Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betzz wrote:
[b
And please, if you want to have a discussion with me, don't bring your opinion of the beliefs of Jaye and Sir John into it . . . it's annoying and only goes to prove you can't make an argument without pointing fingers at people because you think your faith is superior to theirs.

You were the one that jumped into apostateJ's question.

Okay, then please justify why you brought Jaye into it? Because you enjoy the whole idea of "tattling"? Are you ever going to grow up?

Because Jaye was agreeing with the "misinterpretation" that ApostateJ mentioned that rich people can't go to heaven.

You have GROSSLY misinterpreted and mischaracterized what I said.

I never said rich people can't go to heaven. I pointed out that according to the words of Jesus in the New Testament...it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Now...think about it for a moment...have you EVER seen a camel pass through the eye of a needle?


So Jaye, again, are there any exceptions or is this a hard fast rule that Jesus was teaching that NO Rich people can go to heaven?


Because when I asked this question last time you said..."That's what Jesus said"

It IS what Jesus said...according to Matthew, Mark, AND Luke.

What do you want me to say here Dubss? That Jesus DIDN'T say this?

When Jesus sat with His disciples in the courtyard of the Temple, they witnessed the Jews standing in line to cast their tithes into the Temple coffer.

They witnessed the wealthy, and the great, and the powerful casting small pouches containing gold or silver, or casting in rich jewels.

Then they witnessed a poor widow as she cast in two small coins.

And Jesus said, 'I say unto you, that this woman has given most of all...because she gave EVERYTHING she had...while these others only gave a small portion of their wealth.'

You claim to be a wealthy man Dubss. Do you content yourself with paying your 10% tithing, and call it good?

Or do you devote as much of your wealth as you can (without breaking your bank account and beggering your family) to alleviating the physical needs of the poor who are all around us?

If a rich man were to do everything in his power throughout his life, to assist, and to provide for the basic physical needs of those less fortunate brothers and sisters who we see every day on street corners...I would say that God would look into his heart, and his soul, and count him among the sheep.

It is a matter of obedience to God's will. It is a matter of whether a rich individual is only drawing close to the Lord with his mouth, while his heart is far, far away.

What did James say?

'If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.

But if ye have respect to persona, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

SO SPEAK YE, AND SO DO, AS THY THAT SHALL BE JUEDGED BY THE LAW OF LIBERTY.

FOR HE SHALL HAVE JUDGMENT WITHOUT MERCY FOR THEM WHICH HAVE SHOWN NO MERCY; AND MERCY REJOICETH AGAINST JUDGMENT.

WHAT DOTH IT PROFIT, MY BRETHREN, THOU A MAN SAY HE HATH FAITH, AND HAVE NOT WORKS? CAN FAITH SAVE HIM?

IF A BROTHER OR SISTER BE NAKED, AND DESTITUTE OF DAILY FOOD, AND ONE OF YOU SAY UNTO THEM, DEPART IN PEACE, BE YE WARMED AND FILLED; NOTWITHSTANDING YE HAVE NOT GIVEN THEM THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE NEEDFUL TO THE BODY; WHAT DOTH IT PROFIT?'

So long as there are people among us who don't have enough to eat, who are homeless, living on the streets, or under bridges, who wear filthy and tattered clothing...it is evident that we as Christians are failing in truly striving to obey Christ's commandment to provide for the physical needs...and not only the spiritual needs of our brothers and sisters.


Wren (surprisingly) explained well the explanation of that verse, it is NOT a hard fast rule that NEVER can a rich man go to heaven.

Or is that what you really believe?

You have GROSSLY misinterpreted and mischaracterized what I said.

I never said rich people can't go to heaven. I pointed out that according to the words of Jesus in the New Testament...it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.


I asked you earlier if it was a hard fast rule, you said...

"That's what Jesus said"


Now your back peddeling. typical jaye.

Not back peddling at all Kent.

And what I said was the truth. It WAS EXACTLY what Jesus said.

His disciples, amazed asked...'Who then can be saved?

And Jesus said, 'With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible'.

And Peter asked...'Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore'?

And Jesus said...'Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'

A rich man has his reward already in this mortal life. He has his palatial home(s), all the finest furnishings, his expensive automobiles, his boat, his R.V.'s, his A.T.V.'s, his expensive silk suits, his membership in exclusive Country Clubs, etc.etc.

