No Paid Ministry

[Finrock]

DC 43:13 And again, I say unto you, that if ye desire the mysteries of the kingdom, provide for him [Joseph Smith] food and raiment, and whatsoever thing he needeth to accomplish the work wherewith I have commanded him;

I've come across a few other verses like that in my DC reading, too.

Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

Mosiah 18:26 And the priests were not to depend upon the people for their support; but for their labor they were to receive the grace of God, that they might wax strong in the Spirit, having the knowledge of God, that they might teach with power and authority from God.

If our leaders want to get near to God and teach with power and authority from Him, they should abid by the precepts found in the Book of Mormon.

If you believe that revelation stopped after the Book of Mormon, I guess so.

By the way, here are a few more Book of Mormon verses:
2 Nephi 26:30 Behold, the Lord hath forbidden this thing; wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which charity is love. And except they should have charity they were nothing. Wherefore, if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish.

Mosiah 18:27 And again Alma commanded that the people of the church should impart of their substance, every one according to that which he had; if he have more abundantly he should impart more abundantly; and of him that had but little, but little should be required; and to him that had not should be given.
28 And thus they should impart of their substance of their own free will and good desires towards God, and to those priests that stood in need, yea, and to every needy, naked soul.

There are many laborers in Zion who are not leaders. Right now we have many laborers in Zion who are perishing or living in abject poverty and they are not being supported financially or being paid a stipend of any kind, yet they give their all to building up the kingdom of God.

The Book of Mormon scripture says "priest that stood in need" and then every needy naked soul. How many priests today are supported by the Church or receive pay? How about the rest of the needy naked souls?

Most of the Church leaders were doing quite well financially before becoming General Authorities. They wouldn't qualify as "Priests in need", yet they still receive pay and perks.

Those scriptures are not limited to just leaders. If those scriptures are to be applied, it should be applied as is written. They would apply to all that are needy and all laborers in Zion.

-Finrock

[JohnnyL]

DC 43:13 And again, I say unto you, that if ye desire the mysteries of the kingdom, provide for him [Joseph Smith] food and raiment, and whatsoever thing he needeth to accomplish the work wherewith I have commanded him;

I've come across a few other verses like that in my DC reading, too.

Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

Mosiah 18:26 And the priests were not to depend upon the people for their support; but for their labor they were to receive the grace of God, that they might wax strong in the Spirit, having the knowledge of God, that they might teach with power and authority from God.

If our leaders want to get near to God and teach with power and authority from Him, they should abid by the precepts found in the Book of Mormon.

If you believe that revelation stopped after the Book of Mormon, I guess so.

By the way, here are a few more Book of Mormon verses:
2 Nephi 26:30 Behold, the Lord hath forbidden this thing; wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which charity is love. And except they should have charity they were nothing. Wherefore, if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish.

Mosiah 18:27 And again Alma commanded that the people of the church should impart of their substance, every one according to that which he had; if he have more abundantly he should impart more abundantly; and of him that had but little, but little should be required; and to him that had not should be given.
28 And thus they should impart of their substance of their own free will and good desires towards God, and to those priests that stood in need, yea, and to every needy, naked soul.

There are many laborers in Zion who are not leaders. Right now we have many laborers in Zion who are perishing or living in abject poverty and they are not being supported financially or being paid a stipend of any kind, yet they give their all to building up the kingdom of God.

The Book of Mormon scripture says "priest that stood in need" and then every needy naked soul. How many priests today are supported by the Church or receive pay? How about the rest of the needy naked souls?

Most of the Church leaders were doing quite well financially before becoming General Authorities. They wouldn't qualify as "Priests in need", yet they still receive pay and perks.

Those scriptures are not limited to just leaders. If those scriptures are to be applied, it should be applied as is written. They would apply to all that are needy and all laborers in Zion.

-Finrock

I believe the context of both scriptures is clear, however, that it means the leaders. When it was with a group, like with Alma's it was a higher law of consecration (though it doesn't "go by that name").

[Silver Pie]

28 And thus they should impart of their substance of their own free will and good desires towards God, and to those priests that stood in need, yea, and to every needy, naked soul.

The key, I think is - if the priests are in need and incapable of providing for themselves. If they have sufficient for their needs, are capable of providing for themselves/family, or have a retirement that will provide sufficient for their needs, they should not be asking people for money (nor asking it of those who do NOT have sufficient for their needs, especially using the threat of damnation).

[Silver Pie]

Those scriptures are not limited to just leaders. If those scriptures are to be applied, it should be applied as is written. They would apply to all that are needy and all laborers in Zion.

