New Member Questions

[Alaskagain]

<div class='quotemain'>

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

I once visited the house of an independent preacher friend and heard discussion of a desired new car purchase; a few weeks later was held a tent revival, with much passing of the plate throughout the congregation, and a few weeks later, voila, the preacher had a new car. I am NOT saying all or even many paid preachers do this. But I know this particular one held that revival for the sole intention of making the purchase. I doubt he collected the entire purchase price, but enough for a good sized down payment. I know this story does not address the "anti" part of the discussion, but is an example of the deceitfulness that is possible.

[a-train]

It is NOT dishonorable to feed one's kids, or live under a roof, or have clothing or transportation. It IS dishonorable to lead people on in falsehood in order to have such provisions when one could have procured them in another more honest manner. A paid ministry puts a man at risk to secure and maintain his livelihood at the cost of his adherence to the Gospel.

Many of the first Anti-Mormons were preachers. Alexander Campbell, John A. Clark, and Henry Caswall, (to name three) were Anti-Mormon ministers contemporary with Joseph Smith. Their contribution to anti-mormon literature is still echoed in modern anti-mormon works, just peep the footnotes. But more important is who is buying all the anti-mormon material. A lot of investment from ministers protecting their flocks has piled into the pockets of the antis since Joseph was still alive.

My in-laws are scared to death to read the Book of Mormon, they won't even keep one in their home. My mother in-law has read all the anti-mormon literature in her church library since her daughter's baptism. She doesn't want to talk about it.

A half dozen or more anti-mormon books are in that library, which came at a cost of $20 to $40 per copy. A free Book of Mormon is nowhere to be found in there.

The marketing tactics used by anti-mormon material peddlers highlight the protective barrier they claim to provide against mormonism. It is understandable that someone wanting to protect a significant investment and livelihood as a church-held employment position would invest in such.

It's not complicated. It's simple. Money is power, even over ministers. They need their job as much as we need ours. They NEED a flock to pay the bills. Those Mormons taking converts away are not any help.

A non-paid ministry cleans all this trouble away in one easy sweep.

-a-train

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>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....

Traveler's opinion notwithstanding, GAs do not live the Law of Consecration.

My question referred to your misunderstanding of CK's 'give their all.' Give their all obviously means to give a great effort, not to donate one's material wealth.

[Elphaba]

Traveler's opinion notwithstanding, GAs do not live the Law of Consecration.

Is not paying a full tithe fulfilling the Law of Consecration today? I found a few talks on LDS.org that said it did. Whether they were doctrinal or not, I don't know.

Living the Law of Consecration Today

Here is an excerpt from the above article, which gave a more complete list of the LofC. Based on it, I would say the GAs do live the LoC.

"Although the law of consecration requires us to be willing to give all we have to the Lord to build up His kingdom, “we are not always called upon to live the whole law of consecration” (Bruce R. McConkie, in Conference Report, Apr. 1975, 74; or Ensign, May 1975, 50). This is the situation in the Church today.

• Although we do not live the law of consecration fully at this time, what can we do to show our willingness to live it? (List the responses on the chalkboard. Responses could include giving our time, talents, and possessions to help build the Lord’s kingdom. Specific answers might include caring for our family; assisting others in need; being missionaries to our neighbors, friends, relatives, and others; doing family history research and temple work; faithfully serving in our Church callings; paying an honest tithe and contributing other offerings; and praying to know what the Lord expects of us.) "

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

If this is doctrinal, it sounds to me like the GA’s do live the Law of Consecration. Do you still disagree? I really don’t know, and am just trying to figure it out.

My question referred to your misunderstanding of CK's 'give their all.' Give their all obviously means to give a great effort, not to donate one's material wealth.

Yes, I got that.

Elphaba

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>Traveler's opinion notwithstanding, GAs do not live the Law of Consecration.

Is not paying a full tithe fulfilling the Law of Consecration today? I found a few talks on LDS.org that said it did. Whether they were doctrinal or not, I don't know.

Living the Law of Consecration Today

Here is an excerpt from the above article, which gave a more complete list of the LofC. Based on it, I would say the GAs do live the LoC.

"Although the law of consecration requires us to be willing to give all we have to the Lord to build up His kingdom, “we are not always called upon to live the whole law of consecration” (Bruce R. McConkie, in Conference Report, Apr. 1975, 74; or Ensign, May 1975, 50). This is the situation in the Church today.

• Although we do not live the law of consecration fully at this time, what can we do to show our willingness to live it? (List the responses on the chalkboard. Responses could include giving our time, talents, and possessions to help build the Lord’s kingdom. Specific answers might include caring for our family; assisting others in need; being missionaries to our neighbors, friends, relatives, and others; doing family history research and temple work; faithfully serving in our Church callings; paying an honest tithe and contributing other offerings; and praying to know what the Lord expects of us.) "

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

If this is doctrinal, it sounds to me like the GA’s do live the Law of Consecration. Do you still disagree? I really don’t know, and am just trying to figure it out.