But if he wishes further reward in his eternal life...it depends largely upon whether he has utilized his wealth to the best of it's advantage and his efforts to alleviate the needs of God's children on earth.

With God...all things are possible.

And even a rich man could find himself numbered with the sheep.

Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Uncle_Bud wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
utocoman wrote:
Did Dubbs ever address the quorum of the 12 holding positions as CEOs, Board members etc. in LDS owned companies as being paid positions?


have proof of this? Besides a lieing apostate anti mormon site?


Didn't thinks so.



Mormonism's Paid Ministry

By Bill McKeever

According to Mormonism's tenth president:

"It can be said also that the officers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who labor without salaries coming out of the pockets of the members, are just as spiritually minded, have just as good judgment and wisdom in directing the temporal as well as the spiritual welfare of the people, as are any of the ministers who spend their entire time in what may be called spiritual counsel. For instance, the bishops of our wards and the presidents of our stakes and other officers give their time freely without any monetary compensation paid by members of the Church. It is equally true that the young men and women who are distributed over the face of the earth as missionaries of the Church pay their own way, or their parents do. We do not have a paid ministry, yet these brethren put in as much time in spiritual and Church duties, as do ministers of other denominations who devote their entire time, and in addition, they are under the necessity of earning their own living by their daily employment in industry. They do this because they have an abiding testimony of the divinity of the work the Church requires of them" (Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 3, p.79).

To read the above statement by President Joseph Fielding Smith, one can't help escape noticing that this church leader, as well as many members in the LDS Church, boast of not having a paid ministry. Because many members believe this to be true, we can't help but think that Mormonism's paid ministry is probably one of its best kept secrets.

I can't begin to number all of the times the argument of a "paid ministry" has been used by the zealous Latter-day Saint to "prove" his church as true. Many feel that a compensated ministry is proof that an apostasy exists among many of the Bible-believing denominations. It seems that, while many Latter-day Saints believe their leaders put in a full day's work for their church, few can explain how they can do this without being compensated for their time. The only logical way that this can be accomplished is if each and every general authority in the LDS Church is financially independent. This, of course, is not the case.

Some Latter-day Saints have argued that while their leaders are offered compensation, some choose not to accept the living allowance they are offered. That may be commendable, but it does not erase the fact that many do. Besides, many Christian pastors serve their churches without compensation as well. We don't have a problem with this. We do, however, have a problem when Mormons point fingers at the Christian churches and condemn them for compensating their ministers when the LDS Church is really doing nothing different.

It may surprise many Latter-day Saints that their own standard works support the idea of a paid ministry. For instance, Doctrine and Covenants 42:71-73 states that bishops (as well as elders and high priests who assist these bishops) are to receive "a just remuneration for all their services." Writing on this passage, Hyrum Smith and Janne Sjodahl state:

"The law of remuneration is that those who administer in spiritual affairs must have their stewardships and labor for their living, 'even as the members.' This is wisdom. For in that position they are absolutely independent and can preach the truth without fear. Those who administer in temporal affairs and give their entire time to public business are to have a just remuneration. If they were to earn a living for themselves they could not give all their time and energy to the community" (Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, 1973 edition, p.234).

At best it could probably be argued that the church is no longer held to this agreement because bishops no longer work "full-time." While section 42 never explicitly says this is the only qualification for "just remuneration," I think many hard-working bishops might argue the point.

Further, D&C 75 specifically names certain men who were called as missionaries and states that "it is the duty of the church to assist in supporting the families of those, and also to support the families of those who are called and must needs be sent unto the world to proclaim the gospel unto the world."

Even the "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" (Vol.2, MISSIONARY, MISSIONARY LIFE), concedes that "Missionaries or their families generally cover the major costs of serving a mission. Missionaries called from developing nations may receive needed financial assistance from the general missionary fund of the Church. This assistance covers only basic living costs, as the Church has no paid ministry. No one is paid for missionary service." Notice the words "generally" and "major." Apparently we have a semantic problem over what it means to be paid. If the LDS Church is covering even a portion of a missionary's expenses it seems certain that the one receiving the compensation is a paid minister. In other words, the Mormon missionary is not self-supported. The fact that funds are run through the church and a tax-deduction is given to the donor intimates that the missionary is paid by the church. How much they get is irrelevant. To say they are unpaid is misleading.

