No Paid Ministry

[Mark]

Serious question: In light of the recent GA salary disclosures, how does the church justify the following statements?

Inasmuch as there is no paid ministry in the Church, service opportunities are available to men, women, and children of all ages."- Elder Franklin D. Richards

"In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there is no paid ministry, no professional clergy, as is common in other churches." -Elder Boyd K. Packer

"Over the years of my membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have greatly appreciated the opportunities for service, for there is no paid ministry." -Elder Derek A. Cuthbert

"I explained also that our Church has no paid ministry and indicated that these were two reasons why we were able to build the buildings then under way, including the beautiful temple at Freiberg." -Elder Thomas S. Monson

"Because there is no paid ministry, almost every churchgoer has a responsibility." Mormon Newsroom

We recognize how busy you are. Without a paid professional ministry, the responsibility for administering the Church depends on you consecrated members. Quinton Cook April 2012

We have no professionally trained and salaried clergy in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Dallin Oaks April 2012

I have two ideas for this.

They aren't being paid for their ministry as the Lords servants. They are only being paid for their secondary roles as CEOS of the for profit corporate side of the church which has numerous businesses and is separate from the ministry side of things. They make their money when they make financial decisions, not spiritual ones. So technically this is true if you think of it this way.

Or maybe they do not consider themselves as clergy or ministry, and they believe ministers or clergy only refer to local leaders like bishops, teachers and stake leaders?

THe idea that hey are paid for their non-religious roles made sense to me until I realized that they got those roles with their callings. If you are called to be an apostle for the church and placed into a role on a board as a result, then being an apostle means being a business man. They become married in a way that requires the person to be both or neither. They are getting paid for both or neither.

Peace,
Amonhi

Why can't these Brethren be called and function both for their administrative abilities and prowess AND their ministration keys and stewardship? The Lord calls men to administer in the affairs of the Kingdom of God on earth. He knows that all have special talents and abilities to help the Kingdom roll forth. I don't envy these Brethren in their enormous tasks that they have committed their lives to. To me this is such a non issue it is ridiculous. But the haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate. I shake it off..

[Mark]

"When I listen to the brethren speak, I feel inspired, and that is enough for me to keep listening while letting the spirit instruct me and confirm to me the parts I need to understand. Being angry, accusing, or anything of that nature can only breed in me a spirit of contention and judgement which is the greater sin and will put my soul in greater jeopardy than any sinner."

Words of great wisdom to live by. Thank you Dlight.

"They frequently accused the brethren, thus placing themselves in the seat of Satan, who is emphatically called ‘the accuser of the brethren."

Joseph Smith

[rewcox]

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

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

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

Finrock has an obsession about leaders being evil.

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

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

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

It is true that several people post for me.

Peace,
Amonhi

So you are saying everyone posting is dishonest. Certainly that includes the Amonhies.

Whichever one got in it with George really messed up and took Finrock for a ride too.

Your comment about honest and dishonest is incorrect also.

I don't consider those who are upset with the church and leaders as dishonest. They certainly have a point of view and generally only focus on their viewpoint. Many times they do not present what they consider as good. It is always bad.

I also don't consider those who support the church and leaders as dishonest. They have testimonies that it is true. Generally they don't talk about any bad stuff because the Reds are always doing it.

I do consider those who profess to be prophets but hide behind internet names as dishonest or deceptive.

[Amonhi]

THe idea that hey are paid for their non-religious roles made sense to me until I realized that they got those roles with their callings. If you are called to be an apostle for the church and placed into a role on a board as a result, then being an apostle means being a business man. They become married in a way that requires the person to be both or neither. They are getting paid for both or neither.

Peace,
Amonhi

I sometimes feel it would be best if someone else was appointed to run the corporate side of things and they just focused in on the spiritual, but what do I know?

It's hard to know how the Lord would direct his followers today with all the nuances and subtleties of modern technology and modern law. A global church. I want to give the brethren the benefit of the doubt, but I am glad I do not have their accountability and stewardship. The Lord will be their judge.

