Paid Clergy?

[Maestrophil]

Hi all,

I have heard many times the charge that the LDS church is mis-representing the truth by stating they have no paid clergy while the general authorities do get money from the church...

I would like to hear from people on this, specifically answering the following questions/opinions I have heard:

1. How much money do the GA's get paid by the LDS church as a "stipend"? Which GA's get paid? Seventies and up?

2. How much income they make is tied to their service vs. private investments etc.?

3. Do you see a problem with this apparent dichotomy? Why or why not?

4. I have heard assertions of 6 and 7 figure incomes for the GAs as compensations for their service? True or not?

Look forward to getting educated! :-)

Thanks

MP

[JAHS]

When the curch says it has no paid clergy, it is in reference to those who minister at the local level, compared to local ministers of other faiths who do receive a salary.

As to the professional clergy, Paul warned,

"Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake" (Titus 1:11).

That's not to suggest that all paid ministers fall into this category. There are many who have faithfully dedicated their lives to their ministry and accept a salary to take care of their needs as they serve full-time.

Joseph Smith said:

“The Twelve and the Seventy have particularly to depend upon their ministry for their support, and that of their families; and they have a right, by virtue of their offices, to call upon the churches to assist them.” (TPJS 75)

Today, for the same reason, this includes a few of the General Authorities of the Church and mission Presidents, who receive a modest living allowance from interest on investments the church has made in the past. But this is not what you would call a salary and nobody could get rich from it.

There has never been a "professional clergy" in the Church. The church has always been ministered by members who have accepted callings to serve. No Bishop has ever been "hired" nor has one ever aspired to such a calling in order to make a living of it. It has always been through callings.

What has turned people off over the centuries about professional clergy are those very few unscrupulous local ministers who have taken advantage of their position and influence over people and have gotten rich off their position in their church.

Edited March 8, 2013 by JAHS

[Freedom]

We do not have a professional clergy. The general authorities are not paid out of the tithes of the church but rather from the commercial arm. The general authorities are administrators, the ministering is left to the local leaders. The vast majority of the general authorities are retired and in sound financial condition and do not require financial assistance.

[saemo]

When the curch says it has no paid clergy, it is in reference to those who minister at the local level, compared to local ministers of other faiths who do receive a salary.

As to the professional clergy, Paul warned,

"Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake" (Titus 1:11).

Isn't Titus 1:11 speaking about a community of believers, and not clergy in particular? (see verse 10 and also Titus 3:8-9)

That's not to suggest that all paid ministers fall into this category. There are many who have faithfully dedicated their lives to their ministry and accept a salary to take care of their needs as they serve full-time.

Joseph Smith said:

“The Twelve and the Seventy have particularly to depend upon their ministry for their support, and that of their families; and they have a right, by virtue of their offices, to call upon the churches to assist them.” (TPJS 75)

And St. Paul said: "Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching.

For the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is threshing, and, “A worker deserves his pay.”"

There has never been a "professional clergy" in the Church. The church has always been ministered by members who have accepted callings to serve. No Bishop has ever been "hired" nor has one ever aspired to such a calling in order to make a living of it. It has always been through callings.

What has turned people off over the centuries about professional clergy are those very few unscrupulous local ministers who have taken advantage of their position and influence over people and have gotten rich off their position in their church.

Yes, but over the course of hundreds of years there are the good and the bad. It is human nature, which, isn't any different in Mormonism.

http://www.sltrib.co...bishop.html.csp

http://www.deseretne...eal.html?pg=all

Edited March 8, 2013 by saemo

[Sleeper Cell]

Hi all,

I have heard many times the charge that the LDS church is mis-representing the truth by stating they have no paid clergy while the general authorities do get money from the church...

I would like to hear from people on this, specifically answering the following questions/opinions I have heard:

1. How much money do the GA's get paid by the LDS church as a "stipend"? Which GA's get paid? Seventies and up?

2. How much income they make is tied to their service vs. private investments etc.?

3. Do you see a problem with this apparent dichotomy? Why or why not?

4. I have heard assertions of 6 and 7 figure incomes for the GAs as compensations for their service? True or not?

Look forward to getting educated! :-)

Thanks

MP

The church has well over 20,000 congregations, each of which is staffed by unpaid clergy. If we limit the definition of “Mormon clergy” strictly to members of the bishopric (many others perform pastoral and other “clergy” functions), that comes to 60,000 unpaid clergy. Add in the (unpaid) full time missionaries, and the LDS church has (by a very conservative estimate) well over 100,000 unpaid clergy.

