LDS Freedom Forum

thisisspartaaa wrote:

FTC wrote:

Lizzy60 wrote:"Some things that are true are not very useful." BKP

"Some truths are best left unsaid." RMN

"When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood, but silence for a season." DHO

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.

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.

In 1841 JS 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.”

Lets look at some definitions. I get the semantics game. I use to play it so I could keep justifying in my mind that we have no paid clergy, because I really wanted that to be true.

stipend: "a fixed sum of money paid periodically for services or to defray expenses" (Merriam Webster)

stipend: "A stipend is a form of salary, such as for an internship or apprenticeship.[1] It is often distinct from a wage or a salary because it does not necessarily represent payment for work performed; instead it represents a payment that enables somebody to be exempt partly or wholly from waged or salaried employment in order to undertake a role that is normally unpaid (e.g. a magistrate in the United Kingdom) or voluntary, or which cannot be measured in terms of a task (e.g. members of the clergy). [2][3]

Stipends are usually lower than what would be expected as a permanent salary for similar work. This is because the stipend is complemented by other benefits such as accreditation, instruction, food, and/or accommodation" (Wikipedia.org).

The Catholic church calls what they give their priests a "stipend". We consider them to have a paid clergy.

It is just a fact, by definition, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has two classes of clergy. We have a class of clergy or ministers who are paid a stipend. A stipend is a fixed sum of money PAID. Being a minister and getting PAID = PAID MINISTER/PAID CLERGY.

A STIPEND IS A FORM OF SALARY. ITS SEMANTICS AND NONSENSICAL TO TRY TO SAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE PAID CLERGY BY SAYING THAT HIGHER UP LEADERS DON'T GET PAID, BUT INSTEAD THEY GET A STIPEND. BY DEFINITION THEY ARE GETTING PAID.


-Finrock

Finrock wrote:Lets look at some definitions. I get the semantics game. I use to play it so I could keep justifying in my mind that we have no paid clergy, because I really wanted that to be true.

stipend: "a fixed sum of money paid periodically for services or to defray expenses" (Merriam Webster)

stipend: "A stipend is a form of salary, such as for an internship or apprenticeship.[1] It is often distinct from a wage or a salary because it does not necessarily represent payment for work performed; instead it represents a payment that enables somebody to be exempt partly or wholly from waged or salaried employment in order to undertake a role that is normally unpaid (e.g. a magistrate in the United Kingdom) or voluntary, or which cannot be measured in terms of a task (e.g. members of the clergy). [2][3]

Stipends are usually lower than what would be expected as a permanent salary for similar work. This is because the stipend is complemented by other benefits such as accreditation, instruction, food, and/or accommodation" (Wikipedia.org).

The Catholic church calls what they give their priests a "stipend". We consider them to have a paid clergy.

It is just a fact, by definition, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has two classes of clergy. We have a class of clergy or ministers who are paid a stipend. A stipend is a fixed sum of money PAID. Being a minister and getting PAID = PAID MINISTER/PAID CLERGY.

A STIPEND IS A FORM OF SALARY. ITS SEMANTICS AND NONSENSICAL TO TRY TO SAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE PAID CLERGY BY SAYING THAT HIGHER UP LEADERS DON'T GET PAID, BUT INSTEAD THEY GET A STIPEND. BY DEFINITION THEY ARE GETTING PAID.


-Finrock

Some more definitions...

From NewAdvent.org, a Catholic Encyclopedia website:

"A stipend is a fixed pay, salary; retribution for work done; the income of an ecclesiastical living. In canon law stipend is a general designation of means of support (sustentatio congrua or congrua) provided for the clergy."

From Dictionary.com

Stipend:

"1. a periodic payment, especially a scholarship or fellowship allowance granted to a student.

2. fixed or regular pay; salary."

From Cambridge Dictionary:

Stipend:

"a fixed, regular income that is usually not based on an amount of work done: "

A stipend is a form of salary. It is a form of income. It is a payment given for services rendered. A minister/clergy who receives a stipend is being paid.

Whether our leaders should get paid or not, or whether it is right or wrong, can be debated but it is just flat out asinine to continue to argue that we don't have paid clergy because they don't receive a wage but instead they receive a stipend.

We have clergy that are paid. Period.

-Finrock

Finrock wrote:

Finrock wrote:Lets look at some definitions. I get the semantics game. I use to play it so I could keep justifying in my mind that we have no paid clergy, because I really wanted that to be true.

stipend: "a fixed sum of money paid periodically for services or to defray expenses" (Merriam Webster)

stipend: "A stipend is a form of salary, such as for an internship or apprenticeship.[1] It is often distinct from a wage or a salary because it does not necessarily represent payment for work performed; instead it represents a payment that enables somebody to be exempt partly or wholly from waged or salaried employment in order to undertake a role that is normally unpaid (e.g. a magistrate in the United Kingdom) or voluntary, or which cannot be measured in terms of a task (e.g. members of the clergy). [2][3]

Stipends are usually lower than what would be expected as a permanent salary for similar work. This is because the stipend is complemented by other benefits such as accreditation, instruction, food, and/or accommodation" (Wikipedia.org).

The Catholic church calls what they give their priests a "stipend". We consider them to have a paid clergy.

It is just a fact, by definition, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has two classes of clergy. We have a class of clergy or ministers who are paid a stipend. A stipend is a fixed sum of money PAID. Being a minister and getting PAID = PAID MINISTER/PAID CLERGY.

A STIPEND IS A FORM OF SALARY. ITS SEMANTICS AND NONSENSICAL TO TRY TO SAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE PAID CLERGY BY SAYING THAT HIGHER UP LEADERS DON'T GET PAID, BUT INSTEAD THEY GET A STIPEND. BY DEFINITION THEY ARE GETTING PAID.


-Finrock

Some more definitions...

From NewAdvent.org, a Catholic Encyclopedia website:

"A stipend is a fixed pay, salary; retribution for work done; the income of an ecclesiastical living. In canon law stipend is a general designation of means of support (sustentatio congrua or congrua) provided for the clergy."

From Dictionary.com

Stipend:

"1. a periodic payment, especially a scholarship or fellowship allowance granted to a student.

2. fixed or regular pay; salary."

