- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I like it Brian!! One huge problem with a paid clergy, from my limited experience in protestant churches, is that the clergy-person is somewhat compelled to tell his/her “flock” what they want to hear…as opposed to what they need to hear. If you tell them what they don’t want to hear, they may not come back = no paycheck for you. It really should be a “labor of love” IMHO.
I’m not sure what paying the clergy would solve, so I guess I don’t think it is good to introduce that…since, as Bruce said, it should be a labor of love. If they were to give a stipend, RS Presidents deserve as much as bishops, IMO.
I think a stipend would be a great idea — AND the church could afford it. Yeah, the GA’s and Apostles might have to take a pay cut but…. I think those working at the stake level, and Bishops, Councilors, BPs, EQP, RSP, PP, YMP and YWP deserve some kind of stipend to reimburse and offset all the time and “personal” expenses they poor into their callings. Maybe even something like reimbursement forms like we do at work. Gas mileage, meals, supply expenses etc. would be a nice gesture on the church’s part. I mean, the GA’s get expense accounts and “stipends”. Why not SP and Bishops?
cwald wrote:I think a stipend would be a great idea — AND the church could afford it. Yeah, the GA’s and Apostles might have to take a pay cut but….
I think those working at the stake level, and Bishops, Councilors, BPs, EQP, RSP, PP, YMP and YWP deserve some kind of stipend to reimburse and offset all the time and “personal” expenses they poor into their callings. Maybe even something like reimbursement forms like we do at work. Gas mileage, meals, supply expenses etc. would be a nice gesture on the church’s part. I mean, the GA’s get expense accounts and “stipends”. Why not SP and Bishops?
I think that would be a good idea. Not really paid but help offset the cost they incur.
Bruce in Montana wrote:It really should be a “labor of love” IMHO.
If it is a labor of love should we not stop calling men who are reluctant to do this. Should we not only ask those who are interested and want to do the job.
Cadence wrote:Bruce in Montana wrote:It really should be a “labor of love” IMHO.
If it is a labor of love should we not stop calling men who are reluctant to do this. Should we not only ask those who are interested and want to do the job.
The folks that WANT these callings aren’t the ones I really want leading me, nor the ones that need extra income.
Some of the most effective leaders are the ones that do it out of love when called, even if they would never sign up for it.
Heber13 wrote:Cadence wrote:Bruce in Montana wrote:It really should be a “labor of love” IMHO.
If it is a labor of love should we not stop calling men who are reluctant to do this. Should we not only ask those who are interested and want to do the job.
The folks that WANT these callings aren’t the ones I really want leading me,nor the ones that need extra income. Some of the most effective leaders are the ones that do it out of love when called, even if they would never sign up for it. Yep. +1.
I know my bishop uses plenty of FO funds for counseling. Both to LDS Family Services and other professionals. (Hey, they have to send those bills somewhere! I don’t open them BTW.) Of course, most of them are LDS even if they aren’t with LDSFS! Pretty hard to find someone that isn’t around here. I think any bishop would be nuts to spend their time counseling when they can pay for a professional. That’s what FO is for! So some bishops know their limitations but I’m sure there are plenty of others who don’t.
How many people would stop paying their tithing because they didn’t like the bishop and they knew he’d be getting paid from tithing funds? Hmm.
observant wrote:
How many people would stop paying their tithing because they didn’t like the bishop and they knew he’d be getting paid from tithing funds?
Hmm. Me.
I’m afraid I’d have a hard time with that, too. But I’ve my bishops. In fact, some of them I’ve ONLY liked while they were bishop! Ho. cwald wrote:Heber13 wrote:The folks that WANT these callings aren’t the ones I really want leading me,nor the ones that need extra income. Some of the most effective leaders are the ones that do it out of love when called, even if they would never sign up for it. Yep. +1.
Philip K. Dick (who just happens to be one of the best writers of the 20th Century, and something of a mystic too) said that anyone who could make themselves (US) president shouldn’t be allowed to run. I agree with that. Such people often tend to be egotists, two-faced, and prone to lying. I believe that Eisenhower was the best post-War president and he was courted by both main American parties, yet he was initially very reluctant to be involved in the whole thing.
I can honestly say I would never want to be a bishop paid or not. The time commitment is just to great, that is unless it was my full-time job. Having it as a second job would just be to much for me personally. That is why I rarely if ever ask the bishop for anything. In fact I am always telling him to not work so hard. It will burn you up.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.