- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Paid ministry questions – 1 – Would the stipend be only for Bishops?
2 – Do we keep our local leadership callings the same – the surprise call for 5 years roughly, during that time the stipend kicks in, upon release it’s gone?
3 – Is the stipend to replace day job employment? or a supplement?
4 – Does a Bishop, or the leadership who gets the stipend, put his career on hold?
5 – Do SP get one, too?
I ask all of these because I presently am a team member of an interfaith homeless shelter. It was begun by a single church who still retains the anchor of the program. Over the years it has branched out. The outer appearance presents a smooth running team for those of us in the “leadership” of it. However that appearance defies the facts. Though the home church is less connected, the members of the home church still take a vested interest in meddling behind the scenes. They just go complain, question, interfere, through the Pastor who still sits on the executive committee. This puts him in a really tough spot. If they don’t like his response’s they can fire him. He is always at the mercy of his congregants.
If the church pays Bishop’s, to whom do they answer? Salt Lake? Their Ward? Their Stake? We already struggle with that without money being involved. Add a stipend and now you have a whole new pot of problems.
I used to be fully on board with paid clergy. The idea of a training center. A career in theology, counseling, etc. I have friends who are pastors and I envied the time they could give to sermons, events, people and still have time for family. Now I am experiencing this other side. Being paid isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
I am not sure either solution is perfect. And I have no idea how we could truly implement it.
I don’t see any way to have a paid clergy at the local level, for a number of reasons: 1) Even a very modest stipend for thousands of Bishops and Stake Presidents alone would be a huge figure, much less if we factor in smaller stipends for local presidents – and how do we decide who gets paid and who doesn’t? I wouldn’t touch that with a 100-foot pole. Arranging talks on Mother’s Day is like facing a firing squad; deciding which local members get paid and how much . . . No. Thank. You!
2) Issues of being beholden to tithe payers even more than exists now is something almost never discussed. Do we really want to consolidate even more power and influence in their hands?
3) We can’t ask normal people to quit jobs for 3-8 years for a small salary and then try to return to those jobs. That would be financially devastating to lots of people.
4) Conceptually, there is a HUGE difference between a paid local ministry (and, for example, people wanting certain callings for the extra money, especially in third-world countries and economically-depressed areas) and a paid global “Administry” that also manages /oversees extensive business operations. The top leadership levels are not ministers in the truest sense, and they really aren’t “clergy” in the traditional sense.
5) If we pay local leaders, the expectations of expertise would skyrocket – and we have too much of that already.
There are more, but that is enough to send me running, screaming, away from the idea.
They’ve really painted themselves into a corner here. Most churches have paid clergy… I don’t have a problem with it. Having a local paid clergy only works when being a minister is a career, a profession. Right now, calling people based on “inspiration” doesn’t pass the sniff test if you start adding money to it. And that’s probably an important reason why stipends for GAs feel like an issue. The reasons they are called are nebulous and not based on defensible “qualifications.” Often it appears to be based on nepotism or personal connections. And obviously, all women are excluded from such opportunities as are those who are unconnected. When you have a paid clergy, the congregation often has the ability to hire and fire based on what they like / want: the dreaded consumerism model for religion! And when you have a paid clergy, you must provide professional training that we simply don’t have or value. The CES training we have is incredibly bad in terms of scholarship and pastoral care. Ministers are often trained in antiquities, languages, psychology, and theology. Our religion classes are merely dogmatic. They are closer to memorization and regurgitation than they are to learning and understanding. We tend to excommunicate the ones who do have scholarship. We not only don’t value it, but we are outright hostile to it. The JSPP may be changing this. I mean, I certainly hope we’ll see improvements. But as it is today seminary teachers and religion professors are not qualified by any standard, and that’s why they are selected. They aren’t “tainted” by knowledge, curiosity, or academic achievement.
