Gandalf

"Scrip" is not the same thing as "script". What, then, should I make of the following? Main Entry: scrip Function: noun Etymology: alteration of "script" Date: 1590 1 : a short writing (as a certificate, schedule, or list) 2 : a small piece 3 a : any of various documents used as evidence that the holder or bearer is entitled to receive something (as a fractional share of stock or an allotment of land) b : paper currency or a token issued for temporary use in an emergency from http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwdictsn Gandalf: you need to understand that your post and approach to this subject appear more in line with a "Troll" than a member (especially a new member) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You may want to refer to your LDS scriptures (if you have them) - specifically to the Bible Dictionary under "Scrip”. This appears to be an old sectarian notion of scripture. There is a difference in relying on the L-rd and on your speaking abilities to obtain monies and other necessities if someone likes what you preach. I see monies gathered to help the poor, the fatherless and the widows but I see Peter as a working fisherman, I see Paul as a tent maker and Jesus as a carpenter. None of them went to any university to obtain a degree to teach, none of then attended religious classes to justify receiving money (or giving simony) for their office. None of them took a purse that contained their earthly treasure. Today many serve with their own money – some serve from donations from others. All serve and receive the loving kindness (and other gifts) from those they teach even gifts from those of lesser means. This is all done without flaunting any wealth they may or may not have living as equals with the poorest the serve with them. Personally I believe very strongly that your criticism of missionaries is ill placed and is given in ignorance – I am curious (but not excited) to see where you intend to take such discussion The Traveler I do not criticize the missionaries. However, I do find it interesting that the church seems to operate differently through "policies" and not direct revelation as it used to. I am wondering why. It seems you regard my questions offensive - personally to you - or you take personal offense for "the church" as a whole. Your responses are emotional and not based on documented facts of why or how things were changed according to the Lords way. You respond to what may others say in Church but have nothing in which to back up your claims, they are based on what you have always "heard around." My questions are based on needing answers to my queries. I do not think it untoward to want answers. I read the scriptures and I see differences from the way things used to operate and I am wondering, if the Lord saw fit to outline certain procedures for His work, I would only expect to see that He would find importance enough that when it needed to change that He, Himself would change it. In my fairly limited studies I then ask other Members of the Church this question. I do not look for quarrel. Someone in this post topic stated that Brigham Young set up the way missionaries now operate. I ask then where is the quote in which he changed it by the Lords' instruction. I would like references, not to be told "I've heard this, and I've heard that." I need help in finding my answers and I come here. Not to be told in my search for answers that I'm a "Troll." You need not respond if you do not have documentable answers.

"Scrip" is not the same thing as "script". What, then, should I make of the following? Main Entry: scrip Function: noun Etymology: alteration of "script" Date: 1590 1 : a short writing (as a certificate, schedule, or list) 2 : a small piece 3 a : any of various documents used as evidence that the holder or bearer is entitled to receive something (as a fractional share of stock or an allotment of land) b : paper currency or a token issued for temporary use in an emergency from http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwdictsn

Gandalf, nice to meet you; on many of boards I am involved in I go by Boromir. Okay, I appreciate the nature of your question, but there are no professional missionaries in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The only way an exception to this can be seen is the Ward and General Mission Fund. These funds are sometimes used to help young people who would like to go on missions, but do not have the ability to pay for their missions themselves. My son is going on his mission this winter. We are very poor, but to pay for his mission, my parents are going to pay part of the expenses and I am going to pay for the rest. I am going to postpone grad-school or only go part-time so that I can pay. Now then comes the question, why do we even take money with us on missions. The world today requires it. There is no way to go forward into the mission field without money. When my dad went on his mission, my grandparents paid, but my dad and his companion decided to drive back from Argentina (mostly because they were twenty-something idiots who looking for a little fun) and in order to do this they had to get jobs on their way back as dairy engineers (what my dad did as a teenager in Michigan) to buy fuel, the twenty-year old caddy, repairs, and food. They had a lot of fun, but while they were missionaries, their parents paid for everything and as such were able to focus on the work and not a job. I support this. This happens because times have changed and we live in a time of less generosity and friendliness. A missionary cannot ask for a meal in exchange for lessons and conversation. The lonely farmhouses in the US and around the world have television and do not need a visitor to lighten up a boring evening with strange, though glorious, tales of J-sus in the New World, Lamanites, and eternal salvation. People today do not see the need to continue a habit that once was how missionaries of all denominations were able to go into the wild without purse or script. The world has changed, not the gospel. My final point is that the world has changed not the gospel. We deal with everyday and in the face of this change, this new actuality, the church has had to make changes in how it sends missionaries out into the world. Now my questions for you: Would you deny poor missionaries the option to go out and preach? Is their desire less because they are poor? Would you say the church should discontinue the world missionary program because funding methodologies have had to change reflecting changes in the world? How do you know the changes in the funding of missions was not by way of revelation? How is the matter of getting missionaries out into the field a matter of eternal salvation? Should we not be focusing on that which will gain us eternal salvation be our focus and all other trivialities be ignored? Thank you for your reply, Boromir, or is it ogre? I'm not sure I know how to navigate this discussion board very well yet, so please bear with me. I am certainly surprised at the variation in response I have received to my question. I assumed too much, though. I assumed that everyone had the same idea as I did about just what preaching without purse or scrip really means. From my reading of early church history I have come to the idea that missionaries went into the field with no money to speak of and no prepared discourses, lessons, discussions, etc of any kind. They were fed and clothed by those they taught; they had to rely on the Lord each and every day. This is all I am referring to when I speak of this scripture. If this is the meaning, then the poorest of the poor are no worse off then the millionaire's son from day 1. They both will be in the same financial position. And the only preparation that will matter is how much time was spent studying the scriptures and how well one knows the Lord. Money becomes irrelevant. So I do not understand what you mean by asking me if I would deny missionary service to the poor; hopefully after this explanation you will see that such a question becomes moot. I am sure that I did not explain myself very well the first time so I apologize for the misunderstanding. I do not see why the funding methodology ever had to be changed to begin with; from my reading it was an evolutionary development resulting from members simply starting to ignore the commandment by sending money to the missionaries and then it snowballed over time. The leaders do not seem to have responded very strongly one way or the other. I certainly would not stop missionary work; it just seems to me that based on this scripture (D&C 84:86) the funding methodology that man comes up with is irrelevant because the scripture explicitly states what the Lord's funding methodology is - that is, leave the money at home for your family and go. By way of anecdote, I did have the opportunity to speak to an older member a few years ago who did preach on his mission in exactly this way - in California in the 1950's. I don't believe that our own world has changed so drastically from the 1950's to make obedience to this commandment impossible. Because "the world requires it"? The scriptures identify the world with Babylon; do we really care what Babylon thinks? They hate the Gospel. Did the Lord really give a command that would be impossible to obey just a few years down the road? Did He not know what He was talking about? Although I do not know all that the Gospel is, I do believe that the Gospel at a minimum contains or encompasses within it all the commandments that God has given. And judging by the language of the scripture, it certainly is a command; the language is unequivocal. This combined with the Messiah's statement that he who "breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matt 5:19. Therefore I do not see how this is trivial. It seems to me that if we are not doing it the Lord's way, then it is not of the Lord: D&C 50, verse 17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way? 18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God. It seems to me that a commandment to the missionaries as is given in D&C 84:86 will certainly fall under the heading of reliable information pertaining to the "way" the Lord wants His word preached. How can a missionary preach by the Spirit of Truth if he is not obeying the commands that specifically pertain to them? I believe that if we really gave it some thought we could start to perceive the reasons for God giving this command. And if we did, is it not possible that those reasons might start to loom very large in the Eternal Plan? And be of Eternal significance? I don't think He gives irrelevant commandments. I just think that there is something of importance in this command and I want to know what it is. I will keep searching. Thank you for taking the time to reply to me and it is always good to hear of others' interest in the Lord of the Rings.

