Question About Unpaid Clergy

[Silhouette]

I was over on another LDS forum, and there was a major discussion going on about this subject. I was shocked to learn that the General Authorities get a stipend for their work, as do many other leaders in high-ranking callings. Am I the only one who didn't know this??? I've been a member since I was 16, and I'm 53 now, and I never had any idea that this was going on. I just figured that Heavenly Father provided a way for these people to do His work without them getting paid by the Church. I feel so naive!

[Wingnut]

I don't believe they get a stipend "for their work."  They get a stipend for their living expenses, as they're unable to work, due to their time commitments in their callings.  Heavenly Father has provided a way for them to do His work...this is it.

[Jane_Doe]

The 1^stPres, Qof12, 1stQof70, and mission presidents receive living stipends because they can’t hold a full-time job while being zipped around 6 continents.  After they are released (relevant for 70’s & mission presidents), they can now hold a job so the stipend stops.  These people make up ~300 people of the 15,000,000 Mormons out there (0.002%). 

 

There are also non-clergy people employed by the church as well.  They run the BYU’s, church HQ (paperwork), and other church sites.  But that’s a day-job and not calling. 

[jerome1232]

I am under the impression only GA's that aren't financially backed well enough to tend their own receive a stipend. You have to admit, this is much different than a paid clergy.

[estradling75]

It is easy to assume what we see happening locally is what happens everywhere.  At the local level (Wards and Stakes) all callings pretty much assume the person has a job and needs to work to support their own family.  (It might not be an accurate assumption for some calling but it is very much there.  After all even a Bishop or Stake President could get Church welfare assistance if needed)

 

However the higher up one goes the more the Church calling can interfere with having a normal job.  Unless you wish to limit the higher levels of church leaders to those that were rich you run into a very real problem.  Many very good people are like Joseph Smith was, and not promised or blessed with 'worldly success.'  So how does the Church handle it.  It has a stipend system (details of which we do not know).  This system supports those that need it so they can focus on laboring for the kingdom.

 

Now the foundation of this system is put in place in the Doctrine and Covenants.  Any place in where you read about the Bishop granting an inheritance, and stewardships, they are talking about the Church giving someone the resources they need to live and then holding them accountable to handling those resources.  This was suppose to be for all members, including the leaders.  But due to wickedness and greed of the members the system failed.  Tithing, the welfare system, and the stipend system are what we have now.  Its our current best effort to try to live at least some parts of the Law God wanted us to do.

[Silhouette]

I don't believe they get a stipend "for their work." They get a stipend for their living expenses, as they're unable to work, due to their time commitments in their callings. Heavenly Father has provided a way for them to do His work...this is it.

I just had never heard of this. I don't know what I thought they lived on...their retirement? Their savings? I don't know what I thought. I guess I never GAVE it much thought... Just figured they did it "somehow" without any financial assistance from the Church. I mean, I guess it's "ok" with me that this happens, for lack of a better word, but I feel rather deflated somehow. Innocence lost? I dunno. It's just a new concept to me that I'll have to have time to wrap my head around. I sure feel stupid though.

[Jane_Doe]

You never thought about it, that’s ok.  No need to feel stupid.

[Silhouette]

It is easy to assume what we see happening locally is what happens everywhere. At the local level (Wards and Stakes) all callings pretty much assume the person has a job and needs to work to support their own family. (It might not be an accurate assumption for some calling but it is very much there. After all even a Bishop or Stake President could get Church welfare assistance if needed)

However the higher up one goes the more the Church calling can interfere with having a normal job. Unless you wish to limit the higher levels of church leaders to those that were rich you run into a very real problem. Many very good people are like Joseph Smith was, and not promised or blessed with 'worldly success.' So how does the Church handle it. It has a stipend system (details of which we do not know). This system supports those that need it so they can focus on laboring for the kingdom.

Now the foundation of this system is put in place in the Doctrine and Covenants. Any place in where you read about the Bishop granting an inheritance, and stewardships, they are talking about the Church giving someone the resources they need to live and then holding them accountable to handling those resources. This was suppose to be for all members, including the leaders. But due to wickedness and greed of the members the system failed. Tithing, the welfare system, and the stipend system are what we have now. Its our current best effort to try to live at least some parts of the Law God wanted us to do.

Well, put like this it seems to make more sense...seems a little easier for me to swallow in these terms. Thank you for this explanation.

[Silhouette]

I am under the impression only GA's that aren't financially backed well enough to tend their own receive a stipend. You have to admit, this is much different than a paid clergy.

True. Makes sense.

[Just_A_Guy]

This is one of those things where the GAs actually tend to be pretty candid--but for some reason, it just doesn't penetrate to Mormonism culturally.  We prefer to draw on Book of Mormon statements about the laborer in Zion laboring for Zion, and about how both the preacher and the hearer left their labors together; and we downplay Paul's statements that full-time laborers should be supported by the Church, if necessary.