If by 'law of consecration' one means something other than the law of consecration, then sure, paying tithing can be living the law of consecration. By the same token, you could use 'law of concration' to mean putting your child through college. It's like saying, I am a professional NBA player, and by 'professional NBA player, I mean that I once played pick-up ball in the alley with my friends.

However, we all know what Law of Concration really means and paying tithing ain't it. Paying your tithing means that you are a tithe payer. That General Authorities are tithe paying is completely unremarkable - hence not worthy or remarking on it.

See the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/d...ion/law_eom.htm

[Elphaba]

If by 'law of consecration' one means something other than the law of consecration, then sure, paying tithing can be living the law of consecration. By the same token, you could use 'law of concration' to mean putting your child through college. It's like saying, I am a professional NBA player, and by 'professional NBA player, I mean that I once played pick-up ball in the alley with my friends.

However, we all know what Law of Concration really means and paying tithing ain't it. Paying your tithing means that you are a tithe payer. That General Authorities are tithe paying is completely unremarkable - hence not worthy or remarking on it.

See the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/d...ion/law_eom.htm

I had just written quite the reponse, with references, stating that tithing was the modern version of the Law of Consecration. Indeed, there are articles in LDS.org that say so.

However, I read the introduction to D&C 119 one more time, and stopped at this part:

"Because of failure on the part of many to abide by this covenant [LofC], the Lord withdrew it for a time, and gave instead the law of tithing to the whole Church."

This clearly states the Law of Consecration and tithing are two different things. Based on this, I agree with you that technically, the GAs do not follow the Law of Consecration.

I realize the introductions are not doctrine, but then neither are the magazine articles I found in LDS.org, and I think the introductions would take precedence in this case.

Researching this issue did bring up another question for me, if you're game. D&C 119 begins:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion,

2 For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church.

3 And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.

4 And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

Do you know what the rationale is that members are no longer required to give their surplus property? Is it because the Church no longer needs anyone's surplus property? Or do I misunderstand that commandment?

Thanks for your thoughts,

Elphaba

[shanstress70]

I don't think the stipend is very much ...

But really you have no clue how much the stipend is...

One thing that bugged me when I was LDS is that the info is not there for members. This is a church that members blindly hand money to and have no idea how much the church receives or how much this stipend for GA's is.

I don't have a problem with them getting paid, as I don't have a problem with paid clergy at all. I think it lets them concentrate on this leadership position and get the training they need, while not alienating themselves from their own familes by being gone all the time. Most of the clergy I've been in contact with do not live lavishly. Yes, there are some televangelists that do so, but I don't associate with them or have much respect for them.

All of the other churches I've been to makes their financial statements public. What could it possibly hurt for the LDS church to do this?

[CrimsonKairos]

All of the other churches I've been to makes their financial statements public. What could it possibly hurt for the LDS church to do this?

Some modern-day Pharisees might have a cow over how every red cent is being spent, think they could do it better or would do it differently, stir up contention, etc...

No other Church member has to list their income or how they spend their money. Why should the GA's? If you give your money to the Church, there's already the assumption that the Church will do with it what seems necessary.

It's not like we put a proviso in with our tithing slip saying, "Only cash my tithing check if the money will be spent responsibly."

[Elphaba]

Sorry. I forgot who I was talking to.

[Snow]

All of the other churches I've been to makes their financial statements public. What could it possibly hurt for the LDS church to do this?

What could it possibly hurt to stick your head in a chicken coop and yell, "Imma train, Imma train, Imma train."?

Because it doesn't hurt is probably the silliest of all reasons to do something.

But really you have no clue how much the stipend is...

How on earth could you possibly know whether Orge has a clue? Seriously - where do you get your information on Orge's state of knowledge?

One thing that bugged me when I was LDS is that the info is not there for members. This is a church that members blindly hand money to and have no idea how much the church receives or how much this stipend for GA's is.

Let me get this straight. You are not LDS and you don't pay tithing yet you think that the Church should reveal their finances to you? That more than a little audacious, isn't it.

[CrimsonKairos]

What could it possibly hurt to stick your head in a chicken coop and yell, "Imma train, Imma train, Imma train."?

Because it doesn't hurt is probably the silliest of all reasons to do something.

[bunnzy]

I used to work for the church (yes paid work it was a proper receptionist job) in Facilities Management and i am telling you now the Tithing money is not spent wastefully. Every change that happens in a building must be tendered and given to the lowest tenderer (with a contract set up)

I was in charge of running 20+ chapels and a new temple. They have very strict regulations and rules and guidelines regarding how the tithing money is to be spent.

Tithing is giving willingly and its none of anyone elses business what we do with it (unless it hurts someone or is unethical). We use the money for missionaries, for buildings, for welfare.

[shanstress70]

<div class='quotemain'>

All of the other churches I've been to makes their financial statements public. What could it possibly hurt for the LDS church to do this?