I am reminded of two scriptures

2 Nephi 28:14
14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:22
22 For in those days there shall also arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch, that, if possible, they shall deceive the very elect, who are the elect according to the covenant.


I don't mean to make an excuse for sin, we should always be working to rid ourselves of it. But I feel like Christs message was to show the pharisees the absurdity of their laws in order to help them understand their entire salvation was dependent on the atonement, and not on their ability to be obedient to the laws. He set the bar so high, much higher than their own beliefs, and commands us to be perfect. God can allow no less, but we can only be perfect in Christ through the atonement.

Yeah, I get what you are saying.

Can any man other than Christ be perfect in this life? No.

I disagree. Not perfect he way many teach, but perfect the way Christ Taught, yes. Men can and have and are expected to become perfect in this life or the next. The false idea of what perfection is makes it impossible to become perfect and so because it is unattainable in this life, people ignore the commandment to be perfect and don't know how to do so.

When people get very close to God, I wonder if Satan also is given power to have a greater ability to deceive us in certain ways.Through this deception, even the greatest of us will die and realize how far we fell short of Christs perfect law, and how saved we truly are because of the atonement.

Satan loses power over us as we become more righteous. Eventually Satan will be bound in our life as a result of our righteousness. Satan was bound by the righteousness of the Nephites in the BoM and will be bound by the righteousness of the people during the millennium. We have the ability to remove Satan from our lives by simply taking away his ability to influence us.

Peace,
Amonhi

[Amonhi]

Serious question: In light of the recent GA salary disclosures, how does the church justify the following statements?

I have two ideas for this.

They aren't being paid for their ministry as the Lords servants. They are only being paid for their secondary roles as CEOS of the for profit corporate side of the church which has numerous businesses and is separate from the ministry side of things. They make their money when they make financial decisions, not spiritual ones. So technically this is true if you think of it this way.

Or maybe they do not consider themselves as clergy or ministry, and they believe ministers or clergy only refer to local leaders like bishops, teachers and stake leaders?

THe idea that hey are paid for their non-religious roles made sense to me until I realized that they got those roles with their callings. If you are called to be an apostle for the church and placed into a role on a board as a result, then being an apostle means being a business man. They become married in a way that requires the person to be both or neither. They are getting paid for both or neither.

Peace,
Amonhi

Why can't these Brethren be called and function both for their administrative abilities and prowess AND their ministration keys and stewardship? The Lord calls men to administer in the affairs of the Kingdom of God on earth. He knows that all have special talents and abilities to help the Kingdom roll forth. I don't envy these Brethren in their enormous tasks that they have committed their lives to. To me this is such a non issue it is ridiculous. But the haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate. I shake it off..

When we talk about how the Lord leads the church, we have to account for the human aspect. The Lord doesn't come down and tell the prophet how to run the church and who to call and dictate directly the management and financial affairs of the church at any level. Men do the best they can in the positions they are called into, but we have to take into consideration the human aspect. For example, Brigham Young borrowing money from the Tithing fund of the church to make personal investments over a million dollars of borrowed money. He would pay it back writing invoices for work he did and seldom by cash. He didn't pay interest to the church for the money. When he died, the debt had to be paid back out of his estate. The estate refused to pay it all back and so the end result was that Brigham Young stole several million dollars (in today's money) from the tithing fund and never paid it back. In my opinion, this was not a righteous use of tithing. Tithing wasn't given and consecrated to the Lord to make Brigham young wealthy. But that is how he opted to use large portions of the money. It would be similar to Thomas S. Monson taking out $28 million dollars from tithing and investing it into personal business ventures in his own name which would go to his own children when he died and them paying back only $25 million dollars and keeping the rest of the loan and the investments they bought.

Men are men. I don't care what position they hold in the church, it doesn't make them good stewards. It doesn't mean that they do everything perfectly or honestly.

I am not saying that Brigham Young was an evil man, just a man. I am not saying he was not a prophet, but that he was a man. The leaders of the church today are also men. They have strengths and weaknesses like the rest of us. Questioning their decisions is not evil or murmuring. It is being aware and intelligent. If you give money to the Salvation army, you can know that you are paying the top guy millions to run it. If you donate to the LDS Church, you are paying the top guy only a few hundred thousand to run it. What a deal.

