Guest Posted October 10, 2014 Report Posted October 10, 2014 To be clear, I wasn't making a shot at Catholic clergy or any other denomination. It seemed to me that omega was saying that training and pay would reduce problems we may have with our unpaid clergy, and I'm saying not entirely. Quote
prisonchaplain Posted October 10, 2014 Report Posted October 10, 2014 Education, preparation, fortification...sure nothing completely solves any problem. However, if we can reduce the problem and soften the damage, we do what we can, right? I still say the real question is simply what does God want? We all pray and listen with spiritual ears to discern those answers. You also look to your prophets. Blackmarch 1 Quote
spamlds Posted October 10, 2014 Report Posted October 10, 2014 There's a book I read a long time ago that told the story of clergy and ascetics from other faiths who joined the LDS Church. it's quite inspiring when you read their personal experiences and the sacrifices they made to become latter-day saints. The list of stories includes priests, ministers, and even a nun who converted. http://www.amazon.com/From-Clergy-Convert-Stephen-Gibson/dp/0884944921/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412976941&sr=8-1&keywords=from+clergy+to+convert For some of them, it meant loss of significant amounts of income or prestige. It meant periods of joblessness, because they didn't have a skill set that translated into a secular market at the rate of pay they had been receiving. Many of them gave up perks like the parsonage, a church-provided car, etc. It very much reminded me of the passage from Matthew 19: 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Blackmarch 1 Quote
prisonchaplain Posted October 10, 2014 Report Posted October 10, 2014 Hmmm....if I ever converted I'd lose my lofty position as the non-affiliated LDS.net moderator. Blackmarch, Just_A_Guy, Jane_Doe and 1 other 4 Quote
bytebear Posted October 11, 2014 Report Posted October 11, 2014 I think a huge difference between LDS clergy (full time or not) and clergy in other church is that Mormons don't seek out such positions through education, degrees, scholarly knowlege, etc. You can't work your way up to a bishop, or get a degree in Apostleship. Blackmarch and Sunday21 2 Quote
Silhouette Posted October 11, 2014 Author Report Posted October 11, 2014 I think a huge difference between LDS clergy (full time or not) and clergy in other church is that Mormons don't seek out such positions through education, degrees, scholarly knowlege, etc. You can't work your way up to a bishop, or get a degree in Apostleship.Well said. Quote
Phaedrus ut Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Not all church leaders are wealthy business men. President Hinckley never worked in the private sector and was life long church employee. He served as an apostle from 1958 to 2008 highly unlikely to raise a large family like he did with just a modest stipend. We know from filings in countries that require transparency that top paid employees are compensated pretty well. The 10 highest paid employees of the church in the UK for 2012 were paid between $115,000 and $130,000. From what I know from church employees the church is focused on hierarchy and organizational compensation. It's reasonable to assume that the Apostles and First Presidency are the highest compensated employees in the church. It wouldn't be unreasonable to think they make north of 200k per year with generous benefits. The 2012 UK Financial Statements can be seen at the UK charity Commission website. Phaedrus Quote
Silhouette Posted October 30, 2014 Author Report Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Deleted Edited October 30, 2014 by Silhouette Quote
PolarVortex Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 I heard from someone a while back (quite possibly an urban legend, but interesting nevertheless) that compensation to the First Presidency and the Apostles is a two-step process. When someone becomes an apostle, the church pays off his big debts (mortgage, kids' college, etc) so that he can let all that go and focus 100% on church business. Then the actual salary begins, which according to what I heard is modest. Who knows if this is accurate, and I don't like to traffic in rumors. But this type of compensation structure makes a lot of sense to me. Quote
mordorbund Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 Not all church leaders are wealthy business men. President Hinckley never worked in the private sector and was life long church employee. He served as an apostle from 1958 to 2008 highly unlikely to raise a large family like he did with just a modest stipend. We know from filings in countries that require transparency that top paid employees are compensated pretty well. The 10 highest paid employees of the church in the UK for 2012 were paid between $115,000 and $130,000. From what I know from church employees the church is focused on hierarchy and organizational compensation. It's reasonable to assume that the Apostles and First Presidency are the highest compensated employees in the church. It wouldn't be unreasonable to think they make north of 200k per year with generous benefits. The 2012 UK Financial Statements can be seen at the UK charity Commission website. Phaedrus Page 26 for anyone who lacks google fu. Phaedrus ut 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.