An Unpaid Clergy

[Mullenite]

AN UNPAID CLERGY

In the Savior's ancient church, local priesthood leaders without pay. Bishops, elder, and other local church officials were not salaried.

Bible Passage:

Matthew 10:8

Acts 20:33-34

1 Corinthians 9:18

1 Peter 5:1-3

In the LDS church, local leaders are not paid. They hold normal jobs and do their church work on their own time. The same was true of local leaders in the ancient church. Bo Reicke says the following about the clergy at the time of 1 Peter.

It may be noted here that there not yet any paid offices in the church. the care of the congregations was assumed by voluntary functionaries............

As historian Robin Fox points out, Dionysius (A.D. 200-264), Bishop of Alexandria, reminded some Egyptian villagers that to learn secular philosophy they would need money, but that Christian elders preached in village "for no fee". Fox further notes that "the notion of fixed clerical salaries was considered an outrage as late as A.D. 200, in both Rome and Asia".

In the New Testament church, the apostle had the right to be compensated for basic living expenses and travel cost; however. They frequently chose not to exercise it. Presumably, this right could extend to the seventy, and perhaps to other regional officers with extensive or pre-third-century patristic sanction for the sectarian practice of salarying each local leader of a congregation..............

[rayhale]

Please don’t misunderstand me when I ask- the Twelve Apostles, the Prophet, the Counselors, and their wives, don’t have jobs, are they paid clergy? If not, how do they support themselves? I heard somewhere, that the live the Law of Consecration, meaning that all the books that any of them publish, and make money off of, they put in a joint bank account that they all live off of. Again I’ll ask how can you reconcile this? How is this not Priestcraft? (I’m not saying it is but I still would like to ask that). If anyone knows the answer, please respond.

[havejoy]

Most of them have retired before being called to those positions. My understanding is that they do have an expense account due to all the traveling required.

Also, most are independently wealthy.

[Guest Xzain]

Please don’t misunderstand me when I ask- the Twelve Apostles, the Prophet, the Counselors, and their wives, don’t have jobs, are they paid clergy? If not, how do they support themselves? I heard somewhere, that the live the Law of Consecration, meaning that all the books that any of them publish, and make money off of, they put in a joint bank account that they all live off of. Again I’ll ask how can you reconcile this? How is this not Priestcraft? (I’m not saying it is but I still would like to ask that). If anyone knows the answer, please respond.

You are correct; they are not paid. I have not heard about how they might live the Law of Consecration, and do not know where the revenue off of published works goes.

President Gordon B. Hinckley remarked on this very subject. From fairmormon.org (Paid clergy - FAIRMormon):

Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.

'Priestcraft' can be a somewhat ambiguous term. I prefer to use one from the Book of Mormon, namely 2 Nephi 26:29:

2 Nephi 26

[The Lord] commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.

Again, from fairmormon.org :

No one who examines the schedule or workload of the general authorites can claim that these men are looking for an "easy buck." They live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomlishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

If these men seek the welfare of Zion (which they do) and spend all their time furthering the work of the Lord (which they do)- so much in fact that their travel and work schedules make holding a full-time job truly impossible (which said schedules do)- I do not see how being paid a 'modest stipend' could be priestcraft.

It was of the special witnesses of Jesus Christ- namely, the apostles- that Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18 (1 Corinthians 9 and 1 Timothy 5, respectively.)

[prisonchaplain]

I'll take time later on to look up some passages, but, the Apostle Paul's writing would seem to indicate that most church leaders were paid. His choice to be a tentmaker, in particular, for the Corinthian church, caused a good deal of controversy. The accusation against him, is that he was unworthy of pay, that he ministered for nothing, due to his inferiority, not any nobility on his part. Paul's response is that he chose not to be paid, because he sensed that the Corinthians needed an unpaid leader. They were too immature, and would likely try to manipulate a leader they directly supported supported. Paul believed he had more freedom to speak truth into their lives because he was not paid.

Yet, Paul does not indicate that unpaid leadership was the norm. Rather, he had to defend his choice--the implication being, because it was not normal.

There are other scripture passages that indicate that workers are worth their pay, and that those who took on priestly duties were expected to do less "secular" labor. The Levites, for example, would not be expected to farm, but rather would take meat from the sacrifices offered (i.e. 'offerings').