From Cambridge Dictionary:

Stipend:

"a fixed, regular income that is usually not based on an amount of work done: "

A stipend is a form of salary. It is a form of income. It is a payment given for services rendered. A minister/clergy who receives a stipend is being paid.

Whether our leaders should get paid or not, or whether it is right or wrong, can be debated but it is just flat out asinine to continue to argue that we don't have paid clergy because they don't receive a wage but instead they receive a stipend.

We have clergy that are paid. Period.

-Finrock

You will have to deal with it. Period.

rewcox wrote:

Finrock wrote:

Finrock wrote:Lets look at some definitions. I get the semantics game. I use to play it so I could keep justifying in my mind that we have no paid clergy, because I really wanted that to be true.

stipend: "a fixed sum of money paid periodically for services or to defray expenses" (Merriam Webster)

stipend: "A stipend is a form of salary, such as for an internship or apprenticeship.[1] It is often distinct from a wage or a salary because it does not necessarily represent payment for work performed; instead it represents a payment that enables somebody to be exempt partly or wholly from waged or salaried employment in order to undertake a role that is normally unpaid (e.g. a magistrate in the United Kingdom) or voluntary, or which cannot be measured in terms of a task (e.g. members of the clergy). [2][3]

Stipends are usually lower than what would be expected as a permanent salary for similar work. This is because the stipend is complemented by other benefits such as accreditation, instruction, food, and/or accommodation" (Wikipedia.org).

The Catholic church calls what they give their priests a "stipend". We consider them to have a paid clergy.

It is just a fact, by definition, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has two classes of clergy. We have a class of clergy or ministers who are paid a stipend. A stipend is a fixed sum of money PAID. Being a minister and getting PAID = PAID MINISTER/PAID CLERGY.

A STIPEND IS A FORM OF SALARY. ITS SEMANTICS AND NONSENSICAL TO TRY TO SAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE PAID CLERGY BY SAYING THAT HIGHER UP LEADERS DON'T GET PAID, BUT INSTEAD THEY GET A STIPEND. BY DEFINITION THEY ARE GETTING PAID.


-Finrock

Some more definitions...

From NewAdvent.org, a Catholic Encyclopedia website:

"A stipend is a fixed pay, salary; retribution for work done; the income of an ecclesiastical living. In canon law stipend is a general designation of means of support (sustentatio congrua or congrua) provided for the clergy."

From Dictionary.com

Stipend:

"1. a periodic payment, especially a scholarship or fellowship allowance granted to a student.

2. fixed or regular pay; salary."

From Cambridge Dictionary:

Stipend:

"a fixed, regular income that is usually not based on an amount of work done: "

A stipend is a form of salary. It is a form of income. It is a payment given for services rendered. A minister/clergy who receives a stipend is being paid.

Whether our leaders should get paid or not, or whether it is right or wrong, can be debated but it is just flat out asinine to continue to argue that we don't have paid clergy because they don't receive a wage but instead they receive a stipend.

We have clergy that are paid. Period.

-Finrock

You will have to deal with it. Period.

Okay... :))

It's false to say that we don't have a paid clergy. We have leaders on record who have made this false statement. That is not cool. But, I forgive them and I am open to being shown an alternate definition of clergy or minister that somehow allows them to say that we have no paid clergy and not be lying. But, even if there is no justification and they are just lying or being deceitful, I still forgive them. I've lied before too and Jesus forgave me.

This much I know for a fact: You can't accept the statement, "We have no paid clergy" at face value. There is, for sure, nuance and doublespeak going on. They either don't consider themselves clergy/ministers or they do not consider getting a stipend being paid. If it's the latter, then they are just making up their own special definition of the word stipend, which would be tricky and throw a lot of people off. If it's the former, well, I would like to see a coherent argument that would justify them not being considered clergy. I can't think of any other way of resolving that statement and making it true. I'm open for suggestions. Some have suggested that the context that those statements were given were in the context of the local clergy/ministers. However, I don't see that context or that distinction being made and that statement is universal in scope: "We have no paid clergy" can alternately be stated thusly: "In the Church there are no clergy or ministers who get paid." Again, if they meant something else, then it would be based on their own special definition of words, which would throw a lot of people off. Simple reading of that statement, and the way that I understood it for years, and what I taught to dozens of people, and what I testified of, for many years was that no one in our Church gets paid for the work or the callings that they have/perform and (I inferred) that they are therefore only motivated by their love of God, the Church, and the gospel (which, by-the-way, can still be true and I don't deny that this is what they are motivated by).

-Finrock

Finrock wrote:

rewcox wrote:

Finrock wrote:

Finrock wrote:Lets look at some definitions. I get the semantics game. I use to play it so I could keep justifying in my mind that we have no paid clergy, because I really wanted that to be true.

stipend: "a fixed sum of money paid periodically for services or to defray expenses" (Merriam Webster)

stipend: "A stipend is a form of salary, such as for an internship or apprenticeship.[1] It is often distinct from a wage or a salary because it does not necessarily represent payment for work performed; instead it represents a payment that enables somebody to be exempt partly or wholly from waged or salaried employment in order to undertake a role that is normally unpaid (e.g. a magistrate in the United Kingdom) or voluntary, or which cannot be measured in terms of a task (e.g. members of the clergy). [2][3]

Stipends are usually lower than what would be expected as a permanent salary for similar work. This is because the stipend is complemented by other benefits such as accreditation, instruction, food, and/or accommodation" (Wikipedia.org).

The Catholic church calls what they give their priests a "stipend". We consider them to have a paid clergy.

It is just a fact, by definition, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has two classes of clergy. We have a class of clergy or ministers who are paid a stipend. A stipend is a fixed sum of money PAID. Being a minister and getting PAID = PAID MINISTER/PAID CLERGY.

A STIPEND IS A FORM OF SALARY. ITS SEMANTICS AND NONSENSICAL TO TRY TO SAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE PAID CLERGY BY SAYING THAT HIGHER UP LEADERS DON'T GET PAID, BUT INSTEAD THEY GET A STIPEND. BY DEFINITION THEY ARE GETTING PAID.


-Finrock

Some more definitions...

