English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

All General Authorities serving the LDS Church in Salt Lake City are offered a living allowance for their full-time service. While it is true that those who minister in the LDS Church on a local level (such as the bishop) are not remunerated, Doctrine and Covenants 42:71-73 says they should be.

" 71 And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families asupported out of the property which is bconsecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;
72 Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.
73 And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church. "

Just another inconsistency in Mormon speak.

2007-06-07 07:09:44 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

I hoven't seen pastors living in masions. Mine lives near poverty level.

2007-06-07 07:27:26 · update #1

20 answers

I never knew that? Someone asked "Why does it bother you?" Well if you are a member of the LDS church or were, and you paid tithing, you want to know where you generally want to know where your money is going, the whole time I was LDS it was usually stated with pride that no one was paid and that everyone volunteered. I figured that when Gordon B Hinckley travels to the oh so many countries he has been to, that he doesn't exactly pay for it himself, and that our tithing does. What about the mall I heard about a while back, I heard tithers money was going towards a mall to be built in Salt Lake City, rumor or not? If it is true, that is stupid.

2007-06-07 12:06:27 · answer #1 · answered by divinity2408 4 · 0 5

So far, the answers from the LDS have been pretty good. Even Mr. Peepers surprised me.

I will just say one thing.

When a man is called to be a General Authority, he gives up whatever he was doing for a living. Let's take one, for example.

Elder Russell M. Nelson. Before he became Elder Nelson, he was Dr. Nelson, a somewhat renowned surgeon. He had, from what I hear, a thriving practice (thoracic surgery, I think), when he was called to be an Apostle. No more surgery. what's he gonna do for money?

Besides whatever stipend he might get, he writes books for the church, and sits on the boards of the few church-owned businesses.

Someone said they thought that when a man is called as an apostle, he gives everything TO the church. I don't know, but if he does, then a stipend is TOTALLY called for.

2007-06-08 14:17:47 · answer #2 · answered by mormon_4_jesus 7 · 1 1

Those verses refer to the law of consecration as described in the Book of Acts chapet 5. Remember Ananias and Saphira? That law has been temporarily put on hold because the saints weren't able to live it. (SImilar to how the Israelites were given a lesser law when Moses came down and found them worshiping a golden calf) The lesser law that is in place of consecration, is tithing.

I'm LDS and I love that we don't have a paid ministry. However, the church does pay the salaries of many people, like custodians, institute and seminary teachers. I understand that even Pres. Hinckley, the Apostles, and some of the Seventies get stipends to support themselves and their families. The Church Office Building in Salt Lake is full of people who are employed to handle the logistics of running the church.

To answer divinity's question, the Church bought the mall that is across the street from Temple Square in SLC. They did not, however, use tithing funds to make the purchase. The church has many investments that create income that they use for those types of things.

2007-06-07 11:54:26 · answer #3 · answered by Senator John McClain 6 · 3 0

We refute this idea because:

1) Our prophets and apostles dedicate their whole lives to the church. They don't have time for a job to keep them on their feet. Yes they do get allowances, but they only use it so they can spread the word of God (travel and accomodations, food, etc.). You don't see them with Escalades and big houses with swimming pools.
2) The support it is talking about in D&C could mean things beside renumeration. Have you ever heard of the Bishop's storehouse? This is a place where those who are low on money can go to get food free of charge for their family if they are in dire need. D&C never said it had to be money, so I think that this is a compensation.

The point of this all is, our prophet and the people higher up on the ladder get the allowances for only necessities that they need. They are not frivolously wasting our money. They live in modest homes (The prophet lives in an apartment in Salt Lake City). Without the allowances, they couldn't dedicate themselves to the ministry. Everyone has to get by somehow and the only way the General Authorities can do that and fulfill their responsibilities is to have this allowance. It doesn't mean that we are false or inconsistent, it is just how we do things.

Again, the Doctrine & Covenants did not specify that it had to be money, just some sort of compensation, which is available through different programs that the church offers for families.

