Money & Religion: A Whole New Can Of Worms!

[Ray]

Heh, I'll go over my comments a little more later, because I don't want to give the wrong impression, but I'm mainly trying to show the distinction between what people do as a "regular job" and what we should all do for free.

And btw, I also work as a government employee of a city, so I can draw some correlations from that job.

So, to get to it, and just out of curiousity, what do you think of the idea of EVERYBODY in the Church, or any other church, asking to be paid for all of the time they put in.

Or in other words, what is to stop everybody from quitting their "regular job" and then asking their church to pay them for sharing the gospel with anybody and everybody they talk to?

And if that happened, should the church only pay them when other people join their church, or could they get paid just for talking?

Or in other words, instead of the members of a church giving their money to support the people who preach and share the gospel, what if everybody just did that work while asking and expecting to get paid?

Heh, and yes, while I think I'm opening another can of worms here, I think it applies to this topic?

And to state it simply: What should we do for free, and what should we expect to be paid for... with money?

[Dr T]

That's an interesting idea Ray. What do your scriptures say about that?

Dr. T

[prisonchaplain]

First, it is not good for a person to receive money for sharing the gospel or helping our God with His work… although it is "good" for other people to want to help provide for the necessities (food, clothing and shelter) of others if they cannot provide those things for themselves.

Why is it not good that churches fully provide for those who lead congregations? Is it not wise to have in leadership those trained extensively in the Scriptures, in counseling, in leadership, in management? Yes, there are situations where congregations cannot fully do so, but would this not be the ideal?

Or in other words, people can and should do all that they can to provide for their own needs and necessities, and that even includes the people who know God and are authorized to help Him with His work, and if for some reason some people cannot provide for their own needs, then other people should give them some assistance.

Again, I ask why? Why would congregations NOT want their leadership to concentrate their full efforts to the work of the gospel? Even the most dedicated LDS bishop--who might give 40+ hours to his secular work, and another 40+ to the church work, would then very likely be shorting his own family (the LDS' highest calling, if I read right in a previous post by someone else).

And btw, you cited some cases in which God told some people to give some things to people to help provide for their necessities, and those people received those revelations from God, so your belief that ALL people who choose and claim to work for God should not work at a “regular job” is simply based on an assumption and your “interpretation” of the scriptures.

Ray, the priests worked full-time in the Temple, and God ordered that the people pay them with food, shelter etc. (they didn't use salaries in the OT, so your repeated linguistic gymnastics that insinuate they were given basic necessities because of some inability on their part just won't do).

Secondly, people can know just as much if not more about God and His gospel whether or not they have money or the things money can buy.

Assuming teachers are called of God, those that are commissioned to dedicate themselves to fulltime ministry will be more proficient than those who do so on the side. You'd much rather have a fulltime physician than someone who dabbles in medicine on the side. Note that in 2 Timothy 3, Paul charges young Timothy to treat Scripture study as work--study to show yourself a workman, that needeth not be ashamed...

Some volunteers are better than some full-time teachers, but as a rule of thumb, those the church equips for fulltime labor will be more proficient than those required to "work fulltime to support their ministry habit."

Or in other words, someone’s ability to know God and His gospel is not determined by how much money they have so they don’t have to “work” at a “regular job” anymore, because even if that meant they could then spend ALL of their time “studying”, that alone would not help them to know God.

Ray, any teacher called by God will become a more able instructor if the church provides for them to do so fulltime. The call of God is basic. Learning how to study effectively takes both effort and practice. So, all other things being equal (sincerity, true calling, devotion to God, etc.) the fulltime leader, in most cases, will be more proficient at the skills overseers exercise.

Or in other words, the fact that some people may have all their time in this world to study and learn about God without having to work at a “regular job” does not give them an advantage over other people who choose to work at a regular job to “earn their living” while learning about God on their “spare” time, because the knowledge God gives to all of those who want to know Him does not come by “study” alone.

Knowledge of God does not come by study alone, but study is integral. The more time one is able to dedicate to study, the better s/he will be. I'm not comparing Fulltime leaderA with Parttime leaderB--I'm comparing A & A. You, Ray, will be a better leader, if you can fully dedicate yourself to the work.

Paul was so strong on the idea of fulltime dedication, he even suggested it might be better for leaders to be single, so they would not be hindered by family considerations.

Or in other words, the way to know God is by having a personal relationship with Him, in which you speak to Him and listen while He speaks to you, and not only does God speak by what He has revealed to others, but He speaks by what He reveals personally to you.

To harken back to the 1980s, "Quality time doesn't cut it. True quality time requires quantity." I'm not saying part-timers or volunteers cannot do a wonderful job--Paul did. On the other hand, churches who invest in their overseers, allowing them to commit fulltime to the work reap great spiritual rewards, imho.

Or in other words, to put all of this in a nutshell for you, nobody should be trying to figure out who or which group of people has spent the most time studying all of “the good books” or "good things inspired by God and written in books" which are available on this planet and then trying to learn from “them”. Instead, we should all seek our own knowledge of God, and we should all share the knowledge we receive from God without charging anybody any money.

