An Unpaid Clergy

[Mullenite]

AN UNPAID CLERGY

In the Savior's ancient church, local priesthood leaders without pay. Bishops, elder, and other local church officials were not salaried.


Bible Passage:
Matthew 10:8
Acts 20:33-34
1 Corinthians 9:18
1 Peter 5:1-3

In the LDS church, local leaders are not paid. They hold normal jobs and do their church work on their own time. The same was true of local leaders in the ancient church. Bo Reicke says the following about the clergy at the time of 1 Peter.

It may be noted here that there not yet any paid offices in the church. the care of the congregations was assumed by voluntary functionaries............

As historian Robin Fox points out, Dionysius (A.D. 200-264), Bishop of Alexandria, reminded some Egyptian villagers that to learn secular philosophy they would need money, but that Christian elders preached in village "for no fee". Fox further notes that "the notion of fixed clerical salaries was considered an outrage as late as A.D. 200, in both Rome and Asia".

In the New Testament church, the apostle had the right to be compensated for basic living expenses and travel cost; however. They frequently chose not to exercise it. Presumably, this right could extend to the seventy, and perhaps to other regional officers with extensive or pre-third-century patristic sanction for the sectarian practice of salarying each local leader of a congregation..............

[rayhale]

Please don’t misunderstand me when I ask- the Twelve Apostles, the Prophet, the Counselors, and their wives, don’t have jobs, are they paid clergy? If not, how do they support themselves? I heard somewhere, that the live the Law of Consecration, meaning that all the books that any of them publish, and make money off of, they put in a joint bank account that they all live off of. Again I’ll ask how can you reconcile this? How is this not Priestcraft? (I’m not saying it is but I still would like to ask that). If anyone knows the answer, please respond.

[havejoy]

Most of them have retired before being called to those positions. My understanding is that they do have an expense account due to all the traveling required.
Also, most are independently wealthy.

[Xzain]

Originally Posted by rayhale

Please don’t misunderstand me when I ask- the Twelve Apostles, the Prophet, the Counselors, and their wives, don’t have jobs, are they paid clergy? If not, how do they support themselves? I heard somewhere, that the live the Law of Consecration, meaning that all the books that any of them publish, and make money off of, they put in a joint bank account that they all live off of. Again I’ll ask how can you reconcile this? How is this not Priestcraft? (I’m not saying it is but I still would like to ask that). If anyone knows the answer, please respond.

You are correct; they are not paid. I have not heard about how they might live the Law of Consecration, and do not know where the revenue off of published works goes.

President Gordon B. Hinckley remarked on this very subject. From fairmormon.org (Paid clergy - FAIRMormon):

Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.

'Priestcraft' can be a somewhat ambiguous term. I prefer to use one from the Book of Mormon, namely 2 Nephi 26:29:

2 Nephi 26

[The Lord] 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.

Again, from fairmormon.org :

No one who examines the schedule or workload of the general authorites can claim that these men are looking for an "easy buck." They live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomlishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

If these men seek the welfare of Zion (which they do) and spend all their time furthering the work of the Lord (which they do)- so much in fact that their travel and work schedules make holding a full-time job truly impossible (which said schedules do)- I do not see how being paid a 'modest stipend' could be priestcraft.

It was of the special witnesses of Jesus Christ- namely, the apostles- that Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18 (1 Corinthians 9 and 1 Timothy 5, respectively.)

[prisonchaplain]

I'll take time later on to look up some passages, but, the Apostle Paul's writing would seem to indicate that most church leaders were paid. His choice to be a tentmaker, in particular, for the Corinthian church, caused a good deal of controversy. The accusation against him, is that he was unworthy of pay, that he ministered for nothing, due to his inferiority, not any nobility on his part. Paul's response is that he chose not to be paid, because he sensed that the Corinthians needed an unpaid leader. They were too immature, and would likely try to manipulate a leader they directly supported supported. Paul believed he had more freedom to speak truth into their lives because he was not paid.

Yet, Paul does not indicate that unpaid leadership was the norm. Rather, he had to defend his choice--the implication being, because it was not normal.

There are other scripture passages that indicate that workers are worth their pay, and that those who took on priestly duties were expected to do less "secular" labor. The Levites, for example, would not be expected to farm, but rather would take meat from the sacrifices offered (i.e. 'offerings').

It's okay that LDS choose to operate using an all-volunteer leadership. However, the implication that this is the only acceptable way to do church, or that paid clergy are somehow corrupted, would be erroneous, in my always humble opinion.

[Traveler]

I am not sure I continue to like the way many of us LDS look at this question. There are many things to consider in the manner we all live and are paid. Without question those ministers that live high on the donations of such as the widow's mite are living contrary to Christian principles. But one does not have to be in positions of responsibility within a "Church" to abuse and misuse the manner in which they are paid and the manner in which they live.

I have come to realize that of all that post on this forum - it is I (because of my economic status) that is the most worthy of any criticism as to how I treat my fellow men concerning things of money – how I am paid and how I live.

It is also my opinion that if we look to criticize others before applying such things to ourselves that we abuse our faith in Christ. We are all unprofitable servants and therefore it is unwise to criticize others for their unprofitability. I would also point out – for those that have not observed; that this is somewhat of a different direction in my thinking since I joined the forum some time ago.

The Traveler

[WANDERER]

Whether money goes to a business or as a direct income does rather seem to be splitting hairs. It has pretty much the same effect on the widows.

[Islander]

Again, context is really important here as it is in many other instances when discussing the ancient Church.
skenopoiov is translated "tentmaker" by the 15th century translators of the scriptures. Now in context, there is a very good chance that Paul and his companions were working with large cloths/fabrics rather than tents. In the first century AD, in the center of the Roman empire nobody lived in tents. That is just anachronistic. We have no way of cross checking since the word is quite strange and does not appear again in that form in the scriptures.

As far as not paid ministry, we have modern revelation on the subject. Others are free to conduct themselves however they see fit. We tend to do things differently because The Lord has pointed to what and how we should conduct His affairs and administer His Church on the earth at this time. We should not contend with any about this issue. Just a thought.

[VisionOfLehi]

Tithing keeps Church-owned schools' tuitions low.

[Xzain]

Personally, I don't care where my tithing money goes. I have seen the blessings it gives me, and I trust the leaders of the Church to use it wisely and honestly. I do not doubt the integrity of the men in charge of the organization of the Church.

The widow is blessed for giving her mite, regardless of where it goes. As Gordon B. Hinckley said, tithing is paid with faith as well as with money. I look to the promise in 3 Nephi 24:10:

10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in my house; and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

The law of the tithe is just as critical for the spiritual salvation of the Saints as it is for the temporal support of the Church.