 

Yes; the GAs do get paid.  Official Church statements call it a "stipend"; but there is no official source as to just how much that amount actually is.  Moreover, up until about four or five decades ago, Apostles often sat on the boards of directors of Church-owned for-profit enterprises, and would generally also draw a salary for their services in those capacities.  At some point the directive went out that apostles shouldn't be serving in those kinds of positions anymore.

 

Want to hear something really mind-blowing?  It used to be (in the late 1800s) that bishops and stake presidents could expect to serve for twenty years or more; and it was such a time-consuming position that they were permitted to take a proportion of the tithes paid by members in their congregation. 

 

All in all, I'm glad we've moved to a primarily unpaid/lay clergy paradigm (fewer than a hundred clergymen drawing paychecks out of twenty-five-thousand-odd worldwide ain't bad!).  I think that, more often than not, it works.  But we need to be careful about getting a superiority complex over those religions who do choose to reimburse their clergymen.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

You don't want me to be in one of those high positions...'cause I'd start praying for Heavenly Father to reveal that the time has come for bishops to get stipends. 

[spamlds]

Keep in mind that the Church owns profit-making businesses (like Bonneville Communications, Deseret Book, and others) from which living stipends are drawn.  ZCMI was one of the early co-ops that followed this model.  

 

Tithes and offerings are not used to pay salaries for anyone who preaches the gospel.  Like any corporation, or as in the United Order, shareholders receive renumeration based on the performance of the stock.

 

The Church pays employees, like IT people, secretaries, custodians, and other employees who are not involved in preaching the gospel.  It doesn't pay ecclesiastical leaders.  It can reimburse them for travel expenses, etc.  If the bishop buys a toner at Office Max for the ward, it doesn't come out of his pocket.  If he has to travel a long distance to a stake meeting, the Church reimburses his mileage.  Mission presidents get a budget to run the mission home, transportation, travel expenses, etc.  For the General Authorities, it's not much different than that, I suppose.  

 

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me, but I believe that in the old United Order system, bishops work was basically a full-time job and he took his stipend from the storehouse.  The Newell K. Whitney store is a good example.  It was a private store, but it ultimately became the bishop's storehouse and Newell K. Whitney was the logical, but inspired choice for a bishop..

Edited October 7, 2014 by spamlds

[Silhouette]

Keep in mind that the Church owns profit-making businesses (like Bonneville Communications, Deseret Book, and others) from which living stipends are drawn. ZCMI was one of the early co-ops that followed this model.

Tithes and offerings are not used to pay salaries for anyone who preaches the gospel. Like any corporation, or as in the United Order, shareholders receive renumeration based on the performance of the stock.

The Church pays employees, like IT people, secretaries, custodians, and other employees who are not involved in preaching the gospel. It doesn't pay ecclesiastical leaders. It can reimburse them for travel expenses, etc. If the bishop buys a toner at Office Max for the ward, it doesn't come out of his pocket. If he has to travel a long distance to a stake meeting, the Church reimburses his mileage. Mission presidents get a budget to run the mission home, transportation, travel expenses, etc. For the General Authorities, it's not much different than that, I suppose.

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me, but I believe that in the old United Order system, bishops work was basically a full-time job and he took his stipend from the storehouse. The Newell K. Whitney store is a good example. It was a private store, but it ultimately became the bishop's storehouse.

All of these explanations reassure me. They do make sense.

*Silhouette unruffles her feathers and calms down*

Whew...that's better lol

[Guest]

My suggestion:  If one has faith that this is the true church led by Christ, then it is better when faced with stuff like these to start on a position of faith unless proven otherwise.  It makes for a calmer, more peaceful, more spirit filled inquiry, research, study, and reflection.  Because, I guarantee you, these things you're finding out are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and you will eventually experience that avalanche... I mean, it would be really terrible to see someone have a crisis of faith just because history says there were no horses in the Americas in the time of Nephi... or that Joseph Smith persuaded some reluctant 14-year-old to enter into a marital covenant with him.

Edited October 7, 2014 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

Do you believe there is anything wrong with paid clergy?

 

Not inherently.  I think there are potential pitfalls with the practice--huge ones--and I think that (with the exceptions mentioned in this thread) it's not something the Lord has designated should prevail in the Church at this particular point in time.  But no; I don't think it's evil or something the Lord would never permit.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Jane_Doe]

Do you believe there is anything wrong with paid clergy?  

 

Not at all, Mormon scripture even describes the procedure for it (in D&C).  I find that paid speakers are also usually better quality that ammeters (whom half the time are afraid of the mic).  

 

It's just current Mormon practice that vast majority (>99%) of positions are unpaid volunteers.  Yeah, it's a lot of work, and yeah teacher/speaker/musician quality is probably not as good as if we paid people, but it encourages congregation participation in an unparalleled way.  We are the speakers, we are the teachers, we are the ones scrubbing the toilets-- this is *our* church and we're going to own it!

Edited October 7, 2014 by Jane_Doe

[notquiteperfect]

Great comments - will just add that they're known to write books!

 

(The D&C mentions doing that type of thing to support themselves - might try to look it up later unless someone beats me to it).

[jerome1232]

Not sure if this is relevant or not, I thought of it after I woke up to go peek at the blood moon and realized I couldn't fall asleep.