You stress so much the importance of authority, and how Scriptures do not grant authority, and now you tell me that each one should simply discern the Scriptures for themselves, and not rely on "some are called to be teachers."

Heh, but if you wish, you may send your contributions to me and I will promise to pay tithing on all of it. :)

I should consider, since you are already supporting me with you tax $

And btw, FYI, Moses, Abram, Isaac. Jacob and Joseph actually were all prophets of God, despite any notions you have to the contrary.

I suppose Moses might be called a Prophet-Leader-Judge. Muslims would agree with you on that. Abraham? Did he write anything? He did receive a call from God--but it was basically to go to a land God would show him. Isaac and Jacob? I don't think they would be considered prophets by most Bible scholars. Leaders, yes. Joseph, too. I suppose if your definition of prophet is quite loose--i.e., anyone who's heard from God, then perhaps yes. But, not by the traditional understanding--those called of God to speak his words to the people, often against political leadership.

[prisonchaplain]

I believe that every Christian should "dedicate themselves to study, prayer, counseling and tending to God's people"

In a sense you are right. I tell the chapel every week that each of them is the only Jesus many of their fellow inmates will see. They won't come to me. But the believing inmates live with them, and are going through what the others are going through. If the Christian inmate lives in peace, with confidence, and with honesty and integrity, that's the best teaching an unbeliever can see.

On the other hand, God has called some to teach, some to lead, etc. These churches should empower to do as well as they possibly can. And, in many instances, that means setting individuals aside for fulltime service.

and that such matters are not to be left to those that do it for money

I know what you mean by this, but the underlying insinuation is wrong. It is not only possible, it is the historic norm that fulltime church workers are fully provided for by the church. It's not that the workers are doing it for the money--it's that the church is equipping the workers for fulltime service.

If any one Christian has a right to be supported in their faith and for their efforts then all have that same right (in my view). I do not believe in classes of priviledged Christians.

Ministers traing the people to minister in their communities and circles of influence. Everyone is a teacher, but some are fulltime teachers. Everyone can share the gospel, but some are fulltime evangelists, missionaries, overseers, etc. I seriously doubt that anyone who had not been drilled with this idea that churches should not fully support their workers, would begrudge, for example, the Salvation Army Officer (i.e. minister/bishop), who gets "paid" in the mid-20Ks, I believe.

And to state it simply: What should we do for free, and what should we expect to be paid for... with money?

We don't have to speculate, Ray. We have 2000 years of church history. Churches generally set aside roughly 1-2% for fulltime ministry. The overseer, an assistant (secretary), and in larger churches, a few assistant overseers (pastors/ministers/bishops). They are supported because they provide leadership, training, and spiritual counsel as their fulltime calling. Many people, including the leaders volunteer time. There hasn't been a clamoring for everyone to get paid. A good many ministers could probably sue for violation of minimum wage laws, if their pay was looked at on an hourly basis. That's not the mindset. Very few church members begrudge the leaders being provided for. Most wish they could do more.

[shanstress70]

Here is my opinion on the matter: I think it is great that some men and women choose to serve the Lord and make a living at it. I do not believe they should live like kings or queens, but they should definitely have a decent life.

Some of the arguments that are being made here aren't making sense to me. I could say the same things about doctors - that no one should make profit off of saving someone's life. Sure, that all sounds great, but what kind of quality doctors do you think we would have if they were all volunteers? And no, it doesn't mean the doctors are materialistic, but they devote a lot of time to studying and perhaps specialize in treating specific disorders or body parts.

Paid clergy aren't necessarily materialistic... they just devote a life to learning and teaching the gospel, and helping others. Why is it wrong that they be paid for it?

Having been LDS at one time, I can say that out of all the bishops I've been under at one time or another (a total of 2), I have felt comfortable talking to neither of them about personal problems. I could have used some guidance a few times, but they weren't the approachable type. And actually, each of them would always speak to my husband and not me! What's that all about? I know that some of you wouldn't believe this, but I'm a very friendly, approachable, smiley type of person.

I realize that there are some wonderful bishops out there, but not the two that I knew! Which brings me to my point... in the LDS church, there are no personality or knowledge requirements restricting who can be bishop that I know of (yes, I may be wrong).

And have you guys read some of the things in the 'Advice' forum about how people have been treated by bishops? Trust me... it's not just me.

I know that some paid clergy have problems too, but I would rather someone get paid to devote their life and training to spiritual matters than to have it be a side job.

As far as speaking in church goes... pretty much the same thing. I have literally fallen asleep several times in Sacrament meeting. And I can't count how many times I seen members of the bishopric (including the bishop) themselves fall asleep while one of the members is speaking... sitting up at the front behind the speaker! Granted, I have heard great LDS speakers as well... my husband was one of them. But it's like a roll of the dice.

