No Paid Ministry

[Mark]

The whole idea of a leader getting a revelation that he's to be supported by the membership is sketchy anyway. I would have questioned it then. Perhaps he received according to the idol in his heart. (Eze 14) and a little prodding from Rigdon.

The BoM lays out the correct principle imo and I have no problem defending it.

This from the guy who no longer attends the LDS church and most likely doesn't pay a red cent of tithing or fast offerings to help the church anymore with anything. Go lecture your remnant folks with all your pious attitudes Tex. Your bias against all things LDS is deafening.. 8-|

When you can't refute the message, then, by all means, attack the messenger.

Actually, I don't understand why Remnant people continue to attack the LDS church for the way it is run. They have their own church now, they ought to worry about how it is run and stop spending their time criticizing and attacking another faith. And you critics need to not delude yourselves into thinking you can belong to two churches, because the fact is, you have to choose. If you are one of those criticizing the Prophet, Apostles and 70 in the LDS church for receiving a stipend, then you aren't a faithful believer, because in THIS church, we believe that the LORD heads the church and guides it through these men.

You got a problem with that? If so, then you'll need to deal with it in some other way than taking it out on those of us who do.

In the LDS church most callings are done without any compensation. Yes, we no longer send our missionaries out and expect them to live off the charity of the community at large. We also have such a large worldwide membership that we have some callings that are expected to be in the fulltime service of the church and they are given a stipend. If we didn't do that then only men of independent wealth or living off their relatives, could serve in these fulltime, lifetime callings. That's the way we do it now in the LDS church and if anyone doesn't like it, they don't have to pay tithing, fast offerings etc. and they can go join a church that better suits their needs. I don't think that's so hard to understand. They'd be best off to let the church go--Stop with the constant criticism and anger directed at MY CHURCH, for their own mental well-being.

Many of you on this forum are Remnant members and you hide it--so that you can pretend to be active believing LDS, WHEN YOU ARE NOT. Many of you long ago left the church and yet you present yourselves as faithful, active members, WHEN YOU ARE NOT. You think that in the guise of being LDS members you have the right to criticize, but you aren't being honest with us or yourselves. Personally I'm tired of the dishonesty. I know this is true because I actually do attend church and active(meaning those who can TRUTHFULLY answer the temple recommend questions or are working to be worthy of a recommend) members don't have a problem with these things.

Amen. If someone doesn't like the way the church operates they are under no obligation to support it either financially or in their labors. That is their choice. Nobody is twisting their arm. Just be classy enough to not insult or degrade or run down the LDS church or its leaders because you don't happen to agree with them. I would NEVER go on another faiths discussion group comprised mostly of members of that faith and run down their church leveling insults and corrections to those who are faithful followers of that particular church. That would just be classless. Yet on this site it happens constantly. Shots and insults are taken at all things LDS on about every thread discussing the LDS church. Some people need a lesson in manners and civility. [-(

[rewcox]

If you complain/murmur about the church and leaders, you are not biased...

If you believe and have a testimony that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only true and living church upon the earth, that Christ leads his Church, and that Christ selects His leaders and has given them the Priesthood and keys to operate the Church, then you are biased...

This is a murmuring/complaining thread, by the Reds who only want to complain. No one has responded to the questions I asked.

Finrock has an obsession about leaders being evil.

Amonhi has several different people who post for him. One Amonhi decided to send George to the telestial kingdom because George did not agree with Amonhi. It looks like the nicer Amonhi is in this thread, but still having issues on the truth.

When I said biased, I ment completely to the point that if you are for the church you can see no bad or if you are against the church you can see no good.

An honest person will see both good and bad in the church because both exist. A dishonest person will only see one or the other.

It is true that several people post for me.

Peace,
Amonhi

Amonhi, you said this:

It is true that several people post for me.

Are you @#$%^ serious?

What a fraud you are, you aren't even a real person! I've been on this forum for several years and only now I find out that you are a conglomeration of people? Well it all makes sense now. Now I understand why you will say something in one post and then deny it in the next. So, it's futile to even try to have a discussion on YOUR beliefs since what I'll get is the LDSFF version of 'Sybil' responding to me.