Yes, general authorities and mission presidents are offered a stipend. Assuming that all of them accept the stipend (some are well enough off to forgo it), the LDS church has fewer than 500 paid clergy and well over 100,000 unpaid clergy. Technically, it would be more accurate to say that virtually all LDS clergy are unpaid. It’s still a pretty remarkable achievement, but if someone wants to make us out liars for a very slight hyperbole (less than one half of one percent), so be it.

I see no problem with this “apparent dichotomy.” General Authorities and mission presidents are expected to devote full time to their ministry. They usually have families to support Under the circumstances, it would be unreasonable to ask them to give up their paid employment for full time church service and impoverish themselves and their families, when such as sacrifice is not necessary. Add to this the fact that the few “paid LDS clergy” are drawn from the ranks of those who have given many, many years of service as unpaid clergy, and after a few years as “paid clergy,” nearly all of them will return to the ranks of “unpaid clergy.”

Re: assertions of 7 figure incomes. If those making such assertions had any supporting evidence, why are they keeping it secret?

[JAHS]

Isn't Titus 1:11 speaking about a community of believers, and not clergy in particular? (see verse 10 and also Titus 3:8-9)

And St. Paul said: "Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching.

For the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is threshing, and, “A worker deserves his pay.”"

Yes, but over the course of hundreds of years there are the good and the bad. It is human nature, which, isn't any different in Mormonism.

http://www.sltrib.co...bishop.html.csp

http://www.deseretne...eal.html?pg=all

The Titus 1 chapter is talking about Church leaders such as Bishops. In verse 7 it says:

"For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;"

It is certainly improper for anyone to condemn other Christian churches for compensating their ministers who dedicate their entire lives (like our General Authorities) to serving their local congregations. It all comes down to what is in a person's heart and his attitude about the work he does. Is he only doing it as just a job that earns him a salary and the praise of man (ie "filthy lucre"), or is he doing it to give unselfish service to God and those he ministers to?

Edited March 8, 2013 by JAHS

[Buzzard]

Just as a side note, many of the GA's and a few MP's receive nothing from the church, since they are retired and/or independently wealthy. Some make enough from book royalties that a church stipend would be pocket change.

[pmccombs1]

Hi all,

I have heard many times the charge that the LDS church is mis-representing the truth by stating they have no paid clergy while the general authorities do get money from the church...

I would like to hear from people on this, specifically answering the following questions/opinions I have heard:

1. How much money do the GA's get paid by the LDS church as a "stipend"? Which GA's get paid? Seventies and up?

2. How much income they make is tied to their service vs. private investments etc.?

3. Do you see a problem with this apparent dichotomy? Why or why not?

4. I have heard assertions of 6 and 7 figure incomes for the GAs as compensations for their service? True or not?

Look forward to getting educated! :-)

Thanks

MP

Who knows? I've heard up to 70% of the executive salary of an incoming GA. It's all rumor. But I've heard nothing that would suggest these men would be attracted to the job on account of a generous stipend--for most, it is almost certainly a reduction in income and probably in lifestyle too. The Lord has gotten into the habit of talking to successful, level-headed and rather boring men. It seems, however, that He isn't adverse to providing a good, Western style living to them if not quite the one they had before. The church isn't in the business of making ascetics of anyone.

Of course, being a GA is probably an automatic "in" for those wanting to publish a book or something like that. I have no doubt that the title carries a good deal of remunerative potential from other sources.

I wish we financially supported our local leadership and sent less to the corporate church. I really don't care for the lay clergy and the notion of everyone having a calling. Most of us fill our callings rather poorly, IMO. I get a strong sense of boundless mediocrity. Besides, it generally saddles us with a "Sunday Job" which is absolutely exhausting after a non-stop week, and it feels quite un-Sabbathy if you ask me. Whine, whine, whine, gripe, gripe, gripe. Thanks for listening. I feel better now.