Why is it so bad to pay someone who is an engaging speaker with well thought out sermons? I know I get a lot more out of it that way.

[Ray]

That's an interesting idea Ray. What do your scriptures say about that?

Dr. T

Heh, what a refreshing response. :)

Yes, let’s look there, shall we?

Oh, were you expecting me to tell you what I have learned from God?

For free?

Okay, maybe after you hear me you will then choose to give me some money.

Under a topic called MINISTRY, UNPAID in our Topical Guide, you will find several references on this topic, and I especially recommend that you read, study, ponder and pray about:

Matthew 10:8:

Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. (This is our Lord Jesus Christ who is speaking)

And if you want more than that, you can also read, study, ponder and pray about:

Acts 20:34:

Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. (This is His apostle named Paul who is speaking)

Shall I go on?

Okay, here is 1 Corinthians 9:18:

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. (also from the apostle Paul)

To mention only a few of the scriptures in the Bible.

And for some additional light from the Book of Mormon, I recommend:

Mosiah 18:26:

…the priests were not to depend upon the people for their support; but for their labor they were to receive the grace of God, that they might wax strong in the Spirit, having the knowledge of God, that they might teach with power and authority from God.

Alma 1:26:

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

And Alma 30:32-34:

Now Alma said unto him: Thou knowest that we do not glut ourselves upon the labors of this people; for behold I have labored even from the commencement of the reign of the judges until now, with mine own hands for my support, notwithstanding my many travels round about the land to declare the word of God unto my people.

And notwithstanding the many labors which I have performed in the church, I have never received so much as even one senine <a token of money> for my labor; neither has any of my brethren, save it were in the judgment-seat; and then we have received only according to law for our time.

And now, if we do not receive anything for our labors in the church, what doth it profit us to labor in the church save it were to declare the truth, that we may have rejoicings in the joy of our brethren?

I also recommend Mosiah 2:10-19, which is a little too long to quote.

And if you still want more, you can also look under a topic called PRIESTCRAFT, and I especially recommend:

Jeremiah 5:30-31:

A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land. The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priest bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

1 Peter 5:2:

Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly: not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

2 Nephi 26:29:

He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.

3 Nephi 16:10:

And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

Doctrine & Covenants 33:4:

And my vineyard has become corrupted every whit; and there is none which doeth good save it be a few; and they err in many instances because of priestcrafts, all having corrupt minds.

Also see 2 Timothy 4:3-5:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. (and remember this was also written by Paul)

Anyway, that’s a little bit of backup support, but if you want it all in a nutshell, I’d say it all boils down to the idea that we should not charge or take money from other people for learning and sharing the words of God.

And btw, you can also find some more good information under a topic called Teaching.

[prisonchaplain]

Matthew 10:8:

Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. (This is our Lord Jesus Christ who is speaking)

Jesus was addressing those He was sending out on a specific traveling mission. If you are suggesting that the instructions Jesus gives in this passage are meant for all church workers for all times, then even LDS missionaries miss the mark. You would require the following:

1. Take no money with.

2. Take no extra clothes.

3. Wherever you go, find the house of a worthy person to stay with.

These were faith evangelists Jesus was sending out. He was teaching them to rely on God. He was not establishing a permenent set of guidelines for leaders of established churches to live by. Note particularly, that the context of this passage is Jesus sending out workers for an evangelistic trip--not the normal day to day providing of church leaders.

Acts 20:34:

Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. (This is His apostle named Paul who is speaking)

Yes, it's well-known that Paul was a gifted tentmaker, and that he personally chose not to receive support from the churches, and made it clear (as I'll point out in another Scripture reference) that he had the right to be paid, but that he gave up that right--something the church should appreciate, not expect.

Okay, here is 1 Corinthians 9:18:

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. (also from the apostle Paul)

Again, Paul chose to be a volunteer leader for the Corinthians. Yet, in the same passage he says:

Do we have a right to food and drink? ... Or is it only I and Barnabus who must work for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? For is it not 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 when the plowman plows and the thresher threses, they ought 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 Corinthians 9:4-12a, NIV

Paul says that most of the spiritual overseers, apostles, leaders were indeed getting support--as they should, both biblically and humanly. He then uses the fact that he chose not to receive monies from them as leverage to get them to appreciate him and his message.

Bottom-line: The norm was for the leaders to be fully supported by the churches--again a practice that was proper both biblically and in accordance with common sense.

Once again, I have no issues with the LDS practice of relying on volunteers for its congregational leadership. It is not anti-Christian to do so. On the other hand, I disagree with the insinuation that it is improper for churches to fully provide for their leaders, so they might be set aside for fulltime spiritual labor.

[Ray]

prisonchaplain,

If you would rely on the Book of Mormon as much as you rely on the Holy Bible I believe your beliefs would help change you.

But I also don't believe we can prove anything through the scriptures alone, so we also both need to rely our assurances from God to be able to become how He wants us.