It's okay that LDS choose to operate using an all-volunteer leadership. However, the implication that this is the only acceptable way to do church, or that paid clergy are somehow corrupted, would be erroneous, in my always humble opinion.

[Traveler]

I am not sure I continue to like the way many of us LDS look at this question. There are many things to consider in the manner we all live and are paid. Without question those ministers that live high on the donations of such as the widow's mite are living contrary to Christian principles. But one does not have to be in positions of responsibility within a "Church" to abuse and misuse the manner in which they are paid and the manner in which they live.

I have come to realize that of all that post on this forum - it is I (because of my economic status) that is the most worthy of any criticism as to how I treat my fellow men concerning things of money – how I am paid and how I live.

It is also my opinion that if we look to criticize others before applying such things to ourselves that we abuse our faith in Christ. We are all unprofitable servants and therefore it is unwise to criticize others for their unprofitability. I would also point out – for those that have not observed; that this is somewhat of a different direction in my thinking since I joined the forum some time ago.

The Traveler

[WANDERER]

Whether money goes to a business or as a direct income does rather seem to be splitting hairs. It has pretty much the same effect on the widows.

[Islander]

Again, context is really important here as it is in many other instances when discussing the ancient Church.

skenopoiov is translated "tentmaker" by the 15th century translators of the scriptures. Now in context, there is a very good chance that Paul and his companions were working with large cloths/fabrics rather than tents. In the first century AD, in the center of the Roman empire nobody lived in tents. That is just anachronistic. We have no way of cross checking since the word is quite strange and does not appear again in that form in the scriptures.

As far as not paid ministry, we have modern revelation on the subject. Others are free to conduct themselves however they see fit. We tend to do things differently because The Lord has pointed to what and how we should conduct His affairs and administer His Church on the earth at this time. We should not contend with any about this issue. Just a thought.

[VisionOfLehi]

Tithing keeps Church-owned schools' tuitions low.

[Guest Xzain]

Personally, I don't care where my tithing money goes. I have seen the blessings it gives me, and I trust the leaders of the Church to use it wisely and honestly. I do not doubt the integrity of the men in charge of the organization of the Church.

The widow is blessed for giving her mite, regardless of where it goes. As Gordon B. Hinckley said, tithing is paid with faith as well as with money. I look to the promise in 3 Nephi 24:10:

10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in my house; and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

The law of the tithe is just as critical for the spiritual salvation of the Saints as it is for the temporal support of the Church.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Whether money goes to a business or as a direct income does rather seem to be splitting hairs. It has pretty much the same effect on the widows.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Tithing money doesn't go to a business. The money used to pay expenses for the GAs comes from the businesses and not from the donations/tithing of all members (including widows). Where the business investment money goes has no impact whatsoever on the widows. What often does tend to have an effect on them is the fast offering which is used to help those in need. In other words the widows, if they are struggling to make ends meet, gain from the generosity of others.

[Snow]

AN UNPAID CLERGY

In the Savior's ancient church, local priesthood leaders without pay. Bishops, elder, and other local church officials were not salaried.

Bible Passage:

Matthew 10:8

Acts 20:33-34

1 Corinthians 9:18

1 Peter 5:1-3

In the LDS church, local leaders are not paid. They hold normal jobs and do their church work on their own time. The same was true of local leaders in the ancient church. Bo Reicke says the following about the clergy at the time of 1 Peter.

It may be noted here that there not yet any paid offices in the church. the care of the congregations was assumed by voluntary functionaries............

I assume someone has already brought this up but the prophet/president calling is paid as are the twelve and also the General Authorities and mission presidents and what used to be called regional reps, etc.

How does one reconcile a paid ecclesiastical hierarchy (albeit not paid too well) with your celebration of no paid local clergy?

[Islander]

The Apostles and the Prophet do not get paid. It is a well known fact that most of them were well renowned professionals in their time, since called to the Apostleship retired. Some of the GA's, for example, were previously employed in the organizational arm of the Church which is sustained by the countless business concerns the Church operate/manages under the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop. There are mining operations, transportation outfits, port facilities, gas and oil leases, granite and construction material operations, farming among others.