I should have further clarified. Their stipend is paid from revenue that comes from Church investments. No tithing funds are used. I believe a few of them who have been successful in their lives actually donate the stipend back to the Church. It is also a set amount; they don’t receive more if the investments turn a larger profit. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my questions. In asking the questions that I posed I did not expect these topics to arise because I was only referring to missionaries preaching without purse or scrip, which means simply that they go into the field with no money and no prepared lessons, relying on the Lord to provide their needs. But since the topic has come up, I have wondered about the whole "lay ministry" subject. First, the leaders of the Church - to my knowledge - have chosen not to reveal any financial details for many years now; therefore we don't really know how much they do get - let alone which account it came out of and thus the source of the funds. In any case, one thing that seems fairly certain is that today's investment income is coming from last decade's (or year's, or centuries') tithing receipts. So I don't understand why such a trivial detail has any doctrinal relevance. Also, stipend, salary, what's the difference? Money for ecclesiastical position is money no matter what you call it. The amount is also irrelevant. Just because one minister preaches for less stipend than the next does not change the fact that they are paid ministers. Whether or not being paid as a leader of this Church is significant is for each to decide, I guess. But it seems to me since coming into this church that some members are awfully sensitive about the fact that many leaders are paid. And I don't blame them considering the awful haranguing that Brigham Young gave the paid ministers of his day, often referrring to them as the "hireling clergy." Those are some tough words. Has the Church forgotten why this is such an important issue? Obviously the former members and leaders thought it was. Just food for thought.

Times certainly do change, but I was taught that the Gospel does not. How do I discern between changes that are justified and those that are not when the Gospel is not supposed to change at all? I found a quote by Joseph Smith that might be interesting: Now taking it for granted that the scriptures say what they mean, and mean what they say, we have sufficient grounds to go on and prove from the Bible that the gospel has always been the same, and the officers to officiate, the same; the ordinances to fulfill its requirements, the same, and the signs and fruits resulting from the promises, the same: therefore, as Noah was a preacher of righteousness he must have been baptized and ordained to the priesthood by the laying on of the hands, etc. (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976], 264.) In light of the changes, I guess the real question becomes, just what exactly is the Gospel? It seems to me that if I cannot precisely define the Gospel, then I will be unable to really discern between changes that are inconsequential and changes that are of great consequence. It is interesting that you bring up the covenant of circumcision, for that topic can lead one into all sorts of ordinances, practices, and comandments that both we as Mormons and the larger Christian world as well believe have been done away. And yet how does one reconcile this fact with the quote from Joseph Smith as well as D&C 136:37? How do we know that the covenant of circumcision has been done away? I know these are heavy questions and I don't really expect anyone to have an answer that puts to rest the whole topic, but I am sure that someone with more experience than me can give me some good food for thought.

I just joined the church a few years ago and have few lds friends with which to discuss questions I have relating to the gospel. I'm hoping that I can gleen some insight here. I love the Book of Mormon! I don't know what I did without it all these years! My friends think I am crazy to have such an interest in what to me is such a beautiful gospel. I have been reading the Doctorine & Covenants lately. I came across this scripture recently but did not ask in Sunday School. I tried after class but he was busy with other members. So my question is this if D&C 84:86 says this....then why do the missionaries, even the ones who converted me not follow this. D&C is straight from the Lord right? D&C 84:86 says: Therefore, let no man among you, for this commandment is unto all the faithful who are called of God in the church unto the ministry, from this hour take purse or scrip, that goeth forth to proclaim this gospel of the kingdom. Why do we no longer keep this command? And if not, where is the scripture changing this command?