ for the YSA dance? Yet we pay for the DJ with tithing funds.What is more central to the personal spiritual development of an individual---paying for a DJ or personally contributing to the spreading of the Gospel? We have separate funds for fast offerings and humanitarian projects as well as missionary funding. Those which are lumped together--building and activity expenses, etc. are on a different spiritual sacrifice level than those we have been specifically commanded to contribute to and have covenanted to do so. To lump them all together would rob people of the opportunity to sacrifice specifically for an effort that has unique spiritual blessings attached to it. Edited January 6, 2013 by calmoriah
thesometimesaint Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) cobalt-70:Add in that in many countries it is illegal for non-citizens to be there without visible means of support. Edited January 6, 2013 by thesometimesaint
mfbukowski Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 cobalt-70:Add in that in many countries it is illegal for non-citizens to be there without visible means of support.They are just trying to keep out Martians with anti-gravity devices. You really can't blame them.
Recommended Posts