- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
As my wife and I watched his talk, she rewound a part to ask me if I heard it. He mentioned that none of the LOCAL leadership are paid. This has been a bit of a standing debate among people in my Ward during certain lessons. His qualifying statement implies that the people at the top are paid. Not that I’m questioning that decision (to pay top leaders), but that finally, there is an implicit admission that people above local leaders receive pay for their service.
I heard and appreciated that wording. I think Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk had many subtle, but important messages and implications. I only wish that I could see evidence of my TBM friends and family having picked up on those. So far, all any of them have seemed to take away from his important address was to “doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith”. I remember Elder Holland’s talk in the spring conference and how it held a lot of hope, but when it was taught in RS later on in the year, the message seemed to be boiled down to the part about trusting what you know and not worrying about what you don’t know. I think I’ll read and study a few of Uchtdorf’s talks a bit more. While we’re not planning on full attendance, we will be attending for a while off and on and I think that many of his points are ones that need to be brought up in class discussions.
MayB wrote:I think Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk had many subtle, but important messages and implications. I only wish that I could see evidence of my TBM friends and family having picked up on those. So far, all any of them have seemed to take away from his important address was to “doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith”. I remember Elder Holland’s talk in the spring conference and how it held a lot of hope, but when it was taught in RS later on in the year, the message seemed to be boiled down to the part about trusting what you know and not worrying about what you don’t know.
I think I’ll read and study a few of Uchtdorf’s talks a bit more. While we’re not planning on full attendance, we will be attending for a while off and on and I think that many of his points are ones that need to be brought up in class discussions.
I agree May that members will take from conference what they want/need to hear (as have I).
I don’t expect overnight change but I’m glad I’ve got more resources to quote from when I want to make a point in a lesson discussion.
SilentDawning wrote:He mentioned that none of the LOCAL leadership are paid.
I totally heard this too! I wanted to bring it up with my wife, but I already scrutinize things enough.
Life_Journey_of_Matt wrote:SilentDawning wrote:He mentioned that none of the LOCAL leadership are paid.
I totally heard this too! I wanted to bring it up with my wife, but I already scrutinize things enough.
😆 I heard it too, and also kept it to myself!OK…then I’m going to spark the question that has been on my mind ever since I learned through the Bloggernacle that the idea of a completely unpaid ministry is a myth — years ago. “What is the difference between top-level Mormon leaders receiving pay for their service, and priestcraft?”.
Notice — I am not accusing the church or the leaders of this practice or trying to be negative. But I would like to hear how that practice is consistent (if it even is) with the Book of Mormon admonition to avoid priestcraft. For years and years and years I have heard the phrase “no one is paid”. I’ve heard teachers correct people who have stated people at non-local levels are paid. There have never been any caveats or qualifiers that I have heard for core, ecclesiastical leaders receiving pay for their services.
I think a very large percent of members believe the prophet, and apostles are lay ministers. This is another example of the general membership believing things that aren’t true, which can cause disillusionment after they learn the truth – and realize no one has ever corrected that apparently incorrect belief.
“What is the difference between top-level Mormon leaders receiving pay for their service, and priestcraft?”.
SilentDawning wrote:As my wife and I watched his talk, she rewound a part to ask me if I heard it. He mentioned that none of the LOCAL leadership are paid. This has been a bit of a standing debate among people in my Ward during certain lessons. His qualifying statement implies that the people at the top are paid.
Not that I’m questioning that decision (to pay top leaders), but that finally, there is an implicit admission that people above local leaders receive pay for their service.
I don’t want to spend the time to find where it was said, but I remember from my youth a GA saying that GA’s and the presidency receive a stipend. He said stipend. Now, there is no knowing how much a stipend is or where it came from. I always thought everyone knew that GAs and the presidency received money for their time.
Jazernorth wrote:SilentDawning wrote:As my wife and I watched his talk, she rewound a part to ask me if I heard it. He mentioned that none of the LOCAL leadership are paid. This has been a bit of a standing debate among people in my Ward during certain lessons. His qualifying statement implies that the people at the top are paid.
Not that I’m questioning that decision (to pay top leaders), but that finally, there is an implicit admission that people above local leaders receive pay for their service.
I don’t want to spend the time to find where it was said, but I remember from my youth a GA saying that GA’s and the presidency receive a stipend. He said stipend. Now, there is no knowing how much a stipend is or where it came from. I always thought everyone knew that GAs and the presidency received money for their time.