So, I assume that 'Elliason', as in 'We are Elliason for we are many' of the forum, post under this username. And that means we're getting the opinions, views and backgrounds of many different people. No wonder we can never pin you down, you aren't 'you'--you're a bunch of different people who REALLY cloak themselves in anonymity, we can't trust anything you all say.

And NOW I understand why sometimes you are a total jerk, Korihor type and other times you are 'less so'. Clearly it's not worth even discussing things with you when you are not what you present yourself to be.

And there's another blackmark AGAINST you being a member of the 144,000--that is, if we're referring to the 144,000 in the Bible/D&C.

Yes, George really got under the skin of one of them. It/he/she/them sent George right to the Telestial kingdom...

[shadow]

17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

[Mark]

If you complain/murmur about the church and leaders, you are not biased...

If you believe and have a testimony that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only true and living church upon the earth, that Christ leads his Church, and that Christ selects His leaders and has given them the Priesthood and keys to operate the Church, then you are biased...

This is a murmuring/complaining thread, by the Reds who only want to complain. No one has responded to the questions I asked.

Finrock has an obsession about leaders being evil.

Amonhi has several different people who post for him. One Amonhi decided to send George to the telestial kingdom because George did not agree with Amonhi. It looks like the nicer Amonhi is in this thread, but still having issues on the truth.

When I said biased, I ment completely to the point that if you are for the church you can see no bad or if you are against the church you can see no good.

An honest person will see both good and bad in the church because both exist. A dishonest person will only see one or the other.

It is true that several people post for me.

Peace,
Amonhi

Amonhi, you said this:

It is true that several people post for me.

Are you @#$%^ serious?

What a fraud you are, you aren't even a real person! I've been on this forum for several years and only now I find out that you are a conglomeration of people? Well it all makes sense now. Now I understand why you will say something in one post and then deny it in the next. So, it's futile to even try to have a discussion on YOUR beliefs since what I'll get is the LDSFF version of 'Sybil' responding to me.

So, I assume that 'Elliason', as in 'We are Elliason for we are many' of the forum, post under this username. And that means we're getting the opinions, views and backgrounds of many different people. No wonder we can never pin you down, you aren't 'you'--you're a bunch of different people who REALLY cloak themselves in anonymity, we can't trust anything you all say.

And NOW I understand why sometimes you are a total jerk, Korihor type and other times you are 'less so'. Clearly it's not worth even discussing things with you when you are not what you present yourself to be.

And there's another blackmark AGAINST you being a member of the 144,000--that is, if we're referring to the 144,000 in the Bible/D&C.

Eventually a fraud always exposes themselves. Just give 'em enough rope.. :ymcowboy:

[Amonhi]

This trumps all. Missionaries pay for themselves or friends help. Leaders aren't on boards any longer. Be on the pure side.

When did the leaders get taken off the boards of directors of for profit businesses? I thought that was how they made their money.

It seems clear to me that through the scriptures including the comments of Paul and the Book of Mormon that leaders are to receive their money from any source other than those they are preaching to. If Paul is preaching to the church in Corinth, then he doesn't want to get supported by them, but he was willing to take support from the church in another area so as to not be compromised.

Missionaries that receive donations from family or church members not those they minister to.

Apostles and Prophets get paid by for profit businesses not the members of the Church they are ministering to so that they can claim that they actually are not paid to minister because they work by their own hands for their own support and are not supported by the church. I actually thought it was a good way to meet all the requirements and still claim to not be a paid ministry.

If they don't have a day job, then they aren't laboring with their own hands for their support and they are instead getting rich off the church, then it seems we might have a problem with setting up churches to get gain, priestcraft, etc.

So, do you have any valid source that says they were taken off the boards of directors? What do they do for work now instead?

Peace,
Amonhi

[Lizzy60]

Amonhi ----- Announced in the Ensign 1996

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/04/news ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AI2.0]

This from the guy who no longer attends the LDS church and most likely doesn't pay a red cent of tithing or fast offerings to help the church anymore with anything. Go lecture your remnant folks with all your pious attitudes Tex. Your bias against all things LDS is deafening.. 8-|

When you can't refute the message, then, by all means, attack the messenger.