Where in most of us our salary must cover all our living expenses I am not sure that is the some for church leaders. I doubt they pay for medical care like we do. Imagine being in your 70’s or 82’s and never having to worry about paying for prescriptions or world class medical care. All your travel expenses are covered. You get someone to drive you around, why do you need to pay for a car? I am sure there are many perks. All that said I do not begrudge them the income. I am sure they earn it to some degree. I just personally choose not to support them financially. It has more to do with the policies they perpetuate than whether they work hard enough. For the average TBM I am sure they think they are getting their monies worth.
This is what Wikipedia has to say about stipends: Quote:A stipend is a form of salary, such as for an internship or apprenticeship.[1] It is often distinct from a wage or a salary because it does not necessarily represent payment for work performed; instead it represents a payment that enables somebody to be exempt partly or wholly from waged or salaried employment in order to undertake a role that is normally unpaid (e.g. a magistrate in the United Kingdom) or voluntary, or which cannot be measured in terms of a task (e.g. members of the clergy). [2][3]
Stipends are usually lower than what would be expected as a permanent salary for similar work. This is because the stipend is complemented by other benefits such as accreditation, instruction, food, and/or accommodation.
This is interesting to me. The stipend is not compensation for a job performed but rather a form of living allowance that frees one up from the need to financially support him/herself and so that they can more fully dedicate themselves to an unpaid pursuit. In this way I can see some individuals make the distinction that GA’s are not “paid clergy” in the traditional sense.
On one hand it makes sense for them to get some money for them and their families to live on simply because their calling involves leaving their careers behind and basically becomes their full-time job for the rest of their lives and many if not the majority of them probably could have actually made more money doing something else if that was really their primary concern the way some critics like to think. But on the other hand how did they come up with $120,000 per year being an appropriate amount? It reminds me of members of Congress predictably voting to give themselves a pay raise on multiple occasions. I think that’s the real significance of this information; it is just one more thing that basically makes them look more like ordinary business or political bureaucrats than truly sincere and dedicated “men of God” even compared to many religious leaders nowadays much less the original apostles and Jesus as described in the Bible (Matthew 6:24, Luke 22:35). To make matters worse they constantly preach about sacrifice and ask members to pay tithing even if they can’t afford to buy food or pay their bills and spend their free time cleaning toilets because they laid off all the janitors, etc. while they fly first class, live in relatively expensive homes, etc. It just looks inconsistent and like it is less than what would be perfectly fair to expect out of men that claim to be literal apostles of Jesus Christ himself.
Their families also take a hit — someone who leaves their top paying surgery job to be a religious leader has far less to leave as an inheritance to their children. I believe in paying them — no question. But be transparent about it — qualify the fact that we are a local, lay ministry. Be transparent that leaders at the top are paid. Cadence wrote:Imagine being in your 70’s or 82’s and never having to worry about paying for prescriptions or world class medical care. All your travel expenses are covered.
Sounds like much of the western world… maybe not the first bit but the second.
A bit of a resurrection of this old topic, but I’ve been thinking more about it lately. The following paragraphs are my thoughts. As far back as I can remember, the Church has taught me that we have an unpaid ministry. As a missionary, I used to tout this fact proudly as one of the evidences of the true Church and backed this up by sharing scriptures from the New Testament. Now this may have just been my perception, but I remember feeling rather smug about this, knowing that other churches did have a paid ministry and that it somehow was wrong, or at least less true than the True Church.
I knew just from word of mouth that of course the apostles and prophets were supported – after all, they were serving full time and obviously needed some financial support to allow them to fulfill their callings. But I always assumed it was very modest – just enough to cover housing, food, clothing, living, and of course travel expenses. I don’t know why I assumed this. Maybe it was the going narrative amongst us regular members. Or maybe it would have been too contrarian to my perception of an unpaid ministry to have the leaders in the highest echelons of the church receive support for more than what they actually needed to fulfill the calling.
