New Member Questions

[Traveler]

<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

Gandalf: you need to understand that your post and approach to this subject appear more in line with a "Troll" than a member (especially a new member) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You may want to refer to your LDS scriptures (if you have them) - specifically to the Bible Dictionary under "Scrip”.

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 appears to be an old sectarian notion of scripture. There is a difference in relying on the L-rd and on your speaking abilities to obtain monies and other necessities if someone likes what you preach. I see monies gathered to help the poor, the fatherless and the widows but I see Peter as a working fisherman, I see Paul as a tent maker and Jesus as a carpenter.

None of them went to any university to obtain a degree to teach, none of then attended religious classes to justify receiving money (or giving simony) for their office. None of them took a purse that contained their earthly treasure.

Today many serve with their own money – some serve from donations from others. All serve and receive the loving kindness (and other gifts) from those they teach even gifts from those of lesser means. This is all done without flaunting any wealth they may or may not have living as equals with the poorest the serve with them.

Personally I believe very strongly that your criticism of missionaries is ill placed and is given in ignorance – I am curious (but not excited) to see where you intend to take such discussion

The Traveler

[Elphaba]

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.

What do you mean "so-called stipend"? It is a fact they receive one.

Also, are you saying all of the GA's live the Law of Consecration? I am aware some do give up their estates, but wouldn't all of them have to in order to live the LofC?

Additionally, how does receiving a stipend mean they are living the Law of Consecration. Perhaps they are, but that is not my understanding of the LofC. Maybe I misunderstand it. Do you have a reference stating they are living the LoC?

RE: Gandalf, he is just asking questions to which, in my opinion, some people are overreacting. I think he's seriously looking for clarification.

However, I have always thought the issue of the GA's finances is really a non-issue. I see no great wealth there. All I see are men who work very hard for their Church, and whatever stipend they receive is not worth making an issue over.

I have seen a few members become upset when they learn about the GA's stipend because they were never told about it in a regular Church venue. They were always taught that no one received any payment of any kind. And before you say they must have not been paying attention, these were lifelong, devoted members. And while you can argue the semantics of "stipend," it is a payment of money.

But while it is originally unsettling to them, they get over it, and it is eventually a non-issue to them. They just appreciate how hard the GA's work for them.

Like Aaron alluded to, Salt Lake City just is not an extraordinarily wealthy looking city. The GA's work as hard as they do because they love their Church, not to obtain wealth or luxury. I think that's obvious.

Elphaba

Edited: I'm thinking about the GA's and the Law of Consecration. I'm asking this because I really don't know. Do they all live on their stipends? And is that considered living the Law of Consecration? Thanks, E

[CrimsonKairos]

To me, the Law of Consecration is that basically you dedicate all of your time, talents, riches, resources and abilities to the Lord's work.

From each according to their ability.

To each according to their need.

The apostles give their all to the Lord's work, and their needs are covered by a member-funded living allowance.

[Alaskagain]

. . . .

RE: Gandalf, he is just asking questions to which, in my opinion, some people are overreacting. I think he's seriously looking for clarification.

I don't see anyone overreacting here; the discussion seems to be quite civil and following a fairly logical flow.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>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.

What do you mean "so-called stipend"? It is a fact they receive one.

Elphaba

Edited: I'm thinking about the GA's and the Law of Consecration. I'm asking this because I really don't know. Do they all live on their stipends? And is that considered living the Law of Consecration? Thanks, E

It is not a stipend by defination that implies some common amount or money only. They recieve according to their needs (often not in money) and it is generally not known which recieves more or less than the other but is between the person and their bishop.

CrimsonKairos gave a very good indication of how the law of Consecration is lived.

The Traveler

BTW there are many members that live the Law of Consecration - mostly through fast offering funds.

[the Ogre]

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.

Ogre here, but thanks for asking.

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.

Missionaries then did not pay rent (sleeping in barns or hay cots was an acceptable way for travelers to bed down for the night) and often had the option of shooting their food and so took their guns and fishing rods with them. This is simply no longer an option (see now what I'm talking about? The world will not allow what once was). The then problem came up as the world changed that some missions were more expensive than others. Poor families simply can not afford missions to Japan. To respond to this, the church came up with a plan where every missionaries pays the same amount thus spreading the costs of all missions every where. There was also the problem that some missionaries simply had no money and no families to support them so the church missionary fund also pays their way.

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 (this may be true, but only for a while. Missionaries need to eat. What about countries like South Korea that will not allow foreigners work unless they have bachelors degrees or better-except in the factories where the workers sleep next to their machines and never leave the plant). 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.

Move to Asia and you will see.

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?

H- does, that is why we have prophets to make changes to practice and procedure when it is needed.

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.

But does this scripture circumvent modern revelation and prophets.

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.

Thank you for the idea of a continual search. I do not think the points you bring up are of the nature to threaten your eternal salvation. The system the church has now is quite inspirational. It would be nice if the world stayed the same (in some instances), but it did not and as such the church must change in the face of these changes. What is interesting about all this is that the Atonement still exists and Joseph Smith is still a prophet of G-d.

Aaron the Ogre

[a-train]

To be honest, this thread is confusing. How does the charitible contributions of the believers to the efforts and provisions of the missionaries fall out of harmony with the scriptures?

The first LDS missionaries SOLD copies of the Book of Mormon. GET OVER IT and contribute to the Book of Mormon Fund. Those first elders also 'dusted' villages that received not the gospel and departed as instructed in those same revelations. Again, this is no longer the method used. We send out young single missionaries, including sisters who do not have the priesthood. And we keep them in areas that are void of believing NEW converts for years without 'dusting'.