For years it was not uncommon for the LDS Church to appoint its general authorities as board members of businesses that the church owns. Other businesses, seeing the advantage of having an LDS leader tied to their company, have hired general authorities as well. This was one aspect where being a "G.A." does pay off.

On January 18, 1996, the LDS Church changed its policy regarding its general authorities and these corporate board positions. According to the "Salt Lake Tribune" (1/20/96, B1), the LDS Church called for the resignation of all its general authorities who would continue to be on these boards, whether or not it is Mormon Church-owned. Such action was deemed necessary because of the increasing demands on church leaders as a result of church growth.

The article pointed out that this would result in a loss of $12,000 per year for LDS Apostle David Haight, who at the time was a member of the board of First Security Corp. (This position also paid him $1,000 for every board meeting he attended.) In addition, Mr. Haight is a board member of Deseret Management Co. and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Foundation. The logical question is, how will Mr. Haight's loss of revenue (and those of other general authorities) be made up? Is it logical to believe the LDS Church is just going to force its leadership to take a pay cut resulting in thousands of dollars? No doubt this deficit will be made up directly through the LDS Church's payroll department.

The Mormon Church has a history of calling Christian pastors "hirelings of Satan," yet we find that there is nothing unbiblical about a paid ministry. Take, for instance, the support of the tribe of Levi. Unlike the other tribes which received an inheritance of land in Canaan, God chose instead for the tribe of Levi to receive the tithe of the people as compensation for the work they performed in "the tabernacle of the congregation" (Numbers 18:21,22). Their entire function was to minister to the people.

In the same way, Paul defends a paid ministry in 1 Corinthians 9. He correctly concludes that pastors should be supported by comparing the minister to a soldier, a vinedresser, and a shepherd. Does that soldier go to war at his own expense? Does the vinedresser not eat of the fruit he has planted? Does not the shepherd drink the milk of his own flock?

In light of the above, we do wish that zealous Latter-day Saints would stop using this argument in an attempt to give some validity to their organization.

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Unless otherwise noted, you are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute our text, audio, and video in any format provided that you do not alter the content in any way and you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. Translations faithful to the original meaning in other languages are also permitted and encouraged. For web posting, a link to our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Mormonism Research Ministry.


Great, another anti site, what a surprise, trust it about as much as Wren being a professor.

WELL DUBBS here is a challenge for you..!!

All the info is right there Dubbs, prove it wrong!!!

I bet you can't, I know you can't,

you think any site that says something (to you) bad about the church is an anti site and is lying,
well here's your chance PROVE THAT THE INFO IS WRONG...!!!!

Already answered that one in the past, not in the mood to throw my pearls before swine today.

Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Uncle_Bud wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
utocoman wrote:
Did Dubbs ever address the quorum of the 12 holding positions as CEOs, Board members etc. in LDS owned companies as being paid positions?


have proof of this? Besides a lieing apostate anti mormon site?


Didn't thinks so.



Mormonism's Paid Ministry

By Bill McKeever

According to Mormonism's tenth president:

"It can be said also that the officers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who labor without salaries coming out of the pockets of the members, are just as spiritually minded, have just as good judgment and wisdom in directing the temporal as well as the spiritual welfare of the people, as are any of the ministers who spend their entire time in what may be called spiritual counsel. For instance, the bishops of our wards and the presidents of our stakes and other officers give their time freely without any monetary compensation paid by members of the Church. It is equally true that the young men and women who are distributed over the face of the earth as missionaries of the Church pay their own way, or their parents do. We do not have a paid ministry, yet these brethren put in as much time in spiritual and Church duties, as do ministers of other denominations who devote their entire time, and in addition, they are under the necessity of earning their own living by their daily employment in industry. They do this because they have an abiding testimony of the divinity of the work the Church requires of them" (Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 3, p.79).

To read the above statement by President Joseph Fielding Smith, one can't help escape noticing that this church leader, as well as many members in the LDS Church, boast of not having a paid ministry. Because many members believe this to be true, we can't help but think that Mormonism's paid ministry is probably one of its best kept secrets.

I can't begin to number all of the times the argument of a "paid ministry" has been used by the zealous Latter-day Saint to "prove" his church as true. Many feel that a compensated ministry is proof that an apostasy exists among many of the Bible-believing denominations. It seems that, while many Latter-day Saints believe their leaders put in a full day's work for their church, few can explain how they can do this without being compensated for their time. The only logical way that this can be accomplished is if each and every general authority in the LDS Church is financially independent. This, of course, is not the case.

