LDS Freedom Forum

thisisspartaaa wrote:

Rensai wrote:

rewcox wrote:

I, the Lord, chasten him for the murmurings of his heart;

16 And he who is faithful shall overcome all things, and shall be lifted up at the last day.

19 And in whatsoever house ye enter, and they receive you, leave your blessing upon that house.

24 Behold, I say unto you, that it is the duty of the church to assist in supporting the families of those, and also to support the families of those who are called and must needs be sent unto the world to proclaim the gospel unto the world.

D&C 75 should silence your murmurings.

Stop murmuring, start blessing!

This is actually talking about missionaries, who work more than full time for the church and not only don't get paid, but have to pay their own way, often causing great hardship for their families. So why is it ok for the GA's to get big bucks but the missionaries have to pay for the privilege of working full time for the church?

Not even a close comparison. Missionaries are two years. GAs are until 70 or for life if an apostle.

So a GA is suppose to just give 100% to the church for years and not support themselves?

Come on people, you cannot expect these people to do that. The Lord has provided a way for the Church to help out.

Alma did it.

Perhaps church work shouldn't be full time.

Rensai wrote:

thisisspartaaa wrote:

Rensai wrote:

rewcox wrote:






D&C 75 should silence your murmurings.

Stop murmuring, start blessing!

This is actually talking about missionaries, who work more than full time for the church and not only don't get paid, but have to pay their own way, often causing great hardship for their families. So why is it ok for the GA's to get big bucks but the missionaries have to pay for the privilege of working full time for the church?

Not even a close comparison. Missionaries are two years. GAs are until 70 or for life if an apostle.

So a GA is suppose to just give 100% to the church for years and not support themselves?

Come on people, you cannot expect these people to do that. The Lord has provided a way for the Church to help out.

So a full time worker for 2 years or less should not be paid, but if they are going to be full time for possibly more than 2 years then its ok? Is that what you're really going to go with? Do the GA's get paid within the first 2 years? I bet they do....

And my question is how would you change the current system to support 80,000 missionaries?

thisisspartaaa wrote:

Rensai wrote:

rewcox wrote:

Rensai wrote: This is actually talking about missionaries, who work more than full time for the church and not only don't get paid, but have to pay their own way, often causing great hardship for their families. So why is it ok for the GA's to get big bucks but the missionaries have to pay for the privilege of working full time for the church?

Understand the scriptures.

The GAs are missionaries, full time. The Apostles until they die. The Seventies until they reach age 70 (that's interesting!)

Bless, don't murmur.

I never said they weren't missionaries, but what about the other missionaries? You didn't answer the question at all.

How about you answer the question. How is the church able to provide this for 80,000 of them?

Apparently the Church cannot set up business entities according to some people. So from a logistical perspective, what do you propose?

Nevermind that they have businesses or that they are paid well beyond a living stipend, if they can't pay for the missionaries they shouldn't pay themselves either. its only fair. But looking at some numbers, I think the church might actually be able to pay the missionaries expenses. Right now there appears to be about 75,000 missionaries out at a cost of 400 per month. That's 360 million per year to fund the missionaries. The church is throwing billions around in investments, so it would appear its at least in the realm of possibility to pay for the missionaries. Then too, there are a number of missionary families who don't mind paying and would probably be willing to donate for the mission, you could subtract that out and it might work who knows. Either way, the excuse to pay the GA's I hear most is that they are full time workers. If that's the rationale, then missionaries should at least get a living stipend to cover their expenses. If we can't do that, then we shouldn't pay anyone. Most of the GA's already collect retirement money, etc by the time they are called. I doubt it would be any more of a hardship for them than it is for many other LDS families who serve the church.

thisisspartaaa wrote:

Rensai wrote:

thisisspartaaa wrote:

Rensai wrote: This is actually talking about missionaries, who work more than full time for the church and not only don't get paid, but have to pay their own way, often causing great hardship for their families. So why is it ok for the GA's to get big bucks but the missionaries have to pay for the privilege of working full time for the church?

Not even a close comparison. Missionaries are two years. GAs are until 70 or for life if an apostle.

So a GA is suppose to just give 100% to the church for years and not support themselves?

Come on people, you cannot expect these people to do that. The Lord has provided a way for the Church to help out.

So a full time worker for 2 years or less should not be paid, but if they are going to be full time for possibly more than 2 years then its ok? Is that what you're really going to go with? Do the GA's get paid within the first 2 years? I bet they do....

And my question is how would you change the current system to support 80,000 missionaries?

Don't build malls and high rise luxury apartment buildings?

ajax wrote:

thisisspartaaa wrote:

Rensai wrote:

rewcox wrote:






D&C 75 should silence your murmurings.