Why? Because the LORD has sent them out to do a work of a much greater scope than that the Church first engaged. We are as Ammon who said: 'I desire to dwell among this people for a time; yea, and perhaps until the day I die.' (Alma 17:23) The Church is no longer seeking to bring only the converts out of the world to build Zion in Independence, or Nauvoo, or the Salt Lake Valley, but we now seek to build Zion on the face of all the earth as an Ensign to all nations.

1 Nephi 14:12: 'And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.'

The stone has been cut from the mountain and today it rolls forth. The LORD seeks not now to bring the righteous into a Zion city, but to build her stakes in all the world. (Remember that there is much talk of that city in D&C 84). The vast majority of our missionaries have at least a branch in which they work. Their efforts are not out among the 'gentiles', but in the Stakes of Zion, wherein every needful thing is prepared through the sacrifice and offerings of the saints and distributed in wisdom and order.

The missionary effort today is to be commenced by the local branch or ward with the assistance of full time missionaries. But are those full time missionaries to take a single thought for their physical needs? NO! Of course not! Do they have jobs? NO WAY! They rely on the contributions of the believers, the saints, US! 'Whoso receiveth you receiveth me; and the same will feed you, and clothe you, and give you money. And he who feeds you, or clothes you, or gives you money, shall in nowise lose his reward. And he that doeth not these things is not my disciple; by this you may know my disciples.' (89-91)

Whatever sacrifice and offering is made by the family of the missionary or himself or herself is a concecration to God and is to be commended, but how would we know if it is done in secret as instructed? Indeed it is. However, missionaries unable to make such sacrifices for lack of money still serve missions. It's not like they pay a cover charge to get into the mission field.

Let those who can contribute do so and those who cannot serve anyway, and let the LORD commence His work as he sees fit. But let us not for a second assume there is some sin in the work of the saints in feeding, clothing, housing, and supporting the missionaries (or the General Authorities for that matter). For as the LORD said: 'the laborer is worthy of his hire.' And, we need not assume that the extreme blessed state of the Church today somehow negates the authenticity of the missionaries' efforts.

Our missionaries rely on the contributions and efforts of the saints in supporting them in everything they do, however that is ALL they get. The receive nothing more. They get a meal, a place to sleep, a ride, perhaps clothing, a nice sister in the ward presses their shirts, these are hardly paychecks, but are inline with what is described in the scriptures.

The reality is this: Hired ministers buy houses, cars, and put kids through college with their wages. LDS missionaries come home from their mission with nothing but a testimony of the gospel and the rewarding feeling of a job well done.

-a-train

[Elphaba]

To me, the Law of Consecration is that basically you dedicate all of your time, talents, riches, resources and abilities to the Lord's work.

From each according to their ability.

To each according to their need.

The apostles give their all to the Lord's work, and their needs are covered by a member-funded living allowance.

So are you saying they all donate all of their previously earned money to the Church once they become a GA? I didn't know this. I knew some did, but not all of them.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

I agree with everything you said until this paragraph:

The reality is this: Hired ministers buy houses, cars, and put kids through college with their wages. LDS missionaries come home from their mission with nothing but a testimony of the gospel and the rewarding feeling of a job well done.

Many missionaries are going to have their college paid for by their parents, who buy houses, cars and put their kids through college with their wages. What does it matter that other people's college is paid for by a minister's wages? What does it matter what the parent's vocation is?

I just don't see how this applies to the issue at hand.

Elphaba

[CrimsonKairos]

<div class='quotemain'>

The apostles give their all to the Lord's work, and their needs are covered by a member-funded living allowance.

So are you saying they all donate all of their previously earned money to the Church once they become a GA? I didn't know this. I knew some did, but not all of them.

That's not what I meant. It would irresponsible for an apostle to give up all his personal wealth if he has a family to support or a wife to provide for. If he does not have that concern, then perhaps he would donate it all and only take back what he needs.

I'm not claiming personal knowledge of the intimate details of the Church finances. All I was saying was that the apostles give their all to the Lord (meaning their talents and time, not necessarily money), and in turn, we support their full-time service when they need it.

If someone like Elder Oaks pulled in a small fortune during his years working as a lawyer, then he might not need a living allowance now. Others who didn't have such lucrative careers might need assistance from members to subsist while they serve full-time.

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

The apostles give their all to the Lord's work, and their needs are covered by a member-funded living allowance.

So are you saying they all donate all of their previously earned money to the Church once they become a GA? I didn't know this. I knew some did, but not all of them.

That's not what I meant. It would irresponsible for an apostle to give up all his personal wealth if he has a family to support or a wife to provide for. If he does not have that concern, then perhaps he would donate it all and only take back what he needs.

I'm not claiming personal knowledge of the intimate details of the Church finances. All I was saying was that the apostles give their all to the Lord (meaning their talents and time, not necessarily money), and in turn, we support their full-time service when they need it.

If someone like Elder Oaks pulled in a small fortune during his years working as a lawyer, then he might not need a living allowance now. Others who didn't have such lucrative careers might need assistance from members to subsist while they serve full-time.Yes, that is my understanding as well. But Traveler's comment that they live the Law of Consecration threw me.

From what I understand the LoC to be, and based on the undetrstanding we both have that you outlined above, I would say they don't live the LoC. Would you agree? I thought to live the LoC you gave everything you owned to the Church. Am I wrong?

I believe Traveler is mistaken that the GA's live the LoC. But I admit I could be the one who is mistaken. Do you know one way or the other?

Thanks,

Elphaba

[CrimsonKairos]

Nope.

To me, giving all their time to the Church is living the Law of Consecration, and since I don't know the details of their personal financial arrangements, I can't say definitively.

My opinion is that they do live consecration, but it matters little one way or the other. The fruits of their efforts are sweet, and they are loved of the Lord for their self-sacrifice.

[Maureen]

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.