[Traveler]

Ministers traing the people to minister in their communities and circles of influence. Everyone is a teacher, but some are fulltime teachers. Everyone can share the gospel, but some are fulltime evangelists, missionaries, overseers, etc. I seriously doubt that anyone who had not been drilled with this idea that churches should not fully support their workers, would begrudge, for example, the Salvation Army Officer (i.e. minister/bishop), who gets "paid" in the mid-20Ks, I believe.

You will find my thinking somewhat liberal as to who and how they should be paid in our society. For example I do not think someone should be paid for intertaining. That aside I would add that everyone that is converted should be a full time 100% Christian and that every Christian is called to serve is some way by the spirit. I do not believe that anyone should say that because they do one thing they should get paid and that other Christians should not get paid for some reason.

One of the problems we have with the NT scriptures is that we see the Christians living in common for all with what the community had. All were given various things but money I question. Christians are not able to follow that kind of unselfishness in our day - Which is why I do not think that anyone respoinding to the spirit should think they are worthy of a dime more than anyone else for any reason. It is just that I do not mind helping anyone in need (even non Christians) (and especially with non money goods like food, clolths, a place to live ect) but when it comes to a salery and money - I believe that it bring corruption.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I do not think that anyone respoinding to the spirit should think they are worthy of a dime more than anyone else for any reason. It is just that I do not mind helping anyone in need (even non Christians) (and especially with non money goods like food, clolths, a place to live ect) but when it comes to a salery and money - I believe that it bring corruption.

It's one thing to be a full-time Christian, and another for the church to set one aside for full-time labor WITHIN the church. Those who work for the church should receive the support of the church--including funds. Again, we have the model of Israel. All Israelites were to be in full-time observance of the Law, but the Levites were set aside for full-time temple work. As such, they were paid in food, shelter--provisions of the day. Today, that gets translated into salary.

Churches do not HAVE to function with fulltime clergy, but historically they have done so. They did so in the Old Testament, and mostly so in the New Testament. When churches provided for their leaders, they did so not out of pity or sympathy, but out of appropriateness--the worker should be paid for his/her labor.

As for the suggestion that the NT church lived communally, my sense is that that was true only in certain locations, like Jerusalem, due to the heavy persecution there. The problems in the Corinthian church and others, lead me to believe they were not living ocmmunally.

[pushka]

For anyone interested in some information regarding the LDS church's financial history may I suggest reading this excerpt from:

The Mormon Hierarchy - Extensions of Power

by D. Michael Quinn

Chapter 6. Church Finances

Tithing

Paid Ministry and Voluntary Service

Public Disclosure

Church Business

Deficit Spending and Modern Financing

The Hierarchy: From Corporate Management to the Sideline

Conclusion

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/hier2.htm#chap6

There's lots of information, so enjoy!

M.

Hi Maureen...I'm sorry I'm so late in responding to your post. It's taken me a few days to plough through that long article. It was, indeed, very interesting and informative.

It appears to me that (to summarise my understanding of the article) the Church has, over the years, used money received from tithes partially to purchase/establish businesses, and then G.A.'s and others working closely with them have, until recently, benefitted financially from those businesses by being 'directors' of them...I have a question regarding this: Do any of the 'normal' church members whose Tithing money is spent on these businesses receive any benefits from them? Hold shares in them for instance? or is it just the G.A.s and others who have benefitted?

[Maureen]

It was, indeed, very interesting and informative.

I agree.

It appears to me that (to summarise my understanding of the article) the Church has, over the years, used money received from tithes partially to purchase/establish businesses, and then G.A.'s and others working closely with them have, until recently, benefitted financially from those businesses by being 'directors' of them...I have a question regarding this: Do any of the 'normal' church members whose Tithing money is spent on these businesses receive any benefits from them? Hold shares in them for instance? or is it just the G.A.s and others who have benefitted?

Good question pushka - I really don't know. With my limited knowledge in business stocks and such, I'm guessing that any business that has an IPO (initial public offering) can offer shares to anyone in the public not just business directors, etc.

M.

[Traveler]

It's one thing to be a full-time Christian, and another for the church to set one aside for full-time labor WITHIN the church. Those who work for the church should receive the support of the church--including funds. Again, we have the model of Israel. All Israelites were to be in full-time observance of the Law, but the Levites were set aside for full-time temple work. As such, they were paid in food, shelter--provisions of the day. Today, that gets translated into salary.

Churches do not HAVE to function with fulltime clergy, but historically they have done so. They did so in the Old Testament, and mostly so in the New Testament. When churches provided for their leaders, they did so not out of pity or sympathy, but out of appropriateness--the worker should be paid for his/her labor.

As for the suggestion that the NT church lived communally, my sense is that that was true only in certain locations, like Jerusalem, due to the heavy persecution there. The problems in the Corinthian church and others, lead me to believe they were not living ocmmunally.

I have hesitated posting a response because of I do not want you to think I am attacking you personally or your beliefs (you deserve better of me) but I believe there is a problem with a paid clergy along with certain other professions. The problem is money. Money is tied directly to earthly treasures and power. This tie to earthly treasures creates not only doctrinal and behavioral problems and contradictions but it also clouds spiritual vision with what appears to be earthly necessities.