Peace,
Amonhi

[rewcox]

And Amonhies will be Amonhies.

LDS historians James Allen and Glen Leonard observed:

"It was finally determined that his estate was worth approximately $1,626,000, but obligations of more than a million dollars to the Church plus other debts and executor's fees reduced the family's claim to $224,000. When seven of his dissatisfied heirs challenged this settlement, however, that matter was settled out of court and the Church agreed to give the heirs an additional $75,000." (The Story of the Latter-day Saints, by James Allen and Glen Leonard, second ed. 1992, Deseret Book, p.385).

[Mark]

I have two ideas for this.

They aren't being paid for their ministry as the Lords servants. They are only being paid for their secondary roles as CEOS of the for profit corporate side of the church which has numerous businesses and is separate from the ministry side of things. They make their money when they make financial decisions, not spiritual ones. So technically this is true if you think of it this way.

Or maybe they do not consider themselves as clergy or ministry, and they believe ministers or clergy only refer to local leaders like bishops, teachers and stake leaders?

THe idea that hey are paid for their non-religious roles made sense to me until I realized that they got those roles with their callings. If you are called to be an apostle for the church and placed into a role on a board as a result, then being an apostle means being a business man. They become married in a way that requires the person to be both or neither. They are getting paid for both or neither.

Peace,
Amonhi

Why can't these Brethren be called and function both for their administrative abilities and prowess AND their ministration keys and stewardship? The Lord calls men to administer in the affairs of the Kingdom of God on earth. He knows that all have special talents and abilities to help the Kingdom roll forth. I don't envy these Brethren in their enormous tasks that they have committed their lives to. To me this is such a non issue it is ridiculous. But the haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate. I shake it off..

When we talk about how the Lord leads the church, we have to account for the human aspect. The Lord doesn't come down and tell the prophet how to run the church and who to call and dictate directly the management and financial affairs of the church at any level. Men do the best they can in the positions they are called into, but we have to take into consideration the human aspect. For example, Brigham Young borrowing money from the Tithing fund of the church to make personal investments over a million dollars of borrowed money. He would pay it back writing invoices for work he did and seldom by cash. He didn't pay interest to the church for the money. When he died, the debt had to be paid back out of his estate. The estate refused to pay it all back and so the end result was that Brigham Young stole several million dollars (in today's money) from the tithing fund and never paid it back. In my opinion, this was not a righteous use of tithing. Tithing wasn't given and consecrated to the Lord to make Brigham young wealthy. But that is how he opted to use large portions of the money. It would be similar to Thomas S. Monson taking out $28 million dollars from tithing and investing it into personal business ventures in his own name which would go to his own children when he died and them paying back only $25 million dollars and keeping the rest of the loan and the investments they bought.

Men are men. I don't care what position they hold in the church, it doesn't make them good stewards. It doesn't mean that they do everything perfectly or honestly.

I am not saying that Brigham Young was an evil man, just a man. I am not saying he was not a prophet, but that he was a man. The leaders of the church today are also men. They have strengths and weaknesses like the rest of us. Questioning their decisions is not evil or murmuring. It is being aware and intelligent. If you give money to the Salvation army, you can know that you are paying the top guy millions to run it. If you donate to the LDS Church, you are paying the top guy only a few hundred thousand to run it. What a deal.

Peace,
Amonhi

https://youtu.be/zg0xBjegI7A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Col. Flagg]

THe idea that hey are paid for their non-religious roles made sense to me until I realized that they got those roles with their callings. If you are called to be an apostle for the church and placed into a role on a board as a result, then being an apostle means being a business man. They become married in a way that requires the person to be both or neither. They are getting paid for both or neither.