From NewAdvent.org, a Catholic Encyclopedia website:

"A stipend is a fixed pay, salary; retribution for work done; the income of an ecclesiastical living. In canon law stipend is a general designation of means of support (sustentatio congrua or congrua) provided for the clergy."

From Dictionary.com

Stipend:

"1. a periodic payment, especially a scholarship or fellowship allowance granted to a student.

2. fixed or regular pay; salary."

From Cambridge Dictionary:

Stipend:

"a fixed, regular income that is usually not based on an amount of work done: "

A stipend is a form of salary. It is a form of income. It is a payment given for services rendered. A minister/clergy who receives a stipend is being paid.

Whether our leaders should get paid or not, or whether it is right or wrong, can be debated but it is just flat out asinine to continue to argue that we don't have paid clergy because they don't receive a wage but instead they receive a stipend.

We have clergy that are paid. Period.

-Finrock

You will have to deal with it. Period.

Okay... :))

It's false to say that we don't have a paid clergy. We have leaders on record who have made this false statement. That is not cool. But, I forgive them and I am open to being shown an alternate definition of clergy or minister that somehow allows them to say that we have no paid clergy and not be lying. But, even if there is no justification and they are just lying or being deceitful, I still forgive them. I've lied before too and Jesus forgave me.

This much I know for a fact: You can't accept the statement, "We have no paid clergy" at face value. There is, for sure, nuance and doublespeak going on. They either don't consider themselves clergy/ministers or they do not consider getting a stipend being paid. If it's the latter, then they are just making up their own special definition of the word stipend, which would be tricky and throw a lot of people off. If it's the former, well, I would like to see a coherent argument that would justify them not being considered clergy. I can't think of any other way of resolving that statement and making it true. I'm open for suggestions. Some have suggested that the context that those statements were given were in the context of the local clergy/ministers. However, I don't see that context or that distinction being made and that statement is universal in scope: "We have no paid clergy" can alternately be stated thusly: "In the Church there are no clergy or ministers who get paid." Again, if they meant something else, then it would be based on their own special definition of words, which would throw a lot of people off. Simple reading of that statement, and the way that I understood it for years, and what I taught to dozens of people, and what I testified of, for many years was that no one in our Church gets paid for the work or the callings that they have/perform.

-Finrock

Ok Finrock, make a correct statement. "We have a clergy that are paid." Is an incorrect statement.
Let's say 200 receive living allowances. (And by the way, read D&C 43 carefully, you want to be on the pure side I think.)
We have 16,000,000 members. 200 receive living allowances.
That is .0013%.

Remember there are over 3,100 Stake Presidents and over 22k Bishops.

Now what is your statement? When a non member asks you? When an upset member asks you?

rewcox wrote:

Finrock wrote:

rewcox wrote:

Finrock wrote:
Some more definitions...

From NewAdvent.org, a Catholic Encyclopedia website:

"A stipend is a fixed pay, salary; retribution for work done; the income of an ecclesiastical living. In canon law stipend is a general designation of means of support (sustentatio congrua or congrua) provided for the clergy."

From Dictionary.com

Stipend:

"1. a periodic payment, especially a scholarship or fellowship allowance granted to a student.

2. fixed or regular pay; salary."

From Cambridge Dictionary:

Stipend:

"a fixed, regular income that is usually not based on an amount of work done: "

A stipend is a form of salary. It is a form of income. It is a payment given for services rendered. A minister/clergy who receives a stipend is being paid.

Whether our leaders should get paid or not, or whether it is right or wrong, can be debated but it is just flat out asinine to continue to argue that we don't have paid clergy because they don't receive a wage but instead they receive a stipend.

We have clergy that are paid. Period.

-Finrock

You will have to deal with it. Period.

Okay... :))

It's false to say that we don't have a paid clergy. We have leaders on record who have made this false statement. That is not cool. But, I forgive them and I am open to being shown an alternate definition of clergy or minister that somehow allows them to say that we have no paid clergy and not be lying. But, even if there is no justification and they are just lying or being deceitful, I still forgive them. I've lied before too and Jesus forgave me.

This much I know for a fact: You can't accept the statement, "We have no paid clergy" at face value. There is, for sure, nuance and doublespeak going on. They either don't consider themselves clergy/ministers or they do not consider getting a stipend being paid. If it's the latter, then they are just making up their own special definition of the word stipend, which would be tricky and throw a lot of people off. If it's the former, well, I would like to see a coherent argument that would justify them not being considered clergy. I can't think of any other way of resolving that statement and making it true. I'm open for suggestions. Some have suggested that the context that those statements were given were in the context of the local clergy/ministers. However, I don't see that context or that distinction being made and that statement is universal in scope: "We have no paid clergy" can alternately be stated thusly: "In the Church there are no clergy or ministers who get paid." Again, if they meant something else, then it would be based on their own special definition of words, which would throw a lot of people off. Simple reading of that statement, and the way that I understood it for years, and what I taught to dozens of people, and what I testified of, for many years was that no one in our Church gets paid for the work or the callings that they have/perform.

-Finrock

Ok Finrock, make a correct statement. "We have a clergy that are paid." Is an incorrect statement.
Let's say 200 receive living allowances. (And by the way, read D&C 43 carefully, you want to be on the pure side I think.)
We have 16,000,000 members. 200 receive living allowances.
That is .0013%.

Remember there are over 3,100 Stake Presidents and over 22k Bishops.

Now what is your statement? When a non member asks you? When an upset member asks you?

Answer: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has two classes of clergy. We have a class of clergy or ministers who are paid a stipend, namely, those who are considered general authorities. The second class of clergy, which makes up the most significant portion of those who are clergy and ministers in the Church, are not paid a stipend.

-Finrock

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.

thisisspartaaa wrote:

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

Are you saying missionaries shouldn't have to pay? Who is going to fund 80000 missionaries' homes, food, etc.?

They aren't paying for the "privilege". Unless I'm mistaken and you don't have to pay for your home, utilities, food, clothing, etc.? You must have a privileged life then.

Well, Having served a mission myself, I am well aware that it is literally full time, actually more. No Sundays breaks, 9am to 9pm or later except for a few hours on P day to do laundry, go to the bathroom, make buy and make food, etc. Long hours and hard work all of it dedicated to the work of the lord.