The reality is this: Hired ministers buy houses, cars, and put kids through college with their wages. LDS missionaries come home from their mission with nothing but a testimony of the gospel and the rewarding feeling of a job well done.

PC could probably give more insight into salaries that ministers receive but just from my own understanding, regular pastors are not rolling in the dough. They receive a set salary that is usually agreed upon by themselves and congregation (guessing at some type of church management board). They are also responsible for their own family's welfare. Their salary allows them to provide food and shelter because just like LDS GA's they devote all their time in the Lord's service.

M.

[Elphaba]

Nope.

To me, giving all their time to the Church is living the Law of Consecration, and since I don't know the details of their personal financial arrangements, I can't say definitively.

My opinion is that they do live consecration, but it matters little one way or the other. The fruits of their efforts are sweet, and they are loved of the Lord for their self-sacrifice.

I agree they give their all to the Church, and I have always been impressed with their commitment. I know they all work very hard.

Thanks for your answer.

Elphaba

[Gandalf]

<div class='quotemain'>

<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

Gandalf: you need to understand that your post and approach to this subject appear more in line with a "Troll" than a member (especially a new member) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You may want to refer to your LDS scriptures (if you have them) - specifically to the Bible Dictionary under "Scrip”.

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 appears to be an old sectarian notion of scripture. There is a difference in relying on the L-rd and on your speaking abilities to obtain monies and other necessities if someone likes what you preach. I see monies gathered to help the poor, the fatherless and the widows but I see Peter as a working fisherman, I see Paul as a tent maker and Jesus as a carpenter.

None of them went to any university to obtain a degree to teach, none of then attended religious classes to justify receiving money (or giving simony) for their office. None of them took a purse that contained their earthly treasure.

Today many serve with their own money – some serve from donations from others. All serve and receive the loving kindness (and other gifts) from those they teach even gifts from those of lesser means. This is all done without flaunting any wealth they may or may not have living as equals with the poorest the serve with them.

Personally I believe very strongly that your criticism of missionaries is ill placed and is given in ignorance – I am curious (but not excited) to see where you intend to take such discussion

The Traveler

I do not criticize the missionaries. However, I do find it interesting that the church seems to operate differently through "policies" and not direct revelation as it used to. I am wondering why. It seems you regard my questions offensive - personally to you - or you take personal offense for "the church" as a whole. Your responses are emotional and not based on documented facts of why or how things were changed according to the Lords way. You respond to what may others say in Church but have nothing in which to back up your claims, they are based on what you have always "heard around." My questions are based on needing answers to my queries. I do not think it untoward to want answers. I read the scriptures and I see differences from the way things used to operate and I am wondering, if the Lord saw fit to outline certain procedures for His work, I would only expect to see that He would find importance enough that when it needed to change that He, Himself would change it. In my fairly limited studies I then ask other Members of the Church this question. I do not look for quarrel. Someone in this post topic stated that Brigham Young set up the way missionaries now operate. I ask then where is the quote in which he changed it by the Lords' instruction. I would like references, not to be told "I've heard this, and I've heard that." I need help in finding my answers and I come here. Not to be told in my search for answers that I'm a "Troll." You need not respond if you do not have documentable answers.

[a-train]

I agree with everything you said until this paragraph: <div class='quotemain'>The reality is this: Hired ministers buy houses, cars, and put kids through college with their wages. LDS missionaries come home from their mission with nothing but a testimony of the gospel and the rewarding feeling of a job well done.

Many missionaries are going to have their college paid for by their parents, who buy houses, cars and put their kids through college with their wages. What does it matter that other people's college is paid for by a minister's wages? What does it matter what the parent's vocation is?

I just don't see how this applies to the issue at hand.

Elphaba

The difference is that the LDS ministers don't GET PAID. LDS missionaries only get food, shelter, etc., while they are serving, but they don't get a check. They don't get a 'purse'. This is exactly what is described in the scriptures. The issue at hand is the heed given by the LDS ministry to the scriptures. It has been suggested that they both violate the 'no purse or scrip' command, and that the LDS ministry is a PAID ministry.

Both accusations are pure comedy. The entire LDS priesthood body is a base of people who get absolutely no monitary compensation for their service in the ministry. That is the difference between a paid ministry and a non-paid ministry. That's all that is being said here.

It is easy to see that priestcraft is and has been rampant in this country for centuries now. While I do not accuse every minister in the country who earns a wage in his service as 'in it for the bucks'. It is easy to see how those who are can hide behind and among those who aren't.

The LORD's ministry weeds out the whole problem in the first place. None of those serving in the work of the latter-day Church can be enticed to do so by some financial prospect. The provisions afforded the full-time missionaries and General Authorities of the Church are only contributions to the effort of the ministry and do not include any funds that can be personally invested or spent on items or costs not involved in the work of the ministry.

The use of Church owned or rented property in the efforts of the ministry is not very tempting. People don't come to the ward building seeking to become a priesthood leader so they can enjoy the A/C in the building or drink from the water fountain. The Bishops, the Stake Presidents, the Music Coordinators, and Relief Society Presidents, and so forth, all of the various positions filled throughout the Church are so filled by individuals working with no compensation whatsoever.

The LDS ministry is completely without pay and those who seek to assert that it IS a paid ministry are either very mis-informed, are comedians, or are outright deceptive.

-a-train

[Elphaba]

The difference is that the LDS ministers don't GET PAID. LDS missionaries only get food, shelter, etc., while they are serving, but they don't get a check.

A question: My sister and brothers all received checks on their missions. This was thirty years ago, so perhaps there's been a policy change. I'm not suggesting they got paid--I know they didn't, and I understand what you are saying. I'm just confused about the "check" part. Do you mean missionaries do not receive a "check" rhetorically or literally. Do they not receive one at all today? Just wondering.