Take for an example (as you have often talked) of a teacher called by the L-rd to feed his sheep. As soon as money is involved thereby creating a salary a teacher is no longer called by the L-rd but called (or hired if you will) by a committee that will also determine the worth of the teacher. There is no direct link from the L-rd’s calling and the hiring of a paid congregational teacher. Qualification for being a hired teacher becomes the same as becoming a worldly teacher. That is because there is no formal method of demonstrating a divine call but there are educational methods of proving a completion a worldly teaching certification.

The second has to do with determining a pay scale. Are all teachers paid the same as they were called by the L-rd? Rather it appears to me that the pay scale is define and motivated on the principles of worldly treasure and methods of compensation. How could a Christian congregation turn away or fire any teacher with divine charge? How could they pay them even a hundredth part of their real value? It appears to me a teachers pay is more closely associated with their popularity than the divineness of their call.

Money does strange things to people - even is small amounts. For one it terns a protector and care taker of sheep into a user, merchant and devourer of sheep. It is a means of bondage and control. Some think it is economy but that is a deception. It is co present with power and as I said - money is based on worldly treasures rather than heavenly treasures. One of the best examples of how money distorts spiritual vision is a discussion Jesus had with one “Rich Young Man”. Because this man had become bonded to money he could not hear the words of Christ. He knew the scriptures but could not comprehend the words of eternal life. Few realize that most of the parables given by Christ involved money. We may remember the sin of Sodom but few remember the sin of Gomorrah.

The spiritual method of avoiding the pitfalls of money are taught in the scriptures beginning with the creation. It is one of the most consistent themes prevalent in both the Old and New Testament of the Scriptures. Interestingly it is also a major theme and warning from the Book of Mormon concerning our day.

In short, a paid clergy is a worldly thing that we must all learn to live without if we plan to live with the L-rd in heaven or here when he comes - “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.”

The Traveler

[pushka]

I've just got another little comment to make on the article linked to via Maureen's post, about the GA's and others being given roles as directors of LDS owned/run businesses, and the salaries they earned from them.

'The Hierarchy: From Corporate Management to the Sideline

"Breaking with tradition," in June 1975 Spencer W. Kimball withdrew as LDS president from being an officer or director of corporations in which the church had significant financial interest. The First Presidency explained: "Membership on the boards has required some time and the presidency has felt its time could be better utilized in building the kingdom." When the church president withdrew from corporate responsibilities, there were 3 million Mormons throughout the world.141

By implication such priorities applied equally well to Kimball's counselors, the apostles, and the Seventy. Their callings involved primarily spiritual ministry and ecclesiastical governance, in contrast to the financial domain that has defined the Presiding Bishopric since its beginning. However, not until January 1996 did the rest of the LDS hierarchy follow Kimball's example by ending the role of all general authorities as officers or directors of any business. They had waited until church membership stood at more than 9 million.'

From the above I now gather that no GA's now work as directors, and therefore no longer receive income from this source. The only income they receive, therefore, is a 'living expenses' type of settlement, which helps them acquire or keep existing housing, and pay for food and utilities?

Previous to that time, the Church had, apparently come close to bankruptcy due to its practise of paying GA's for holding directorships in LDS corporations:

'George Albert Smith was a good illustration of the corporate side of the hierarchy's income in the twentieth century. Appointed an apostle in 1903 without significant business experience, by 1915 he was a director of three church enterprises: Utah Savings and Trust Company, Utah Home Fire Insurance Company, and ZCMI, for which he received a total of $1,260 yearly in director's fees. His annual income that year was $5,088, of which only $1,800 came from his allowance as a general authority. The same proportion continued throughout his service as an apostle, but his income jumped more than 500 percent in the first year of his service as LDS president in 1945. This was a direct result of his advancement to corporate offices which were part of his new church position. An undated statement shows that before his death in 1951 President Smith's monthly income of $2,307 came from $650 in general authority's allowance and $1,657 in director's fees from nine LDS corporations.115

A decade after Smith's death, church corporations were providing some general authorities with very lucrative supplements to their church stipends. In 1963 Beneficial Life Insurance Company alone awarded $13,400 in director's fees to President David O. McKay, $6,750 to first counselor Henry D. Moyle before his death in September, $9,200 to Moyle's co-counselor Hugh B. Brown for service during the entire year, $1,700 to Moyle's replacement as counselor N. Eldon Tanner (who apparently accepted less than authorized) for his service from October to December 1963, and $6,200 to the Twelve's president Joseph Fielding Smith for a full year's service.116

Nevertheless, non-Mormons have almost always overlooked the reality that the LDS church has rarely had financial profit as the motive for starting even the most ambitious business. In fact, from 1933 to 1961 First Presidency counselor J. Reuben Clark continually cautioned against church enterprises making too much money. Why? Because that would be profiteering at the expense of those whom Mormon enterprises seek to benefit, the average Latter-day Saints.117 Generally, church-owned or -controlled businesses have been a drain on its resources, often helping drive the church to the edge of bankruptcy. This happened first in 1837 during a national depression.