2007-06-07 07:23:02 · answer #4 · answered by kelride 3 · 8 1

In the early Church, the bishop referred to what is now called the Presiding Bishop.

There is a big difference between a living allowance and a paid-by-the-body preacher who changes doctrine to get people in the door. When an LDS person talks about Priestcraft, they are talking about demagoguery, not keeping people from starvation.

2007-06-08 04:00:35 · answer #5 · answered by je_apostrophe 2 · 0 1

Yea, but some people have to go to the bishop and ask for forgiveness, giving them intimate details of their sin, this can be very embarressing and if the bishop have a lust problem, it is very entertainign for him and his counselers to hear such things, so it pays off, in this respect, plus they get respect as being able to distate to others, in the ward their opinion because God told them.
It is quite unfare because the general authorities are already rich and I think some of the Bishops are hoping to work their way up the chain of command. Plus all are expected to obey the chain of command and succomb to the one above them. Kind of like the army.

2007-06-09 04:06:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

je_apostraphe said: When an LDS person talks about Priestcraft, they are talking about demagoguery, not keeping people from starvation.

We keep our people from starvation and idolness.
Deseret Industries for which people can work until they can find another place of employment. The bishop's Storehouse where members and non members can receive food free.
We have a welfare system? That's where our tithing goes.
Does your church? or does your pastor go to cancun like like binny hinn?

2007-06-08 06:40:06 · answer #7 · answered by Samuel The Lamanite 2 · 1 0

while your scripture refers to a practice no longer in use, your original statement is correct, that some can receive an allowance. Most have business holdings and investments, some callings for Seventies or Apostles come with a seat on a board of directors that supports them. Some decline to receive payment on these Boards.

All of this is strictly audited and misuse or hording of any of these funds would result in loss of membership.

This is not payment for services rendered. no fees are exacted for marriages, blessings etc.

There are jobs to be had in the church. Janitors are paid as a job and not a church calling. the church office Bld. in SLC has a host of Secretaries and whatnot. All paid with Tithing money.

Priesthood functions such as talks, sermons, classes, blessing the sick marriages, missions, etc. are not paid.

Missionaries who cannot afford to pay for their own mission receive funds from congregation members (not tithing) to support purchases made on missions like: bikes, gas for cars, food, Books of Mormon, cloths, etc.

Ministry is NOT paid -- we do Not engage in Preistcraft.

ADDED:

to answer Divinity

Tithing pays for a lot of things -- the LDS church gets a ton of money every Sunday and it pays for:

new church buildings
Utilities at all the buildings
office supplies for all the offices in SLC and the world
janitorial
secrateries
translators
travel (including all the traveling missionaries flights)
and the list is endless

again this is audited inhouse and by independant auditors -- abuse of funds is delt with harshly!

I was a financial clerk 10 years ago and we were audited (thouroghly) 4 times a year

2007-06-07 07:28:24 · answer #8 · answered by Dionysus 5 · 10 1

D&C 42 has something to do with the law of consecreation.
which was removed because the people couldn't live in it.
That's the rich given their lands to the church and the church given to those who are poorer so all can live in common.

Since that doesn't apply anymore. We have the law of tithing.

As for the General Authorities making money, they made a good sum but not as big as rich mansion living protestant ministers.

2007-06-07 07:15:42 · answer #9 · answered by Brother G 6 · 8 0

Yes, I have seen that and other verses referring to the laborer being worhy of his hire. The fact is that many of the general authorities are given corporate positions within the church businesses in order to support their families. So the Board of Directors for Bonneville International, Deseret Industries, and others are paid from the business. Also, there are seminary and institute teachers that work full time in church education and are paid for their services. They don't get paid for their ecclesiastical labors but for their temporal labors in church and corporate positions. In the early days of the church, the members were asked to sacrifice for the benefit of the church far more than we are today. As a result, many needed support for their families while they were away. This was taken care of out of the Bishops storehouse.
It is not an inconsistency. If understood in its proper context, it is just fine.

2007-06-07 07:19:03 · answer #10 · answered by rac 7 · 13 1

fedest.com, questions and answers