Some Latter-day Saints have argued that while their leaders are offered compensation, some choose not to accept the living allowance they are offered. That may be commendable, but it does not erase the fact that many do. Besides, many Christian pastors serve their churches without compensation as well. We don't have a problem with this. We do, however, have a problem when Mormons point fingers at the Christian churches and condemn them for compensating their ministers when the LDS Church is really doing nothing different.

It may surprise many Latter-day Saints that their own standard works support the idea of a paid ministry. For instance, Doctrine and Covenants 42:71-73 states that bishops (as well as elders and high priests who assist these bishops) are to receive "a just remuneration for all their services." Writing on this passage, Hyrum Smith and Janne Sjodahl state:

"The law of remuneration is that those who administer in spiritual affairs must have their stewardships and labor for their living, 'even as the members.' This is wisdom. For in that position they are absolutely independent and can preach the truth without fear. Those who administer in temporal affairs and give their entire time to public business are to have a just remuneration. If they were to earn a living for themselves they could not give all their time and energy to the community" (Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, 1973 edition, p.234).

At best it could probably be argued that the church is no longer held to this agreement because bishops no longer work "full-time." While section 42 never explicitly says this is the only qualification for "just remuneration," I think many hard-working bishops might argue the point.

Further, D&C 75 specifically names certain men who were called as missionaries and states that "it is the duty of the church to assist in supporting the families of those, and also to support the families of those who are called and must needs be sent unto the world to proclaim the gospel unto the world."

Even the "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" (Vol.2, MISSIONARY, MISSIONARY LIFE), concedes that "Missionaries or their families generally cover the major costs of serving a mission. Missionaries called from developing nations may receive needed financial assistance from the general missionary fund of the Church. This assistance covers only basic living costs, as the Church has no paid ministry. No one is paid for missionary service." Notice the words "generally" and "major." Apparently we have a semantic problem over what it means to be paid. If the LDS Church is covering even a portion of a missionary's expenses it seems certain that the one receiving the compensation is a paid minister. In other words, the Mormon missionary is not self-supported. The fact that funds are run through the church and a tax-deduction is given to the donor intimates that the missionary is paid by the church. How much they get is irrelevant. To say they are unpaid is misleading.

For years it was not uncommon for the LDS Church to appoint its general authorities as board members of businesses that the church owns. Other businesses, seeing the advantage of having an LDS leader tied to their company, have hired general authorities as well. This was one aspect where being a "G.A." does pay off.

On January 18, 1996, the LDS Church changed its policy regarding its general authorities and these corporate board positions. According to the "Salt Lake Tribune" (1/20/96, B1), the LDS Church called for the resignation of all its general authorities who would continue to be on these boards, whether or not it is Mormon Church-owned. Such action was deemed necessary because of the increasing demands on church leaders as a result of church growth.

The article pointed out that this would result in a loss of $12,000 per year for LDS Apostle David Haight, who at the time was a member of the board of First Security Corp. (This position also paid him $1,000 for every board meeting he attended.) In addition, Mr. Haight is a board member of Deseret Management Co. and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Foundation. The logical question is, how will Mr. Haight's loss of revenue (and those of other general authorities) be made up? Is it logical to believe the LDS Church is just going to force its leadership to take a pay cut resulting in thousands of dollars? No doubt this deficit will be made up directly through the LDS Church's payroll department.

The Mormon Church has a history of calling Christian pastors "hirelings of Satan," yet we find that there is nothing unbiblical about a paid ministry. Take, for instance, the support of the tribe of Levi. Unlike the other tribes which received an inheritance of land in Canaan, God chose instead for the tribe of Levi to receive the tithe of the people as compensation for the work they performed in "the tabernacle of the congregation" (Numbers 18:21,22). Their entire function was to minister to the people.

In the same way, Paul defends a paid ministry in 1 Corinthians 9. He correctly concludes that pastors should be supported by comparing the minister to a soldier, a vinedresser, and a shepherd. Does that soldier go to war at his own expense? Does the vinedresser not eat of the fruit he has planted? Does not the shepherd drink the milk of his own flock?

In light of the above, we do wish that zealous Latter-day Saints would stop using this argument in an attempt to give some validity to their organization.

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Unless otherwise noted, you are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute our text, audio, and video in any format provided that you do not alter the content in any way and you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. Translations faithful to the original meaning in other languages are also permitted and encouraged. For web posting, a link to our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Mormonism Research Ministry.