Various apostles (subsequently excommunicated) are traditionally blamed for the financial speculation in Kirtland which preceded the collapse.118 However, Heber C. Kimball laid the responsibility directly on Joseph Smith. When the Quorum of Twelve returned to Kirtland from its first mission in September 1835, the prophet told the apostles, "Now, brethren, it is a good time to get property; now is the time for you to get rich." Kimball explained the consequences: "Well, it was one of the most trying times the Church ever saw. Most of the Twelve went into speculation, and half of them turned away [from the church]."119 It is no coincidence that these times of severe Mormon financial crisis usually occurred during depressions in the national business community in 1837, in 1842-44, in 1873, in 1893, in the 1920s (in agriculture, mining, and manufacturing), and in the 1930s.'

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/hier2.htm#chap6

My comment/question, is why should the GA's have kept the full allowances from the LDS corporations of which they automatically became directors upon receiving their calling as a GA in the church, instead of distributing the wealth (a large proportion of it at least) back into the Church itself, to benefit it and the members in general, instead of making the GAs disproportionally rich compared to the other church members?

[Ray]

I think this is another one of those issues in which we need our Lord to direct us, because even our Church pays some teachers with money, so as “general” rule we can’t say it’s all bad, as that is a good use of that money.

And btw, in Tommy's defense, I don't think it is his church which pays him, because he works for a prison, which is an institution of the state of Washington, so it is those taxpayers who pay him... and I believe one of his "bosses" is LDS. :)

[prisonchaplain]

I think this is another one of those issues in which we need our Lord to direct us, because even our Church pays some teachers with money, so as “general” rule we can’t say it’s all bad, as that is a good use of that money.

I appreciate this comment. Money is a tool. Used well, it can be most helpful. However, if the tool becomes the goal, corruption and destruction result. We need not 'throw out the baby with the bathwater,' but caution is necessary.

And btw, in Tommy's defense, I don't think it is his church which pays him,

True. I'm a full-tither, so I pay it (or, to be theologically and spiritually correct, I pay the Lord via his agent).

because he works for a prison, which is an institution of the state of Washington, so it is those taxpayers who pay him... and I believe one of his "bosses" is LDS. :)

Close. I'm actually with the feds, so probably 90% of the 70% of ldstalk members who are LDS probably have a part in my salary.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

And btw, in Tommy's defense, I don't think it is his church which pays him because he works for a prison, which is an institution of the state of Washington, so it is those taxpayers who pay him... and I believe one of his "bosses" is LDS. :)

Close. I'm actually with the feds, so probably 90% of the 70% of ldstalk members who are LDS probably have a part in my salary.

Heh, I stand corrected, in assuming it was a state prison. :)

And btw, I believe it is money well spent... though it will be better when you accept more of our doctrine.

[prisonchaplain]

I have hesitated posting a response because of I do not want you to think I am attacking you personally or your beliefs (you deserve better of me) but I believe there is a problem with a paid clergy along with certain other professions. The problem is money. Money is tied directly to earthly treasures and power. This tie to earthly treasures creates not only doctrinal and behavioral problems and contradictions but it also clouds spiritual vision with what appears to be earthly necessities.

You've earned the benefit of the doubt, Traveler. Your heart's cry is for the purity of the gospel, and your justified concern is that money (filthy lucre) can so easily corrupt it. I disagree that having full-time clergy necessarily leads to corruption, but I can see the connection. Here are some other concerns:

1. Religious advertising in which the smiling believers are all clearly middle/upper class. Is the message that poor folk do not make good Christians? (Trust me, factions within Pentecostalism deserve SEVERE scrutiny along this line).

2. The opposite extremes of, on the one hand, coddling Christians into believing that since money is taboo, they need not worry whatsoever about how much they give to God. Just give "as the Spirit leads." Somehow it ends up averaging at about 2%. On the other hand, so adamantly demanding that anything less than 10% of the gross = robbing God, and if you don't give to the special appeals your love for God is lacking, you don't care about lost souls, etc. to the point that people believe it's all about money, not about giving time, a listening ear, a friendly smile, visiting the prisoner, the sick, etc.

I could go on, but this issue of money and material corrupting the gospel message is huge. IMHO saying that clergy, teachers, etc. should not be paid because of possible corruption is a way of building a fence around the danger. It may prevent some trouble, but it may also prevent some good work from getting done. The issue goes to the heart, and it is a matter that cannot be simply solved. On going reflection, meditation, communion with God are essential to prevent such failures.