Is there an inherit conflict in paid clergy and our stipulation of not working on the Sabbath? Are you serving the lord if you are profiting from your service?

I for one do take issue with paid clergy, this is even talked about in the BofM when... King Mosiah I believe... insisted priests, and himself, labor for their living and not be paid for their service to the lord. I believe it's also mentioned elsewhere.
 

3 And there was a strict command throughout all the churches that there should be no persecutions among them, that there should be an equality among all men;
 
4 That they should let no pride nor haughtiness disturb their peace; that every man should esteem his neighbor as himself, laboring with their own hands for their support.
 
5 Yea, and all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God.

6 And there began to be much peace again in the land; and the people began to be very numerous, and began to scatter abroad upon the face of the earth, yea, on the north and on the south, on the east and on the west, building large cities and villages in all quarters of the land.
 
7 And the Lord did visit them and prosper them, and they became a large and wealthy people.

[estradling75]

I for one do take issue with paid clergy, this is even talked about in the BofM when... King Mosiah I believe... insisted priests, and himself, labor for their living and not be paid for their service to the lord. I believe it's also mentioned elsewhere.

 

 

Your scripture quote is indeed true.  But it can't stand alone.  We also have scriptures about th labor being worthy of his hire in the bible and several scriptures in the Doctrine and Covenant telling the church that they needed to step up and support Joseph Smith.  I think that if we focus exclusively on one selection of scriptures and exclude others we come back with a false picture of what the Lord wants.

 

It seems to me that the Stipend is more of a welfare case then a being paid case.  Everyone is suppose to support themselves to the best of their abilities.  If for some reason they can't then the Church steps in an helps (aka welfare).  Now it is a bit different with the leaders of the church.  Most of the time we want the Welfare recipients to get off welfare and support themselves.  However most likely given their skills and experience the leaders of the Church could go to the private sector and easily find work that would pay them more then the Church ever would, but we would lose them as a leader.  Since they are greatly sacrificing to lead us it seems right and fair to help them support themselves, and basically keep them as a welfare case.   

[jerome1232]

I don't have an issue with the current system, I guess I should've quoted them but jane_doe and jag said they are okay with a paid clergy. This is different than a stipend for those who cannot provide for themselves (which is also exempted in Mosiah).

Where exactly are those passages in the D&C?

[estradling75]

Where exactly are those passages in the D&C?

 

Ok lets start with  D&C 24

3 Magnify thine office; and after thou hast sowed thy fields and secured them, go speedily unto the church which is in Colesville, Fayette, and Manchester, and they shall support thee; and I will bless them both spiritually and temporally;

 

 

Then to D&C 75

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

 

and also

26 And let all such as can obtain places for their families, and support of the church for them, not fail to go into the world, whether to the east or to the west, or to the north, or to the south.

 

Lets also try D&C 42

71 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;

 

and also

73 And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.

 

Then to round it out D&C 104

20 Let my servant Sidney Rigdon have appointed unto him the place where he now resides, and the lot of the tannery for his stewardship, for his support while he is laboring in my vineyard, even as I will, when I shall command him.

 

Seem to me that the Doctrine and Covenant are very clear that the Lord expect the Church to support its leaders when necessary. (Please note the "when necessary")

 

Now how do we connect it to King Benjamin?  King Benjamin was showing them that he wasn't their King or Spiritual leader because he was gaining wealth in so doing.  It seems clear that King Benjamin's duties did not prevent him from laboring with his own hands, so he did.  And if he could do so then it seems clear to me that others in his society could as well and therefore should.  Thus his command for their teachers and leaders to labor and not accept them if they don't make total sense for them.

[Blackmarch]

the church covers church activities. its no different than when the young women and young men are taken to some spiritual event and are given a lunch and the tab is forwarded to the church for reimbursement.

Now in the case of apostles, when you are called to that position you give up everything. and 100% of your time is considered church related. If I recall right you pretty much donate everything to the church, or put it into the church's trust.

now secondly just think for a second how many rich people who might be favorable towards the apostles? how likely would it be for some sort of fund or account to be set up by them to support the apostles workby one or some of them, and if so to which organization would they leave it in the care of?

[omegaseamaster75]

I think that we should trend towards paid clergy. If and only if for the need to have trained individuals to lead us. In the Catholic church a priest must go to years and years of schooling before he is qualified to lead a flock. This not only includes theological training but temporal training as well. 

 

If our Bishops were as well trained as other paid clergy we would have fewer issues in general. Less turnover, a true commitment to the work not "oh I was called so I guess I better do it". Scripture supports paid clergy so I am a little vague on as to why we do not go this route....

[Just_A_Guy]

To add to the scriptural corpus:  Paul was clear in 1 Corinthians 9 that even though he had made a point of not asking for support from the Church--theoretically, he would have been justified had he done so.  He cites the Levitical priests, whose food largely came from sacrifices offered in the temple.

 

Our mainline Christian brethren have done some nice analyses of the Biblical passages on the matter--see, e.g., here.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[jerome1232]

Well that wasn't hard to sway me now was it.