Actually, I don't understand why Remnant people continue to attack the LDS church for the way it is run. They have their own church now, they ought to worry about how it is run and stop spending their time criticizing and attacking another faith. And you critics need to not delude yourselves into thinking you can belong to two churches, because the fact is, you have to choose. If you are one of those criticizing the Prophet, Apostles and 70 in the LDS church for receiving a stipend, then you aren't a faithful believer, because in THIS church, we believe that the LORD heads the church and guides it through these men.

You got a problem with that? If so, then you'll need to deal with it in some other way than taking it out on those of us who do.

In the LDS church most callings are done without any compensation. Yes, we no longer send our missionaries out and expect them to live off the charity of the community at large. We also have such a large worldwide membership that we have some callings that are expected to be in the fulltime service of the church and they are given a stipend. If we didn't do that then only men of independent wealth or living off their relatives, could serve in these fulltime, lifetime callings. That's the way we do it now in the LDS church and if anyone doesn't like it, they don't have to pay tithing, fast offerings etc. and they can go join a church that better suits their needs. I don't think that's so hard to understand. They'd be best off to let the church go--Stop with the constant criticism and anger directed at MY CHURCH, for their own mental well-being.

Many of you on this forum are Remnant members and you hide it--so that you can pretend to be active believing LDS, WHEN YOU ARE NOT. Many of you long ago left the church and yet you present yourselves as faithful, active members, WHEN YOU ARE NOT. You think that in the guise of being LDS members you have the right to criticize, but you aren't being honest with us or yourselves. Personally I'm tired of the dishonesty. I know this is true because I actually do attend church and active(meaning those who can TRUTHFULLY answer the temple recommend questions or are working to be worthy of a recommend) members don't have a problem with these things.

Amen. If someone doesn't like the way the church operates they are under no obligation to support it either financially or in their labors. That is their choice. Nobody is twisting their arm. Just be classy enough to not insult or degrade or run down the LDS church or its leaders because you don't happen to agree with them. I would NEVER go on another faiths discussion group comprised mostly of members of that faith and run down their church leveling insults and corrections to those who are faithful followers of that particular church. That would just be classless. Yet on this site it happens constantly. Shots and insults are taken at all things LDS on about every thread discussing the LDS church. Some people need a lesson in manners and civility. [-(

You are absolutely right Mark. How many would think it is a good use of time to go to a Catholic forum or a Lutheran forum and criticize their church? But I think they have a need to do so.

I think they come here and criticize the LDS church because they view our church as a threat to their own church/beliefs. They have either left the church to follow their own form of belief or joined a break off sect. Take the Remnant, for example. It grew out of the LDS church. They look to a man who used to be a faithful LDS member who is now excommunicated. He is their 'prophet', who claims to have seen Christ (but he was believing LDS for many years after) and has taught them 'truths' in the form of his books and lectures, but it was all produced and influenced by his faith and membership in the LDS church. So in order to validate him and his 'community', since they've rejected the mother-church, they feel they must attack and criticize it to validate their choice. They need to do some honest introspection to understand why they come here to attack.

[FTC]

ALL truth circumscribed into one great whole? Hmm?

Truthfully, they don't receive a salary. Honestly, they receive $7,000+ a month of church monies. According to the IRS, aka, the laws of the land.

The whole thing is doublespeak word play. Which has been going on with the church since polygamy. Multi-level marketing companies are also rampant with doublespeak word play.

It's not doublespeak. Are you suggesting the Church shouldn't do this and only select GAs who can totally and wholly support themselves with their own money for the remainder of their life or until age 70?

So only rich persons can be leaders of the Church? That would have excluded President Monson considering he was called at such an early age.

That's what they make the vast majority of the lesser leadership do - keep a job while having a calling. So that the church can play the facade card of "no paid ministry".
I guess we can call the upper leadership getting a pension for tenure. Or stipend. Or whatever doublespeak word play we want. The end result is money, and/or assets, coming out of the coffers of the church and going into the pockets of upper management.