Take for an example (as you have often talked) of a teacher called by the L-rd to feed his sheep. As soon as money is involved thereby creating a salary a teacher is no longer called by the L-rd but called (or hired if you will) by a committee that will also determine the worth of the teacher. There is no direct link from the L-rd’s calling and the hiring of a paid congregational teacher. Qualification for being a hired teacher becomes the same as becoming a worldly teacher. That is because there is no formal method of demonstrating a divine call but there are educational methods of proving a completion a worldly teaching certification.

There are no objective means of testing a divine call. On the other hand, beyond the objective standards of church training, experience, and presentation, those who serve on "pulpit committees" do pray for God's direction. It's not only a question of whether the candidate has a divine call to ministry, but whether this particular location is God's specific calling for this time. And, it's more common than not that when there is a vote on the matter and the candidate "wins" by a small margin, s/he will refuse the post due to the lack of spiritual consensus and confirmation.

Now, pull the money out of the equation. Service is still an honor, and the same issues would still arise. How to determine if the person is called? Is s/he called to this particular service at this time? The issues are the same.

The second has to do with determining a pay scale. Are all teachers paid the same as they were called by the L-rd? Rather it appears to me that the pay scale is define and motivated on the principles of worldly treasure and methods of compensation. How could a Christian congregation turn away or fire any teacher with divine charge? How could they pay them even a hundredth part of their real value? It appears to me a teachers pay is more closely associated with their popularity than the divineness of their call.

You don't get paid for being called, you get paid for the service you provide. As a rough explanation of how salaries get decided in most cases: What is the training? If Bible college, then the pay of a public school teacher would probably be similar (nobody confuses ministry with high-end professional pay). If the M.Div is required, perhaps the pay would be similar to a low to mid-grade lawyer. Also, the community being served factors in. If the community is poor, and the church is a "mission." regardless of training, the pastor may have to work. My seminary colleague took a church in Lakawana, NY. He got 12 of 13 votes. His starting salary: $0. After a year, the raised it to $600 per month. Generally speaking, ministers' incomes would fall in the 40-60 percentile of the congregation. They make too much, and of course people feel the chuch is being taken advantage of. They make too little and the leader ends up looking like a welfare project of the church.

Money does strange things to people - even is small amounts. For one it terns a protector and care taker of sheep into a user, merchant and devourer of sheep. It is a means of bondage and control. Some think it is economy but that is a deception. It is co present with power and as I said - money is based on worldly treasures rather than heavenly treasures. One of the best examples of how money distorts spiritual vision is a discussion Jesus had with one “Rich Young Man”. Because this man had become bonded to money he could not hear the words of Christ. He knew the scriptures but could not comprehend the words of eternal life. Few realize that most of the parables given by Christ involved money. We may remember the sin of Sodom but few remember the sin of Gomorrah.

There is no doubt that the pursuit of money can bring all kinds of evil. I'm not convinced that supporting clergy for fulltime service leads to this sin. It might be argued that paying too little or too much could offer temptations. But support itself need not be an issue.

The spiritual method of avoiding the pitfalls of money are taught in the scriptures beginning with the creation. It is one of the most consistent themes prevalent in both the Old and New Testament of the Scriptures. Interestingly it is also a major theme and warning from the Book of Mormon concerning our day.

In short, a paid clergy is a worldly thing that we must all learn to live without if we plan to live with the L-rd in heaven or here when he comes - “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.”

I understand Traveler's concerns, and agree at least that all Christians need to meditate seriously on how money effects their walk with God--whether leader, or member, teacher, or janitor. On the other hand, salaried, trained, ordained clergy who are supported in a generous yet frugal manner by churches are no more likely to be corrupted by materialism than volunteer bishops, who, in addition to the normal pressures of modern life with large families, add the equivalent of an additional part-time professional position, with no added material support.

[Ray]

prisonchaplain,

Just to make it clear, in light of what I said to you in my last post, I still haven’t changed my beliefs and feelings about how a person receives authority from God.

Or in other words, although I do know that you have some authority from some people in our Federal government and your church to do your ”job”, as well as some help from God to help you know some of the things that are true, neither one of those entities that has authorized you has been authorized by our Lord to help Him spread the gospel.

And btw, I’m not trying to be offensive to you here, and I’m also not trying to cause any bad feelings within you, but I do feel the urge to say what I am saying because I want to help you know God even better.

[shanstress70]

Or in other words, although I do know that you have some authority from some people in our Federal government and your church to do your ”job”, as well as some help from God to help you know some of the things that are true, neither one of those entities that has authorized you has been authorized by our Lord to help Him spread the gospel.

UGH! It's painful to read this stuff, Ray. And for the fifteenth or so time since I've been reading your 'stuff', those of us who are not LDS are just as sure of our beliefs, as you are of yours. Sometimes you sound like a psycho, to be quiet honest.

[Ray]

Just as certain... but undecided... whatever you want to believe. :)

[shanstress70]

Just as certain... but undecided... whatever you want to believe. :)

I am undecided about what religion to classify myself as, Ray. I'm not uncertain about what I believe. But whatever makes you feel good about yourself...