They don't get a 'purse'. This is exactly what is described in the scriptures. The issue at hand is the heed given by the LDS ministry to the scriptures. It has been suggested that they both violate the 'no purse or scrip' command, and that the LDS ministry is a PAID ministry.

That isn't the issue at hand for me or my question. I completely agree the LDS ministry is NOT a paid ministry. I address my "issue at hand," later in this post.

Both accusations are pure comedy. The entire LDS priesthood body is a base of people who get absolutely no monitary compensation for their service in the ministry. That is the difference between a paid ministry and a non-paid ministry. Tha''s all that is being said here.

Yes, I understand in their priesthood service to the Church, whatever that may be, they are not paid.

It is easy to see that priestcraft is and has been rampant in this country for centuries now. While I do not accuse every minister in the country who earns a wage in his service as 'in it for the bucks'. It is easy to see how those who are can hide behind and among those who aren't.

PC commented on this once and I think he is in a position to know. He said most pastors, or people in similar positions, do not make a great amount of money. They become leaders in the flocks because they feel called to do so. Of course, there are always the exceptions, but when I look around and see so many non-LDS churches in the area, that are no larger than the average LDS meetinghouse, I can't imagine whomever is leading that congregation is getting wealthy from it.

The LORD's ministry weeds out the whole problem in the first place. None of those serving in the work of the latter-day Church can be enticed to do so by some financial prospect. The provisions afforded the full-time missionaries and General Authorities of the Church are only contributions to the effort of the ministry and do not include any funds that can be personally invested or spent on items or costs not involved in the work of the ministry.

The use of Church owned or rented property in the efforts of the ministry is not very tempting. People don't come to the ward building seeking to become a priesthood leader so they can enjoy the A/C in the building or drink from the water fountain. The Bishops, the Stake Presidents, the Music Coordinators, and Relief Society Presidents, and so forth, all of the various positions filled throughout the Church are so filled by individuals working with no compensation whatsoever.

I absolutely agree with you.

The LDS ministry is completely without pay and those who seek to assert that it IS a paid ministry are either very mis-informed, are comedians, or are outright deceptive.

Edited to add: The ONLY time I have ever heard anyone suggest the LDS ministry is paid is when they say the GA's are given a stipend. :end edit:

Using thought-stopping pejoratives, such as "comedians," or "outright deceptive" doesn’t change the fact that the GA's do receive a stipend and that a significant number of the members did not know this. They're not being comedians when they ask questions about it. They just want to understand it. And once they do, they get over it. But calling people names never furthers the conversation.

Having said that, your post doesn't address my original question. You wrote:

"The reality is this: Hired ministers buy houses, cars, and put kids through college with their wages."

First, while the Church's belief in a lay ministry is certainly a sign of its devotion, there is nothing inherently wrong with a hired minister buying a house, a car and putting his cihldren through college with his wages. Being a minister is his vocation. Your job is something else, but you would also buy a house and a car, and put your children through college with your wages. You both are taking care of your families. So I don't see the difference between the two of you as far as using your wages to take care of your children.

Would you seriously condemn a minister for taking care of his/her family?

You wrote:

"LDS missionaries come home from their mission with nothing but a testimony of the gospel and the rewarding feeling of a job well done."

True. But once they come home, many of them have parents who will put them through college with their wages This is where I don’t see the difference Both sets of parents are taking care of their children regardless of where the parent’s wages come from.

I feel like you're demonizing the ministers, who are just worshiping God in the best way they know how. I believe they love God as much as you do but have a different understanding of how to operate a ministry. While they do earn a wage, the few ministers I've known in Ogden were far from wealthy, and I believe PC when he says this is usually the case. After all, he would know.

Back to my original question. Why is it different when a minister puts his children through college than a Mormon putting her children through college. I suspect your answer is because the minister used his wages earned as a minister while the Mormon did not. I think this is a very petty point. Both sets of parents should be applauded for giving their children the opportunity for a college education, and leave it at that. No parent should be condemned, unless illegal means were used, for making that happen.

Please do not turn this into "Elphaba is against the Church." Read what I actually wrote, in context, and you'll see that is not the case. I am not against the Church. I admire its lay ministry and am always inspired by the commitment its members continually exhibit.

However, I believe members of other churches demonstrate just as strong a love for God as well, and it is no one's right to feel personally superior, or to demean another person simply because of differences in belief that each can have without demonizing the other.

The bottom line in this partiuclar issue re: college: Both of you love God, and both of you are taking care of your families. What else matters in this issue?

Elphaba

[the Ogre]

<div class='quotemain'>The difference is that the LDS ministers don't GET PAID. LDS missionaries only get food, shelter, etc., while they are serving, but they don't get a check.

A question: My sister and brothers all received checks on their missions. This was thirty years ago, so perhaps there's been a policy change. I'm not suggesting they got paid--I know they didn't, and I understand what you are saying. I'm just confused about the "check" part. Do you mean missionaries do not receive a "check" rhetorically or literally. Do they not receive one at all today? Just wondering.

The question is: where did those checks come from? Do you deny a parent the option to support the missionary? Do you deny the church the ability to support the missionary? The money missionaries receive (check or not) is for their survival. You know rent, food, laundry.

Now when I say church, I mean the population of the church. If you deny the church as a body the option of supporting missionaries, then you are putting the complete burden on the families of the missionaries and the missionaries themselves. I do not think the church wants to send missionaries to Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong and have the missionaries starve because their families could not send them enough money to get by on. In many nations it is illegal for missionaries to have jobs of any type unless they have appropriate degrees. In Asia the only jobs young American can really get is as an English Teacher. The hours are long and require a BA of some sort or another to do that. Not just that, the church needs the missionaries to work full time as missionaries. For these reasons the church has devised the option to allow families to support their children while they are out in the mission field. However, some missions are just too expansive. Some are extremely cheap. In order to balance this out the church has established the Ward and Church Missionary Donation Programs, where the general population of the church can pay to support the missionaries. Now the expense I have to pay for my son to go on his mission is 400$ a month. My parent have committed to pitch in 100$ a month, I will pick up the rest. I do not know where Andy is going to go yet, but I do know I want him to go even if I am poor. If the church did not have this system in place then poor missionaries, like Andy, would not be able to serve in the same capacity as families who were blessed with wealth. The church recognized this unfair economic status, but did not want to be seen as a religion that only allows the rich and privileged to serve.