Peace,
Amonhi

Why can't these Brethren be called and function both for their administrative abilities and prowess AND their ministration keys and stewardship? The Lord calls men to administer in the affairs of the Kingdom of God on earth. He knows that all have special talents and abilities to help the Kingdom roll forth. I don't envy these Brethren in their enormous tasks that they have committed their lives to. To me this is such a non issue it is ridiculous. But the haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate. I shake it off..

When we talk about how the Lord leads the church, we have to account for the human aspect. The Lord doesn't come down and tell the prophet how to run the church and who to call and dictate directly the management and financial affairs of the church at any level. Men do the best they can in the positions they are called into, but we have to take into consideration the human aspect. For example, Brigham Young borrowing money from the Tithing fund of the church to make personal investments over a million dollars of borrowed money. He would pay it back writing invoices for work he did and seldom by cash. He didn't pay interest to the church for the money. When he died, the debt had to be paid back out of his estate. The estate refused to pay it all back and so the end result was that Brigham Young stole several million dollars (in today's money) from the tithing fund and never paid it back. In my opinion, this was not a righteous use of tithing. Tithing wasn't given and consecrated to the Lord to make Brigham young wealthy. But that is how he opted to use large portions of the money. It would be similar to Thomas S. Monson taking out $28 million dollars from tithing and investing it into personal business ventures in his own name which would go to his own children when he died and them paying back only $25 million dollars and keeping the rest of the loan and the investments they bought.

Men are men. I don't care what position they hold in the church, it doesn't make them good stewards. It doesn't mean that they do everything perfectly or honestly.

I am not saying that Brigham Young was an evil man, just a man. I am not saying he was not a prophet, but that he was a man. The leaders of the church today are also men. They have strengths and weaknesses like the rest of us. Questioning their decisions is not evil or murmuring. It is being aware and intelligent. If you give money to the Salvation army, you can know that you are paying the top guy millions to run it. If you donate to the LDS Church, you are paying the top guy only a few hundred thousand to run it. What a deal.

Peace,
Amonhi

https://youtu.be/zg0xBjegI7A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkfdajZfYRc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Serragon]

I have always known the GA's receive $$$. I have never had a problem with it. I still don't.

However, I believe the process needs to be transparent to membership. I also believe that the "No Paid Ministry" statements were of the type that had different meanings to different audiences and were intentionally used for that very reason.

Most members took that to mean non GA's. Most of the rest of the world probably took it to mean everyone. I believe it was used to make a distinction between how our Church operates and how other Christian churches operate. Ultimately, the only difference is in the number of people getting paid, so the statement was deceptive and disappointing to me.

[shadow]

https://youtu.be/zg0xBjegI7A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkfdajZfYRc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't try to one-up flannel boy, Flagg. He'll get you every time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2K6P8DbluQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Mark]

Why can't these Brethren be called and function both for their administrative abilities and prowess AND their ministration keys and stewardship? The Lord calls men to administer in the affairs of the Kingdom of God on earth. He knows that all have special talents and abilities to help the Kingdom roll forth. I don't envy these Brethren in their enormous tasks that they have committed their lives to. To me this is such a non issue it is ridiculous. But the haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate. I shake it off..

When we talk about how the Lord leads the church, we have to account for the human aspect. The Lord doesn't come down and tell the prophet how to run the church and who to call and dictate directly the management and financial affairs of the church at any level. Men do the best they can in the positions they are called into, but we have to take into consideration the human aspect. For example, Brigham Young borrowing money from the Tithing fund of the church to make personal investments over a million dollars of borrowed money. He would pay it back writing invoices for work he did and seldom by cash. He didn't pay interest to the church for the money. When he died, the debt had to be paid back out of his estate. The estate refused to pay it all back and so the end result was that Brigham Young stole several million dollars (in today's money) from the tithing fund and never paid it back. In my opinion, this was not a righteous use of tithing. Tithing wasn't given and consecrated to the Lord to make Brigham young wealthy. But that is how he opted to use large portions of the money. It would be similar to Thomas S. Monson taking out $28 million dollars from tithing and investing it into personal business ventures in his own name which would go to his own children when he died and them paying back only $25 million dollars and keeping the rest of the loan and the investments they bought.