Stop murmuring, start blessing!

This is actually talking about missionaries, who work more than full time for the church and not only don't get paid, but have to pay their own way, often causing great hardship for their families. So why is it ok for the GA's to get big bucks but the missionaries have to pay for the privilege of working full time for the church?

Not even a close comparison. Missionaries are two years. GAs are until 70 or for life if an apostle.

So a GA is suppose to just give 100% to the church for years and not support themselves?

Come on people, you cannot expect these people to do that. The Lord has provided a way for the Church to help out.

Alma did it.

Perhaps church work shouldn't be full time.

And perhaps things may change in the future. From my perspective, that's God's choice.

ajax wrote:

thisisspartaaa wrote:

Rensai wrote:

rewcox wrote:






D&C 75 should silence your murmurings.

Stop murmuring, start blessing!

This is actually talking about missionaries, who work more than full time for the church and not only don't get paid, but have to pay their own way, often causing great hardship for their families. So why is it ok for the GA's to get big bucks but the missionaries have to pay for the privilege of working full time for the church?

Not even a close comparison. Missionaries are two years. GAs are until 70 or for life if an apostle.

So a GA is suppose to just give 100% to the church for years and not support themselves?

Come on people, you cannot expect these people to do that. The Lord has provided a way for the Church to help out.

Alma did it.

Perhaps church work shouldn't be full time.

Oh phooey Ajax. You didn't give the whole story on Alma, did you?

God sent Alma back to Ammonihah. He was hungry. He ran into Amulek (who an angel had said to take care of him (this is key...)). Alma spent many days with Amulek. Amulek was a rich man. He would be richer because of his association with Alma.

Today, there are certainly enough wealthy Mormons to take care of the full-time GAs. Christ set it up a little differently in our days, see D&C 43:12-13.

Of course, you would probably say that Amulek shouldn't have been preaching with Alma, cause Alma was biased because Amulek took care of Alma.

But that isn't the point, the point is Christ wants his full-time GAs to have a living allowance in our day.

Read this:
Learn from Alma and Amulek

Pretty neat, and from a full-time GA, whether he uses the living allowance or not.

thisisspartaaa wrote:

Rensai wrote:

rewcox wrote:

I, the Lord, chasten him for the murmurings of his heart;

16 And he who is faithful shall overcome all things, and shall be lifted up at the last day.

19 And in whatsoever house ye enter, and they receive you, leave your blessing upon that house.

24 Behold, I say unto you, that it is the duty of the church to assist in supporting the families of those, and also to support the families of those who are called and must needs be sent unto the world to proclaim the gospel unto the world.

D&C 75 should silence your murmurings.

Stop murmuring, start blessing!

This is actually talking about missionaries, who work more than full time for the church and not only don't get paid, but have to pay their own way, often causing great hardship for their families. So why is it ok for the GA's to get big bucks but the missionaries have to pay for the privilege of working full time for the church?

Not even a close comparison. Missionaries are two years. GAs are until 70 or for life if an apostle.

So a GA is suppose to just give 100% to the church for years and not support themselves?

Come on people, you cannot expect these people to do that. The Lord has provided a way for the Church to help out.

Why can't we expect the GAs to make the same sacrifice the missionaries and their families make? You are right that the Lord has provided a way to help out, but he clearly states in the D&C 75 scriptures that it applies to the missionaries. Why don't we trust the lord and use our money as he said to pay for the missionaries work? I have faith that if we pay a correct tithe, and use it as the lord directs, it will work out.

Rensai wrote:

thisisspartaaa wrote:

Rensai wrote:

rewcox wrote:






D&C 75 should silence your murmurings.

Stop murmuring, start blessing!

This is actually talking about missionaries, who work more than full time for the church and not only don't get paid, but have to pay their own way, often causing great hardship for their families. So why is it ok for the GA's to get big bucks but the missionaries have to pay for the privilege of working full time for the church?

Not even a close comparison. Missionaries are two years. GAs are until 70 or for life if an apostle.

So a GA is suppose to just give 100% to the church for years and not support themselves?

Come on people, you cannot expect these people to do that. The Lord has provided a way for the Church to help out.

Why can't we expect the GAs to make the same sacrifice the missionaries and their families make? You are right that the Lord has provided a way to help out, but he clearly states in the D&C 75 scriptures that it applies to the missionaries. Why don't we trust the lord and use our money as he said to pay for the missionaries work? I have faith that if we pay a correct tithe, and use it as the lord directs, it will work out.

Because there is D&C 43 also:
11 Purge ye out the iniquity which is among you; sanctify yourselves before me;

12 And if ye desire the glories of the kingdom, appoint ye my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and uphold him before me by the prayer of faith.