[mfbukowski]

Hi all,

I have heard many times the charge that the LDS church is mis-representing the truth by stating they have no paid clergy while the general authorities do get money from the church...

I would like to hear from people on this, specifically answering the following questions/opinions I have heard:

1. How much money do the GA's get paid by the LDS church as a "stipend"? Which GA's get paid? Seventies and up?

2. How much income they make is tied to their service vs. private investments etc.?

3. Do you see a problem with this apparent dichotomy? Why or why not?

4. I have heard assertions of 6 and 7 figure incomes for the GAs as compensations for their service? True or not?

Look forward to getting educated! :-)

Thanks

MP

Well because most of the people who post here are General Authorities and apostles, I am absolutely positive that any information you glean from here will be exactly correct.

I mean it's not like there are a bunch of people here who have absolutely no clue how much these brethren are paid or anything. Of course there are a few who are accountants to GA's and those are very willing to disclose all they know on a public forum like this.

What a great and informative thread this will be!! No speculation, just facts! What a great idea!!

[mfbukowski]

The church has well over 20,000 congregations, each of which is staffed by unpaid clergy. If we limit the definition of “Mormon clergy” strictly to members of the bishopric (many others perform pastoral and other “clergy” functions), that comes to 60,000 unpaid clergy. Add in the (unpaid) full time missionaries, and the LDS church has (by a very conservative estimate) well over 100,000 unpaid clergy.

Yes, general authorities and mission presidents are offered a stipend. Assuming that all of them accept the stipend (some are well enough off to forgo it), the LDS church has fewer than 500 paid clergy and well over 100,000 unpaid clergy. Technically, it would be more accurate to say that virtually all LDS clergy are unpaid. It’s still a pretty remarkable achievement, but if someone wants to make us out liars for a very slight hyperbole (less than one half of one percent), so be it.

I see no problem with this “apparent dichotomy.” General Authorities and mission presidents are expected to devote full time to their ministry. They usually have families to support Under the circumstances, it would be unreasonable to ask them to give up their paid employment for full time church service and impoverish themselves and their families, when such as sacrifice is not necessary. Add to this the fact that the few “paid LDS clergy” are drawn from the ranks of those who have given many, many years of service as unpaid clergy, and after a few years as “paid clergy,” nearly all of them will return to the ranks of “unpaid clergy.”

Re: assertions of 7 figure incomes. If those making such assertions had any supporting evidence, why are they keeping it secret?

On the other hand, can GA's be considered "clergy" at all? How about "administrative staff"?

I mean do they sit down and counsel people who are getting divorced on a regular basis? How about holding the hand of a dying sister? Do they write up food orders for the needy or counsel the widow about her tithing?

On rare occasions, and in their personal wards, as home teachers, I am sure they do. But they do not get paid to do home teaching.

[sjdawg]

There has never been a "professional clergy" in the Church. The church has always been ministered by members who have accepted callings to serve. No Bishop has ever been "hired" nor has one ever aspired to such a calling in order to make a living of it. It has always been through callings.

What has turned people off over the centuries about professional clergy are those very few unscrupulous local ministers who have taken advantage of their position and influence over people and have gotten rich off their position in their church.

I once heard that in the past Bishops and Stake Presidents were paid (a long time ago). Does anyone know if it that really was the case?

[Buzzard]

I once heard that in the past Bishops and Stake Presidents were paid (a long time ago). Does anyone know if it that really was the case?

Don't know if this is still the case, but my old bishop growing up in the 70's said he was paid a hundred buck a year for "mileage". He used it to take his bishopric and their wives out for a nice dinner each year. If a hundred dollars annually constitutes paying our clergy, well, that's a pretty liberal definition.

[sjdawg]

Don't know if this is still the case, but my old bishop growing up in the 70's said he was paid a hundred buck a year for "mileage". He used it to take his bishopric and their wives out for a nice dinner each year. If a hundred dollars annually constitutes paying our clergy, well, that's a pretty liberal definition.

I had heard that many many years ago they actually received a bit of a stipend. I know that my Stake President and High Councillors get reimbursed for mileage which seems fair and I wouldn't consider it payment for anything. Our Stake covers a fairly large geographic area so they can rack up a lot of miles.