-Finrock

I tend to agree. It says priests, not prophets, nor apostles. Anyone who is at least a priest.

[JohnnyL]

Those scriptures are not limited to just leaders. If those scriptures are to be applied, it should be applied as is written. They would apply to all that are needy and all laborers in Zion.

-Finrock

I tend to agree. It says priests, not prophets, nor apostles. Anyone who is at least a priest.

Priests back then were church leaders, not our current priests.

Found this:
http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/throug ... more-12291

An excerpt:
" Before discussing several important findings of Quinn’s Chapter 1, it is necessary to look at a critical aspect of methodology he constantly uses throughout the book’s narrative, footnotes, and appendices. In the same introductory paragraph setting out his objectives for Volume 3, Quinn describes this methodology:

To make these matters [allowances, tithing, expenditures, and all nominal values] more understandable to twenty first century readers, this volume often states what the equivalent of US dollars in the nineteenth century would be in terms of purchasing power in 2010, the final year of this book’s emphasis. For example, even trained historians might currently think that an annual income of $10,000 was modest for the year 1899, when it was actually equivalent to $271,000 in 2010. Rather than my own estimates of comparative worth, the financial equivalents are derived from the Consumer Price Index on the internet. (2)

Therefore, all dollar amounts in 2010 are stated both in terms of the value for that earlier year and also their worth in purchasing power in 2010 prices. Two comments:

First, a kudo: Quinn uses internet adjustments provided by a respected economic historian, Samuel H. Williamson.3 There is no better source, and Quinn deserves credit for recognizing and using that source.

Second, Quinn uses Williamson’s Consumer PRICE Index (CPI) exclusively to adjust all nominal values. Surely far better than no adjustment at all. However, one needs to understand what the CPI measures. His example of an 1899 income of $10,000 does not translate into an income of $271,000 in 2010. Instead, the CPI adjustment attempts to estimate what an income of $10,000 in 1899 could buy as a given bundle of consumer goods in 2010. For that reason, Williamson proposes seven different measures for comparing prices vs. wages vs. income over time. Thus, instead of comparing equivalent dollars needed to “purchase a bundle of consumer goods” between any two years, Quinn could have used different indices comparing wages or income over time. Comparing the General Authorities’ “living allowance” to [Page 124]Williamson’s Labor Value Index or Income Value Index might have given a more comparable measure of worth. On the other hand, it should be noted that by using the CPI, whether or not Quinn intended, he was consistently “understating” the differences between early income values compared to modern equivalents. And, since his purpose was to show how large the earlier living allowances were when compared to present values, underestimating was the proper procedure.

Quinn finds several surprises in the income “living allowances” from Chapter 1. First, compared to employment options outside of church service, Quinn appraises these allowances for those devoting full time to Church administration to be modest. He reports the following annual allowances for the president of the Church: $5,000 from 1877 to 1907 (10, 13); $7,800 from 1932 to 1946 (14); $6,000 in 1947 (14); $7,800 in 1951; $10,260 in 1973 (34); $89,325 in 1999; $116,400 in 2013; and $120,000 in 2014 (36).

Second, the living allowances for General Authorities have not kept pace with inflation over most decades nor during the entire 137 year period. Shortly after President Brigham Young’s death, the living allowance for the president, as reported above, was lowered to $5,000 per year and remained at that level until 1907. In real purchasing power dollars, the $5,000 allowance during the period 1877‒1907 would be worth more than the today’s allowance of $120,000. In between those endpoints, inflation was playing havoc with the real value of these allowances. The $7,800 in 1951 would buy about $65,000 of consumer goods in 2010 dollars, and the 1973 allowance of $10,000 only $50,377 (34). What these numbers show is the effect of having an administratively set salary that is not indexed to the rate of inflation. The allowance fell most rapidly in real value during the inflationary periods of 1907‒1917, after WW I, again after WW II, and during the inflation of the 1970s.