I don't know where you got the $7k figure. Please direct me to where you are getting that.

Regardless, if it was about money, most of the GA's could be making a lot more than that. Most of them are quite successful.

This particular thread is very interesting to me. It reminds me of the liberal left complaining about the top 1%. It's like the Church is somehow wrong for being successful in business ventures and as a result, finding a way to support individuals who give up 100% of their time to the Church. The GA's are also evil wicked nasty men because they are successful in their lives and the Lord has chosen them to build up the Church.

Perhaps you're lurking in the wrong conservative forum?

I got the $7000 from dividing their YTD by 12. Of course, the IRS taxes them like any other PAID citizen of the land. So, that $7000 is gross, not net. And it is from 2000, so, just by simple inflation, it's more now.
http://kutv.com/news/local/mormonleaks- ... uthorities
Modest? I'd love to have a modest "stipend" of $7000 a month. And not have to pay any living expenses. And just make ultimate business decisions - for a company that will never go under - because the customers always pay donations. And have my retirement secure until my final breath. And just give motivational speeches at religious meetings, conventions, and conferences.
Or I could be a General Authority for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
It is about the word play.
Don't get so wound up about it all, though. I gripe about my upper management at work just the same. I'm pretty certain a vast majority of commoners do, too.

[FTC]

This issue isn't that they get paid. The issue is that they make the claim they don't get paid (even though they are getting paid), and use that as substantiation that the LDS church is better, most righteous/spiritual, more approved of God, more true, than other churches because of it.

There's lots of people in this thread trying to push the stance that its Ok for upper LDS leadership to financially benefit from the work/service/success that they've accomplished. It can be equally applied to other churches in the same way that acknowledge that their ministry is paid from their business success, i.e. their churches. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[rewcox]

This trumps all. Missionaries pay for themselves or friends help. Leaders aren't on boards any longer. Be on the pure side.

When did the leaders get taken off the boards of directors of for profit businesses? I thought that was how they made their money.

It seems clear to me that through the scriptures including the comments of Paul and the Book of Mormon that leaders are to receive their money from any source other than those they are preaching to. If Paul is preaching to the church in Corinth, then he doesn't want to get supported by them, but he was willing to take support from the church in another area so as to not be compromised.

Missionaries that receive donations from family or church members not those they minister to.

Apostles and Prophets get paid by for profit businesses not the members of the Church they are ministering to so that they can claim that they actually are not paid to minister because they work by their own hands for their own support and are not supported by the church. I actually thought it was a good way to meet all the requirements and still claim to not be a paid ministry.

If they don't have a day job, then they aren't laboring with their own hands for their support and they are instead getting rich off the church, then it seems we might have a problem with setting up churches to get gain, priestcraft, etc.

So, do you have any valid source that says they were taken off the boards of directors? What do they do for work now instead?

Peace,
Amonhi

Since 1996

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/04/news ... s?lang=eng

Are you a millennial Amonhi? As usual, you are anti Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The First Presidency announced on 18 January that because of increasing Church growth, General Authorities are being asked to withdraw from positions they may hold on boards of directors of business corporations.

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is now established in more than 150 nations and political entities,” the First Presidency said in a written statement. “Its membership presently exceeds 9,300,000. Within a short time, membership outside the United States will exceed that in the United States. With this growth comes an ever-increasing responsibility for the worldwide supervision of the work and the training of local leadership. This is placing greater demands upon the General Authorities of the Church.

“The primary call of a General Authority is his ecclesiastical responsibility. Except for family responsibilities, all others are secondary to this.

“In view of this situation, the First Presidency has suggested that General Authorities withdraw from membership on boards of directors of business corporations. This will include membership on boards of Church-owned corporations, as well as those of a public and private nature.

“So that there will not be any sudden disruption occasioned by the release of a number at one time, it is proposed that those involved will continue until the next regular annual meetings of the corporations with which they are associated, at which time they will resign or will not stand for re-election.

“We recognize that officers and boards of various corporations highly value the talents and wisdom of General Authorities presently serving. We are hopeful, however, that they will accept the need for our brethren to give their full time and energies to the work of the ministry.

