New Member Questions

[Gandalf]

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?

[Snow]

Why do we no longer keep this command? And if not, where is the scripture changing this command?

You first. Why do you no longer keep this commandment?

[CrimsonKairos]

Why is circumcision no longer a required gospel ordinance when God originally told Abraham it was to be an everlasting covenant?

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. (Gen. 17:10-13, emphasis mine)

My answer? Times change, and God can use whichever covenants and doctrines He wishes to fulfill His plan. Might as well ask Jesus why we no longer have animal sacrifices. Just because some people once did something doesn't mean everyone else after must do the exact same thing also.

[Palerider]

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?

lets see.....we are studying the New testament in Sunday school.....what made you think of asking about the D@C???

[Snow]

lets see.....we are studying the New testament in Sunday school.....what made you think of asking about the D@C???

Your point being that people are not allowed to read scriptures that are not on the Sunday School calendar?

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>

lets see.....we are studying the New testament in Sunday school.....what made you think of asking about the D@C???

Your point being that people are not allowed to read scriptures that are not on the Sunday School calendar?

why of course snow...thats exactly what I meant.....you mean you never got the memo????.....

[CrimsonKairos]

Hahahahaha, reminds me of the movie Office Space:

"Did ya get that memo?"

[Palerider]

Hahahahaha, reminds me of the movie Office Space:

"Did ya get that memo?"

its funny that you mentioned office space.....I just watched that movie last weekend.....can't remember what channel....

[Gandalf]

Why is circumcision no longer a required gospel ordinance when God originally told Abraham it was to be an everlasting covenant?

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. (Gen. 17:10-13, emphasis mine)

My answer? Times change, and God can use whichever covenants and doctrines He wishes to fulfill His plan. Might as well ask Jesus why we no longer have animal sacrifices. Just because some people once did something doesn't mean everyone else after must do the exact same thing also.

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.

[Doctor Steuss]

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?

I was unaware that the missionaries were paid by those whom they preach the gospel to. Seems to me that the missionaries still keep this command.

[siouxz72]

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?

Gandalf,

Maybe I'm reading the scripture wrong, but to me it's reading, in my own words... let no man accept or take money that is out there preaching the Gospel. Our missionairies go out unpaid into the world to preach the Gospel. As a matter of fact, they usually pay for their missions themselves. Also, we have a lay ministry which means that we all give service in the Gospel without pay. In other churches the people who would be equivalent of our Bishop get paid, etc. If there is a change then it would be conveyed to us by the First Presidency.

Also, in response to asking Jesus why we no longer have animal sacrifices... We no longer have animal sacrifice because Christ sacrificed himself for our sins so there is no need. The answer to that question is in the New Testament.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...] Also, we have a lay ministry which means that we all give service in the Gospel without pay. In other churches the people who would be equivalent of our Bishop get paid, etc. [...]

Just a real quick clarification to this. Although we have a "lay ministry," it is not an all lay ministry. GAs receive a stipend.

[BenRaines]

True they recieve a stipend for living expenses. I don't believe they get a slice of the tithing receipts if they bring in more because of their charisma or the preaching they do to bring in more donations or how well liked they are by the members.

Ben Raines

[Doctor Steuss]

True they recieve a stipend for living expenses. I don't believe they get a slice of the tithing receipts if they bring in more because of their charisma or the preaching they do to bring in more donations or how well liked they are by the members.

Ben Raines

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.

[the Ogre]

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.

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?

[CrimsonKairos]

Times certainly do change, but I was taught that the Gospel does not.

Who taught you that? What scriptures form the basis for that belief?

In light of the changes, I guess the real question becomes, just what exactly is the Gospel?

The gospel is the good news that through the atonement of Christ and by obedience to the principles of heaven, mankind may be saved from their sins and dwell eternally with God. Here are some other definitions:

11 Yea, repent and be baptized, every one of you, for a remission of your sins; yea, be baptized even by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost.

12 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and remember that they shall have faith in me or they can in nowise be saved; (D&C 33:11-12)

And this is my gospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom. (D&C 39:6)

40 And this is the gospel, the glad tidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us—

41 That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness;

42 That through him all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him; (D&C 76:40-42)

How do we know that the covenant of circumcision has been done away?