A missionary is a full time servant of the Lord. They aren't put on the boards of directors of for profit businesses like the GAs, Apostles and Prophets are. They are in more need of income than the GAs.

What sources of income can the church use to pay for them?

Have you ever wondered why the church owns for profit businesses? Why does the church need to make a profit anyway? Where did it get the money to start or invest in for profit businesses? Did people just say, here is my tithing and here is my donation to the for Profit business effort of the church?

I don't know, but I do know that the church coughed up between 3.5 and 5 BILLION dollars to build a for profit Super mall. They didn't hurt themselves by doing so. Lets see how many missionaries that would have paid for...

How much does the modern missionary have to pay to go on a mission? One site said $400 a month, so I will use that...

That's $4,800 per year to support a single missionary.
When the super City Creek Mall was constructed, we had about 58,000 missionaries.
It would take 58,000 x $4,800 = $278,400,000 per year to support all those missionaries.
$3.5 BILLION / $278,400,000 per year = 12.6 years

So, the church could have paid for the entire missionary force to serve missions for 12.5 years. without making a dime or hurting financially. But in those 12 years, money would still be coming in from their profit businesses.

Today, after the age change, we currently have a high of about 74,000 missionaries
It would take 74,000 x $4,800 = $355,200,000 per year to support all those missionaries.
3.5 Billion / $355,200,000 per year = just under 10 years

It appears to me that the Lord is doing quite well financially. He is into big business these days. None of that sell all you have and give to the poor rhetoric that he used to teach. They didn't have high rises back then, I totally get it too. New revelations that match the times...

LOL ;)

Ok, all joking aside, there is a way to look at this mess that is, more understandable.

The LDS Missionaries are full time ministers. And they are paid to minister. They don't make a profit, but they are paid or supported by the church to minister the gospel and Jesus Christ. They don't work for their living. Some, but few earned their own way. Someone is paying for them to do the Lord's work. They are being paid to do the Lord's work. Sme missionaries save money during their mission. One guy I knew turned in about $2k british pounds back to the mission President when he left the mission. Others I knew used their extra money to buy gifts for family members. Mission Presidents get to buy gifts and send their kids to college and have other cool perks. No matter how you dice it, they are paid to do a job. They are not laboring with their own hand for their support the way the Book of Mormon prophets claimed to do. That means there are 74,000 paid ministers for the church right now. Not lavishly paid, but paid and supported by the members of the church to minister the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Is that against the scriptures? Only the Book of Mormon scriptures. Here is a comparison of both view points.


Paul writes to the Corinthians and says that he is hungery, thirsty, naked and has no place to dwell because he has to labor with his own hands for his lively hood.

Paul 11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place;
12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: -

Paul again says that he has used his own hands to provide his necessities.

33 I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel.
34 Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. - Acts 20:33-34

And he repeats that living by his own hands is difficult.

27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. - 2 Cor. 11:27-28

Paul again saying that he toiled long and hard to make his own living so that the members didn't have to bare the burden of his support

9 For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God. - 1 Thess. 2:9

Paul said some pretty harsh things on the subject of apostles being supported by the church. He rather took support from other churches charity than from his own. ut he took s

7 Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?
8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.
9 And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.
10 As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia.
11 Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth.
12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. - 2 Cor. 11:7-15

Ouch...

Again, Paul says that he has not burdened the church for his support and has not made any gain by being an apostle and taking money from the church, nor are those who he sent to minister to the church.

13 For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong.
14 Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours, but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.
15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.
16 But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.
17 Did I make a gain of you by any of them whom I sent unto you?
18 I desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother. Did Titus make a gain of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps? - 2 Cor. 12

Honestly, this is not where I was trying to go at all. I was actually intending to show that it is ok to support the leaders of the church off tithing... These are new scriptures to me too.

Lets see what else I come up with...
...
Ok, here we see Paul being sent supplies from other churches that he isn't ministering to.

14 Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction.
15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.
16 For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.
17 Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account.
18 But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.
19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus. - Philip 4:14-19

Paul seems to be saying that it is ok for the members to support the apostles, but that he personally

11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.
13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.
16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. - 1 Cor. 9:11-18

Gee, that last line kind of says it all. "I make the gospel without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel..."

Salvation is free, and the gifts and Blessings of God are free, they only costs 10%...

We have an unpaid ministry that we members financially support...

ouch... Ok, let's look at the other side of the coin, if we can...

The Levites in the temple that just did temple work lived off the sacrifices and offering people brought to the Lord. They lived off the tithing of the people.

Numbers 18:21
21 And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.

And they paid tithing on their part..

Numbers 18:26
26 Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe.

There are a few verses in the D&C that say Bishops should be paid or compensated for their service. (I don't want to look for them.)

President Hinckley said,

Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.
I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.
I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.

So, essentially, they work to support themselves by being placed on boards of trustees so that they make lots of money for very little work in the business world. Then they are able to support their families from the business income of the church owned businesses.

They aren't paid for their church service, but they are given a Superb job as a benefit to their Church calling. This allows them to make their entire years income from 4 meetings a year on the board of directors and spend the rest of the time serving and not starving like Paul.

It could be semantics or it could be legit because they work for businesses and get paid by the business owned by the church. They serve in their callings for free without asking or taking money from the church except for Brigham Young I mean. :p :))

Peace,
Amonhi

Finrock wrote: Answer: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has two classes of clergy. We have a class of clergy or ministers who are paid a stipend, namely, those who are considered general authorities. The second class of clergy, which makes up the most significant portion of those who are clergy and ministers in the Church, are not paid a stipend.

-Finrock

Uh, by the definition of "stipend" all missionaries get one. I did. I was paid my support to minister the gospel. Where did anyone come up with the idea that we don't pay our ministry?

Peace,
Amonhi

Amonhi wrote:

Finrock wrote: Answer: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has two classes of clergy. We have a class of clergy or ministers who are paid a stipend, namely, those who are considered general authorities. The second class of clergy, which makes up the most significant portion of those who are clergy and ministers in the Church, are not paid a stipend.

-Finrock

Uh, by the definition of "stipend" all missionaries get one. I did. I was paid my support to minister the gospel. Where did anyone come up with the idea that we don't pay our ministry?

Peace,
Amonhi

The parents/grandparents/relatives/friends give money to a ward, the money is sent to the church. Mission Presidents then give the missionaries the monthly amount.

