More overtones to Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

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.

I understand where/how you are wondering about the pay for bishops and stake presidents.

That said, I don’t think money will help. I mean, it will help, but it is more the time aspect that causes bishops and stake presidents hardships on them and their families.

And with that said (I like that statement), having a little bit extra will help ease the emotional part of being away from family.

[Anonymous]

SD, “priestcraft” in the BofM isn’t simply defined as being paid to labor in Zion. It is defined as seeking pay, or praise, as the objective.

Quote:

He 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. –2 Nephi 26:29

Note that the next verse even requires the righteous to support the “laborer in Zion”:

Quote:

…Wherefore, if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish. –2 Nephi 26:30

Motive, not the money, is the differentiating factor, as wrapped up in the next verse:

Quote:

But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish. –2 Nephi 26:30

I trust and believe that each member of the FP and Q12 is laboring for Zion, as he sees it.

[Anonymous]

Interesting how in 30 years of church activity I never knew this — that being paid doesn’t mean you are exercising priestcraft.

However, my point is that if Bishops were paid, they could devote their time to being a full-time Bishop. And thus, the members would benefit from a more mentally present Bishop. It could relieve them of having to juggle a full-time secular job, and their full-time Bishopric job (whether they work full time or not, it’s a full time job).

SD

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

SD, “priestcraft” in the BofM isn’t simply defined as being paid to labor in Zion. It is defined as seeking pay, or praise, as the objective.

Bingo! I also understood priestcraft to include a willingness to pervert the gospel message for the benefit of your financial benefactors.

SilentDawning wrote:

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 don’t believe that there is any doctinal reason not to hire full time local leaders. Except that we are currently getting the labor for free!

DarkJedi wrote:

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.

I read of one of the old time GA’s refering to the stipend as a “glorified retirement program.” This and other indicators lead me to believe that it is not extravagent – but it also seems to be a pretty closely guarded secret so I can only speculate. I have also heard second hand that the stipend is only for those that aren’t independantly wealthy from other sources – no way of knowing if that might be true.

SilentDawning wrote:

However, my point is that if Bishops were paid, they could devote their time to being a full-time Bishop. And thus, the members would benefit from a more mentally present Bishop. It could relieve them of having to juggle a full-time secular job, and their full-time Bishopric job (whether they work full time or not, it’s a full time job).

I also wonder weather we could reduce some of the priesthood roulette that happens with Leaders of vastly different understanding of things. They could be trained in administration, gospel topics, counseling, faith development, public speaking, basic history, etc.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

if Bishops were paid, they could devote their time to being a full-time Bishop.

Personally, I don’t want full-time Bishops working in that position as a career – and it would have to be as a career, since it would be cruel to ask someone to quit a job, work for 5 years or so as a Bishop and then make them try to return to the work they did when they quit to become a Bishop. (Their service wouldn’t be valued by most employers outside the Inter-Mountain West Mormon corridor, and it actually would hurt their employment opportunities in some geographic areas.) I don’t want career ministers, even though there are some wonderful benefits in lots of cases. Part of my reason is philosophical, but part of it is practical.

First, I oppose making people get college degrees to qualify as ministers, and there would have to be some way to “qualify” Bishops and Stake Presidents if they were paid as full-time employees. The debt alone it wrong, in my opinion, for the purpose – as is the elitism I have viewed in many situations, including while taking classes at an East Coast Divinity School.

Second, I’ve seen WAY too many examples of abuse, conceit, extravagance, etc. in congregations of non-Mormon friends to want it happening in the LDS Church (when the leader feels unaccountable to the membership), and I also have seen wholesale abandonment of doctrine in other cases (where the leader feels beholden to preach only what the majority of the membership – or even only a few highly influential members and families – want to hear).

Also, if we decided to pay our Bishops and Stake Presidents, what about their counselors – and the Relief Society Presidents, Elders Quorum Presidents, High Priests Group Leaders, Ward Mission Leaders, Young Women and Men Presidents, High Council, etc? Some of them put in almost as much time as Stake Presidents and Bishops, especially the ones who are retired. How do we determine who gets paid and how much they receive?

If we ever decide to pay local leaders, I favor a small stipend – perhaps the equivalent of minimum wage for 10-20 hours/week, although I haven’t thought through that.

I also can hear critics (inside and outside the Church) wailing about how that money should have been spent helping the poor and for humanitarian aid.

[Anonymous]

Good points Ray. There are no easy answers. How about we just pay the janitor and call it good?

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Good points Ray. There are no easy answers. How about we just pay the janitor and call it good?

Agreed! I do not like cleaning the church.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

How about we just pay the janitor and call it good?

:clap:

[Anonymous]

Good points here Ray — when I have more time, I have a few counter-ideas that occurred to me immediately. But you’ve sparked a few things I hadn’t thought of…later…

[Anonymous]

Quote:

How about we just pay the janitor and call it good?

