Let's quote Mosiah 18:shadow wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2017, 11:14 amNo, they (for sure Thomas) claim that the brethren are apostate for accepting a stipend. The argument I've made is that Joseph Smith also did. Thomas claims that that's a reason the church was put under condemnation- because Joseph Smith was apostate. I claim Joseph Smith was not apostate and NT Apostles, Paul specifically, tried to make the point that church leaders should be supported by the church.
We don't know how King Benjamin was supported. If he supported himself then he obviously was not laboring full time for the people. He must have had some other source of income and had been a part time leader. Or he was supported by the people but wasn't excessive by making people poor by doing so, meaning he didn't seek gold or silver or riches but he was still supported. He said he labored with his own hands to serve them so I suspect he was reimbursed for his labor somehow. That's scriptural- getting paid for your work.
Alma teaches that the Priests were not to depend on the people for their support. However, the very next verse he tells the people to impart of their substance, every one. Then the very next verse he said they should impart of their substance for the support of the Priests who are in need. So to sum up- the Priests aren't to depend on the people but the people are to support the Priests. The Apostle Paul taught similarly. He really got after the people of Corinth for not supporting him and claimed that other church's were supporting him while he was teaching the whiners of Corinth. His rebuke to them can be applied to you. Not a comfortable place to be in if you ask me!
I think the point is that church leaders shouldn't send a bill to the people for their work but the people of their own free will should expect to support those who are called to the ministry. That's scripturally backed by the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. In the Old Testament it's clear that the Priests were paid out of Tithes.
24 And he also commanded them that the priests whom he had ordained should labor with their own hands for their support.
25 And there was one day in every week that was set apart that they should gather themselves together to teach the people, and to worship the Lord their God, and also, as often as it was in their power, to assemble themselves together.
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.
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.
We see that the priests should support themselves. No argument, right? v. 24 shows this.
Furthermore, the priests were explicitly told to NOT DEPEND UPON THE PEOPLE FOR THEIR SUPPORT. v. 26. This lays to rest any ideas that the priests should have a welfare mentality or entitlement attitude.
In fact, the formula for waxing strong in the spirit and having the knowledge of God and teaching with the power and authority of God is to "labor".
Then in v. 28 it says that if there are priests "in need", that the people should VOLUNTARILY "of their own free will" impart of their substance not just to a needy priest but to "every needy, naked soul."
Let's compare that to what we see today in practice:
Are the top leaders laboring with their own hands for their support? My understanding is that they are full-time employees of the Church. They do not hold down regular jobs. 0 for 1.
They are explicitly instructed to not expect any money from the people. There was to be no dependence on the people for their support. Is this the case? No. Again, they do not have jobs, and they receive salary and perks from the church. 0 for 2.
This one is somewhat subjective. The benefits of laboring to support oneself are: to wax strong in the Spirit, to have the knowledge of God (the Second Comforter) and to teach with power and authority from God. Many would say the current leaders are very weak in this area, and none of them have claimed to have received the Second Comforter or to have "been sent", having authority to deliver a message from God. 0 for 3.
I'm not aware of any leaders who are in need. In fact, almost all leaders are very successful in their careers and want for nothing. So there's not even a need for them to be the recipient of any substance from the members. 0 for 4.
However, there IS money being given to them (salaries, insurance, perks, expense accounts, etc.), but it's not voluntary per se. I've never once been informed a GA is in need of anything, and never once been asked to contribute to a specific needy GA. I would imagine that if there was such a need, that the outpouring of support would be massive in this day and age with huge numbers of members. It would be a simple thing to raise money to buy him some food or clothing, if he had need. Bottom line is that money is INVOLUNTARILY being given to GA's. What we have is a sort of have a priestclass aristocracy who "glut themselves on the labors of the people". 0 for 5.
By comparison, what do we know about Denver Snuffer on these same 5 items?
1) He works for a living. 1 for 1
2) Takes no money. Expects nothing. Asks for nothing. 2 for 2.
3) If you read his writings and messages, one is compelled to acknowledge the man waxes strong in the Spirit, has the literal knowledge of God (the as he has received the Second Comforter) and he teaches with power and authority from God. He declares he's been "sent". 3 for 3.
4) What about imparting substance to those in need. If you aren't aware, this has been the MAJOR part of his preaching as of late. He just declared last Thurs night that it is our duty to give to those who stand in need, and that a religion that doesn't require the sacrifice of all earthly things, has not the power to save. He constantly preaches to relieve the suffering of the poor and afflicted. This is a key message of Denver's. 4 for 4.
5) He doesn't suggest, teach or preach for any INVOLUNTARY redistribution of the wealth. He preaches VOLUNTARY contributions to the sick, poor and needy. 5 for 5.
I'm quite sure that GA's are not paid via checks from their local bishops' fast offering funds. The GA's are employees of the church. If they were being supported by their local bishops, then one could possibly argue that the funds are voluntarily given by that ward's local members. But that is not the case.
In short, the very clear warnings and instructions to not labor in Zion for money are being ignored and turned upside down.
For you to argue FOR the idea that the GA's SHOULD depend on the people for their support is to argue against Scripture and common sense, because common sense tells the mind that such a practice would inevitably, sooner or later lead to corruption. Which we have been in a state of for some time.
That's the warning of the allegory of the olive trees in Jacob 5. The trees of the vineyard became corrupted! Every tree! And it was because the top had become lifted up unto pride!
Financially supporting the top branches of the trees causes a great inequality. The branches and roots should be equal. Zion should be a place of equals, not a place where there are classes of rulers.And it came to pass that the servant said unto his master: Is it not the loftiness of thy vineyard—have not the branches thereof overcome the roots which are good? And because the branches have overcome the roots thereof, behold they grew faster than the strength of the roots, taking strength unto themselves. Behold, I say, is not this the cause that the trees of thy vineyard have become corrupted?
This does not describe the LDS Church. The roots (the general members) and the top branches are in no way viewed as equals. The exact opposite in carefully instilled in the minds of the people at every meeting. Sacrament is first given to the presiding official. People often stand when the "prophet" enters the room. It's carefully orchestrated. The Brethren constantly talk about each other and praise each other and quote each other, when in reality, they are no more spiritually gifted than a typical member in any ward or branch who repents and seeks the Lord. In fact, they really are INFERIOR to faithful and lowly LDS scattered throughout the world.And there began to be the natural fruit again in the vineyard; and the natural branches began to grow and thrive exceedingly; and the wild branches began to be plucked off and to be cast away; and they did keep the root and the top thereof equal, according to the strength thereof.