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

14 And if ye do it not he shall remain unto them that have received him, that I may reserve unto myself a pure people before me.

I hope you want to be on the pure side.

rewcox wrote:

ajax wrote:

thisisspartaaa wrote:

Rensai wrote: This is actually talking about missionaries, who work more than full time for the church and not only don't get paid, but have to pay their own way, often causing great hardship for their families. So why is it ok for the GA's to get big bucks but the missionaries have to pay for the privilege of working full time for the church?

Not even a close comparison. Missionaries are two years. GAs are until 70 or for life if an apostle.

So a GA is suppose to just give 100% to the church for years and not support themselves?

Come on people, you cannot expect these people to do that. The Lord has provided a way for the Church to help out.

Alma did it.

Perhaps church work shouldn't be full time.

Oh phooey Ajax. You didn't give the whole story on Alma, did you?

God sent Alma back to Ammonihah. He was hungry. He ran into Amulek (who an angel had said to take care of him (this is key...)). Alma spent many days with Amulek. Amulek was a rich man. He would be richer because of his association with Alma.

Today, there are certainly enough wealthy Mormons to take care of the full-time GAs. Christ set it up a little differently in our days, see D&C 43:12-13.

Of course, you would probably say that Amulek shouldn't have been preaching with Alma, cause Alma was biased because Amulek took care of Alma.

But that isn't the point, the point is Christ wants his full-time GAs to have a living allowance in our day.

Read this:
Learn from Alma and Amulek

Pretty neat, and from a full-time GA, whether he uses the living allowance or not.

Alma went out without purse or script and was supported by the generosity and charity of a stranger. Go and do thou likewise, o ye of little faith.

He wasn't given an annual stipend by the church, thus could tell Korihor that he received nothing in renumeration for his labors in the ministry. Could current leaders answer Korihor the same way?

I suggest most of the buildings be sold off (you don't need synagogues to worship) and the ministers go part time and start laboring for their own support, that there may be an equality:

Alma 1:

26 And when the priests left their labor to impart the word of God unto the people, the people also left their labors to hear the word of God. And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God they all returned again diligently unto their labors; and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength.

rewcox wrote:

ajax wrote:

thisisspartaaa wrote:

Rensai wrote: This is actually talking about missionaries, who work more than full time for the church and not only don't get paid, but have to pay their own way, often causing great hardship for their families. So why is it ok for the GA's to get big bucks but the missionaries have to pay for the privilege of working full time for the church?

Not even a close comparison. Missionaries are two years. GAs are until 70 or for life if an apostle.

So a GA is suppose to just give 100% to the church for years and not support themselves?

Come on people, you cannot expect these people to do that. The Lord has provided a way for the Church to help out.

Alma did it.

Perhaps church work shouldn't be full time.

Oh phooey Ajax. You didn't give the whole story on Alma, did you?

God sent Alma back to Ammonihah. He was hungry. He ran into Amulek (who an angel had said to take care of him (this is key...)). Alma spent many days with Amulek. Amulek was a rich man. He would be richer because of his association with Alma.

Today, there are certainly enough wealthy Mormons to take care of the full-time GAs. Christ set it up a little differently in our days, see D&C 43:12-13.

Of course, you would probably say that Amulek shouldn't have been preaching with Alma, cause Alma was biased because Amulek took care of Alma.

But that isn't the point, the point is Christ wants his full-time GAs to have a living allowance in our day.

Read this:
Learn from Alma and Amulek

Pretty neat, and from a full-time GA, whether he uses the living allowance or not.

Its a good story, but there is a big difference between someone donating some necessities like Food, clothing, etc to Alma, who was working as a missionary, vs a big fat payday from the church. Alma was just showing what Christ told the apostles, that they would be provided for while doing his work. Alma made a point of teaching that he accepted no money from the church. The story of Nehor in Alma 1 shows clearly the difference between taking money and living wealthy off the church vs what christ said:

80 And any man that shall go and preach this gospel of the kingdom, and fail not to continue faithful in all things, shall not be weary in mind, neither darkened, neither in body, limb, nor joint; and a hair of his head shall not fall to the ground unnoticed. And they shall not go hungry, neither athirst.

81 Therefore, take ye no thought for the morrow, for what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, or wherewithal ye shall be clothed.

82 For, consider the lilies of the field, how they grow, they toil not, neither do they spin; and the kingdoms of the world, in all their glory, are not arrayed like one of these.