Great, another anti site, what a surprise, trust it about as much as Wren being a professor.

WELL DUBBS here is a challenge for you..!!

All the info is right there Dubbs, prove it wrong!!!

I bet you can't, I know you can't,

you think any site that says something (to you) bad about the church is an anti site and is lying,
well here's your chance PROVE THAT THE INFO IS WRONG...!!!!

Already answered that one in the past, not in the mood to throw my pearls before swine today.

Just admit it, you can't answer!

Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
This was told to me by a son of one the original investors. The local church leaders in North San Diego County took a good portion of the ward clerk's estate, which was supposed to go to the LDS church. Instead that money was used to invest in properties in San Luis Rey Valley. They all made a killing, they paid the money back into the church funds (without interest), and the church nor the law did nothing about it.

The integrity of the teller is beyond question, one of the most honorable people that I have ever met. He paid his father's debt out of his own funds after he father died when he had no legal reason to do so.

Heresay.

You are learning new terms, Dubbs: how impressive, even if used wrongly.

It was a privileged communication. If it comes to the folks on the forum here accepting your verdict or being willing to accept what I have said as worthwhile for investigation, who do you think they will believe?

By the way, that is exactly what BY used to do for his business ventures. Dip into the tithing, then pay it back.


More heresay

Everything you've ever learned regarding the history of the world is HEARSAY...unless you personally witnessed history in the making.

The Bible is HEARSAY. The Book of Mormon is HEARSAY. Joseph's accounting of his vision is HEARSAY. Every last claim of Joseph receiving revelation from the Lord is HEARSAY.


Ahh grasshopper, but the key is you can recieve spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of the Bible, BofM etc,

I recieve nothing but the spirit of Satan reading you and Wren's deriding of the brethren.

That is the first right thing you have said today.

Indeed, the spirit of Satan is whispering in your ear that Jaye and I are wrong. Of course he is.

HAR!!!

Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Uncle_Bud wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
utocoman wrote:
Did Dubbs ever address the quorum of the 12 holding positions as CEOs, Board members etc. in LDS owned companies as being paid positions?


have proof of this? Besides a lieing apostate anti mormon site?


Didn't thinks so.



Mormonism's Paid Ministry

By Bill McKeever

According to Mormonism's tenth president:

"It can be said also that the officers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who labor without salaries coming out of the pockets of the members, are just as spiritually minded, have just as good judgment and wisdom in directing the temporal as well as the spiritual welfare of the people, as are any of the ministers who spend their entire time in what may be called spiritual counsel. For instance, the bishops of our wards and the presidents of our stakes and other officers give their time freely without any monetary compensation paid by members of the Church. It is equally true that the young men and women who are distributed over the face of the earth as missionaries of the Church pay their own way, or their parents do. We do not have a paid ministry, yet these brethren put in as much time in spiritual and Church duties, as do ministers of other denominations who devote their entire time, and in addition, they are under the necessity of earning their own living by their daily employment in industry. They do this because they have an abiding testimony of the divinity of the work the Church requires of them" (Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 3, p.79).

To read the above statement by President Joseph Fielding Smith, one can't help escape noticing that this church leader, as well as many members in the LDS Church, boast of not having a paid ministry. Because many members believe this to be true, we can't help but think that Mormonism's paid ministry is probably one of its best kept secrets.

I can't begin to number all of the times the argument of a "paid ministry" has been used by the zealous Latter-day Saint to "prove" his church as true. Many feel that a compensated ministry is proof that an apostasy exists among many of the Bible-believing denominations. It seems that, while many Latter-day Saints believe their leaders put in a full day's work for their church, few can explain how they can do this without being compensated for their time. The only logical way that this can be accomplished is if each and every general authority in the LDS Church is financially independent. This, of course, is not the case.

Some Latter-day Saints have argued that while their leaders are offered compensation, some choose not to accept the living allowance they are offered. That may be commendable, but it does not erase the fact that many do. Besides, many Christian pastors serve their churches without compensation as well. We don't have a problem with this. We do, however, have a problem when Mormons point fingers at the Christian churches and condemn them for compensating their ministers when the LDS Church is really doing nothing different.