“It is anticipated that there will be one exception. With reference to Church-owned corporations, most of these are now subsidiaries of Deseret Management Corporation, which is owned by the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

Deseret Management Corporation will continue as a holding company with its board composed of representatives from the ranks of the General Authorities, the First Presidency said.

[ajax]

This issue isn't that they get paid. The issue is that they make the claim they don't get paid (even though they are getting paid), and use that as substantiation that the LDS church is better, most righteous/spiritual, more approved of God, more true, than other churches because of it.

There's lots of people in this thread trying to push the stance that its Ok for upper LDS leadership to financially benefit from the work/service/success that they've accomplished. It can be equally applied to other churches in the same way that acknowledge that their ministry is paid from their business success, i.e. their churches. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Thanks FTC for bringing this back around to the topic. Perhaps those whose distress is so great, can vent on the lds friends and fun forum, created specifically for that purpose and in bad mouthing Brian M for perhaps exhibiting too excessive a virtue in tolerating varying opinions.

[AI2.0]

This issue isn't that they get paid. The issue is that they make the claim they don't get paid (even though they are getting paid), and use that as substantiation that the LDS church is better, most righteous/spiritual, more approved of God, more true, than other churches because of it.

There's lots of people in this thread trying to push the stance that its Ok for upper LDS leadership to financially benefit from the work/service/success that they've accomplished. It can be equally applied to other churches in the same way that acknowledge that their ministry is paid from their business success, i.e. their churches. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Actually, it's not. For some reason you think the mormon people are being bamboozled into thinking something that isn't true. We know that our church leaders do not attend a seminary school of theology to become paid clergy. That's paid clergy, IMO. When men or women can got to school to become ministers/ preachers and this is their career, which they chose, that' 'paid clergy'.

The church has men who are called to serve full time because it is necessary. They don't lobby or apply for these positions. They are not expected to beg for money or live off their own wealth or their relatives, the church provides a stipend. It is modest by some standards and grand by others' standards. While they serve, their time is not their own, they are church representatives always and must always be mindful of this. It's not an easy life, and one I wouldn't want. I like to have control over my own choices and how I want to live my life. I'm happy that others are so willing to sacrifice to do this work. To me, the stipend they receive isn't worth the lives they give up--and that is why it is a sacrifice.

[rewcox]

This issue isn't that they get paid. The issue is that they make the claim they don't get paid (even though they are getting paid), and use that as substantiation that the LDS church is better, most righteous/spiritual, more approved of God, more true, than other churches because of it.

There's lots of people in this thread trying to push the stance that its Ok for upper LDS leadership to financially benefit from the work/service/success that they've accomplished. It can be equally applied to other churches in the same way that acknowledge that their ministry is paid from their business success, i.e. their churches. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Thanks FTC for bringing this back around to the topic. Perhaps those whose distress is so great, can vent on the lds friends and fun forum, created specifically for that purpose and in bad mouthing Brian M for perhaps exhibiting too excessive a virtue in tolerating varying opinions.

Where do the Remanaughties hang out?

[Matchmaker]

I'm not sure why the GA's don't consider themselves paid clergy, but I'll have faith that they have their good reasons. Perhaps it's because most of the counseling of members is done at the Ward and Stake levels these days and a lot of the Apostles time is now spent on administration tasks, oversight of programs and organizations within the Church, attending functions and meetings, and public relations, and corporate work, just to name a few.

Matthew 25:15
The question it seems is whether or not apostles should be in charge of talents from their master or more occupied with salvation of souls.

I bet the Apostles wish they could devote more time to teaching and testifying than to oversight and administration, but they are stuck in a telestial world too and subject to limitations placed on them by others who may not share their concerns.

[ajax]

This issue isn't that they get paid. The issue is that they make the claim they don't get paid (even though they are getting paid), and use that as substantiation that the LDS church is better, most righteous/spiritual, more approved of God, more true, than other churches because of it.