No matter what side you are on, why isn't the church, aka prophets of God recognizing the hand of God in this, and helping them with billions of dollars at their disposal?

https://youtu.be/nNPNRmEHBb0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"God be thanked for the Latter-day Saints—you my brethren, your wives, your children, your associates. We love you. We pray for you and hope that you will pray for us. We are all a part of this great cause, each with a responsibility to make it succeed. We do not need critics standing on the sidelines. We need men of faith and capacity who love the Lord and who work to accomplish His purposes. God bless you, each of you, including you boys who are growing to manhood and upon whose shoulders must rest the burden of this kingdom. Live worthy of that coming responsibility. Prepare for it.

I leave you my testimony. This is the work of the Almighty. This is the work of His Beloved Son. This is the work of salvation, of eternal blessings for all who will accept. May our Father help us to be true and faithful, I humbly ask in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen."

Gordon B. Hinckley

FTC wrote:

thisisspartaaa wrote:

FTC wrote:

Lizzy60 wrote:"Some things that are true are not very useful." BKP

"Some truths are best left unsaid." RMN

"When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood, but silence for a season." DHO

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?

Amonhi wrote:

thisisspartaaa wrote:

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

Are you saying missionaries shouldn't have to pay? Who is going to fund 80000 missionaries' homes, food, etc.?

They aren't paying for the "privilege". Unless I'm mistaken and you don't have to pay for your home, utilities, food, clothing, etc.? You must have a privileged life then.

Well, Having served a mission myself, I am well aware that it is literally full time, actually more. No Sundays breaks, 9am to 9pm or later except for a few hours on P day to do laundry, go to the bathroom, make buy and make food, etc. Long hours and hard work all of it dedicated to the work of the lord.

A missionary is a full time servant of the Lord. They aren't put on the boards of directors of for profit businesses like the GAs, Apostles and Prophets are. They are in more need of income than the GAs.

What sources of income can the church use to pay for them?

Have you ever wondered why the church owns for profit businesses? Why does the church need to make a profit anyway? Where did it get the money to start or invest in for profit businesses? Did people just say, here is my tithing and here is my donation to the for Profit business effort of the church?

I don't know, but I do know that the church coughed up between 3.5 and 5 BILLION dollars to build a for profit Super mall. They didn't hurt themselves by doing so. Lets see how many missionaries that would have paid for...

How much does the modern missionary have to pay to go on a mission? One site said $400 a month, so I will use that...

That's $4,800 per year to support a single missionary.
When the super City Creek Mall was constructed, we had about 58,000 missionaries.
It would take 58,000 x $4,800 = $278,400,000 per year to support all those missionaries.
$3.5 BILLION / $278,400,000 per year = 12.6 years

So, the church could have paid for the entire missionary force to serve missions for 12.5 years. without making a dime or hurting financially. But in those 12 years, money would still be coming in from their profit businesses.

Today, after the age change, we currently have a high of about 74,000 missionaries
It would take 74,000 x $4,800 = $355,200,000 per year to support all those missionaries.
3.5 Billion / $355,200,000 per year = just under 10 years

It appears to me that the Lord is doing quite well financially. He is into big business these days. None of that sell all you have and give to the poor rhetoric that he used to teach. They didn't have high rises back then, I totally get it too. New revelations that match the times...

LOL ;)

Ok, all joking aside, there is a way to look at this mess that is, more understandable.

The LDS Missionaries are full time ministers. And they are paid to minister. They don't make a profit, but they are paid or supported by the church to minister the gospel and Jesus Christ. They don't work for their living. Some, but few earned their own way. Someone is paying for them to do the Lord's work. They are being paid to do the Lord's work. Sme missionaries save money during their mission. One guy I knew turned in about $2k british pounds back to the mission President when he left the mission. Others I knew used their extra money to buy gifts for family members. Mission Presidents get to buy gifts and send their kids to college and have other cool perks. No matter how you dice it, they are paid to do a job. They are not laboring with their own hand for their support the way the Book of Mormon prophets claimed to do. That means there are 74,000 paid ministers for the church right now. Not lavishly paid, but paid and supported by the members of the church to minister the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Is that against the scriptures? Only the Book of Mormon scriptures. Here is a comparison of both view points.


Paul writes to the Corinthians and says that he is hungery, thirsty, naked and has no place to dwell because he has to labor with his own hands for his lively hood.

Paul 11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place;
12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: -

Paul again says that he has used his own hands to provide his necessities.

33 I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel.
34 Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. - Acts 20:33-34

And he repeats that living by his own hands is difficult.

27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. - 2 Cor. 11:27-28

Paul again saying that he toiled long and hard to make his own living so that the members didn't have to bare the burden of his support

9 For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God. - 1 Thess. 2:9

Paul said some pretty harsh things on the subject of apostles being supported by the church. He rather took support from other churches charity than from his own. ut he took s

7 Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?
8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.
9 And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.
10 As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia.
11 Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth.
12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. - 2 Cor. 11:7-15

Ouch...

Again, Paul says that he has not burdened the church for his support and has not made any gain by being an apostle and taking money from the church, nor are those who he sent to minister to the church.

13 For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong.
14 Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours, but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.
15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.
16 But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.
17 Did I make a gain of you by any of them whom I sent unto you?
18 I desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother. Did Titus make a gain of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps? - 2 Cor. 12

Honestly, this is not where I was trying to go at all. I was actually intending to show that it is ok to support the leaders of the church off tithing... These are new scriptures to me too.

Lets see what else I come up with...
...
Ok, here we see Paul being sent supplies from other churches that he isn't ministering to.

14 Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction.
15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.
16 For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.
17 Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account.
18 But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.
19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus. - Philip 4:14-19

Paul seems to be saying that it is ok for the members to support the apostles, but that he personally

11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.
13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.
16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. - 1 Cor. 9:11-18

Gee, that last line kind of says it all. "I make the gospel without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel..."

Salvation is free, and the gifts and Blessings of God are free, they only costs 10%...

We have an unpaid ministry that we members financially support...

ouch... Ok, let's look at the other side of the coin, if we can...

The Levites in the temple that just did temple work lived off the sacrifices and offering people brought to the Lord. They lived off the tithing of the people.

