Tithing

[MustardSeed]

Welp... I guess that changes a paradigm for me . Again, thank you for the info

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I always assumed independent wealth that afforded a life of pure service.  

 

That would exclude a huge part of the membership, especially now that we need more global representation.  The idea that only wealthy men and women could serve at top levels bothers me a whole lot more than stipends or salaries or whatever you want to call them.

[Calm]

An explanation of lay ministery for our church:

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-lay-ministry

[MustardSeed]

We all come to religion for different reasons and trust more or less for different reasons.  It is what it is. 

[MustardSeed]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

An explanation of lay ministery for our church:

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-lay-ministry

I love this way of thinking. It’s part of why I trust the message. 

10k a month for higher leadership is news to me.  Thank you.  

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I always assumed independent wealth that afforded a life of pure service.  

 

So you would insist, then, that only the independently wealthy and or the elderly ought to be qualified to be General Authorities or general officers? That strikes me as a tad elitist. 

Edited February 4, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I love this way of thinking. It’s part of why I trust the message. 

10k a month for higher leadership is news to me.  Thank you.  

It’s a fraction of what a comparable position in business or the professions would command. Many Church leaders have sacrificed careers in which they were paid many times more than the stipend they receive for Church service.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[MustardSeed]

 

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you would insist, then, that only the independently wealthy and or the elderly ought to be qualified to be General Authorities or general officers? That strikes me as a tad elitist. 

I’ll ignore the suggestion that I am an elitist, or that I would insist on anything. 

I prefer religion to be free of increase. I don’t know how to put it more clearly than that.  I’m not looking to change you, or the system, or the testimony of any believer.  I thought the general authorities received a stipend and I’m learning that they receive what **is my opinion** a career comparative income.  It’s a surprise to me, and changes my paradigm. 

Edited February 4, 2019 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s a fraction of what a comparable position in business or the professions would command. Many Church leaders have sacrificed careers in which they were paid many times more than the stipend they receive for Church service? 

Obviously.  They have sacrificed far more than I. It is admirable. 

I have been telling people an untruth.  I am learning that I can no longer say the position is unpaid.  What else are you looking for from me? 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Obviously.  They have sacrificed far more than I. It is admirable. 

I have been telling people an untruth.  I am learning that I can no longer say the position is unpaid.  What else are you looking for from me? 

It has never been a secret that it was paid. I’ve always understood that the “unpaid ministry” concept applied only to local positions and have never consciously let on that it was otherwise. Even so, that contrasts with most other churches, where local clergy are professionally paid. 

Edited February 4, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

 

I’ll ignore the suggestion that I am an elitist, or that I would insist on anything. 

I prefer religion to be free of increase. I don’t know how to put it more clearly than that.  I’m not looking to change you, or the system, or the testimony of any believer.  I thought the general authorities received a stipend and I’m learning that they receive what **is my opinion** a career comparative income.  It’s a surprise to me, and changes my paradigm. 

I didn’t say you were elitist. I said the notion that only the wealthy or elderly should get to serve strikes me as elitist. If you don’t agree it is elitist, how would you defend it? 

[MustardSeed]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn’t say you were elitist. I said the notion that only the wealthy or elderly should get to serve strikes me as elitist. If you don’t agree it is elitist, how would you defend it? 

[MustardSeed]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn’t say you were elitist. I said the notion that only the wealthy or elderly should get to serve strikes me as elitist. If you don’t agree it is elitist, how would you defend it? 

Not interested in defending much really.  I don’t think it’s necessary really, unless you think I’m elitist. 

Edited February 4, 2019 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

Do I think it’s uncool to have only wealthy people run the show? Yes.  Do I think it’s uncool to have paid ministry? Yes. 

I guess that makes for a rock and a hard place.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Not interested in defending much really.  I don’t think it’s necessary really, unless you think I’m elitist. 

I just said I don’t think you personally are elitist. But you apparently harbor the opinion that no one should be called to a high Church calling unless he/she is rich and/or old enough to support himself/herself independently.  Or at least you appear disillusioned to learn that your prior supposition in this respect was erroneous. I’m just curious how you rationalize that opinion if, indeed, you don’t agree that such a requirement would be at its heart elitist. 

Edited February 5, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Do I think it’s uncool to have only wealthy people run the show? Yes.  Do I think it’s uncool to have paid ministry? Yes. 

I guess that makes for a rock and a hard place.

I suspect you haven’t really thought this through. 

[MustardSeed]

You come across pretty condescending to be honest.  

Maybe you don’t have all the information you’d need about me to decide whatever it is you have about my **opinion**.  

I don’t see the point of this, really. 

[bsjkki]

I know someone who became a GA. He is selling his business, his home, relocating temporarily for a year, then expected to move to a foreign country after that. He is leaving his children and his grandchildren behind. He is sacrificing all his possible earned income for the rest of his working years and at a time in his career he is making the most money. I have no problems with stipends/monthly allowances. This man will be sacrificing way more in possible earnings than he will ever receive in stipends. I would hope that not only the super rich could serve as GA's and apostles or mission presidents. This is not hidden knowledge. I've known that mission presidents, GA's and the Apostles are supported for the church because they work full time for the church. How else would that be possible? 

