Paid Clergy?

[bluebell]

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.

I know my parents paid $375 a month for me when i was on my mission, and i recieved $144 a month. I understand what you are saying, but yeah, it definitely did not feel like i was being paid to be there.

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

Thought provoking comments.

IIRC, the original reason for the change from having the missionaries and/or their families directly fund their missions (to donating the average cost of a mission to the missionary fund) was to meet the IRS requirements for a charitable tax deduction and to equalize the financial burden. Presumably, this also allowed the Church to have more flexibility to assign a missionary from a lower income family to a rich country with a high cost of living. If this is still how missioaries are funded, one could ask the following:

If a missionary (and/or his family) donated $500.00 a month to the missionary fund and received a $500.00 monthly stipend from the Church, was he really paid? While some may receive more than the $500.00, others presumably receive less, so as a group, wouldn't the missionaries roughly break even; hence (as a group) receive no net pay from the Church?

Your point about the monthly stipend not being legally theirs is well taken. Does the IRS considers this taxable income to the missionary? If so, is it offset by their charitable donation to the mission fund? (This probably wouldn’t mater much to young missionaries with no other income, but probably would to many of our senior missionaries).

You make an intriguing point about viewing the missionary and the general authority stipends in terms of the law of consecration. How can we aspire to one day live the law of consecration if we constantly worry about how much the general authorities are “paid,” or for that matter constantly complain about such matters as whether the church should have built something as innocuous as a shopping mall? It seems to me that the law of consecration requires a great deal of faith as well as a lot of trust in the Lord’s anointed. Plus a willingness to avoid backbiting and second guessing their decisions, and yes, even a willingness to forgive their mistakes.

[Storm Rider]

I have always chaffed a bit at this accusation regarding missionaries. I paid for my own mission and the Church paid nothing toward my mission. I know that I was not alone in this situation. Why do people think that because we now put funds into mission fund toward support of missionaries that our funds to the Church are magically turned into Church funds paying for missionaries to serve? This logic escapes me completely. As far as I can tell the fund only serves as a pass-through and nothing more. Our funds are still be used to support our missionaries. The Church is not paying for young people to serve and never has. When a young person does not have funds to serve, members make up the difference. The Church does not have a money tree out back to pay for missionaries to serve.

[Bikeemikey]

I know my parents paid $375 a month for me when i was on my mission, and i recieved $144 a month. I understand what you are saying, but yeah, it definitely did not feel like i was being paid to be there.

Don't forget the plus plus : if your mission was like mine you didn't pay for rent or other utilities out of that money. There are a lot of hidden expenses packed into the missionary work. Still most missionaries in poorer countries net less in total cash value than they contribute. I'm ok with that...

[Bikeemikey]

I have always chaffed a bit at this accusation regarding missionaries. I paid for my own mission and the Church paid nothing toward my mission. I know that I was not alone in this situation. Why do people think that because we now put funds into mission fund toward support of missionaries that our funds to the Church are magically turned into Church funds paying for missionaries to serve? This logic escapes me completely. As far as I can tell the fund only serves as a pass-through and nothing more. Our funds are still be used to support our missionaries. The Church is not paying for young people to serve and never has. When a young person does not have funds to serve, members make up the difference. The Church does not have a money tree out back to pay for missionaries to serve.

I very sorry to hear that logic escapes you...

Unless you performed you mission many many decades ago you did not pay for the cost of your mission. You paid for the cost of an average mission... You mission may have been much more or much less than this, depending on where you served.

Given that you were not actually paying for your own mission, that is the church was not reporting to your local ward your actual direct missionary expenses, it idea that one can claim they paid for their own mission in full and the church did not contribute anything, that is strange logic indeed.

The administrative burden of acutely tracking missionary contributions from local wards to their own ward missionaries would be extremely high. Hence a general missionary fund with an average mission expense request for those seekin to perform missionary duties.

I had not thought of the nonprofit impact of funds tracked directly from families to children serving... That is also an interesting consideration.

[bluebell]

Don't forget the plus plus : if your mission was like mine you didn't pay for rent or other utilities out of that money. There are a lot of hidden expenses packed into the missionary work. Still most missionaries in poorer countries net less in total cash value than they contribute. I'm ok with that...

I didn't forget. We usually had four sisters living in each apartment I stayed at though, so i think the income and expenses, while maybe not equal, were not that far off (I'm sure there were/are other missions where that was/is not the case).

I'm not complaining, i just don't know if such an arrangment is really the same as being paid. If a person had a job and all that job did was reimburse them for the money they used performing the job, i don't know anyone that would consider that as being paid to do the job.

Being paid typically means being financially compensated for the work performed. Only being reimbursed for expenses incurred doing the job (ie. you spent 500 dollars in gas doing the job and had to stay at a hotel that cost you 100 dollars, so the company gives you a check for 600 at the end of the month) doesn't seem to fit any reasonable definition of the word.

[Tacenda]

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

I know now that I think of it, it was kinda dumb to compare wearing cufflinks to having alot of wealth. I still love the presidency and see the love they have for the members.