So what is the truth? Well, that’s difficult to tease out, mostly because the church itself is completely silent on the matter and refuses to disclose anything about this aspect of its finances. Furthermore, the church itself continues to emphasize its unpaid clergy in conference talks, news room articles, and in various other formats. Gordon B. Hinckley in a 1985 conference address said in passing that our leaders do receive a “living allowance” that “is modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry” and that this living allowance comes from the business income arm of the church and not from the tithing of the people. Note that this talk was over 30 years ago, and not much has been said since. And when more has been said, it basically echoes Hinckley and refers to his 30 year old general conference address as evidence that the Church has always been completely open and honest about this. How many members today are going back 30 years or more to peruse conference talks? To be sure, our local leaders are indeed unpaid, but to have our general authorities, apostles, and prophets expounding on an unpaid clergy allows members to imply that they themselves should be lumped into that group. This is somewhat misleading at best, and openly dishonest at worst.
What does this “modest living allowance” entail? We don’t know much, but there a few documents from which we can make reasonable assumptions. We know that Elder Eyring was paid around $90,000 in 2000. Fast-foward to 2014 and we have a letter that stated that all top male leaders were to have their “base living allowance” increased from $116,400 to $120,000. If we assume a similar rate of increase until 2017, this base living allowance increased to be at least $130k, and we can assume that this is for all top male leadership from the president of the church to the apostles to general authorities. Add to this other benefits such as medical health insurance, stipends for children in college, reimbursement for travel, and the amount increases significantly. Recall that in 2015 the 1st and 2nd quorums of the seventy were combined with no separate quorum designation and are now called “General Authority Seventies,” increasing the probable number of those receiving living allowances. As of now, there are 78 seventies, 7 members of the presidency of the seventy, 12 apostles, and 3 first presidency, which gives a nice round number of 100. There is also the presiding bishopric and sunday school and young men’s presidencies, but they may not be included in these stipends. As far as I know, none of the female general leadership positions (Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary) receive stipends.
So the question remains, in what way is $130k plus benefits a “modest stipend?” The only reasonable defense I have seen is that these men left successful careers where they earned more than this, so it is modest to them. But to most people and members throughout the world, this amount might seem a bit extravagant. It also raises a serious concern: is being successful and wealthy a requirement for church service? One of the very arguments for the stipend is that if it wasn’t present then only the wealthy would be able to afford to serve. That is a great argument, even if one disagrees with the amount being “modest.” However, at the same time there are statements like this in Encyclopedia or Mormonism: “The living allowance given General Authorities rarely if ever equals the earnings they sacrifice to serve full-time in the Church.” If it is true that $130k “rarely if ever” equals the superior earnings they sacrifice, then it certainly seems only the very wealthy are called, something that could appear to some to be problematic. And if nearly all of these men were earning more than this in their professions, then they are very likely receiving retirement earnings from the careers, and estimating around $100k is very conservative for these kinds of salaries.
So is this “modest living allowance” which is “enough for them to support themselves and their families” a problem? For some it certainly could be for several reasons. First, the amount itself seems more than necessary to just support themselves and their families, especially when the other benefits are also considered. It seems to be more of a salary than an “allowance”, with which one could have a very comfortable and even somewhat extravagant lifestyle. Secondly, there is a problem for members who feel they are told one thing from the pulpit and from manuals, but that don’t really match up with the facts. And when the only available statements consistently use words such as “modest” or “enough for support” or “earnings they sacrifice” it generally implies a much lower allowance than what the data suggests. Third, there are members who are seriously struggling financially and are told in general conference addresses that they should pay tithing before feeding their children. For these faithful members, it may be hurtful to find out just how much the very leaders encouraging tithing earn. And while the church assures its members with 30 year old conference quotes that these allowances don’t come from tithing, without any sort of financial transparency, the member of the church has no way to know just where their tithing money actually goes. Fourth, when the church claims that individual salaries are “rarely if ever” lower than the allowance, it sends the clear message that only the wealthy are called into service.