Numbers 18:21
21 And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.

And they paid tithing on their part..

Numbers 18:26
26 Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe.

There are a few verses in the D&C that say Bishops should be paid or compensated for their service. (I don't want to look for them.)

President Hinckley said,

Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.
I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.
I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.

So, essentially, they work to support themselves by being placed on boards of trustees so that they make lots of money for very little work in the business world. Then they are able to support their families from the business income of the church owned businesses.

They aren't paid for their church service, but they are given a Superb job as a benefit to their Church calling. This allows them to make their entire years income from 4 meetings a year on the board of directors and spend the rest of the time serving and not starving like Paul.

It could be semantics or it could be legit because they work for businesses and get paid by the business owned by the church. They serve in their callings for free without asking or taking money from the church except for Brigham Young I mean. :p :))

Peace,
Amonhi

tl;dr

I stopped at the City Creek Center and your "calculations". No tithing was used to build it. It was funded through Property Reserve, Inc. The project completely revitalized the area, brought jobs and has great potential to be a fantastic investment for the Church. The Church will be better in the long run with this project despite the criticisms against it.

His ways are not our ways. It seems folks on here want to dictate to God how He should use the funds of the Church.

rewcox wrote:

Amonhi wrote:

Finrock wrote: Answer: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has two classes of clergy. We have a class of clergy or ministers who are paid a stipend, namely, those who are considered general authorities. The second class of clergy, which makes up the most significant portion of those who are clergy and ministers in the Church, are not paid a stipend.

-Finrock

Uh, by the definition of "stipend" all missionaries get one. I did. I was paid my support to minister the gospel. Where did anyone come up with the idea that we don't pay our ministry?

Peace,
Amonhi

The parents/grandparents/relatives/friends give money to a ward, the money is sent to the church. Mission Presidents then give the missionaries the monthly amount.

People buy products that my company sells, the money rolls up to accounting, Accounting gives me a check for doing my job. What's the difference? If a missionary doesn't do his job, he or she gets fired and sent home. If they do, they stay on the Lords pay role and keep doing their job.

The parents put in $400 and their kid only gets $150 because they have a kid in an inexpensive mission. Other parents put in $400 and their kid get $900 because they are in an expensive mission. I put in money and don't have a kid out at all. Doesn't matter, I am paying for someone to spread the gospel. Someone does the job or gets fired. I want my money's worth. lol.

Peace,
Amonhi

thisisspartaaa wrote:

Amonhi wrote:

thisisspartaaa wrote:

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

Are you saying missionaries shouldn't have to pay? Who is going to fund 80000 missionaries' homes, food, etc.?

They aren't paying for the "privilege". Unless I'm mistaken and you don't have to pay for your home, utilities, food, clothing, etc.? You must have a privileged life then.

Well, Having served a mission myself, I am well aware that it is literally full time, actually more. No Sundays breaks, 9am to 9pm or later except for a few hours on P day to do laundry, go to the bathroom, make buy and make food, etc. Long hours and hard work all of it dedicated to the work of the lord.

A missionary is a full time servant of the Lord. They aren't put on the boards of directors of for profit businesses like the GAs, Apostles and Prophets are. They are in more need of income than the GAs.

What sources of income can the church use to pay for them?

Have you ever wondered why the church owns for profit businesses? Why does the church need to make a profit anyway? Where did it get the money to start or invest in for profit businesses? Did people just say, here is my tithing and here is my donation to the for Profit business effort of the church?

I don't know, but I do know that the church coughed up between 3.5 and 5 BILLION dollars to build a for profit Super mall. They didn't hurt themselves by doing so. Lets see how many missionaries that would have paid for...

How much does the modern missionary have to pay to go on a mission? One site said $400 a month, so I will use that...

That's $4,800 per year to support a single missionary.
When the super City Creek Mall was constructed, we had about 58,000 missionaries.
It would take 58,000 x $4,800 = $278,400,000 per year to support all those missionaries.
$3.5 BILLION / $278,400,000 per year = 12.6 years

So, the church could have paid for the entire missionary force to serve missions for 12.5 years. without making a dime or hurting financially. But in those 12 years, money would still be coming in from their profit businesses.

Today, after the age change, we currently have a high of about 74,000 missionaries
It would take 74,000 x $4,800 = $355,200,000 per year to support all those missionaries.
3.5 Billion / $355,200,000 per year = just under 10 years

It appears to me that the Lord is doing quite well financially. He is into big business these days. None of that sell all you have and give to the poor rhetoric that he used to teach. They didn't have high rises back then, I totally get it too. New revelations that match the times...

LOL ;)

Ok, all joking aside, there is a way to look at this mess that is, more understandable.

The LDS Missionaries are full time ministers. And they are paid to minister. They don't make a profit, but they are paid or supported by the church to minister the gospel and Jesus Christ. They don't work for their living. Some, but few earned their own way. Someone is paying for them to do the Lord's work. They are being paid to do the Lord's work. Sme missionaries save money during their mission. One guy I knew turned in about $2k british pounds back to the mission President when he left the mission. Others I knew used their extra money to buy gifts for family members. Mission Presidents get to buy gifts and send their kids to college and have other cool perks. No matter how you dice it, they are paid to do a job. They are not laboring with their own hand for their support the way the Book of Mormon prophets claimed to do. That means there are 74,000 paid ministers for the church right now. Not lavishly paid, but paid and supported by the members of the church to minister the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Is that against the scriptures? Only the Book of Mormon scriptures. Here is a comparison of both view points.


Paul writes to the Corinthians and says that he is hungery, thirsty, naked and has no place to dwell because he has to labor with his own hands for his lively hood.

Paul 11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place;
12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: -

Paul again says that he has used his own hands to provide his necessities.

33 I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel.
34 Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. - Acts 20:33-34

And he repeats that living by his own hands is difficult.

27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. - 2 Cor. 11:27-28

Paul again saying that he toiled long and hard to make his own living so that the members didn't have to bare the burden of his support

9 For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God. - 1 Thess. 2:9

Paul said some pretty harsh things on the subject of apostles being supported by the church. He rather took support from other churches charity than from his own. ut he took s

7 Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?
8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.
9 And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.
10 As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia.
11 Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth.
12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. - 2 Cor. 11:7-15

Ouch...