There's lots of people in this thread trying to push the stance that its Ok for upper LDS leadership to financially benefit from the work/service/success that they've accomplished. It can be equally applied to other churches in the same way that acknowledge that their ministry is paid from their business success, i.e. their churches. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Thanks FTC for bringing this back around to the topic. Perhaps those whose distress is so great, can vent on the lds friends and fun forum, created specifically for that purpose and in bad mouthing Brian M for perhaps exhibiting too excessive a virtue in tolerating varying opinions.

Where do the Remanaughties hang out?

I don't know. Ask one of them.

[Mark]

Amonhi ----- Announced in the Ensign 1996

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/04/news ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“It is anticipated that there will be one exception. With reference to Church-owned corporations, most of these are now subsidiaries of Deseret Management Corporation, which is owned by the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

[ajax]

This issue isn't that they get paid. The issue is that they make the claim they don't get paid (even though they are getting paid), and use that as substantiation that the LDS church is better, most righteous/spiritual, more approved of God, more true, than other churches because of it.

There's lots of people in this thread trying to push the stance that its Ok for upper LDS leadership to financially benefit from the work/service/success that they've accomplished. It can be equally applied to other churches in the same way that acknowledge that their ministry is paid from their business success, i.e. their churches. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Actually, it's not. For some reason you think the mormon people are being bamboozled into thinking something that isn't true. We know that our church leaders do not attend a seminary school of theology to become paid clergy. That's paid clergy, IMO. When men or women can got to school to become ministers/ preachers and this is their career, which they chose, that' 'paid clergy'. I would think that getting paid is paid clergy, school or no school.

The church has men who are called to serve full time because it is necessary. Ask yourself why. Has the church taken on too many unnecessary things? They don't lobby or apply for these positions. They are not expected to beg for money or live off their own wealth or their relatives, the church provides a stipend. That they determine and approve among themselves. It is modest by some standards and grand by others' standards. How does it compare to the median household income in Utah? Of worldwide membership? What do their periodicals teach poor people? While they serve, their time is not their own, they are church representatives always and must always be mindful of this. It's not an easy life, and one I wouldn't want. I like to have control over my own choices and how I want to live my life. I'm happy that others are so willing to sacrifice to do this work. To me, the stipend they receive isn't worth the lives they give up--and that is why it is a sacrifice.

[Mark]

This issue isn't that they get paid. The issue is that they make the claim they don't get paid (even though they are getting paid), and use that as substantiation that the LDS church is better, most righteous/spiritual, more approved of God, more true, than other churches because of it.

There's lots of people in this thread trying to push the stance that its Ok for upper LDS leadership to financially benefit from the work/service/success that they've accomplished. It can be equally applied to other churches in the same way that acknowledge that their ministry is paid from their business success, i.e. their churches. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Thanks FTC for bringing this back around to the topic. Perhaps those whose distress is so great, can vent on the lds friends and fun forum, created specifically for that purpose and in bad mouthing Brian M for perhaps exhibiting too excessive a virtue in tolerating varying opinions.

Where do the Remanaughties hang out?

I don't know. Ask one of them.

He just did Separatist Sybil. B-)

[rewcox]

When all is said and done, the only real wealth of the Church is the faith of its people.

Have some faith.

When we are called before the bar of God to give an accounting of our performance, I think it unlikely that any of us will be commended for wearing out our lives in an effort to find some morsel of history, incomplete in its context, to cast doubt on the integrity of this work. Rather, I believe we will be examined on what we did to build the kingdom, to bring light and understanding of the eternal truths of the gospel to the eyes and minds of all who are willing to listen, to care for the poor and the needy, and to make of the world a better place as a result of our presence.

[Separatist]

Thanks FTC for bringing this back around to the topic. Perhaps those whose distress is so great, can vent on the lds friends and fun forum, created specifically for that purpose and in bad mouthing Brian M for perhaps exhibiting too excessive a virtue in tolerating varying opinions.

Where do the Remanaughties hang out?

I don't know. Ask one of them.

He just did Separatist Sybil. B-)

Like I said, I actually have no idea. More than likely in their own homes.

[rewcox]

Where do the Remanaughties hang out?

I don't know. Ask one of them.

He just did Separatist Sybil. B-)

Like I said, I actually have no idea. More than likely in their own homes.