[Questing Beast]

What about Alma's declaration that he had labored all his life for his own support? It seems that "general authorities" amongst the Nephites were not given stipends. But then the BoM is not advocating that modern Americans must behave the same way. It is my understanding that the GAs serve on the boards of directors of Church owned businesses, from which any stipends are drawn. It can be debated that they are in fact laboring for their own support, even while serving as GAs....

[JAHS]

I once heard that in the past Bishops and Stake Presidents were paid (a long time ago). Does anyone know if it that really was the case?

Actually there is a scripture that tells us that the LDS Bishop and his counselors in the early days of the church should receive financial support:

"And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned; Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop. And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church." (D&C 42:71-73)

Because the saints in the early days were so spread out it took a lot of time, effort and expenses for a Bishop to minister to everyone with not much time to take care of their own family needs. As the LDS church became settled in Utah and continued to grow the organization developed to the point where Bishops, who now live closer to their members, could delegate many responsibilities to others, such as home and visiting teachers; thereby giving them the oportunity to make a living, no longer needing to be remunerated for their living expenses.

[Five Solas]

Don't omit CES from the count. Paid LDS institute and seminary directors & instructors perform many of the same functions as the "paid clergy" of Christian denominations. They lead, they teach, they counsel, they give "callings" to their students to lead and participate in their student councils, etc. Back in the day, it was a matter of some grievance for student ward bishops that the local institute director would cherry pick the best students for his roles, leaving them unavailable to serve in traditional ward capacities. As ward clerk, I got to witness a bit of the tension first hand.

Let's keep the math honest, folks.

--Erik

[Sleeper Cell]

Don't omit CES from the count. Paid LDS institute and seminary directors & instructors perform many of the same functions as the "paid clergy" of Christian denominations. They lead, they teach, they counsel, they give "callings" to their students to lead and participate in their student councils, etc. Back in the day, it was a matter of some grievance for student ward bishops that the local institute director would cherry pick the best students for his roles, leaving them unavailable to serve in traditional ward capacities. As ward clerk, I got to witness a bit of the tension first hand.

Let's keep the math honest, folks.

--Erik

These are also many of the same functions as high school teachers. My secular teachers led, they taught, they counseled, and they even gave out “callings” (we usually called them “assignments“). IIRC, CES instructors are not supposed to give ecclesiastical counseling. The point is not whether some of the duties of CES instructors are similar to duties performed by the clergy in another denomination it is whether or not the LDS church considers them clergy.

You want to keep the math honest? Fine, lets keep the math honest. For starters, aren’t most seminary instructors unpaid?

For the purpose of discussion, I restricted the definition of Mormon clergy to bishoprics, full time missionaries, mission presidents, and general authorities. I didn’t even include stake presidencies and members of the high council. If we are going to expand the definition to include CES instructors, why omit Sunday school teachers, Primary teachers, and Relief Society and PH instructors? While we are at it, what about PH quorum presidencies, group leaders, Relief Society presidencies, and for that matter, what about home teachers and visiting teachers? Lets also add back in stake presidencies and members of the high council.

By this expanded definition of “clergy,” the LDS church probably averages well over 100 unpaid clergy per congregation rather than just the 3 members of the bishopric I used in my calculations. Let’s see. 20,000 congregations times 100 clergy per congregation -- that comes to two million unpaid clergy, not even counting the full time missionaries. How many paid CES teachers are there? Far less than 10,000? Add in the approximately 500 general authorities and mission presidents (even though they are not all paid) and call it a total of 10,000 paid clergy (and probably considerably less, even using your expanded definition) compared to two million unpaid clergy. We are now back to my original estimate that over 99.5% of LDS clergy are unpaid, even using what is probably a grossly inflated estimate of the number of paid CES teachers.

As I said before:

Technically, it would be more accurate to say that virtually all LDS clergy are unpaid. … if someone wants to make us out liars for a very slight hyperbole (less than one half of one percent), so be it

Edited March 9, 2013 by Sleeper Cell

[Freedom]

CES teachers are not ministers. They are full time teachers. They have no ecclesiastical authority.