Again, Paul says that he has not burdened the church for his support and has not made any gain by being an apostle and taking money from the church, nor are those who he sent to minister to the church.

13 For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong.
14 Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours, but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.
15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.
16 But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.
17 Did I make a gain of you by any of them whom I sent unto you?
18 I desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother. Did Titus make a gain of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps? - 2 Cor. 12

Honestly, this is not where I was trying to go at all. I was actually intending to show that it is ok to support the leaders of the church off tithing... These are new scriptures to me too.

Lets see what else I come up with...
...
Ok, here we see Paul being sent supplies from other churches that he isn't ministering to.

14 Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction.
15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.
16 For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.
17 Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account.
18 But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.
19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus. - Philip 4:14-19

Paul seems to be saying that it is ok for the members to support the apostles, but that he personally

11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.
13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.
16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. - 1 Cor. 9:11-18

Gee, that last line kind of says it all. "I make the gospel without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel..."

Salvation is free, and the gifts and Blessings of God are free, they only costs 10%...

We have an unpaid ministry that we members financially support...

ouch... Ok, let's look at the other side of the coin, if we can...

The Levites in the temple that just did temple work lived off the sacrifices and offering people brought to the Lord. They lived off the tithing of the people.

Numbers 18:21
21 And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.

And they paid tithing on their part..

Numbers 18:26
26 Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe.

There are a few verses in the D&C that say Bishops should be paid or compensated for their service. (I don't want to look for them.)

President Hinckley said,

Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.
I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.
I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.

So, essentially, they work to support themselves by being placed on boards of trustees so that they make lots of money for very little work in the business world. Then they are able to support their families from the business income of the church owned businesses.

They aren't paid for their church service, but they are given a Superb job as a benefit to their Church calling. This allows them to make their entire years income from 4 meetings a year on the board of directors and spend the rest of the time serving and not starving like Paul.

It could be semantics or it could be legit because they work for businesses and get paid by the business owned by the church. They serve in their callings for free without asking or taking money from the church except for Brigham Young I mean. :p :))

Peace,
Amonhi

tl;dr

I stopped at the City Creek Center and your "calculations". No tithing was used to build it. It was funded through Property Reserve, Inc. The project completely revitalized the area, brought jobs and has great potential to be a fantastic investment for the Church. The Church will be better in the long run with this project despite the criticisms against it.

His ways are not our ways. It seems folks on here want to dictate to God how He should use the funds of the Church.

No one is arguing those points.

Matchmaker wrote: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.

President Hinckley said,

Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.
I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.
I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.

So, essentially, they work to support themselves by being placed on boards of trustees so that they make lots of money for very little work in the business world. Then they are able to support their families from the business income of the church owned businesses.

They aren't paid for their church service, but they are given a Superb job as a benefit to their Church calling. This allows them to make their entire years income from 4 meetings a year on the board of directors and spend the rest of the time serving and not starving like Paul.

It could be semantics or it could be legit because they work for businesses and get paid by the business owned by the church. They serve in their callings for free without asking or taking money from the church except for Brigham Young I mean. :p :))

Peace,
Amonhi

Amonhi wrote:

Finrock wrote: Answer: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has two classes of clergy. We have a class of clergy or ministers who are paid a stipend, namely, those who are considered general authorities. The second class of clergy, which makes up the most significant portion of those who are clergy and ministers in the Church, are not paid a stipend.

-Finrock

Uh, by the definition of "stipend" all missionaries get one. I did. I was paid my support to minister the gospel. Where did anyone come up with the idea that we don't pay our ministry?

Peace,
Amonhi

The reason why I excluded missionaries is because the principle and policy has been that missionaries pay their own way. From mormonnewsroom.org:

Mormonnewsroom wrote:Missionary work is voluntary. Missionaries fund their own missions — except for their transportation to and from their field of labor — and are not paid for their services (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/missionary-program" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

If a missionary is funding their own mission, in my opinion they are not getting paid a stipend. A stipend is a form of salary.

Now, given what I just said, I also understand that it is not always the case that a missionary funds their mission. I don't know what the statistics are, but because it is the official position of the Church and it has been understood that a missionary funds their own missions, I did not include them in the category of paid clergy.

-Finrock

thisisspartaaa wrote:

Amonhi wrote:

thisisspartaaa wrote:

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

Are you saying missionaries shouldn't have to pay? Who is going to fund 80000 missionaries' homes, food, etc.?

They aren't paying for the "privilege". Unless I'm mistaken and you don't have to pay for your home, utilities, food, clothing, etc.? You must have a privileged life then.

Well, Having served a mission myself, I am well aware that it is literally full time, actually more. No Sundays breaks, 9am to 9pm or later except for a few hours on P day to do laundry, go to the bathroom, make buy and make food, etc. Long hours and hard work all of it dedicated to the work of the lord.

A missionary is a full time servant of the Lord. They aren't put on the boards of directors of for profit businesses like the GAs, Apostles and Prophets are. They are in more need of income than the GAs.

What sources of income can the church use to pay for them?

Have you ever wondered why the church owns for profit businesses? Why does the church need to make a profit anyway? Where did it get the money to start or invest in for profit businesses? Did people just say, here is my tithing and here is my donation to the for Profit business effort of the church?

I don't know, but I do know that the church coughed up between 3.5 and 5 BILLION dollars to build a for profit Super mall. They didn't hurt themselves by doing so. Lets see how many missionaries that would have paid for...

How much does the modern missionary have to pay to go on a mission? One site said $400 a month, so I will use that...

That's $4,800 per year to support a single missionary.
When the super City Creek Mall was constructed, we had about 58,000 missionaries.
It would take 58,000 x $4,800 = $278,400,000 per year to support all those missionaries.
$3.5 BILLION / $278,400,000 per year = 12.6 years

So, the church could have paid for the entire missionary force to serve missions for 12.5 years. without making a dime or hurting financially. But in those 12 years, money would still be coming in from their profit businesses.

Today, after the age change, we currently have a high of about 74,000 missionaries
It would take 74,000 x $4,800 = $355,200,000 per year to support all those missionaries.
3.5 Billion / $355,200,000 per year = just under 10 years

It appears to me that the Lord is doing quite well financially. He is into big business these days. None of that sell all you have and give to the poor rhetoric that he used to teach. They didn't have high rises back then, I totally get it too. New revelations that match the times...