Men are men. I don't care what position they hold in the church, it doesn't make them good stewards. It doesn't mean that they do everything perfectly or honestly.

I am not saying that Brigham Young was an evil man, just a man. I am not saying he was not a prophet, but that he was a man. The leaders of the church today are also men. They have strengths and weaknesses like the rest of us. Questioning their decisions is not evil or murmuring. It is being aware and intelligent. If you give money to the Salvation army, you can know that you are paying the top guy millions to run it. If you donate to the LDS Church, you are paying the top guy only a few hundred thousand to run it. What a deal.

Peace,
Amonhi

https://youtu.be/zg0xBjegI7A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkfdajZfYRc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Look what the cat dragged in! :ymdevil: Have you officially gone over to the dark side son? A new Amonhite convert? Please dont tell your mother. She will just tell me over and over again "I told you so!" I had such high hopes for you. :((

[Finrock]

More questions.

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

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

You ask fair questions. The apostles under Christ left tear work and became traveling ministers. The we're supported by the members. Housed and fed as they went.

Without purse or script.

Purse means money

Scripts means manuals, handbooks or prepared lessons. Speak by the spirit.

Do we expect our leaders and our church to function like it did under Christ? Then the leaders should be supported by the members.

Agreed, they should be supported by members. Paul argues this same point in Corinthians:

This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?

Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? (1 Cor 9:3-12)

This is a fair argument from Paul. His work was to preach the gospel and bring other's unto Christ. Does he not have a right to a living for the work he does? I with Paul say that indeed, he does. Now Paul goes on to say that he does not use this right, but certainly considers it fair that those who preach the gospel also get compensated by the members for the same:

But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. (1 Cor 9:12-13)

In the book of Mormon, it was considered priestcraft to be supported by the church and the leaders of the church had to "labor with their own hands" for their livelihood. They said this many times, especially when they were accused of getting wealthy off the church. Our modern brethren wouldn't be able to make the same claims as the ancient book of Mormon leaders.

But, all in all, I read the scriptures and it is clear in the D&C that the Lord intends for full time clergy to be paid whether they are Bishops Stake Presidents or GA's.

How much should they be paid? And how much should they be reimbursed?

I don't know the difference between a stipend and a salary. Does anyone know?

Peace,
Amonhi

Right you are Amonhi that the D&C clearly allows for even bishops (and their counselors) to be paid.

The priests and teachers shall have their stewardships, even as the members. And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned; Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop. And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church. (D&C 42:70-73

Of course today only the presiding bishopric is paid. Perhaps that was the intent of this revelation. I do not know. But, I do not begrudge them taking money from some of the church's holdings to pay these brethren. Can you imaging if they asked members to support them? They would get loads of money, much more than $120K!

Not withstanding all of this, we as members are extremely sensitive about "paid clergy". But, my bigger concern is not about "paid clergy" but instead "professional clergy". It is about those who go to school or seminary to become a minister. Such a system greatly blurs the line between those who are called of God and those who are called of men. It calls into question their very motivation. Is it money or is it the desire to serve God? Thankfully in our church there is no concern about someone working their way up through school to become a minister.

I think the distinction between a paid clergy and a professional clergy is pretty fuzzy. Allow me to use an example from sports. We have professional and amateur athletes. What is the difference? According to uslegal.com, "[t]he most basic difference between amateur and professional athletes lies in the rewards that each group receives for athletic performances. Generally speaking, amateur athletes are not paid for their athletics performances..." (https://education.uslegal.com/amateur-a ... -athletes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). This same difference between a professional and an amateur, I believe, is basically true when we are comparing most other occupations that people might do. Notice here that being a professional is not defined by skills, education, or how well you do your job. I know that in regular vernacular you might hear people say that a person is an amateur and that person is a pro, in reference to their level of education or skills, but in reality and in many instances amateurs may have more education and better perform a function than someone who is a professional. Or, an amateur may do a job or perform some service at the same skill level as a professional, the only difference being that amateurs are not getting paid for the same service or job performed.

