Paid Clergy?

[bluebell]

Can anyone give me a clean sentence to answer critics with on this one?

How about-

"when we say we have an unpaid clergy we are speaking mainly about those in leadership positions who serve in local congregations as well as most other leadership positions in the larger church. There are a handful of positions however, which require so much time to fulfill that the person doing so is not allowed to have a job, where a stipend is given. Whether or not the stipend is used by all it is offered to is unknown."

[Maestrophil]

Thanks, Bluebell. That is a good starting point. I wish the church seemed more transparent regarding who makes what, or that we would officially refine the "no paid clergy statement". But not the end of the world.

[halconero]

Okay. Sorry. I apologize for the delay.

Our Anglican brother makes the argument that the Kingdom of God allows for commercial as well as ecclesiastical aspects. The love of money is an evil, but the use of money for the support of the people and the building up of the kingdom is supported by scripture. Many times in the history of Christianity bishoprics and monks have had commercial activities that gave additional funds for missionary work, charity among the poor and the support of the bishop and monks. Many carry on these traditions to day, with monasteries being involved in the production of products such as beer, honey or clothing.

He makes the point though, that the money they receive from these activities is because they are industrious businessmen and woman who happen to be monks. They are "businessmonks" and "businessnuns" and do not make their money from the donations of the "faithful." Were they to receive money (and he acknowledges that many do) for the performance ordinances, ministering to the flock, preaching, counseling and administering church affairs, and they got that money from the tithes and offerings of Church members then they would be for being clergy.

That's the distinction. Are they being paid for their priestly duties, or are they being paid for being industrious priests, who then use that money to further their priestly causes?

He said that he feels the same applies to the General Authorities. He makes the point that there is no scriptural argument against the Church or its members being involved in economic activities. There is also no prohibition against its leaders participating in and heading them. For example: he showed me some ancient texts that suggest that fishing and tent making industries, in which Peter and Paul were involved, were owned by the Church in common. These funds were then used to send these apostles on their missionary activities. Again, he made the following point: Peter and Paul did not receive the money for BEING apostles. They received the money to BE apostles. They were industrious, and used the money to further their efforts. The money they received direct from the church members was used to uplift the poor and the widowed.

So, our General Authorities receive a modest stipend (not salary). Where does the money come from? The businesses and industries of the the Kingdom. Do they receive it for being clergy? No. Do they receive it be clergy? Yes. Does it come from their activities as clergy? No. Does it come from their activities as businessmen and leaders? Yes.

Someone who is paid for being clergy, even if they use that money to be clergy is a paid minister.

Someone who is paid for being the head of commercial activities, who then uses that money in a clerical capacity, is not a paid minister.

I hope his opinion helps!

[Questing Beast]

Okay. Would I be correct in saying that the General Authorities are compensated from funds outside of the tithing fund?

This will be anecdotal, but some nine years ago I drove a man to the airport in my shuttle who was self-avowed to be one of "three" men on the earth who knew where all the donation monies of the LDS Church went. Not even the individual GA's know that, because they don't work in the financial department of the Church. And he told me in no uncertain terms that none of the donations of members to the Church go to GA's stipends. His opinion was that they are paid stipends from the commercial income of Church properties and businesses. But he had no idea how much the stipends might be or which GA's received them, because "his" department did not do the accounting of the Church's commercial properties and businesses....

[Pahoran]

Don't omit CES from the count.

That's right. Not because they're relevant, of course, but only because the stock standard anti-Mormon insinuations of "dishonesty" desperately need something to support them; anything will do.

Paid LDS institute and seminary directors & instructors perform many of the same functions as the "paid clergy" of Christian denominations.

First correction: you mean other Christian denominations.

And if you don't, you certainly should. Especially if you(!) plan to preach to us(!!) about honesty, of all things.

They lead, they teach, they counsel, they give "callings" to their students to lead and participate in their student councils, etc.

Oh, you mean like other high school teachers do? Imagine that!

The reality, of course, is that the work of daytime Seminary teachers is distinguishable from the work of other teachers of high-school-age students only in the content of their lessons.

Hmm. Shop teachers as "paid clergy." Material for another thread, perhaps?

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.

If that is indeed true, I fail to see the relevance. (I don't believe that it is, but that's sort of beside the point.) If indeed Seminary class officers were, at some time and in some areas, exempted somehow from ward callings, that fails entirely to demonstrate anything about your argument; which is, after all, about the rather risible notion that teaching daytime classes to high school students makes someone a "clergyman." If you're going to make that argument stick, you need to focus on what the teachers do, not on what the students do.

Let's keep the math honest, folks.

We were, until you tried to turn it to propaganda.