LOL ;)

Ok, all joking aside, there is a way to look at this mess that is, more understandable.

The LDS Missionaries are full time ministers. And they are paid to minister. They don't make a profit, but they are paid or supported by the church to minister the gospel and Jesus Christ. They don't work for their living. Some, but few earned their own way. Someone is paying for them to do the Lord's work. They are being paid to do the Lord's work. Sme missionaries save money during their mission. One guy I knew turned in about $2k british pounds back to the mission President when he left the mission. Others I knew used their extra money to buy gifts for family members. Mission Presidents get to buy gifts and send their kids to college and have other cool perks. No matter how you dice it, they are paid to do a job. They are not laboring with their own hand for their support the way the Book of Mormon prophets claimed to do. That means there are 74,000 paid ministers for the church right now. Not lavishly paid, but paid and supported by the members of the church to minister the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Is that against the scriptures? Only the Book of Mormon scriptures. Here is a comparison of both view points.


Paul writes to the Corinthians and says that he is hungery, thirsty, naked and has no place to dwell because he has to labor with his own hands for his lively hood.

Paul 11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place;
12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: -

Paul again says that he has used his own hands to provide his necessities.

33 I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel.
34 Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. - Acts 20:33-34

And he repeats that living by his own hands is difficult.

27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. - 2 Cor. 11:27-28

Paul again saying that he toiled long and hard to make his own living so that the members didn't have to bare the burden of his support

9 For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God. - 1 Thess. 2:9

Paul said some pretty harsh things on the subject of apostles being supported by the church. He rather took support from other churches charity than from his own. ut he took s

7 Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?
8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.
9 And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.
10 As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia.
11 Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth.
12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. - 2 Cor. 11:7-15

Ouch...

Again, Paul says that he has not burdened the church for his support and has not made any gain by being an apostle and taking money from the church, nor are those who he sent to minister to the church.

13 For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong.
14 Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours, but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.
15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.
16 But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.
17 Did I make a gain of you by any of them whom I sent unto you?
18 I desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother. Did Titus make a gain of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps? - 2 Cor. 12

Honestly, this is not where I was trying to go at all. I was actually intending to show that it is ok to support the leaders of the church off tithing... These are new scriptures to me too.

Lets see what else I come up with...
...
Ok, here we see Paul being sent supplies from other churches that he isn't ministering to.

14 Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction.
15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.
16 For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.
17 Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account.
18 But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.
19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus. - Philip 4:14-19

Paul seems to be saying that it is ok for the members to support the apostles, but that he personally

11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.
13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.
16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. - 1 Cor. 9:11-18

Gee, that last line kind of says it all. "I make the gospel without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel..."

Salvation is free, and the gifts and Blessings of God are free, they only costs 10%...

We have an unpaid ministry that we members financially support...

ouch... Ok, let's look at the other side of the coin, if we can...

The Levites in the temple that just did temple work lived off the sacrifices and offering people brought to the Lord. They lived off the tithing of the people.

Numbers 18:21
21 And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.

And they paid tithing on their part..

Numbers 18:26
26 Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe.

There are a few verses in the D&C that say Bishops should be paid or compensated for their service. (I don't want to look for them.)

President Hinckley said,

Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.
I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.
I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.

So, essentially, they work to support themselves by being placed on boards of trustees so that they make lots of money for very little work in the business world. Then they are able to support their families from the business income of the church owned businesses.

They aren't paid for their church service, but they are given a Superb job as a benefit to their Church calling. This allows them to make their entire years income from 4 meetings a year on the board of directors and spend the rest of the time serving and not starving like Paul.

It could be semantics or it could be legit because they work for businesses and get paid by the business owned by the church. They serve in their callings for free without asking or taking money from the church except for Brigham Young I mean. :p :))

Peace,
Amonhi

tl;dr

I stopped at the City Creek Center and your "calculations". No tithing was used to build it. It was funded through Property Reserve, Inc. The project completely revitalized the area, brought jobs and has great potential to be a fantastic investment for the Church. The Church will be better in the long run with this project despite the criticisms against it.

His ways are not our ways. It seems folks on here want to dictate to God how He should use the funds of the Church.

You could have at least said, "Oh, thanks Finrock for showing me that I was in error. A stipend IS a type of salary and I was wrong, we DO have a paid ministry." :p

Instead, you went for an argument of irrelevance and "attack the messenger mode". Like, seriously, you think I actually "want" to dictate to "God" how He should use the funds of the Church? Oh...wait a second...I get it...to you the apostles are the same as God and so if, hypothetically, I were to disagree with something the apostles were doing, I'm actually disagreeing with God. That's intense, brother. Some people have it all. A stipend and virtually having the status of God. :))

-Finrock

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

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.

FTC wrote:

thisisspartaaa wrote:

FTC wrote:

Lizzy60 wrote:"Some things that are true are not very useful." BKP

"Some truths are best left unsaid." RMN

"When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood, but silence for a season." DHO

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.

Your mask has slipped, FTC. /:)

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.

This passage names Joseph Smith specifically and to assume the singular personal pronouns "him" and "he" in verse 14 pertain to anyone else would wrest the scripture to mean something that is not there.

investigator wrote:

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.

This passage names Joseph Smith specifically and to assume the singular personal pronouns "him" and "he" in verse 14 pertain to anyone else would wrest the scripture to mean something that is not there.

1 Behold, I say unto thee, Oliver, that it shall be given unto thee that thou shalt be heard by the church in all things whatsoever thou shalt teach them by the Comforter, concerning the revelations and commandments which I have given.

2 But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.

3 And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him, even as Aaron, to declare faithfully the commandments and the revelations, with power and authority unto the church.

4 And if thou art led at any time by the Comforter to speak or teach, or at all times by the way of commandment unto the church, thou mayest do it.

5 But thou shalt not write by way of commandment, but by wisdom;

6 And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church;

7 For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead.


Contrary to what seems to be the opinion of more and more on this site, the Lords church did not die along with Joseph. He continues to direct His work through His appointed spokesman to this day. The keys are still operational and valid.