Third, Quinn finds it “stunning” that General Authorities’ allowances lag behind those of professional administrators working for the church — some earn as much as double the allowances of General Authorities (36). Quinn concludes:

There are no current measures for salaries of top administrators in the LDS bureaucracy at Salt Lake City, nor for CEOs of the church’s for-profit businesses. Still, the available data show that “salaries” of all general authorities in the twenty-first century could be less than half of what some rank-and-file employees received within the international church over which those “prophets, seers, and revelators“ presided. (37)

[Page 125]A comparison of the living allowance for the President and General Authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the salaries of executive officers of other churches was reported in the Chicago Tribune for 1992.4 The closest year for comparison is the living allowance for the LDS Church President for 1999 at $89,325. Thus, seven or eight years previous, compensation for the Bishop of the Episcopal Church was $160,000; President of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, $120,000; President of the United Church of Christ $89,000; while the United Methodist Church “has no official designated as a national leader, but each of the 50 regional bishops earns $70,000 and is provided housing.”5 Officials of the Evangelical Lutheran Church “would not reveal the exact salary” of their bishop, but stated that it was “between $61,200 and $105,500.” And leaders of the Presbyterian Church are “supposed to earn no more than four times what janitors and other workers at the bottom of the pay scale earn.”6

A similar comparison can be made with many of America’s charitable organizations.7 In 2014, when the LDS President was receiving $120,000 as a living allowance, Charity Watch, Charity Navigator, and Forbes announced that of the 100 largest charities, “18 reported paying some employees more than $1 million.”8 The highest salaried chief executive [Page 126]represented the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, who was paid $4,195,252. The annual salary of the CEO of the Metropolitan Museum of Art was $2,555,131, and the National President of the Boy Scouts of America $1,351,724 (2015).9 A similar list by a Christian blog site, Temple Stream, lists the CEO’s salary for the nation’s largest charity, United Way Worldwide, with annual donations of almost $3.708 billion, at $1,166,454 (2015).10

The conclusion? Many heads of America’s churches are paid comparable or higher compensation than that received by LDS Church leaders, and executives of America’s largest charitable organizations are paid 10 to 20 times the living allowance of the President of the LDS Church. It should be noted that the living allowance from the Church does not include all compensation, which might also include benefits, any allowances for housing or automobiles, and income from books or directorships. But the same is often true for reported income of other churches and salaries of America’s largest charities."

[LatterDayLizard]

More questions.

Do you believe the GA's should be like Bishops and continue to work but receive no living allowance?


If you agree with a living allowance, what do you think is a proper amount?

Perhaps our leaders should have faith that the Lord would look after their needs. This is the advice Jesus gave the disciples and apostles when they were sent out to minister.

Perhaps this is already happening but perhaps you disagree with how the Lord accomplishes it.

"Perhaps our leaders should have faith that the Lord would look after their needs. This is the advice Jesus gave the disciples and apostles when they were sent out to minister."

"Perhaps this is already happening but perhaps you disagree with how the Lord accomplishes it."

rewcox makes a great point here.

I understand why people are confused about this.

The fact that the church is using funds not given to them by its members to support general authorities is the reason the general authorities can truthfully say they are not a paid clergy. I am not supposed to give a person MY money to use their priesthood to bless me or to teach me about God. That's called priestcraft. Their services should be given to us freely, whether we are rich or poor. Salvation is not for sale.

With the way these stipends are set up, the members are not paying any general authority to fulfill their priesthood duties. The church has constructed a way to provide for them independently, enabling them to give of their time 24/7, which allows them to do more, travel farther, and reach more people than ever before. You could say the means have literally been provided by the Lord for His work to be hastened.

Also, consider this. Their lives, in effect, belong to the church. They can't skip general conference because they have a previous engagement. They won't tell the Lord - literally their boss - "sorry, I'm feeling under the weather so I can't fly to Zimbabwe today." They have to be physically unable to. Last November Elder Hales was literally on his death bed, yet he had prepared a conference talk and was ready to give it, if his body would let him. It didn't. He passed away between sessions, so Elder Anderson shared some of Elder Hales talk with us during his own closing remarks.

The fact is that these general authorities would continue to serve whether they were given a stipend or not. That stipend, unpaid for by any of us, allows them to do more than they would otherwise be able to do in the service of God. Having heard complaints in the past about the church being run by the rich, I would think this would be welcome as it opens up the calling of a general authority to anyone willing to serve, regardless of how wealthy they are.

[Craig Johnson]

And imagine how difficult it was before when those called to lifetime service did not have this blessing and they were not rich. I cherish these people (including current lifetime GA's-as well as all GA's), they are not just a cut above, they are the highest cut above for a mortal, in my opinion.

[BTH&T]

I realize that this is an old thread.
That said it is comical to me the lengths people go to be bothered and upset over nothing.

So many threads are devoted to things that are spun to make The Church “look” bad.

In this case The Church does not pay The stipend. It is The Corp of the First Presidency that retains those getting stipends.

So ridiculous how upset many get over this and many other money issues (Non-issues)!

Oh yea of little faith!