[Storm Rider]

I very sorry to hear that logic escapes you...

Unless you performed you mission many many decades ago you did not pay for the cost of your mission. You paid for the cost of an average mission... You mission may have been much more or much less than this, depending on where you served.

Given that you were not actually paying for your own mission, that is the church was not reporting to your local ward your actual direct missionary expenses, it idea that one can claim they paid for their own mission in full and the church did not contribute anything, that is strange logic indeed.

The administrative burden of acutely tracking missionary contributions from local wards to their own ward missionaries would be extremely high. Hence a general missionary fund with an average mission expense request for those seekin to perform missionary duties.

I had not thought of the nonprofit impact of funds tracked directly from families to children serving... That is also an interesting consideration.

No need to feel sorry when logic has not been missed, but your kind hearted feelings are acknowledged. I was one of those decades ago people and yes, I was paying for my own mission back then as were many others. However, the accusation that the Church pays for missions and not the members still is a stretch. If members put in Z and Z is paid to missionaries, then where is the Church making up for what members do not pay? Is someone positing that members don't pay for missions or that they do not pay enough and the Church must take funds from elsewhere to make up for the shortfall? Does anyone have a reference to support that position? I have not read anything that makes that claim and would like to know if it is accurate.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Storm Rider

[Bikeemikey]

No need to feel sorry when logic has not been missed, but your kind hearted feelings are acknowledged. I was one of those decades ago people and yes, I was paying for my own mission back then as were many others. However, the accusation that the Church pays for missions and not the members still is a stretch. If members put in Z and Z is paid to missionaries, then where is the Church making up for what members do not pay? Is someone positing that members don't pay for missions or that they do not pay enough and the Church must take funds from elsewhere to make up for the shortfall? Does anyone have a reference to support that position? I have not read anything that makes that claim and would like to know if it is accurate.

:-) nice of you to like my digg.

I do think the current missionary funding dynamic is very different now compared to the past.

I agree with you sentiments. I just think we use the word church differently.

If the members pay for it the church has paid for it. There may be a one to one ratio between what we put in and what we get out though.

Otherwise we run into the following logic chain. All money received by the church has come from members (borrowed funds being finances by members)... This the church has never spent any money ... Only the members have.

I think the division between church and member spending is to artificial to be helpful. My tithing and any other donation to the church do not go into an investor controlled Ira - they are donations.

[Calm]

Only being reimbursed for expenses incurred doing the job (ie. you spent 500 dollars in gas doing the job and had to stay at a hotel that cost you 100 dollars, so the company gives you a check for 600 at the end of the month) doesn't seem to fit any reasonable definition of the word.

Living expenses (as in room and board) for when you are on the job are different in my opinion than for when you are not even if you would need to pay the same expenses either way. In the first case you are there because the job demands it, a missionary is not choosing how to spend 1/3 of the day while off the job doing whatever they think is important, even their choices for PD are extremely limited.

So it is more like a company paying expenses for sending a representative on business trips (though even then that rep has more personal leisure time than a missionary) than the usual daily life expenses of rent and utilities, etc.

[Calm]

I know now that I think of it, it was kinda dumb to compare wearing cufflinks to having alot of wealth. I still love the presidency and see the love they have for the members.

My husband and my dad both have cufflinks they inherited....but they both don't like french cuff shirts so don't use them. OTOH my grandfather had a few sets and used them because they were considered the appropriate style for well dressed for his day. I suspect cufflinks only become a symbol of wealth when one has a couple of dozen to choose from or spends hundreds of dollars on a set just like having a watch or a tie clasp isn't a big deal until one has a couple of dozen to choose from in order to properly match each outfit, etc. Edited March 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[Sevenbak]

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

When you get a chance to pull into a gas station, and the next pump over is Elder L. Tom Perry, putting gas into a small ordinary sedan, you might rethink any notions you have.

Have you seen Pres. Monson's home, where he lived his adult life in service to the church prior to his call as President? A small red brick rambler, neat and homley.

[Alan]

I think what we have to do, as a church, is to stop claiming we have a lay (unpaid) ministry.

A significant number of our ministers (national level and above) receive pay from the church. There is nothing wrong with that, we just need to be honest about it.

Personally, I think we should pay a stipend to our local leaders too, but I can't see it happening any time soon.

[bluebell]

I think what we have to do, as a church, is to stop claiming we have a lay (unpaid) ministry.

A significant number of our ministers (national level and above) receive pay from the church. There is nothing wrong with that, we just need to be honest about it.

Personally, I think we should pay a stipend to our local leaders too, but I can't see it happening any time soon.

Given the number of people in positions that can be considered clergy, is the number who are paid significant?

[Alan]

Given the number of people in positions that can be considered clergy, is the number who are paid significant?

It is if we claim, as we do, that we do not have a paid clergy.

[Five Solas]

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.

This could be the root of why some outsiders find LDS claims of an "unpaid clergy" misleading (i.e., special definitions)...