83 For your Father, who is in heaven, knoweth that you have need of all these things.

84 Therefore, let the morrow take thought for the things of itself.

He says not to worry about tomorrow, food, clothing, shelter will be provided. He doesn't say they'll get paid any money or have nice things. That's how Alma did it. He accepted some food and lodging, nothing more is mentioned.

rewcox wrote:

Rensai wrote:

thisisspartaaa wrote:

Rensai wrote: This is actually talking about missionaries, who work more than full time for the church and not only don't get paid, but have to pay their own way, often causing great hardship for their families. So why is it ok for the GA's to get big bucks but the missionaries have to pay for the privilege of working full time for the church?

Not even a close comparison. Missionaries are two years. GAs are until 70 or for life if an apostle.

So a GA is suppose to just give 100% to the church for years and not support themselves?

Come on people, you cannot expect these people to do that. The Lord has provided a way for the Church to help out.

Why can't we expect the GAs to make the same sacrifice the missionaries and their families make? You are right that the Lord has provided a way to help out, but he clearly states in the D&C 75 scriptures that it applies to the missionaries. Why don't we trust the lord and use our money as he said to pay for the missionaries work? I have faith that if we pay a correct tithe, and use it as the lord directs, it will work out.

Because there is D&C 43 also:
11 Purge ye out the iniquity which is among you; sanctify yourselves before me;

12 And if ye desire the glories of the kingdom, appoint ye my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and uphold him before me by the prayer of faith.

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

14 And if ye do it not he shall remain unto them that have received him, that I may reserve unto myself a pure people before me.

I hope you want to be on the pure side.

That doesn't negate D&C 75 saying to pay for the missionaries way. Also, it mentions again, food, raiment, and things necessary to accomplish the work. Part of the problem with the GA pay is it goes WAY beyond necessities.

Sorry Rensai and Ajax, D&C 43 is from Christ through Joseph Smith and applies to our dispensation.

rewcox wrote:Sorry Rensai and Ajax, D&C 43 is from Christ through Joseph Smith and applies to our dispensation.

It is from Christ to Joseph Smith. I don't see it applying to anybody else. Oh and when Joseph tried to get more money (more than 3 times the average), the membership shot it down. And JS abided the decision. Honesty, transparency.

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.

ajax wrote: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.

The D&C is also part of our Standard Works, and is aligned with our current days. You can ignore it if you like, that is your choice.

ajax wrote:

jbalm wrote:Missionaries give all their time to the church. And they pay for the privilege. What's up with that?

Sacrifice brings for the blessings of heaven...

All [ministers] are equal, but some [ministers] are more equal than others...

:)) That's so funny!

Thanks for the laugh!
Amonhi

rewcox wrote:

ajax wrote: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.

The D&C is also part of our Standard Works, and is aligned with our current days. You can ignore it if you like, that is your choice.

As you used to say, "Stuck in the 1800s" and "stay in the 1800s"

Since that rev was given to JS for JS 200 years ago, show me something since. Or are you just extrapolating?

Show me the revelation that spells out the current stipend/benefit package of current leaders, disclosed, reviewed and accepted by the members.

ajax wrote:

rewcox wrote:

ajax wrote: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.

The D&C is also part of our Standard Works, and is aligned with our current days. You can ignore it if you like, that is your choice.

As you used to say, "Stuck in the 1800s" and "stay in the 1800s"

Since that rev was given to JS for JS 200 years ago, show me something since. Or are you just extrapolating?

Show me the revelation that spells out the current stipend/benefit package of current leaders, disclosed, reviewed and accepted by the members.

You from Missiouri, or just want a sign?

So you can't. Which means you'll pretty much smoke what you are given. I respect that. Perhaps we can doobie together sometime.

ajax wrote: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-|

ajax wrote:So you can't. Which means you'll pretty much smoke what you are given. I respect that. Perhaps we can doobie together sometime.

I sustain the leaders and what they do. You may not. Living allowance isn't an issue for me.

You can always go to SLC and let them know your feelings yourself, or do a Facebook thing, maybe even Twitter.

Mark wrote:

ajax wrote: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.

rewcox wrote:

ajax wrote:So you can't. Which means you'll pretty much smoke what you are given. I respect that. Perhaps we can doobie together sometime.

I sustain the leaders and what they do. You may not. Living allowance isn't an issue for me.

You can always go to SLC and let them know your feelings yourself, or do a Facebook thing, maybe even Twitter.

So no doobie?

jbalm wrote:

Mark wrote:

ajax wrote: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.

Does that make me a true messenger?

D&C 43
14 And if ye do it not he shall remain unto them that have received him, that I may reserve unto myself a pure people before me.

Those who have removed themselves through inactivity, resigning or being excommunicated will not have the Prophet and Apostles with them.