It is very poor form for someone who is stretching the truth beyond the breaking point to try to insinuate that it is his opponents who are not being honest.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, it is not accusations that get the benefit of the doubt. You might want to keep that in mind.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

If that is indeed true, I fail to see the relevance. (I don't believe that it is, but that's sort of beside the point.) If indeed Seminary class officers were, at some time and in some areas, exempted somehow from ward callings, that fails entirely to demonstrate anything about your argument; which is, after all, about the rather risible notion that teaching daytime classes to high school students makes someone a "clergyman." If you're going to make that argument stick, you need to focus on what the teachers do, not on what the students do.

One likely correction....I believe in the below he is talking about Institute students (college age) rather than seminary as that is the same age group that would attend student wards and my understanding is that the Institute and the Seminary programs don't function under the same director....though I may very well be wrong as I have had no experience in this area and am just trying to figure out how it's been handled around here outside of BYU (there would have been no conflict between the equivalent of Institute classes at BYU, Religious Education classes, and church callings). I am trying to think what Institute 'calling' would conflict with a ward calling seeing as how they don't meet on the same days.

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

My husband was a member of a student ward bishopric eons ago that was not a BYU student ward even if in Utah county, I'll have to ask him if he remembers anything like that (it was awhile ago so probably not). Dan was a bishop of a student ward not so long ago, maybe if he sees this he can list his experience on the matter.

Edited March 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[rpn]

Try this: The LDS church selects leaders for its congregations like Jesus did His apostles: they are called by inspiration from their normal lives. But unlike His apostles, who were required to leave their jobs, local leaders at all levels up to those who administer to the church's business full time, continue supporting themselves by their own labor and maintain their former career paths. Their service as leader typically lasts ten years or less. They receive small amounts for travel costs and telephone related to church business."

"Those who are called to serve in full time service for the whole church, either for lifetime, or for a short time (First Presidency, Quorum of the 12, perhaps auxiliary leaders, First three(?) quorums of the seventy, and temple/mission presidents --- fewer than a 1000 people total, though not all positions are currently filled) can receive a stipend to support themselves and their families while doing so, though some are able to support themselves on their own resources.

The church also employs a number of people in various administrative and production and educational capacities as any large organization does, although a significant part of the work of the church is done by volunteers. This group is selected on merit, and paid competitive wages and benefits because it is their work and career."

Edited March 15, 2013 by rpn

[Pahoran]

One likely correction....I believe in the below he is talking about Institute students (college age) rather than seminary as that is the same age group that would attend student wards and my understanding is that the Institute and the Seminary programs don't function under the same director....though I may very well be wrong as I have had no experience in this area and am just trying to figure out how it's been handled around here outside of BYU (there would have been no conflict between the equivalent of Institute classes at BYU, Religious Education classes, and church callings). I am trying to think what Institute 'calling' would conflict with a ward calling seeing as how they don't meet on the same days.

My husband was a member of a student ward bishopric eons ago that was not a BYU student ward even if in Utah county, I'll have to ask him if he remembers anything like that (it was awhile ago so probably not). Dan was a bishop of a student ward not so long ago, maybe if he sees this he can list his experience on the matter.

Point taken, and you may be right, but my argument still stands, as can be seen by performing the following substitutions:

If indeed Institute class officers were, at some time and in some areas, exempted somehow from ward callings, that fails entirely to demonstrate anything about your argument; which is, after all, about the rather risible notion that teaching daytime classes to college age students makes someone a "clergyman." If you're going to make that argument stick, you need to focus on what the teachers do, not on what the students do.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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

And another insinuation of dishonesty. And what does it really come down to? "If you don't use the same words in exactly the same way as I do, then you're doing something underhanded."

I'm aware that there are some strands of low-church Protestantism wherein absolutely everything, even as trivial as placing hymn books in the pews or pinning notices to the corkboard, is called a "ministry." I find such groups to be a rather irrelevant blip on the religious landscape, and the notion that their idiosyncratic usages should somehow be so self-evidently normative that there is something "misleading," i.e. dishonest, in not adopting them, to be the very height of arrogance.

But maybe that's just me.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Five Solas]

If indeed Institute class officers were, at some time and in some areas, exempted somehow from ward callings...

Regards,

Pahoran

And they were (and probably still are). I experienced it first hand, as I described previously. And it ought to make intuitive sense to you, given college students at a major university tend to have pretty full schedules and can't be expected to make time for everything.

BTW, I shouldn't read this as an insinuation of dishonestly, should I Paharon?

;0)

--Erik

[EllenMaksoud]

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

1 Timothy 5:18 says, "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out they grain..."

Having said that, I have see such abuses by paid pastors in the EV sector, I think the LDS way is much better. And if one does some research, it is fairly easy to see that Celibacy came from the idea of keeping the funds that the Priests were paid within the church, in effect castrating the Ox.