[rpn]

bishops and stake presidents still do get mileage and phone bills paid sometimes. But those are expenses in the course of their church duties, not payment for services. How unreasonable would it be to call them to service and then require they spend their own money to discharge their duties.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Hi all,

I have heard many times the charge that the LDS church is mis-representing the truth by stating they have no paid clergy while the general authorities do get money from the church...

I would like to hear from people on this, specifically answering the following questions/opinions I have heard:

1. How much money do the GA's get paid by the LDS church as a "stipend"? Which GA's get paid? Seventies and up?

2. How much income they make is tied to their service vs. private investments etc.?

3. Do you see a problem with this apparent dichotomy? Why or why not?

4. I have heard assertions of 6 and 7 figure incomes for the GAs as compensations for their service? True or not?

Look forward to getting educated! :-)

Thanks

MP

GA's are employees of the Church and have other duties in many cases.

[Storm Rider]

Hi all,

I have heard many times the charge that the LDS church is mis-representing the truth by stating they have no paid clergy while the general authorities do get money from the church...

I would like to hear from people on this, specifically answering the following questions/opinions I have heard:

1. How much money do the GA's get paid by the LDS church as a "stipend"? Which GA's get paid? Seventies and up?

2. How much income they make is tied to their service vs. private investments etc.?

3. Do you see a problem with this apparent dichotomy? Why or why not?

4. I have heard assertions of 6 and 7 figure incomes for the GAs as compensations for their service? True or not?

I have no idea what any of the General Authorities of the Church get paid or who gets paid among them and who does not. But if I had to guess, I would say each of them is paid a monthly stipend of $25 Million dollars. Now, having shared this information that is vital to one's personal happiness, I would like to know how these buggers spend that money. I am certain they must buy giant homes throughout the world, own numerous luxury cars in each location, and spend scads on jewelry, furs, etc. for their spouses and family members, and wear the most expensive of clothing. Does that sound remotely like any of the General Authorities? Of course not. Here is what is clear, regardless of how much or how little they are paid, they live modestly. They do not flaunt wealth or spend money foolishly. They are men of varying talents that strive to do their best to serve God. I apologize for not being able to answer your questions directly, but I did what I could. Cheers,

[halconero]

I would make the argument that full-time missionaries could also fall under the category of "paid" ministers. I say this because, while we do contribute to a fund, the money they receive monthly on their card is not legally theirs.

The fund roughly equalizes the amount missionaries pay for their mission costs around the world. They then receive a stipend from general church funds.

While this is true...I never really felt like I was working for a pay-cheque as a missionary for what I was doing. In a very real way I was living the law of consecration. I gave all that I had to the Kingdom for those two years and the Kingdom gave back to me according to my needs. I imagine it being similar for General Authorities.

[Tacenda]

Ok, this is an observation. I have noticed the Presidency wear cufflinks instead of the regular shirt with buttons. Whenever I see this, I think of rich CEO's. I think that they probably get paid more than some here think. But until it's transparent we'll never know. But I don't begrudge them of it if they do.

[Storm Rider]

Ok, this is an observation. I have noticed the Presidency wear cufflinks instead of the regular shirt with buttons. Whenever I see this, I think of rich CEO's. I think that they probably get paid more than some here think. But until it's transparent we'll never know. But I don't begrudge them of it if they do.

I will occasionally wear cufflinks, but it is a matter of taste and what I feel like on the day in question. The vast majority of the time I don't use cufflinks because, frankly, I am too lazy to mess with putting them on. I personally have trouble wearing a watch and a ring, much less any other form of jewelry. On the other hand, I would bet my white shirt with buttons costs more than the French cuff shirt they are wearing with cufflinks. I would still ask, how do these individuals live their lives? Are they flamboyantly spending money or not? If not, what is the real issue of the topic at hand and what is the objective of those who pose it ad nauseum? How many have seen these gentlemen going around in a Rolls Royce? How many house servants do they have to care for their daily needs? How often are they eating in the best restaurants in the city?

[halconero]

Ok, this is an observation. I have noticed the Presidency wear cufflinks instead of the regular shirt with buttons. Whenever I see this, I think of rich CEO's. I think that they probably get paid more than some here think. But until it's transparent we'll never know. But I don't begrudge them of it if they do.

I wear cufflinks and I'm a poor student...