Merriam Webster defines professional: "participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs" or "engaged in by persons receiving financial return"

So, a person engaging in an activity and receiving a financial return, or getting paid to do some function or occupation, is, by definition, a professional.

You cannot deny that receiving money and other financial assistance is a motivating factor.

Now, I can make a couple of assumptions. I can assume that every leader in the Church who receives any sort of financial return or gain because of their calling in the Church is not motivated at all by the money and financial assistance that they receive. How realistic do you think that assumption might be? I've seen a lot of post, including yours, that say something to the effect, that the financial gain that the leaders of the Church receives is very little compared to what they might of received had they continued in whatever their career was before they were called as leaders, and so clearly they are not motivated by money or by the financial reward that they receive. But, that idea is really an assumption. In fact, another assumption that is realistic is that the amount of money and other financial rewards that the leaders receive, at whatever leadership level they might receive financial reward, is more than or greater than what they were making or could have made before they were called to their position.

How many of the current leaders who are compensated for their callings to any degree, would have accepted their calling if they were to rely wholly on other means to receive their livelihood? We can only speculate, but, I think it would be disingenuous and/or naive to say that there is absolutely no incentive for a lay member to move up in the ranks. Is it possible that there are individuals in the Church today who are motivated by what they might gain and receive as they become leaders in the Church? Of course it is. I'm not saying that you are doing this, janderich, but just speaking in general, we shouldn't pretend or deny that the financial incentives for higher leadership positions in the Church are substantial enough for fallible men and women to be motivated by those rewards, especially when we know from scripture that it is the disposition of almost all men and women to exercise unrighteous dominion.

I agree with you that full transparency would be a good thing. I think that policies, standards, and principles should be applied across the board and that none should be exempt.

Let me end this post by saying this: Growing up and on my mission I did not know at all that General Authorities received any money whatsoever. I honestly and sincerely thought that we had absolutely no paid ministry or paid clergy. In fact, I was proud of this declaration. I believed that statement at face value. I did not at that time in my life dream of wanting or needing to have a more nuanced or sophisticated definition of something that seemed so obvious. I had a simple trust and faith in my leaders and in the proclamations that were made by my Church. It wasn't until I was in my 30's that I found out the truth of the matter. Back then I was surprised and I justified it by making a distinction between a salary and a stipend, but, that distinction is false. Back then I didn't want it to be true that we had ministers that were actually getting paid. It was so awesome to me to think that unlike every other religion in the world, our leaders had absolutely no financial incentive. They were doing it purely because of their love for God and for the Church and the gospel and although this may still be true today, my belief back then was based on a falsehood. A false premise. Now I cannot say with absolute certainty, without any doubt, that our leaders have no motivation other than their love for God, the Church, and the gospel. I cannot say it because there is an actual, a substantial, and a real financial incentive for being a leader in this Church.

-Finrock

[Col. Flagg]

https://youtu.be/zg0xBjegI7A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkfdajZfYRc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't try to one-up flannel boy, Flagg. He'll get you every time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2K6P8DbluQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mark's not invincible - he's just a grumpy old coot that’s had one too many hula pies and it’s clouding his judgment – he’s ready for the rocking chair, right Gramps?

[Col. Flagg]

Look what the cat dragged in! :ymdevil: Have you officially gone over to the dark side son? A new Amonhite convert? Please dont tell your mother. She will just tell me over and over again "I told you so!" I had such high hopes for you. :((

Sorry to disappoint - am active as ever and was just called to be the 2nd Asst. in the HPGL in our ward actually. :ymhug: It's all about serving others and standing for what's right and against what's wrong. You of all people should know that, but at your age, I'll forgive and forget. ;)

[jbalm]

So if the GAs aren't "ministry," then there's no need to sit around for hours, biannually, and listen to them potifiicate. Yes?

[butterfly]

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

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

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

Finrock has an obsession about leaders being evil.

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

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

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

It is true that several people post for me.

Peace,
Amonhi

May I ask, Amonhi, why exactly do you have several people posting for you?
Maybe this is a common thing on internet forums that I am not aware of, but this is my first encounter with it and it strikes me as very odd. What motivates you to do this?