[bluebell]

And they were (and probably still are). I experienced it first hand, as I described previously. And it ought to make intuitive sense to you, given college students at a major university tend to have pretty full schedules and can't be expected to make time for everything.

BTW, I shouldn't read this as an insinuation of dishonestly, should I Paharon?

;0)

--Erik

Perhaps different institute programs do things differently, but institute officers still had callings in my student ward. This was in the late 90's.

[Pahoran]

And they were (and probably still are). I experienced it first hand, as I described previously. And it ought to make intuitive sense to you, given college students at a major university tend to have pretty full schedules and can't be expected to make time for everything.

Except that it doesn't. As a university student and returned missionary, I held a church calling while teaching Institute. That was some years back, of course.

BTW, I shouldn't read this as an insinuation of dishonestly, should I Paharon?

;0)

--Erik

Not at all; I'm not a zealot, so I can accept that people can be honestly mistaken.

However, I'm not altogether happy about your tanneresque use of ellipsis. You addressed a point I rather explicitly said was irrelevant, and carefully snipped away the bit that actually matters. I'd like to give you another opportunity to address my actual argument; so here it is again, with the snipped portion highlighted for your convenience. (You don't have to thank me, it's all part of the service.)

If indeed Institute class officers were, at some time and in some areas, exempted somehow from ward callings, that fails entirely to demonstrate anything about your argument; which is, after all, about the rather risible notion that teaching daytime classes to college age students makes someone a "clergyman." If you're going to make that argument stick, you need to focus on what the teachers do, not on what the students do.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

Does anybody on this forum know if general authorities pay income taxes on their modest living allowance?

[thatjimguy]

As a convert, I can say that when we go around telling people we do not have a paid clergy, it pretty much comes across as no one gets paid period. No one says, unless prompted, that anyone gets paid. They say they do not have a paid clergy, and they let it stand.

I am sure the missionaries are not told to leave this out or told to lie. Heck, I doubt they even know the GA's get anything. But I think we could do better to just say it out front that the GA's do get some form of compensation. I am a Public Relations guy (and I knew this even before) and I don't think it's good to have to backtrack on this if anyone looks into it and brings it up later. It's not that big of a deal. For the most part we do have a lay clergy and that's good enough to promote. Don't dance around it with words like "stipend" later on...to the layman...if you get money...you're getting paid.

[escott3564]

As some of you know, my husband's uncle is a member of the Quorum of the 12.

The stipend program for the quorum is very unique. It is based on each individual's needs. My husband's uncle is a retired engineer and has a very comfortable retirement. He does not take any type of living expense. The Church does pay for his travel and for his health insurance.

I think we simply need to state that we do not have a paid local clergy. Our bishops, music people, etc. are not paid. It is all volunteer. Believe me, that, in itself, is unusual.

[Maestrophil]

As some of you know, my husband's uncle is a member of the Quorum of the 12.

The stipend program for the quorum is very unique. It is based on each individual's needs. My husband's uncle is a retired engineer and has a very comfortable retirement. He does not take any type of living expense. The Church does pay for his travel and for his health insurance.

I think we simply need to state that we do not have a paid local clergy. Our bishops, music people, etc. are not paid. It is all volunteer. Believe me, that, in itself, is unusual.

Thanks for sharing that. I like hearing first hand accounts (or even second hand) as opposed to someone just flinging out a random accusation that the brethren get six and seven figure salaries without any substantiation.

[thesometimesaint]

Thanks for sharing that. I like hearing first hand accounts (or even second hand) as opposed to someone just flinging out a random accusation that the brethren get six and seven figure salaries without any substantiation.

Some are obviously more wealthy than others, but its been a long time since any have been really poor. A clue can be made from the clothes they wear at GC. If I had to hazard a guess it would be in the $500 range. Nice but not extravagant. Of course that is only a clue and not conclusive.

[Calm]

As some of you know, my husband's uncle is a member of the Quorum of the 12.

The stipend program for the quorum is very unique. It is based on each individual's needs. My husband's uncle is a retired engineer and has a very comfortable retirement. He does not take any type of living expense. The Church does pay for his travel and for his health insurance.

I think we simply need to state that we do not have a paid local clergy. Our bishops, music people, etc. are not paid. It is all volunteer. Believe me, that, in itself, is unusual.

I think it is also important to point out that none of our leaders are "professional" pastors in the way the world usually understands them. We are not the only faith that has pastors that do not go to divinity school, etc. to receive training in clerical duties....rather their training is 'on the job' but we are pretty unique for the size of the church or collection of congregations to do this, I believe.