Regarding the issue of purse or scrip. One has to pay one's way in the world, but if you say that in even letting families support their children while they are missionaries, then I say to you I will happily uproot my family and follow my son and work in the nastiest fields and factories in the world giving him and my other children the chance to serve.

They don't get a 'purse'. This is exactly what is described in the scriptures. The issue at hand is the heed given by the LDS ministry to the scriptures. It has been suggested that they both violate the 'no purse or scrip' command, and that the LDS ministry is a PAID ministry.

That isn't the issue at hand for me or my question. I completely agree the LDS ministry is NOT a paid ministry. I address my "issue at hand," later in this post.

Both accusations are pure comedy. The entire LDS priesthood body is a base of people who get absolutely no monitary compensation for their service in the ministry. That is the difference between a paid ministry and a non-paid ministry. Tha''s all that is being said here.

Yes, I understand in their priesthood service to the Church, whatever that may be, they are not paid.

The only money missionaries receive is the money they need to serve. In South Korea, the missionaries receive some money, but the older women of the area never let them spend that money on food or laundry, those old women take care of those mundane tasks. When I saw the missionaries jundowing, I would by them snacks or bring by pizza or something (if they were near the YongSan USO, I would get the a real cheese burger or some chili). Many members do this, because we love the young men who are out doing the L-rd's work. Now, I do not know what the missionaries do with the money they have left, I personally do not care, but I am sure it used for righteous purposes (though some missionaries are not perfect and might misuse this money, I still do not care).

It is easy to see that priestcraft is and has been rampant in this country for centuries now. While I do not accuse every minister in the country who earns a wage in his service as 'in it for the bucks'. It is easy to see how those who are can hide behind and among those who aren't.

PC commented on this once and I think he is in a position to know. He said most pastors, or people in similar positions, do not make a great amount of money. They become leaders in the flocks because they feel called to do so. Of course, there are always the exceptions, but when I look around and see so many non-LDS churches in the area, that are no larger than the average LDS meetinghouse, I can't imagine whomever is leading that congregation is getting wealthy from it.

This being said, and these same non-LDS preachers being held to the same command (it's in the New Testament too), then why is there no generosity toward the LDS missionaries or the retirement age GAs who receive only tiny amounts of money to live?

Using thought-stopping pejoratives, such as "comedians," or "outright deceptive" doesn’t change the fact that the GA's do receive a stipend and that a significant number of the members did not know this (you know what, you might be right, but I knew and I'm a member; I didn't even have to do any research, I just knew . . . it is not a secret and the GA's stipend and missionary funding are discussed openly in conference, if someone does not know a thing, but then finds out the first thing they ought to do is NOT freak out and loose their testimony over it and look a little further into it with an open heart). They're not being comedians when they ask questions about it. They just want to understand it. And once they do, they get over it (I agree, but many people have used this excuse to leave the church: "The church lied! No one told me Pres. Hinckley lives in the Presidential suite of the Hotel Utah! I'm leaving, I can't abide liars!"). But calling people names never furthers the conversation. -Agreed.

Having said that, your post doesn't address my original question. You wrote:

"The reality is this: Hired ministers buy houses, cars, and put kids through college with their wages."

First, while the Church's belief in a lay ministry is certainly a sign of its devotion, there is nothing inherently wrong with a hired minister buying a house, a car and putting his cihldren through college with his wages. Being a minister is his vocation. Your job is something else, but you would also buy a house and a car, and put your children through college with your wages. You both are taking care of your families. So I don't see the difference between the two of you as far as using your wages to take care of your children.

Would you seriously condemn a minister for taking care of his/her family?

You wrote:

"LDS missionaries come home from their mission with nothing but a testimony of the gospel and the rewarding feeling of a job well done."

True. But once they come home, many of them have parents who will put them through college with their wages This is where I don’t see the difference Both sets of parents are taking care of their children regardless of where the parent’s wages come from.

I feel like you're demonizing the ministers, who are just worshiping God in the best way they know how. I believe they love God as much as you do but have a different understanding of how to operate a ministry. While they do earn a wage, the few ministers I've known in Ogden were far from wealthy, and I believe PC when he says this is usually the case. After all, he would know.

Back to my original question. Why is it different when a minister puts his children through college than a Mormon putting her children through college. I suspect your answer is because the minister used his wages earned as a minister while the Mormon did not. I think this is a very petty point. Both sets of parents should be applauded for giving their children the opportunity for a college education, and leave it at that. No parent should be condemned, unless illegal means were used, for making that happen.

Please do not turn this into "Elphaba is against the Church." Read what I actually wrote, in context, and you'll see that is not the case. I am not against the Church. I admire its lay ministry and am always inspired by the commitment its members continually exhibit.

However, I believe members of other churches demonstrate just as strong a love for God as well, and it is no one's right to feel personally superior, or to demean another person simply because of differences in belief that each can have without demonizing the other.

The bottom line in this partiuclar issue re: college: Both of you love God, and both of you are taking care of your families. What else matters in this issue?

Elphaba

El,

I agree with you on the second half of this post, but I am a little tired (exhausted really) of listening to people who would rather the GAs starved then receive any money from the church, even if the method of funding does come from revelation.