[Obrien]

Serious question: In light of the recent GA salary disclosures, how does the church justify the following statements?

Inasmuch as there is no paid ministry in the Church, service opportunities are available to men, women, and children of all ages."- Elder Franklin D. Richards

"In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there is no paid ministry, no professional clergy, as is common in other churches." -Elder Boyd K. Packer

"Over the years of my membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have greatly appreciated the opportunities for service, for there is no paid ministry." -Elder Derek A. Cuthbert

"I explained also that our Church has no paid ministry and indicated that these were two reasons why we were able to build the buildings then under way, including the beautiful temple at Freiberg." -Elder Thomas S. Monson

"Because there is no paid ministry, almost every churchgoer has a responsibility." Mormon Newsroom

We recognize how busy you are. Without a paid professional ministry, the responsibility for administering the Church depends on you consecrated members. Quinton Cook April 2012

We have no professionally trained and salaried clergy in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Dallin Oaks April 2012

I have two ideas for this.

They aren't being paid for their ministry as the Lords servants. They are only being paid for their secondary roles as CEOS of the for profit corporate side of the church which has numerous businesses and is separate from the ministry side of things. They make their money when they make financial decisions, not spiritual ones. So technically this is true if you think of it this way.

Or maybe they do not consider themselves as clergy or ministry, and they believe ministers or clergy only refer to local leaders like bishops, teachers and stake leaders?

Why not call it a "salary" then, instead of a stipend?
Why would anyone want to follow them on religious matters, if they are not clergy / ministry? And why would they insist that we must all agree they are all PSRs in order to get a temple recommend if they are not ministers of the gospel?

Use Occams razor - the simplest explanation is likely the closest to the truth - GAs receive stipends because it is priest craft to sell your tokens for money. :-\

[Obrien]

So if the GAs aren't "ministry," then there's no need to sit around for hours, biannually, and listen to them potifiicate. Yes?

biannual audial pontification - it sounds amazing...

[jbalm]

Maybe if you have insomnia.

[Col. Flagg]

So if the GAs aren't "ministry," then there's no need to sit around for hours, biannually, and listen to them potifiicate. Yes?

Pontificate, no?

[Obrien]

So if the GAs aren't "ministry," then there's no need to sit around for hours, biannually, and listen to them potifiicate. Yes?

Pontificate, no?

Perhaps a freudian slip, considering the Marijuana WoW Can of Worms thread.

[jbalm]

Oops.

You know what I meant.

But good call.

[Col. Flagg]

So if the GAs aren't "ministry," then there's no need to sit around for hours, biannually, and listen to them potifiicate. Yes?

Pontificate, no?

Perhaps a freudian slip, considering the Marijuana WoW Can of Worms thread.

:))

[Col. Flagg]

Oops.

You know what I meant.

But good call.

B-)

[pjbrownie]

"The truth shall set you free" - Jesus 32

It says "....and the truth shall make you free".
I think there is a difference between "set" and "make".

Ok, I'm not stopping you from thinking there's a difference.

Does "set" v "make" in my "quote" substantially change decades of deception (and I intentionally select the word deception) from our leaders regarding a paid clergy?

There has been no deception.
It has always been known that GA's get a stipend. Not only that, but it's justified in the D&C.

There are around 100 GA's.
There are approximately 3,500 Stake Presidents, 7000 SP counsellors, 26,000 Bishops, 52,000 bishopric counsellors, 42,000 Stake High Councillors, 3,500 Patriarchs, 26,000 ward mission leaders, then there are HPGL's, EQP's, RSP's....... the list goes on. None of whom get a penny.
So the claim that we have an unpaid ministry is pretty accurate in my view.

I've seen the statistical quote going around. It is about 0.03% or essentially 0.

The problem with the statistic is hierarchical. Since those 100 supervise all those that aren't paid, the cumulative effect of the ministry skews a bit. Using weighted averages based on those the GA's supervise, the best the Church could say was that 50% of the ministry is unpaid, or the bottom half.