[Traveler]

I understand Traveler's concerns, and agree at least that all Christians need to meditate seriously on how money effects their walk with God--whether leader, or member, teacher, or janitor. On the other hand, salaried, trained, ordained clergy who are supported in a generous yet frugal manner by churches are no more likely to be corrupted by materialism than volunteer bishops, who, in addition to the normal pressures of modern life with large families, add the equivalent of an additional part-time professional position, with no added material support.

It appears to me that we agree on more than we disagree. It is my personal belief that money corrupts more than it blesses. It is interesting to me how many (including LDS) believe that money is a blessing - that those that have it are somehow better off than those that do not. This despite the fact the in the Book of Mormon, wealth almost always brought pride and greed. My father, who is very wealthy, taught me that money is a curse and is not true wealth. One of the great messages of scripture is that money is not wealth. I would like to point out a few things that scripture tells us is a true indication of wealth. (not necessarily in order.)

1. Understanding or knowledge of divine things.

2. A good husband or wife. (marriage)

3. Children

4. Ability to enjoy hard physical work (by the sweat of our brow)

5. Sacrifice

6. Service

7. Pursuit of truth (Education - including science)

8. Salvation

In general money (salary) not only is not only not on the list but is not even a component of anything that is. In reality money is more of a distraction. Those that insist it is a component, I believe are caught in a cleaver trap that will prevent them from finding the joy of true wealth. Most people wish for more money so they will not have to work, sacrifice and provide service and only make themselves miserable over thinking of it. They either work and save and invest for more money so they can have what they want or they go into debt (bondage) for what they want or they sit on their money believing they have power but miserable from what they have turned away to get it all.

Perhaps G-d blesses most with very little money in hopes we will not be lead away from wealth by money.

The Traveler

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

Just as certain... but undecided... whatever you want to believe. :)

I am undecided about what religion to classify myself as, Ray. I'm not uncertain about what I believe. But whatever makes you feel good about yourself...

Oh. Okay, so why don't you share your beliefs with us and then maybe we can all help you, because many of us know our religion and many of the others that are out there.

<div class='quotemain'>

I understand Traveler's concerns, and agree at least that all Christians need to meditate seriously on how money effects their walk with God--whether leader, or member, teacher, or janitor. On the other hand, salaried, trained, ordained clergy who are supported in a generous yet frugal manner by churches are no more likely to be corrupted by materialism than volunteer bishops, who, in addition to the normal pressures of modern life with large families, add the equivalent of an additional part-time professional position, with no added material support.

It appears to me that we agree on more than we disagree. It is my personal belief that money corrupts more than it blesses. It is interesting to me how many (including LDS) believe that money is a blessing - that those that have it are somehow better off than those that do not. This despite the fact the in the Book of Mormon, wealth almost always brought pride and greed. My father, who is very wealthy, taught me that money is a curse and is not true wealth. One of the great messages of scripture is that money is not wealth. I would like to point out a few things that scripture tells us is a true indication of wealth. (not necessarily in order.)

1. Understanding or knowledge of divine things.

2. A good husband or wife. (marriage)

3. Children

4. Ability to enjoy hard physical work (by the sweat of our brow)

5. Sacrifice

6. Service

7. Pursuit of truth (Education - including science)

8. Salvation

In general money (salary) not only is not only not on the list but is not even a component of anything that is. In reality money is more of a distraction. Those that insist it is a component, I believe are caught in a cleaver trap that will prevent them from finding the joy of true wealth. Most people wish for more money so they will not have to work, sacrifice and provide service and only make themselves miserable over thinking of it. They either work and save and invest for more money so they can have what they want or they go into debt (bondage) for what they want or they sit on their money believing they have power but miserable from what they have turned away to get it all.

Perhaps G-d blesses most with very little money in hopes we will not be lead away from wealth by money.

The Traveler

But you forgot to mention:

a house for your family, which these days will cost you some money

as well as education, transportation, and many other things that money will help us to buy.

And btw, our Lord is trying to teach us that the LOVE of money is the root of all evil... not that money itself or the things it can buy are all inherently evil.

And Traveler, I am on your side, brother, so don't go gettin freaked out. :)

[shanstress70]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Just as certain... but undecided... whatever you want to believe. :)

I am undecided about what religion to classify myself as, Ray. I'm not uncertain about what I believe. But whatever makes you feel good about yourself...

Oh. Okay, so why don't you share your beliefs with us and then maybe we can all help you, because many of us know our religion and many of the others that are out there.

It's not something I consider a high priority, as I'm not particularly fond of labels anyway. And actually, I have gotten some help by different posters here in the past. I don't believe that my salvation depends on my finding a church and attending regularly, but I would like to do it so that my child grows up in some kind of a church community.

You're missing the entire point of my prebious post though. What I'm saying is that many here (including LDS) are tired of your all-knowing, superior attitude. I'm saying that Prison Chaplain probably (although I'm absolutely not trying to speak for him) is sure that he doesn't need 'authority' from someone in your church to make his job official. I'm sure of this, if he is not!