That’s what I remember being taught as well. The stipend was supposed to meet their living expenses because they are serving full time. I also don’t recall ever hearing what the stipend was, I always supposed it was fairly generous however.
We know they are paid. I personally don’t know how anyone could accept a lifelong calling and not get paid, particularly if they weren’t independently wealthy. What I am asking is how this practice can be justified given the BoM prescription to avoid priestcraft. No one has ever qualified that principle to mean only local leaders should not be paid. The membership has been content to believe everyone is unpaid, and the top leadership has never addressed that misguided belief, as far as I am aware. One person, in a lesson, indicated that top authorities are paid, and the teacher, a recently graduated, articulate and usually very knowledgeable lawyer corrected her — reiterated that no one is paid, and then moved on. Most people believe they aren’t paid, in my experience.
I am not disagreeing with paid leaders either. I feel that local leaders often neglect the flock out of sheer lack of capacity. If they were able to dedicate their time in a focused way to their callings, quality would improve.
The idea that they are not unpaid and never were is mythical – I don’t think that’s really been claimed in any official capacity, just assumed by the lay members. Even the apostle Paul was fed and housed by church members, in addition to having his own wealth. The only thing I will say is that the top church leaders aren’t going to make their fortunes this way. They had lucrative careers on their own, and this doesn’t match what they made. hawkgrrrl wrote:The idea that they are not unpaid and never were is mythical – I don’t think that’s really been claimed in any official capacity, just assumed by the lay members. Even the apostle Paul was fed and housed by church members, in addition to having his own wealth. The only thing I will say is that the top church leaders aren’t going to make their fortunes this way. They had lucrative careers on their own, and this doesn’t match what they made.
I know we’re getting off topic here and I apologize SD. I should have clarified earlier that I remember being taught that, but I haven’t heard that taught in a long time. In fact a couple years ago a coworker returned from a trip to SLC where she visited Temple Square. Her questions for me were all related to the idea they weren’t paid because she had been told by the missionary there that they weren’t and frankly didn’t believe it.
So, back to SD’s question. I think I understand priestcraft to be setting oneself up to get gain or fame by practicing religion. I think there are lots of people out there who do that, but I’m not sure that includes GAs. While it could be argued some do like the fame or praise, I don’t think any of them are getting rich from the church. I do think the stipend does allow them to maintain their lifestyle (and improve it in the case of some), but like Hawkgrrrl says, most are wealthy in their own right.
I have no problem with a stipend, even a fairly generous one, for two main reasons: 1) They serve full-time.
2) All of them begin serving prior to standard retirement age, and, in extreme cases like Pres. Monson, they start serving at an age where they absolutely need an income to support their families. Remember, Pres. Monson was in his 30s when he was called as an apostle.
It’s not priestcraft for the reasons DJ mentioned: It’s a set stipend amount, and, in some cases, a pay cut – and they don’t do it for the money or the fame. Also, they don’t do it on their own; they are asked to do it. That is a major difference.
SilentDawning wrote:“What is the difference between top-level Mormon leaders receiving pay for their service, and priestcraft?”.
[
Admin Note:A section of this comment was deleted, because it included accusations against the Church that are patently untrue and because we have hashed out in other threads the idea that not following Old Testament standards is not a reason here to condemn the modern LDS Church.In those others threads, it was stated explicitly that such a stance is not consistent with our mission.] As I tell my children, nobody’s perfect, including all those who make up & run the church, so you have to take the good and leave the bad.
BTW – I liked Uchtodorf’s talk – & actually “doubting your doubts” was inspiring to me.
I have lost so much faith – & I really need to regain it – even when intellecutally, I know I may be fooling myself.
We’re all fools – as Moses & Socrates discovered… We might as well consciously decide how we’ll fool ourselves (in functional ways).
I can accept the argument that priestcraft is ministering for personal fame and glory, and involves a business model. Now, I have a follow-up question. Although Bishops and SP’s are part-time, they give a huge amount of time to the church and have responsibilities for essentially, a little “Company” of about 500 people. That is 3 times larger than a $27 Million dollar company I worked for earlier in my career, in terms of employees.
Why then are they not paid if priestcraft only involves seeking fame and adulation and wealth out of religious charisma? What is the logic behind this when being a Bishop is so demanding, and often members suffer due to the lack of attention these part-time, volunteer Bishops dedicate?
I am curious what you think.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.