I do not have a real problem with non-LDS ministers earning an income to feed their families. They are not LDS and generally do hold them selves to the same standards we do or have never heard such doctrine and so we can not hold them to the same standard. I know that many do make a lot of money. The ones that I am concerned about are those like Creflo Dollar and others like him who take advantage of other's ignorance in order to live the high life. This is Priestcraft. Is PC doing the right thing by being a professional preacher? I don't hold it against him, there is a need for people like him. There are LDS military chaplains (more like institute teachers in camo). They do much the same thing PC is dong, but many chaplains use their professional positions inappropriately.

[Elphaba]

I can't get the quotes to work, so a-train is going to be in red, Elphaba is in italics, and Aaron is in normal.

a-train:The difference is that the LDS ministers don't GET PAID. LDS missionaries only get food, shelter, etc., while they are serving, but they don't get a check.

Elphie: A question: My sister and brothers all received checks on their missions. This was thirty years ago, so perhaps there's been a policy change. I'm not suggesting they got paid--I know they didn't, and I understand what you are saying. I'm just confused about the "check" part. Do you mean missionaries do not receive a "check" rhetorically or literally. Do they not receive one at all today? Just wondering.

Aaron: The question is: where did those checks come from?

Elphie: No, the question was can you literally send a “check” to a missionary. It was no more nor less than that. There was no sinister meaning behind it. A-train said “LDS missionaries . . . but they don’t get a check.” That surprised me because my mother had mailed checks to my siblings. That’s all Aaron. I just wanted to know if they literally got a check or not.

As far as the rest of what you wrote, you’re focusing your frustration with other people onto me. I completely agree with everything you wrote, and have never said, or felt otherwise. And frankly, I am exhausted with people making snap judgments about my beliefs, assuming I think the worse of missionaries in the Church and those that support it when nothing could be further form the truth. And then the kicker: a long post written to me, lecturing me about how things really work in the church, when if they had actually paid attention to what I wrote they would know my questions were simple, and had no sinister or threatening intentions to begin with.

BTW, I think what you’ve written is beautiful, and you ought to save it. However, it needs to be saved for someone else, not me.

Aaron: Do you deny a parent the option to support the missionary? Do you deny the church the ability to support the missionary? The money missionaries receive (check or not) is for their survival. You know rent, food, laundry.

Now when I say church, I mean the population of the church. If you deny the church as a body the option of supporting missionaries, then you are putting the complete burden on the families of the missionaries and the missionaries themselves. I do not think the church wants to send missionaries to Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong and have the missionaries starve because their families could not send them enough money to get by on. In many nations it is illegal for missionaries to have jobs of any type unless they have appropriate degrees. In Asia the only jobs young American can really get is as an English Teacher. The hours are long and require a BA of some sort or another to do that. Not just that, the church needs the missionaries to work full time as missionaries. For these reasons the church has devised the option to allow families to support their children while they are out in the mission field. However, some missions are just too expansive. Some are extremely cheap. In order to balance this out the church has established the Ward and Church Missionary Donation Programs, where the general population of the church can pay to support the missionaries. Now the expense I have to pay for my son to go on his mission is 400$ a month. My parent have committed to pitch in 100$ a month, I will pick up the rest. I do not know where Andy is going to go yet, but I do know I want him to go even if I am poor. If the church did not have this system in place then poor missionaries, like Andy, would not be able to serve in the same capacity as families who were blessed with wealth. The church recognized this unfair economic status, but did not want to be seen as a religion that only allows the rich and privileged to serve.

Regarding the issue of purse or scrip. One has to pay one's way in the world, but if you say that in even letting families support their children while they are missionaries, then I say to you I will happily uproot my family and follow my son and work in the nastiest fields and factories in the world giving him and my other children the chance to serve.

They don't get a 'purse'. This is exactly what is described in the scriptures. The issue at hand is the heed given by the LDS ministry to the scriptures. It has been suggested that they both violate the 'no purse or scrip' command, and that the LDS ministry is a PAID ministry.

Elphie: Again Aaron, you ought to save this.

Elphie: That isn't the issue at hand for me or my question. I completely agree the LDS ministry is NOT a paid ministry. I address my "issue at hand," later in this post.

a-train: Both accusations are pure comedy. The entire LDS priesthood body is a base of people who get absolutely no monitary compensation for their service in the ministry. That is the difference between a paid ministry and a non-paid ministry. That's all that is being said here.

Elphie: Yes, I understand in their priesthood service to the Church, whatever that may be, they are not paid.

Aaron: The only money missionaries receive is the money they need to serve. In South Korea, the missionaries receive some money, but the older women of the area never let them spend that money on food or laundry, those old women take care of those mundane tasks. When I saw the missionaries undowing, I would by them snacks or bring by pizza or something (if they were near the YongSan USO, I

would get the a real cheese burger or some chili). Many members do this, because we love the young men who are out doing the L-rd's work. Now, I do not know what the missionaries do with the money they have left, I personally do not care, but I am sure it used for righteous purposes (though some missionaries are not perfect and might misuse this money, I still do not care).

Aaron, I enjoy missionary stories immensely. I know and love probably 25 returned missionaries from my family. The majority of them have heartwarming stories similar to yours, and I believe every one of them. To this day one of my favorite things to do with my family is to attend a missionary’s homecoming party, though to be honest it depends on which part of the family he/she is from. Since I’m no longer a member, there is really only one part of the family that understands how much I still feel myself a part of them. Unfortunately other members of the family shun me, and yes that hurts.

Nevertheless, I am always moved by their stories, their sacrifices and especially by the change I see in their understanding of the important things in life. With some, to be honest, it ain’t all that much. With others, it’s astonishing.