Edited March 9, 2013 by Five Solas

[bluebell]

This could be the root of why some outsiders find LDS claims of an "unpaid clergy" misleading (i.e., special definitions)...

What's misleading about requiring that someone have 'priestly duties' before they can be called 'clergy'?

It doesn't seem like we're the ones trying to use a 'special definition' here.

[halconero]

I didn't forget. We usually had four sisters living in each apartment I stayed at though, so i think the income and expenses, while maybe not equal, were not that far off (I'm sure there were/are other missions where that was/is not the case).

I'm not complaining, i just don't know if such an arrangment is really the same as being paid. If a person had a job and all that job did was reimburse them for the money they used performing the job, i don't know anyone that would consider that as being paid to do the job.

Being paid typically means being financially compensated for the work performed. Only being reimbursed for expenses incurred doing the job (ie. you spent 500 dollars in gas doing the job and had to stay at a hotel that cost you 100 dollars, so the company gives you a check for 600 at the end of the month) doesn't seem to fit any reasonable definition of the word.

That's actually the point I'm making. If we compare full-time junior missionaries to the general authorities then the arguement that they are really "paid" anything holds, with some differences.

[halconero]

No need to feel sorry when logic has not been missed, but your kind hearted feelings are acknowledged. I was one of those decades ago people and yes, I was paying for my own mission back then as were many others. However, the accusation that the Church pays for missions and not the members still is a stretch. If members put in Z and Z is paid to missionaries, then where is the Church making up for what members do not pay? Is someone positing that members don't pay for missions or that they do not pay enough and the Church must take funds from elsewhere to make up for the shortfall? Does anyone have a reference to support that position? I have not read anything that makes that claim and would like to know if it is accurate.

Actually...yes...tithing funds make up a big portion of overall administrative costs...I know because I looked at finances in the mission and know which money came from which funds.

Cars, gasoline, insurance (self insured), airfare, visas for foreign missionaries, having an email account managed by google and other costs mostly come from tithing funds. Our missionaries are pretty well taken care of.

[Five Solas]

What's misleading about requiring that someone have 'priestly duties' before they can be called 'clergy'?

It doesn't seem like we're the ones trying to use a 'special definition' here.

You need to look at it from an outsider's perspective, bluebell.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

An outsider, looking at the functions of CES personnel (some of which I listed previously), would reasonably conclude he (or she) was a paid minister. So when Sleeper Cell tells us the only thing that matters is what the LDS Church "considers" to be clergy...

You get my point.

--Erik

Edited March 10, 2013 by Five Solas

[bluebell]

You need to look at it from an outsider's perspective, bluebell.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

An outsider, looking at the functions of CES personnel (some of which I listed previously), would reasonably conclude he (or she) was a paid minister. So when Sleeper Cell tells us the only thing that matters is what the LDS Church "considers" to be clergy...

You get my point.

--Erik

I really don't get your point. A CES worker is just a teacher. Are teachers considered clergy in other religions?

[Bikeemikey]

I really don't get your point. A CES worker is just a teacher. Are teachers considered clergy in other religions?

Often times yes.

[bluebell]

Often times yes.

So according to other church's lingo, the LDS church almost has more clergy than lay members. I've been a member of the clergy almost constantly since I was 18.

I never knew other churches considered me equal to their pastors in religious position. Very interesting but hard to believe.

[Bikeemikey]

So according to other church's lingo, the LDS church almost has more clergy than lay members. I've been a member of the clergy almost constantly since I was 18.

I never knew other churches considered me equal to their pastors in religious position. Very interesting but hard to believe.

I thought the question I was answering was related specifically to professional seminary teachers. A professional seminary teacher can spend as much as 8 hours a day teaching scriptures to hundreds of church goers... it really is not hard to see how that kind of position in the church could be considered clergy.

However, a lay seminary teacher who teachers 4-5 hours a week to a half dozen sleepy kids. That is a little more boarder line.

Compare that again to someone who teaches once a week on sunday... even more boarder line.

However, that said, yes there are churches who would consider all of the above clergy.

And yes, we are a little unique among most Christian faiths in that we really do draw on members to the point that more active members have "callings"/"responsibilities" than do not.

As for being equal to a pastor... not all clergy are equal in other churches. Hierarchies to exist in other Christian faiths as well as our own.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[halconero]

A teacher is often part of a cleric's duties, but it is not what makes him a cleric.

Other (and arguably more important duties) are:

Interpret doctrine (CES teachers teach established doctrine, but not interpret)

Have stewardship over a group/area (CES teachers do not have stewardship)

Receive donations from membership (CES teachers do not collect donations)

Act as the go to official for the Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Diocese/Temple in the area

Perform/Preside over ordinances (CES instructors may perform ordinances as all priesthood members can, but not in their capacity as CES teachers, and under supervision of authorities)

Determine the standing of individual members in their area (worthiness/full communion, excommunication, etc).

The only commonality that CES teachers have with the clergy of any religion is their religious instruction. The differences are far more apparent than the similarities.