I personally know a member of the first Q of the Seventy and he is a SEC financial auditor. He is 57 and a few years short of retirement himself.

[prisonchaplain]

AN UNPAID CLERGY

In the Savior's ancient church, local priesthood leaders without pay. Bishops, elder, and other local church officials were not salaried.

Bible Passage:

Matthew 10:8:

8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.

Jesus tells them what to do, and that they should do so "freely." I take that to mean "generously" and "abundantly," and "without hesitation." There is nothing in the context here to say that a full-time Christian worker should not be financially or in substance, supported by the church.

Acts 20:33-34:

33I have not coveted anyone's silver or gold or clothing. 34You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions.

The Apostle is offering a personal explanation and defense of his work. Paul did choose to be a tentmaker, to avoid some accusations. Yet, there is no indication that his choice was proscriptive, or normative. In another passage, he actually has to defend his choice not to receive pay.

1 Corinthians 9:18: 18What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.

Note that Paul was within his rights to accept pay, but he chose not to do so. To turn Paul's personal decision into a demand on all clergy for all churches, and to insinuate that those ministers who receive church support are "serving money," etc. is judgmental, and spiritually dangerous, imho. After all, if God has ordained a leader, and s/he is paid, and someone levels a false accusation against God's anointed, will the accuser not have to answer to God? Just a thought.

1 Peter 5:1-3: 1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

Amen. To "not be greedy for money," would not suggest to me that ministers should not be paid, but that they should not demand extravagant wages. The church support should free them to concentrate on caring for God's people, not divert their attention to worldy pursuits.

Bottom-line: The LDS choice to use an all-volunteer church leadership model (mostly) is not wrong or bad. However, the insinuation of some, that those churches that do enlist full-time pastors and leaders are more worldly, and that those leaders are somehow corrupted by the support, is judgmental and inaccurate.

[Hemidakota]

Speaking as an exmormon who has a number of objections regarding LDS-related financial issues (which I don't go into, because I'm not anti) I have to say that reading that the GA income comes from the business interests and not from tithing does make me feel a little better about how the church is run. Assuming, of course, that this is honestly how it is done.

My church doesn't pay anyone... but I don't have a problem with people being reasonably compensated if they choose to devote themselves to serving others. Everyone needs to eat.

Correct. There is no GA receive any portion of from the tithing fund for living expenditures.

[Islander]

Again, my friends, we have modern revelation about what the Lord wants us to do and how in regards to the affairs of His Church. Others can and usually do as they see fit. We are not pointing fingers (at least we shouldn't) or criticizing if others adopt a practice that is different from ours.

Like the old school song goes; "this is how we do it." Once more, the revelation, the commandments and the direction we have received applies ONLY to us that have chosen to adhere to it. Let others exercise their free will in regards to this and any other thing they desire to do in their own sphere. IMSTNVHO, we should not care too much about it. Just my thoughts.

[Moksha]

Correct. There is no GA receive any portion of from the tithing fund for living expenditures.

And you know this from looking at the Church financial records?

[Islander]

The financial records of the Church are a matter of public record on account of the 501 ©3 Non-Profit status. But, like a mentioned previously, I have a friend that is a GA and I know that he has a full time job as an SEC auditor. Travel expenses are passed to the Church just like any other Quorum activity expense, if any.

[Truegrits]

by Islander:

IMSTNVHO

I have tried, really I have, but I can not figure out the STNV...

[Islander]

He...he...he...In my sometimes not very humble opinion.

Humility does not come easy to me. Long story but I am working on it every day...very hard.

[Truegrits]

Thank you very much.

I would not have figured it out in a million years!

[KosherXMorg]

A $2 million apartment is a "modest living expense"?

[MorningStar]

A $2 million apartment is a "modest living expense"?

How long has the church owned the apartment?

[Iggy]

How long has the church owned the apartment?

And is it just one apartment or the entire building?

[prisonchaplain]

To use a nuetral example, we know that Catholic priests are single, and therefore could comfortably live in a one or two bedroom apartment. Yet, often, the parishes will house their priests in large homes. Why? The church often has get togethers, and the priest is expected to host them.