What could it possibly hurt to stick your head in a chicken coop and yell, "Imma train, Imma train, Imma train."?

Because it doesn't hurt is probably the silliest of all reasons to do something.

That's funny, Snow! If there's nothing bad that could come of letting members know, then why not? And I'm not the only person who cared about this when I was a member... surely that hasn't changed.

<div class='quotemain'>

But really you have no clue how much the stipend is...

How on earth could you possibly know whether Orge has a clue? Seriously - where do you get your information on Orge's state of knowledge?

OK Ogre, do you know how much the stipend is? As far as I know, it's something that's kept secret... or is it 'sacred'? Unless Ogre is a GA???

[shanstress70]

Let me get this straight. You are not LDS and you don't pay tithing yet you think that the Church should reveal their finances to you? That more than a little audacious, isn't it.

No, I could give a @#$% now. That's why I said something about 'when I was a member...' They should have revealed their finances to me then.

[CrimsonKairos]

[shanstress70]

Sorry to shock you, CK. If I can receive it, I can give it back. :)

[CrimsonKairos]

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

All of the other churches I've been to makes their financial statements public. What could it possibly hurt for the LDS church to do this?

What could it possibly hurt to stick your head in a chicken coop and yell, "Imma train, Imma train, Imma train."?

Because it doesn't hurt is probably the silliest of all reasons to do something.

That's funny, Snow! If there's nothing bad that could come of letting members know, then why not? And I'm not the only person who cared about this when I was a member... surely that hasn't changed.

That's your rebuttal? Repeat the same silly argument that the reason you should do something is because it doesn't hurt.

Hey Shantress, why don't you dress up like Pee Wee Herman, go to the local mall and ask 80 year old men is there would like to smear peanut butter on your belly?

What could it hurt? Come on. Why not do it?

OK Ogre, do you know how much the stipend is? As far as I know, it's something that's kept secret... or is it 'sacred'? Unless Ogre is a GA???

Man o man, nobody can say that you ain't an excellent debator. Your rebuttal to the assertion that you have no basis to make a claim about Ogre's knowledge is to ask him about it?

That's deep.

No, I could give a @#$% now. That's why I said something about 'when I was a member...' They should have revealed their finances to me then.

So it's not you that's posting now that the Church should reveal their finances?

Who else is using your computer?

[shanstress70]

Snow, if you go back and read my first post in this thread, you will see that I stated, "One thing that bugged me when I was LDS is that the info is not there for the members." I didn't say I care now. I don't care now bc I don't give money to the LDS church anymore.

And about the "it wouldn't hurt to make the financial info available to members" comment... the reason I thought they should do it when I was a member is because I wanted to see where my money was being spent. It wasn't that I didn't trust them... I just wanted to see. It's not like I was giving the money directly to God, but rather to imperfect men who should always be held accountable. No one is perfect.

BTW, this scares me about you, "Hey Shantress, why don't you dress up like Pee Wee Herman, go to the local mall and ask 80 year old men is there would like to smear peanut butter on your belly?" You've done this before, Snow, haven't you? That's an image I just can't get out of my mind.

Am I wrong that the GA stipend amount is not public info? Then there is a pretty good chance that Ogre doesn't know the amount... correct? I was mistaken in saying this as a fact, but I'm quite sure he doesn't know. However, I bet you know, Snow, because you know eeeeevvverything! From now I'll be sure to include 'IMO' when I type such a statement.

You're such a joy, and I hope you have an awesome Friday! (I still like you, even though you can be a pain in the butt!)

[Snow]

And about the "it wouldn't hurt to make the financial info available to members" comment... the reason I thought they should do it when I was a member is because I wanted to see where my money was being spent. It wasn't that I didn't trust them... I just wanted to see.

It sounds to me like you not only wanted to see how they spent YOUR money, but also EVERYBODY else's money as well.

Am I wrong that the GA stipend amount is not public info? Then there is a pretty good chance that Ogre doesn't know the amount... correct? I was mistaken in saying this as a fact, but I'm quite sure he doesn't know. However, I bet you know, Snow, because you know eeeeevvverything! From now I'll be sure to include 'IMO' when I type such a statement.

I don't know personally but I read some pretty reasonable estimates on the internet a few years ago that had some interesting facts and figures. It seems to me that lots of people at least have a clue.

You're such a joy, and I hope you have an awesome Friday! (I still like you, even though you can be a pain in the butt!)

Why thank you Shantress. My daughter goes back to BYU this weekend and tonight I'm taking her to a Angels ball game in Anaheim.

[shanstress70]

Why thank you Shantress. My daughter goes back to BYU this weekend and tonight I'm taking her to a Angels ball game in Anaheim.

Cool, have fun! We'll be taking a family bike ride tomorrow morning as we usually do. But this time, instead of our usual long route with my son pedaling behind his dad on his trailer bike, he informed us that he's ready to take his training wheels off of his bike and ride on his own. He'll be in college before long, it seems!