I think you are right. I don't know how they determine who speaks and when. They probably have the sacrament with wine and bread. I haven't heard if you need a special bread or not.

Anyone going to the May conference in St. George, Utah?

[Separatist]

I don't know. Ask one of them.

He just did Separatist Sybil. B-)

Like I said, I actually have no idea. More than likely in their own homes.

I think you are right. I usually am. I don't know how they determine who speaks and when. It can't be that hard to figure out. They probably have the sacrament with wine and bread. Probably. I haven't heard if you need a special bread or not. Doubt it.

Anyone going to the May conference in St. George, Utah? Hell nah.

[Col. Flagg]

17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

Is the Elder’s quorum presidency in your ward compensated for their service? How about the High Priest Group Leadership? Bishop? SP? How about the Relief Society Presidency? Primary Presidency? YM-YW Presidency? Ours either. And what is service? Laboring in someone’s else’s behalf and not expecting anything in return. :ymsmug:

[LDX]

From wikipedia and I believe this definition was there even before the leaks

Clery/Latter-day Saints

Main article: Priesthood (Latter Day Saints)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has no dedicated clergy, and is governed instead by a system of lay priesthood leaders. Locally, unpaid and part-time priesthood holders lead the church; the worldwide church is supervised by full-time general authorities, some of whom receive modest living allowances.[18][19] No formal theological training is required for any position. All leaders in the church are called by revelation and the laying on of hands by one who holds authority. Jesus Christ stands at the head of the church and leads the church through revelation given to the President of the Church, the First Presidency, and Twelve Apostles, all of whom are recognized as prophets, seers, and revelators and have lifetime tenure. Below these men in the hierarchy are quorums of seventy, which are assigned geographically over the areas of the church. Locally, the church is divided into stakes; each stake has a president, who is assisted by two counselors and a high council. The stake is made up of several individual congregations, which are called "wards" or "branches." Wards are led by a bishop and his counselors and branches by a president and his counselors. Local leaders serve in their positions until released by their supervising authorities.[20]

Generally, all worthy males age 12 and above receive the priesthood. Youth age 12 to 18 are ordained to the Aaronic priesthood as deacons, teachers, or priests, which authorizes them to perform certain ordinances and sacraments. Adult males are ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood, as elders, seventies, high priests, or patriarchs in that priesthood, which is concerned with spiritual leadership of the church. Although the term "clergy" is not typically used in the LDS Church, it would most appropriately apply to local bishops and stake presidents. Merely holding an office in the priesthood does not imply authority over other church members or agency to act on behalf of the entire church.

In spanish the definition of clergy (clero) includes only bishops, pastors, and deacons. However in english is different..

Another way to see this issue, is that GA are not paid for their eclesiastical work but for managing positions that the church requires them to cover, If I understand correctly each of them has assigned a temporal assignment such areas all accross the world, companies, corporations, and so on.. and their paid does not come from tithings, not a even a small percentage cause the church receives like 7 or 8 billion dollars a year.

Anti-Mormons often said that they were a sinister head cupule that needs to keep this lie in order to bennefit themselves
with the millions of millions of dollars that the church produce..

This reveals that this was a lie, their income per year is even less than what I make here living in southamerica..
and is not even the 0.002% of the total income of the church..

[shadow]

17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

Is the Elder’s quorum presidency in your ward compensated for their service? How about the High Priest Group Leadership? Bishop? SP? How about the Relief Society Presidency? Primary Presidency? YM-YW Presidency? Ours either. And what is service? Laboring in someone’s else’s behalf and not expecting anything in return. :ymsmug:

As per a new policy that's not even in the handbook yet the Elders quorum presidency gets a commission, and it's quite high.
It's based off a point system where the more home teaching you do, the more points you get. Since I'm in the presidency I have a line of Elders under me and when they home teach I get points off them as well. It gets a little complicated after that but basically if I can get my line to do 100% home teaching and if their families come to church, even just sacrament meeting, then I can make tens of thousands per month. This MLM, I mean celestial compensation program, is only for the Elders and NOT HP's. Sorry.