It’s not the fact that full-time church employees get paid for their work. That’s to be expected. It’s the amount that gets paid and the way the church goes about continuing to spread the message of an “unpaid clergy.” It’s a whole different topic of whether or not having an unpaid clergy is a good thing or not. One could argue that having a path for those who feel called to the ministry to train and study and learn how to be effective ministers is actually a good thing. It’s the goal of doing it primarily for financial gain that is discouraged by scripture, not the practice of having a paid ministry itself.
So whether or not to be bothered by the church’s paid leaders is a personal decision. For me, it’s not so much the fact that they get paid as it is the way in which that fact gets shared with the general membership, and also some of the details of that fact. I expect the church should pay those who are willing to dedicate themselves full time to the church, but perhaps the amount of that compensation should be re-investigated. And certainly the rhetoric in conference and in our manuals should reflect the reality.
DoubtingTom wrote:For me, it’s not so much the fact that they get paid as it is the way in which that fact gets shared with the general membership, and also some of the details of that fact. I expect the church should pay those who are willing to dedicate themselves full time to the church, but perhaps the amount of that compensation should be re-investigated.
And certainly the rhetoric in conference and in our manuals should reflect the reality.Reminds me of something I read in a book somewhere. Maybe the Church should look into it: (emphasis mine)
Quote:When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying.
We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead peoplein any wayto believe something that is not true, we are not being honest. The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies.
NightSG wrote:
DoubtingTom wrote:For me, it’s not so much the fact that they get paid as it is the way in which that fact gets shared with the general membership, and also some of the details of that fact. I expect the church should pay those who are willing to dedicate themselves full time to the church, but perhaps the amount of that compensation should be re-investigated.
And certainly the rhetoric in conference and in our manuals should reflect the reality.Reminds me of something I read in a book somewhere. Maybe the Church should look into it: (emphasis mine)
Quote:When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying.
We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead peoplein any wayto believe something that is not true, we are not being honest. The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies.
In the interest of full disclosure and honesty, NSG’s quote is from the Gospel Principles manual, Chapter 31:Honesty.
That said, I don’t think Tom and others of us who have believed and taught that GAs are not paid were being dishonest at the time. I believed what I had been taught and thought I was telling the truth. There was no intention to deceive. Fast forward 30 years from the mission, were I to teach this idea now I would be lying because I know it not to be true. I’ll add that a a former co-worker of mine visited Temple Square about 5 years ago and was taught by a missionary there no one was paid. She didn’t believe it just because it didn’t make sense to her – they do this full time and aren’t necessarily wealthy (although most really are) so how could they not be paid, why would they do it if not paid, and how do they live without pay? I affirmed to her that they were indeed paid, although at the time I didn’t know how much. Her answer: “I thought so. What other lies did they tell me?”
I am suprised Elder Oaks isn’t paid more. I am almost certain there is a stipend, much like how I recieved $115 a month for groceries on my mission, plus had car and housing paid for. But at the same time, there is a major income disparity between the Church leaders, and many members of the Church. The average wage in America is $55,000 a year, and the median wage is around $44,000. Sure, many of the General Authorities left behind lucrative carrers where they made much more. But is it really a sacrifice and a service, if you are getting compensated beyond what is necessary for a comfortable life?
Why am I asked to freely volunteer my time and pay 10% in tithing, when my income is a third of the General Authorities?
What happened to:
Quote:And notwithstanding the many labors which I have performed in the church, I have never received so much as even one senine for my labor. (Alma 30:33)
Reuben wrote:
I have an idea that might fix that problem, the problem of local leaders not having enough time, and the problem of members not getting professional help: create a paid position of spiritual counselor. It would be full-time, part-time, ward-level, or stake-level depending on need. Let’s call the person in the position a “pastor.” Having a faith crisis? Being abused? LGBT? Can’t kick porn? Can’t get rid of guilt? Don’t think you’re worthy of a temple recommend? See the pastor. The bishop and stake president could refer people to the pastor, too, with referrals under some circumstances required by policy. As well as being trained to provide spiritual support, they’d be trained to recognize abuse and mental illness. Require and enforce as much confidentiality as allowed by law.
THAT is something I would be happy to see my tithing pay for.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.