Because God has restored His gospel with truth and authority, and has not revealed to His prophets that circumcision is mandatory. That is my testimony. Each must decide for themselves what the Spirit says.

[Gandalf]

<div class='quotemain'>

True they recieve a stipend for living expenses. I don't believe they get a slice of the tithing receipts if they bring in more because of their charisma or the preaching they do to bring in more donations or how well liked they are by the members.

Ben Raines

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.

[Alaskagain]

. . . 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. . . .

"Scrip" is not the same thing as "script".

[the Ogre]

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.

Interesting food, but I guess it would be if you thought is was okay for the FP to starve. I don't think the stipend is very much and it was BY (I believe, I might be wrong, but it was the then prophet who was inspired enough to set up their living expenses in whatever time) who set up the system.

Some of the GAs live in small apartments in the Hotel Utah (Church Headquarters). Some live elsewhere. If the money is for living expenses, then who should care? If you do, write them a letter. Maybe Pres. Hinkley will get a job at the downtown Gandolfos to pay for his groceries and rent, if anyone will hire a ninety-year old man.

If this is not enough, I am sure there are many very rich members of the church who would only be more than happy to contribute to the lives and well-being of the GAs. However, many people would interpret this as favoritism. In order to stop that, the church came up with a system for the GAs to receive a little money to feed and clothe themselves and play a little putt-putt or drive the go-carts at Trafalga out of the proceeds of some companies the church owns for this and other purposes.

But then there are some people who will just complain about anything. Pres. Hinckley could be a successful businessman or farmer and still people would complain about that. I guess for people who only find joy in complaining will always find something with which to be angry about.

BTW, one of the ways for missionaries to get over needing prepared lessons was for the missionaries to use the new "Preach My Gospel" handbook. It is a great book that helps the young and immature people who go out know how to present their Love of the L-rd who need it. But I guess even this is not enough. Everyone has to be perfect.

[CrimsonKairos]

But it seems to me since coming into this church that some members are awfully sensitive about the fact that many leaders are paid.

The General Authorities and Mission Presidents aren't "paid" to preach nor are they salaried servants.

They receive a living allowance. This money is to allow them to devote all their time to the Lord's service.

A salary is given by an employer to an employee. We do not employ our leaders. They are not our employees. They are God's instruments. If I need to help pay for their car, gas, rent, food, etc... so they can attend to the duty the Lord has laid on them, I'd be privileged to do so.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

True they recieve a stipend for living expenses. I don't believe they get a slice of the tithing receipts if they bring in more because of their charisma or the preaching they do to bring in more donations or how well liked they are by the members.

Ben Raines

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.

There is some misunderstanding here. the GA live what is called the "Law of Consecration". Most of the GA's have given up estates greater that the so called stipend they recieve. None of this is in fact the point.

May I use my own mission as an example. Prior to my mission I earned and set aside a sum of money that was then distributed to me through out my mission. I did not take money with me but only received money as I had need. There was more than one time when the money did not come at the apointed time and all the money I had recieved had been spent (I kept very careful records) but every time I went for cash there was enough to cover our needs even though I had spent more cash from my wallet than I had placed in there the previous month - and not by a small or insignificent amount.

You may choose to think I am stupid or foolish as you like - The truth of the matter stand independent of who believes it.

The Traveler

[Gandalf]

<div class='quotemain'>

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.

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.

[Gandalf]

<div class='quotemain'>

. . . 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. . . .

"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

[CrimsonKairos]

A scrip is a paper certificate or note entitling its bearer to money from a bank or institution. A scrip is not a script or prepared lesson. That is what they were pointing out, Gandalf.

It seems to me, from reading D&C 84 again, that the instructions about purses and scrips applies only to the apostles.

Christ says repeatedly, "as mine apostles of old..." after giving an instruction in D&C 84. There are specific instructions to specific people at the end of the revelation, but the majority of it seems directed to the apostles.

Hence, this standard is not to be adopted by every single missionary the Church sends out. The apostles specifically are to trust on the goodness of their fellow disciples to support them as they go about testifying of Christ and his gospel.

[Alaskagain]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

. . . 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. . . .

"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

I believe the "purse or scrip" refers to the definition of scrip which I have placed in bold print above, meaning currency. Thank you for looking it up for me. I don't believe it means not to go with a prepared lesson plan -- not necessarily a detailed word script - but a plan.

JMO.