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just said I don’t think you personally are elitist. But you apparently harbor the opinion that no one should be called to a high Church calling unless he/she is rich and/or old enough to support himself/herself independently.  Or at least you appear disillusioned to learn that your prior supposition in this respect was erroneous. I’m just curious how you rationalize that opinion if, indeed, you don’t agree that such a requirement would be at its heart elitist. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

You come across pretty condescending to be honest.  

Maybe you don’t have all the information you’d need about me to decide whatever it is you have about my **opinion**.  

I don’t see the point of this, really. 

I don’t mean to be condescending. I’m just trying to understand your reasoning that would cause you to be so shaken at having your “paradigm” changed. 

Edited February 5, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I know someone who became a GA. He is selling his business, his home, relocating temporarily for a year, then expected to move to a foreign country after that. He is leaving his children and his grandchildren behind. He is sacrificing all his possible earned income for the rest of his working years and at a time in his career he is making the most money. I have no problems with stipends/monthly allowances. This man will be sacrificing way more in possible earnings than he will ever receive in stipends. I would hope that not only the super rich could serve as GA's and apostles or mission presidents. This is not hidden knowledge. I've known that mission presidents, GA's and the Apostles are supported for the church because they work full time for the church. How else would that be possible? 

And taking 3 years to be a mission president out of a career at a level where it is often killer competition for higher, much more limited offices (as described to me by one friend, it is "move up or move out" at that point) likely has a huge impact on future opportunities unless self employed.

[MustardSeed]

I understand now.  You assumed I felt good about general authorities all being wealthy. 

I never liked that but was comforted in knowing that there is no paid clergy in our church.  I knew that the wealthy had to give up a lot so it made the message feel more pure than the guys in my neighborhood who run churches for gain. Not all paid ministers are in it for money, I know (lest someone is ready to pounce on that too)- I’m not so black and white. 

My family is knee deep in the institute program .  I was raised by folks who have no tolerance for colleagues who are in it for fame and fortune.  I have a need, therefore, for my church to be free of outside motivations.  That need obviously skewed my understanding.  I’d never heard the amount, only the word “stipend”. 

Power, money, etc are real forces that I’m very sensitive to when it comes to leadership.

***For the record*** I’m not nor have I ever been ok with a majority wealthy (or majority male or majority Utah or majority white) leadership.  

This was at least something that I was proud of.  Unpaid clergy.  10k a month is paid, I don’t care how you slice that up.  That doesn’t make them *bad men ***in my opinion***.  It simply changes my narrative.  That is all.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I understand now.  You assumed I felt good about general authorities all being wealthy. 

I never liked that but was comforted in knowing that there is no paid clergy in our church.  I knew that the wealthy had to give up a lot so it made the message feel more pure than the guys in my neighborhood who run churches for gain. Not all paid ministers are in it for money, I know (lest someone is ready to pounce on that too)- I’m not so black and white. 

My family is knee deep in the institute program .  I was raised by folks who have no tolerance for colleagues who are in it for fame and fortune.  I have a need, therefore, for my church to be free of outside motivations.  That need obviously skewed my understanding.  I’d never heard the amount, only the word “stipend”. 

Power, money, etc are real forces that I’m very sensitive to when it comes to leadership.

***For the record*** I’m not nor have I ever been ok with a majority wealthy (or majority male or majority Utah or majority white) leadership.  

This was at least something that I was proud of.  Unpaid clergy.  10k a month is paid, I don’t care how you slice that up.  That doesn’t make them *bad men ***in my opinion***.  It simply changes my narrative.  That is all.

I'm sorry if this caused you to change your narrative, it changed mine as well, but I do see how these leaders do indeed sacrifice. But I as well see that ordinary members that pay 100% tithing, and maybe more, do need a break when it comes to a ward budget. If only 2 or 3 percent stays in the ward budget and the rest goes to church headquarters can't that be increased a little? I do understand the need for some of it to go to pay the bills of the ward buildings, temples etc. but still think the ward budget should not be such a ridiculously low amount compared to what comes in each year from tithing! Especially given the time the members put in, and since they've been made janitors as well.

Here's an article about the stipends. I had no idea before it was leaked either. But transparency can't or can hurt and I'm thinking the church is realizing that sooner or later things come out. And re-wording things such as "unpaid ministers" is paramount.

https://www.standard.net/lifestyle/faith/new-mormonleaks-documents-unveil-lds-church-leaders-salaries-meetings/article_b4baf4ea-4bdb-569b-8ceb-80ba62ad5e7c.html

 

[Calm]

It does make a difference though, a huge one imo, that callings are not solicited, but offered in the Church and no one is going to become one of the few paid (under 200 iirc out of millions) without spending massive hours in unpaid callings first.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

It does make a difference though, a huge one imo, that callings are not solicited, but offered in the Church and no one is going to become one of the few paid (under 200 iirc out of millions) without spending massive hours in unpaid callings first.

Or without a willingness to spend massive hours in paid ones. Essentially, they consecrate every waking minute for the rest of their lives to a cause utterly lacking in  self-interest. 

I got an inkling this week of what that might be like. I got a calling as assistant ward clerk over finances. It means I’ll now be occupied for at least an hour after church every Sunday. Ask yourself how you would feel to have the extra hour you gained with the change in meeting block schedule summarily taken away. 

Edited February 5, 2019 by Scott Lloyd