And believe it or not, I contribute a measly $30 a month to the current missionary of my family, have done so for years, and will do so until I die. You don’t have to believe in the Church to love it. I wish I could get members to understand that. I am also hoping it well help those family members who don't undertstand my love for the Church to be more open minded when they come back, and perhaps even sit down and talk with me about it. Is that a bribe? You bet!

a-train: It is easy to see that priestcraft is and has been rampant in this country for centuries now. While I do not accuse every minister in the country who earns a wage in his service as 'in it for the bucks'. It is easy to see how those who are can hide behind and among those who aren't.

Elphie: PC commented on this once and I think he is in a position to know. He said most pastors, or people in similar positions, do not make a great amount of money. They become leaders in the flocks because they feel called to do so. Of course, there are always the exceptions, but when I look around and see so many non-LDS churches in the area, that are no larger than the average LDS meetinghouse, I can't imagine whomever is leading that congregation is getting wealthy from it.

Aaron: This being said, and these same non-LDS preachers being held to the same command (it's in the New Testament too), then why is there no generosity toward the LDS missionaries or the retirement age GAs who receive only tiny amounts of money to live?[

Elphie: First of all, I don’t understand what you mean about the GAs not receiving any generosity. I don’t’ see them treated badly anywhere. Rather, I see them treated very respectfully. For heaven’s sake, President Hinckley received the Medal of Freedom award a couple of years ago! Do you realize the significance of this? It's the highest honor in the country given to a citizen each year! President Bush gave it to President Hinckley. That's huge!

Maybe you know of incidents I’m unaware of, but I have never seen the GAs be treated badly at all. I would be glad if you would tell me of incidents where they were, because I really don’t know of any.

Elphie: Using thought-stopping pejoratives, such as "comedians," or "outright deceptive" doesn’t change the fact that the GA's do receive a stipend and that a significant number of the members did not know this.

Aaron:(you know what, you might be right, but I knew and I'm a member; I didn't even have to do any research, I just knew . . . it is not a secret and the GA's stipend and missionary funding are discussed openly in conference, if someone does not know a thing, but then finds out the first thing they ought to do is NOT freak out and loose their testimony over it and look a little further into it with an open heart).

Elphie: They're not being comedians when they ask questions about it. They just want to understand it. And once they do, they get over it

Aaron: (I agree, but many people have used this excuse to leave the church: "The church lied! No one told me Pres. Hinckley lives in the Presidential suite of the Hotel Utah! I'm leaving, I can't abide liars!"). But calling people names never furthers the conversation. -Agreed.

Elphie:Having said that, your post (a-train's) doesn't address my original question. You (a-train) wrote:The reality is this: Hired ministers buy houses, cars, and put kids through college with their wages."

Elphie: First, while the Church's belief in a lay ministry is certainly a sign of its devotion, there is nothing inherently wrong with a hired minister buying a house, a car and putting his cihldren through college with his wages. Being a minister is his vocation. Your job is something else, but you would also buy a house and a car, and put your children through college with your wages. You both are taking care of your families. So I don't see the difference between the two of you as far as using your wages to take care of your children.

Would you seriously condemn a minister for taking care of his/her family?

You (a-train) wrote: "LDS missionaries come home from their mission with nothing but a testimony of the gospel and the rewarding feeling of a job well done."

True. But once they come home, many of them have parents who will put them through college with their wages This is where I don’t see the difference Both sets of parents are taking care of their children regardless of where the parent’s wages come from.

I feel like you're demonizing the ministers, who are just worshiping God in the best way they know how. I believe they love God as much as you do but have a different understanding of how to operate a ministry. While they do earn a wage, the few ministers I've known in Ogden were far from wealthy, and I believe PC when he says this is usually the case. After all, he would know.

Back to my original question. Why is it different when a minister puts his children through college than a Mormon putting her children through college. I suspect your answer is because the minister used his wages earned as a minister while the Mormon did not. I think this is a very petty point. Both sets of parents should be applauded for giving their children the opportunity for a college education, and leave it at that. No parent should be condemned, unless illegal means were used, for making that happen.

Please do not turn this into "Elphaba is against the Church." Read what I actually wrote, in context, and you'll see that is not the case. I am not against the Church. I admire its lay ministry and am always inspired by the commitment its members continually exhibit. However, I believe members of other churches demonstrate just as strong a love for God as well, and it is no one's right to feel personally superior, or to demean another person simply because of differences in belief that each can have without demonizing the other.

The bottom line in this particular issue re: college: Both of you love God, and both of you are taking care of your families. What else matters in this issue?

Elphaba

El,

I agree with you on the second half of this post, but I am a little tired (exhausted really) of listening to people who would rather the GAs starved then receive any money from the church, even if the method of funding does come from revelation.

Yes, I can clearly see you do, and I’m sorry for that. I know you’re not the only one.

However, I am not guilty of this. I never said the GAs should starve, or anything even close. I’ve been very supportive of the GAs receiving their stipends. All I have ever done is ask for clarification, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.. And I am just as weary as you of people claiming I hate the Church when all I am doing is asking for clarification. It’s poor critical thinking skills that cause someone to make outrageous claims about me because they don’t want to think a little bit harder to give me a proper answer. If they don't want to give me an answer, all they have to do is say "I don't know," and I would be fine with that.".

I know that many do make a lot of money. The ones that I am concerned about are those like Creflo Dollar and others like him who take advantage of other's ignorance in order to live the high life. This is Priestcraft.

Yes, I agree with you, though I don’t know who Creflo Dollar is. His name makes me want to get my air freshener out, though!

Is PC doing the right thing by being a professional preacher? I don't hold it against him, there is a need for people like him.

Why in the world would you hold it against him? Don’t you think his belief is as strong as yours? I understand you think his beliefs are not with the right Church, but what about his belief, period? Doesn’the intensity of his belief count for anything?

There are LDS military chaplains (more like institute teachers in camo). They do much the same thing PC is dong, but many chaplains use their professional positions inappropriately.