It may surprise many Latter-day Saints that their own standard works support the idea of a paid ministry. For instance, Doctrine and Covenants 42:71-73 states that bishops (as well as elders and high priests who assist these bishops) are to receive "a just remuneration for all their services." Writing on this passage, Hyrum Smith and Janne Sjodahl state:

"The law of remuneration is that those who administer in spiritual affairs must have their stewardships and labor for their living, 'even as the members.' This is wisdom. For in that position they are absolutely independent and can preach the truth without fear. Those who administer in temporal affairs and give their entire time to public business are to have a just remuneration. If they were to earn a living for themselves they could not give all their time and energy to the community" (Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, 1973 edition, p.234).

At best it could probably be argued that the church is no longer held to this agreement because bishops no longer work "full-time." While section 42 never explicitly says this is the only qualification for "just remuneration," I think many hard-working bishops might argue the point.

Further, D&C 75 specifically names certain men who were called as missionaries and states that "it is the duty of the church to assist in supporting the families of those, and also to support the families of those who are called and must needs be sent unto the world to proclaim the gospel unto the world."

Even the "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" (Vol.2, MISSIONARY, MISSIONARY LIFE), concedes that "Missionaries or their families generally cover the major costs of serving a mission. Missionaries called from developing nations may receive needed financial assistance from the general missionary fund of the Church. This assistance covers only basic living costs, as the Church has no paid ministry. No one is paid for missionary service." Notice the words "generally" and "major." Apparently we have a semantic problem over what it means to be paid. If the LDS Church is covering even a portion of a missionary's expenses it seems certain that the one receiving the compensation is a paid minister. In other words, the Mormon missionary is not self-supported. The fact that funds are run through the church and a tax-deduction is given to the donor intimates that the missionary is paid by the church. How much they get is irrelevant. To say they are unpaid is misleading.

For years it was not uncommon for the LDS Church to appoint its general authorities as board members of businesses that the church owns. Other businesses, seeing the advantage of having an LDS leader tied to their company, have hired general authorities as well. This was one aspect where being a "G.A." does pay off.

On January 18, 1996, the LDS Church changed its policy regarding its general authorities and these corporate board positions. According to the "Salt Lake Tribune" (1/20/96, B1), the LDS Church called for the resignation of all its general authorities who would continue to be on these boards, whether or not it is Mormon Church-owned. Such action was deemed necessary because of the increasing demands on church leaders as a result of church growth.

The article pointed out that this would result in a loss of $12,000 per year for LDS Apostle David Haight, who at the time was a member of the board of First Security Corp. (This position also paid him $1,000 for every board meeting he attended.) In addition, Mr. Haight is a board member of Deseret Management Co. and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Foundation. The logical question is, how will Mr. Haight's loss of revenue (and those of other general authorities) be made up? Is it logical to believe the LDS Church is just going to force its leadership to take a pay cut resulting in thousands of dollars? No doubt this deficit will be made up directly through the LDS Church's payroll department.

The Mormon Church has a history of calling Christian pastors "hirelings of Satan," yet we find that there is nothing unbiblical about a paid ministry. Take, for instance, the support of the tribe of Levi. Unlike the other tribes which received an inheritance of land in Canaan, God chose instead for the tribe of Levi to receive the tithe of the people as compensation for the work they performed in "the tabernacle of the congregation" (Numbers 18:21,22). Their entire function was to minister to the people.

In the same way, Paul defends a paid ministry in 1 Corinthians 9. He correctly concludes that pastors should be supported by comparing the minister to a soldier, a vinedresser, and a shepherd. Does that soldier go to war at his own expense? Does the vinedresser not eat of the fruit he has planted? Does not the shepherd drink the milk of his own flock?

In light of the above, we do wish that zealous Latter-day Saints would stop using this argument in an attempt to give some validity to their organization.

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Unless otherwise noted, you are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute our text, audio, and video in any format provided that you do not alter the content in any way and you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. Translations faithful to the original meaning in other languages are also permitted and encouraged. For web posting, a link to our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Mormonism Research Ministry.


Great, another anti site, what a surprise, trust it about as much as Wren being a professor.

WELL DUBBS here is a challenge for you..!!

All the info is right there Dubbs, prove it wrong!!!

I bet you can't, I know you can't,

you think any site that says something (to you) bad about the church is an anti site and is lying,
well here's your chance PROVE THAT THE INFO IS WRONG...!!!!

Already answered that one in the past, nothing worthwhile from here.

And Dubbs loses again.