Replies

Just like all or most of the other religious organizations, they collect tithes which they have no authority to do and pay the preachers, in salary or benefits.Wolves in sheeps clothing.

The Bible says a laborer is worthy of his hire/wages.

Now if you want to debate the amount of those wages, fine...but the Bible is enough for me on the topic...vs. your lack of authority on this subject.

RE: The Mormons...the Lds church can pay their leaders whatever they want...

But...(1) they encourage their leaders to hide the matter in their leadership manuals...so that other Mormons don't find out about it; and (2) Mormons brag to the world that their leaders are "unpaid" -- which obviously isn't so when you add all the stipends, living expenses, etc.

And hasn't been "so" for quite some time...

#1: See ex-Lds Szonian's post citing www.signaturebooks.com: Post #93 with quotes relating to:
Salaries Ordered for the Quorum of the Twelve
* "By 1904 set salaries were back again for stake presidents, who were allowed $300 per year. . .
* Retirement Allowances for Stake Presidents and Bishops
* Systematic Payouts for General Authorities at the Expense of the Rank-and-File Members
* Massive Personal Wealth for Brigham Young and His Counselors
* General Conference Announcement of General Authority Payments
* Fixed Salaries Established for General Authorities
* Guilt Aside, General Authority Salaries Continued to be Authorized
* Salary Levels of Mormon Top Leadership Determined by Power and Seniority Rankings
* General Authorities Complain That They Aren't Getting Enough

#2: See: See Section: Church Patriarchs Paid for Giving Blessings and Eventually Authorized to Accept Donations

(This was regarding 19th century Lds church patriarchs)

"For several decades only the patriarch had a set compensation, while other general authorities depended on haphazard donations from the rank-and-file or ad hoc appropriations from general church funds. In 1835 the Presiding Patriarch was authorized a salary of $10 a week, plus expenses. . . .

"Both the Presiding Patriarch and local stake patriarchs charged a fee. In the 1840s the fee was $1 per patriarchal blessing at Nauvoo; by the end of the nineteenth century it had increased to $2 per blessing. . . . Joseph Smith, Sr., gave patriarchal blessings without payment of a fee, but would not record them. . . . 'Uncle' John Smith commented that he 'lived very Poor ever Since we Left Kirtland Ohio' in January 1838 until January 1844. Then his nephew Joseph Smith ordained him a patriarch 'through which office I Obtained a Comfortable Living.' . . .

"Financial incentive is another explanation for the fact that individual Mormons received more than one patriarchal blessing in the nineteenth century, often at the invitation of the patriarch. In October 1877 John Taylor criticized the monetary motivation of some stake patriarchs. He said they were using their patriarchal office as 'a mere means of obtaining a livelihood, and to obtain more business they had been traveling from door to door and underbidding each other in the price of blessings.' . . .

"In addition, patriarchs received fees for giving unrecorded blessings of healing to the sick. In fact, Apostle Francis M. Lyman commended Patriarch Elias Blackburn for 'doing a great deal of good among the sick, without receiving very much pay for his services.' . . .

"Patriarchal blessing fees ended in 1902, although patriarchs were allowed to accept unsolicited donations. . . . Not until 1943 did church authorities prohibit patriarchs from accepting gratuities for giving blessings. . . ." _____

Now if you want to debate the amount of those wages, fine...but the Bible is enough for me on the topic...vs. your lack of authority on this subject.

You are right, i am not much of an authority on this or any other topic for that matter. but you can plainly see that Jesus is talking about hospitality here.

And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

John 10
10
The thief cometh not but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

11
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

12
But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

13
The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

14
I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

15
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

The hireling is described above as a thief.

The hireling will also preach things which are not the Gospel and they will look for another place to preach if the gravey starts getting thin.

Now if you want to debate the amount of those wages, fine...but the Bible is enough for me on the topic

I suppose i can understand the object of taking care of the preacher, as it states in acts that they all lived in common, which in that case if the preacher drove a cadilac then the other members of the Church would also be driving cadilacs.