I wouldn’t mind that at all. It could be a part-time, minimum wage job for someone who is retired and wants to continue to work – or for someone who is out of work and receiving church welfare assistance.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Personally, I don’t want full-time Bishops working in that position as a career – and it would have to be as a career, since it would be cruel to ask someone to quit a job, work for 5 years or so as a Bishop and then make them try to return to the work they did when they quit to become a Bishop.

Kind of like the person who leaves their job to raise children, and then returns to the work force at a disadvantage….on the other hand, there are lots and lots of people who are unemployed who would willingly make that sacrifice, particularly if they felt it was something they wanted . Many people make sacrifices to have something they enjoy.

Quote:

First, I oppose making people get college degrees to qualify as ministers, and there would have to be some way to “qualify” Bishops and Stake Presidents if they were paid as full-time employees. The debt alone it wrong, in my opinion, for the purpose – as is the elitism I have viewed in many situations, including while taking classes at an East Coast Divinity School.

I don’t think there would have to be a college degree involved…we don’t require that now do we? Why would that change simply because the position is paid?

Quote:

Second, I’ve seen WAY too many examples of abuse, conceit, extravagance, etc. in congregations of non-Mormon friends to want it happening in the LDS Church (when the leader feels unaccountable to the membership), and I also have seen wholesale abandonment of doctrine in other cases (where the leader feels beholden to preach only what the majority of the membership – or even only a few highly influential members and families – want to hear).

I don’t think that would apply…the church would continue to enforce supporting local leaders and keep placing 99% of the onus on members to keep a stiff upper lip and support their leaders.

Quote:

Also, if we decided to pay our Bishops and Stake Presidents, what about their counselors – and the Relief Society Presidents, Elders Quorum Presidents, High Priests Group Leaders, Ward Mission Leaders, Young Women and Men Presidents, High Council, etc? Some of them put in almost as much time as Stake Presidents and Bishops, especially the ones who are retired. How do we determine who gets paid and how much they receive?

You could level that argument against the GA’s who are currently paid. This sounds like a slippery slope argument. The church could simply claim its inspired that it should be this way and everyone would have to accept. And its common in other churches to have a paid minister and unpaid volunteer leaders. I don’t see it creating a slippery slope or problem with precedent — the precedent has already been set by having GA’s paid.

Quote:

! also can hear critics (inside and outside the Church) wailing about how that money should have been spent helping the poor and for humanitarian aid.

I don’t see that one as a big concern either — for the same reason that we don’t complain about GA’s being paid when they have to do it full time. The role of a Bishop is pivotal — so having someone paid to really focus could be perceived as a positive thing by many people. And we will always have naysayers with us …always. I don’t see that as a deal stopper.

[Anonymous]

Featherina wrote:

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).

Ray,

Chill out, please.

Even on LDS (TBM) forums, moderators give people freedom of speech, instead of silencing any negatively axiomatically true comments.

When you overreact as you have, it defeats the mission of this forum.

[Anonymous]

[Admin Note:] Featherina, this was not my decision alone. We have discussed that comment behind the scenes among us. The admins and moderaters are in agreement. We went over this exact issue with you previously, and you were told to drop that line of condemnation then. It was explicit instruction from the admins and moderators. We aren’t going to “chill out” when someone repeats something they’ve been told to drop in the past.

If you notice, only the paragraph that included the part you have been told previously to drop was deleted. Everything else in the comment was left untouched.

You also have charged us with denying axiomatic truth, in those exact words, multiple times, when dealing with the exact topic you addressed again in that comment – and you were told to stop every time you did it, espcially since the charges in question are not axiomatic truth. Continuing to make that charge got one thread closed. That won’t happen again, especially with a thread that isn’t about the topics that were moderated.

Your input is valuable and appreciated in almost every case. I mean that seriously. The charge in your comment that was deleted (and previously moderated) is an exception, and this is the last time it will be mentioned. In the future, if you repeat that same charge, we simply will delete the entire comment without any moderation.

Now, this thread will return to the topic it was intended to address.

[Anonymous]

Remember the “Know Your Religion” series. You would pay at the door of a church building to hear a CES employee who was getting paid to talk about religion. This always smacked of Priestcraft, and I like to believe that some of the 12 thought so too, and abandoned it some 15 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

if Bishops were paid, they could devote their time to being a full-time Bishop.

If we ever decide to pay local leaders, I favor a small stipend – perhaps the equivalent of minimum wage for 10-20 hours/week, although I haven’t thought through that.

I could see being reimbursed for things like cell phone bills for church use, or travel. But not time paid. It would tempt people in the wrong way.

Besides, the church doesn’t seem to have a shortage of volunteers. The reward for being “anxiously engaged” is more work to engage in, with a small stipend of people patting your back and saying they love their bishop.

If I ran a company and had a volunteer workforce motivated to work hard…I’d never introduce a pay scale, that’s for sure.

[Author]

Posts