I believe every religion has members that behave inappropriately and case great damage. I also believe every religion has people of such depth they are shamans. I also believe this is true of atheists. IOW, all human beings have a range of sensitivities. The “religion” they belong to has nothing to do with it.

I value your friendship a lot Aaron. I don’t know what I said that you thought I did not take the GA’s and the missionaries’ sacrifices and commitments seriously, but I do. And I don’t care how they are paid. Anyone who is willing to commit their lives to a cause they believe in with such love, fear and faith has my respect.

And for those who would mock my belief, tough. It's my belief to define, not yours. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Elphaba

[Palerider]

My son just returned from Panama....we paid 400 dollars a month to support him....of that 400 he recieved a small amount to cover food, and other items that are needed to sustain life.

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

To me, the Law of Consecration is that basically you dedicate all of your time, talents, riches, resources and abilities to the Lord's work.

From each according to their ability.

To each according to their need.

The apostles give their all to the Lord's work, and their needs are covered by a member-funded living allowance.

So are you saying they all donate all of their previously earned money to the Church once they become a GA? I didn't know this. I knew some did, but not all of them.

Elphaba

You think that 'giving your all' means to donate all your material wealth? I've never heard anyone use such a phrase thusly. Where are you from Elphaba?

[a-train]

The trouble with a paid ministry has always been that the livelihood of a man (and his family if he has one) is connected to the donations of his adherents. He is therefore put in a position to please them in order to maintain his livelihood. This can and has persuaded even good intending men to preach false doctrine and/or lead the flock in a manner presented by heavy contributors to the cause rather than by revelation.

Servants in a non-paid ministry have no fears of presenting doctrine or practice that is unpleasant to the ears of the flock. If an LDS Bishop says something the congregation doesn't like, his lights stay on, his food remains on the table, and the kids still go to college.

The tax benefits alone of being a minister within such a tax-free institution as a church has created many ministers in this country. No, these ministers might not be rich and they may do much to serve their fellow man, but if the LORD sends His servants to their door to convey the message of the restored gospel, they are quick to defend their position. They give little or no consideration to a situation that would involve going into a different line of work and they don't like the idea of their congregation leaving their flock either. It is in this atmosphere that anti-mormonism was born and is perpetuated to this day.

-a-train

[Elphaba]

You think that 'giving your all' means to donate all your material wealth? I've never heard anyone use such a phrase thusly. Where are you from Elphaba?

I grew up in So. California in the 1960s through the '80s, with various moves in between.

When Traveler said all the GA's live the Law of Consecration, I was surprised. To me, the Law of Consecration meant living the United Order, and yes, with the United Order you donated your land, keeping what you needed to sustain you and your family.

I realize I was wrong, and that today tithing fulfills the Law of Consecration.

If you're interested in an explanation, you can read further. If not, just ignore the rest of this post. If you do continue, please understand this is a very condensed version of events.

Joseph originally was given the Law of Consecration and Stewardship in 1831. The Saints efforts were true, but there were too many barriers and in 1840 they were told it was the will of the Lord they stop trying to live by it.

Brigham wanted to implement the Law of Consecration, which now came under the umbrella of the United Order of Enoch. One of the most famous of these orders was at Orderville, a town especially created for application of united order principles and auspiciously named for that purpose - "The Orderville United Order." It was created on July 14, 1975.

Orderville was extremely successful. It was truly a communal group where everyone came together for all meals, and made decisions on how much land they need for each family. Any excess land was sold, thereby making a profit for the community that was then given over to the Church. Orderville became the symbol of the United Order for subsequent Saints, a daring and near-successful effort to build the City of God on earth. Celebrated in song and legend, Orderville is in the minds of most Mormons today a model of selflessness, devotion and future obligation. In fact few today seem to realize that the United Order of Enoch was attempted outside of Orderville."

-----------------

I believe my passion for Mormon history is the reason I was wrong about the LocC. I've studied Orderville, UT and Porterville, UT quite a bit, and Orderville is really quite the success story. The Law of Consecration was as important to them as tithing is to you today. Apparently, I live in the past more than the present.

So, I learned something new, and that is always a good thing.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

The trouble with a paid ministry has always been that the livelihood of a man (and his family if he has one) is connected to the donations of his adherents. He is therefore put in a position to please them in order to maintain his livelihood. This can and has persuaded even good intending men to preach false doctrine and/or lead the flock in a manner presented by heavy contributors to the cause rather than by revelation.

Servants in a non-paid ministry have no fears of presenting doctrine or practice that is unpleasant to the ears of the flock. If an LDS Bishop says something the congregation doesn't like, his lights stay on, his food remains on the table, and the kids still go to college.

The tax benefits alone of being a minister within such a tax-free institution as a church has created many ministers in this country. No, these ministers might not be rich and they may do much to serve their fellow man, but if the LORD sends His servants to their door to convey the message of the restored gospel, they are quick to defend their position. They give little or no consideration to a situation that would involve going into a different line of work and they don't like the idea of their congregation leaving their flock either. It is in this atmosphere that anti-mormonism was born and is perpetuated to this day.

-a-train

When you say "it is in this atosphere that anti-mormonism" was born can you give me an example?

You are so cynical, I have a hard time believing that a significant number of the ministers and pastors out there are this deceitful. I'm especially hesitant when it comes to taking care of their families. I believe they love theirs just as much as you love yours.

However, I literally know nothing about them, and I have seen enough evil in men to know I know nothing.

You've given me food for thought.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

My son just returned from Panama....we paid 400 dollars a month to support him....of that 400 he recieved a small amount to cover food, and other items that are needed to sustain life.

So Pale, he did not receive the $400 directly from you? And if this is correct can you say who did receive it?

Thanks,

Elphaba