{"id":41702,"date":"2021-04-25T13:01:00","date_gmt":"2021-04-25T18:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.timesandseasons.org\/?p=41702"},"modified":"2021-04-25T13:01:00","modified_gmt":"2021-04-25T18:01:00","slug":"provide-for-him-food-raiment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2021\/04\/provide-for-him-food-raiment\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cProvide for him food & raiment\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

As a missionary, I occasionally found myself in the uncomfortable experience of listening to my companions talking about how proud they were to be part of a Church where every calling is performed on a voluntary basis, with no compensation\u2014from the top leaders on down to the local level.\u00a0 My discomfort was caused because, in general, the missionaries in question were not aware that general authorities do<\/em> receive a stipend\u2014something that Church members became more aware of in light of the 2017 MormonLeaks documents, which indicated that the living stipend for Church leaders was up in triple-digit figures.[1]<\/a>\u00a0 There are legitimate reasons for full-time Church leaders to receive a stipend, but because the Book of Mormon speaks out so heavily against \u201cpriestcraft\u201d (portrayed as the idea of paying people for Church service), we have a strong bias against the idea of receiving money for the ministry.\u00a0 Yet, the Doctrine and Covenants provides direction and precedent for supporting Church leaders using Church money so they can focus on their work in the Church.<\/p>\n

One of the central sources of antagonism in the Book of Mormon (at least in the Book of Alma) are the followers of Nehor, who practiced priestcraft.\u00a0 At the very outset, Nehor\u2019s practice of charging for preaching is portrayed in negative terms: \u201cAnd he had gone about among the people, preaching to them that which he termed the word of God \u2026 declaring unto the people that every priest and teacher ought to become popular; and they ought not to labor with their hands, but that they ought to be supported by the people.\u201d[2]<\/a> \u00a0In part because of the antagonism between Alma and the Nephite Christian church on the one hand and the religion rooted in Nehor\u2019s teachings on the other, the text is very clear in distinguishing how the priests of the Alma\u2019s church don\u2019t practice priestcraft: \u201cWhen the priests left their labor to impart the word of God unto the people, the people also left their labors to hear the word of God.\u00a0 And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God, they all returned again diligently unto their labors \u2026 and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor.\u201d[3]<\/a>\u00a0 Likewise, when Alma defended himself against the accusations of Korihor, he is very clear that he has always \u201clabored \u2026 with mine own hands for my support. \u2026 And notwithstanding the many labors which I have performed in the church, I have never received so much as even one senine for my labor; neither has any of my brethren.\u201d[4]<\/a>\u00a0 These statements in the Book of Mormon set up an expectation that Church leaders\u2014even the highest-ranking ones\u2014are not paid for their labors.<\/p>\n

The New Testament generally takes a different approach to Church leaders receiving support from those to whom they minister.\u00a0 Jesus told missionaries to stay at people\u2019s homes, \u201ceating and drinking whatever they provide, for the laborer deserves to be paid.\u201d[5]<\/a>\u00a0 Paul likewise said that: \u201cIf we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits?\u00a0 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we still more?\u201d\u00a0 He added: \u201cDo you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is sacrificed at the altar?\u00a0 In the same way the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.\u201d[6]<\/a>\u00a0 Yet, Paul himself didn\u2019t insist on receiving compensation: \u201cI have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing this so that they may be applied in my case.\u201d[7]<\/a>\u00a0 According to 2 Thessalonians, Paul and his companions \u201cwere not idle when we were with you, and we did not eat anyone\u2019s bread without paying for it; but with toil and labor we worked day and night, so that we might not burden any of you.\u201d\u00a0 He does, however, make it clear that his approach is not the normal expectation: \u201cThis was not because we do not have that right, but in order to give you an example to imitate.\u201d[8]<\/a>\u00a0 In general, these scriptures from the New Testament make a case for compensating missionaries and ministers for their work.<\/p>\n

The Doctrine and Covenants makes a case that is closer to the New Testament than the Book of Mormon, particularly for Joseph Smith.\u00a0 A July 1830 revelation stated that Joseph Smith should \u201cdevote all thy service\u00a0to<\/span>\u00a0in\u00a0Zion\u00a0& in this thou shalt have strength \u2026 & in temporal labo[rs]\u00a0thou shalt not have strength for this is not thy calling.\u201d[9]<\/a>\u00a0 A revelation on 4 February 1831, around the time Joseph Smith moved to Kirtland, Ohio (now D&C 41), declared that: \u201cIt is meet that my servent Joseph should have a house built in which to live & translate.\u201d[10]<\/a> \u00a0A subsequent revelation (D&C 43) was even more explicit in indicating that the Saints would need to provide for Joseph Smith for him to continue his work in the Church: \u201cIf you desire the mysteries\u00a0of the Kingdom provide for him food & raiment &\u00a0whatsoever\u00a0is<\/span>\u00a0thing he needeth to accomplish the work\u00a0which I have commanded him.\u201d[11]<\/a>\u00a0 Joseph Smith was declared to be exempt from \u201ctemporal labors\u201d so he could focus on serving Zion and delivering \u201cthe mysteries of the Kingdom,\u201d with the expectation that the Saints would provide food, clothing, housing and other needs for him.<\/p>\n

Likewise, at the meeting where \u201cthe law\u201d was revealed in Kirtland, Ohio on 9 February, the elders who were present asked the reasonable question: \u201cHow the Elders are to depose of their families while they are proclaiming repentance or are otherwise engaged in the Service of the Church?\u201d[12]<\/a> \u00a0The response was the bishop \u201cis to see that their families\u00a0are supported out of the property which\u00a0is\u00a0consecrated\u00a0to the Lord either a stewardship or otherwise as may be thought best.\u201d[13]<\/a>\u00a0 While we don\u2019t operate on a system of consecration and stewardship in the Church these days, this does give justification and precedent for supporting elders who are serving the Church through finances owned by the Church.<\/p>\n

In a 1985 general conference talk, President Gordon B. Hinckley discussed how that practice is applied to general authorities in our time.\u00a0 He discussed how the \u201cbusiness assets which the Church has today are an outgrowth of enterprises which were begun in the pioneer era of our history,\u201d such as Deseret News<\/em>, real-estate and farms that had their origin in the sugar beet industry, and properties associated with Temple Square (including the Hotel Utah).\u00a0 These \u201cmerchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneers times.\u201d He then added that: \u201cThe 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.\u201d[14]<\/a>\u00a0 General authorities receive a stipend out of the property and business that have their origin in property consecrated to the Lord when we did practice systems of consecration and stewardship.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re still left with a bit of conundrum.\u00a0 We have the Book of Mormon declaring that having Church leaders supported by the people rather than their own efforts is bad, and \u201cwere priestcraft to be enforced among this people it would prove their entire destruction.\u201d[15]<\/a>\u00a0 On the other hand, we have Jesus declaring that: \u201cthe laborer deserves to be paid,\u201d[16]<\/a> with Paul seconding that thought and the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants also supporting the idea of providing for Church leaders so they can focus on their work in the Church.\u00a0 The reality is that we don\u2019t pay local Church officers (based on Alma\u2019s approach), but we do pay leaders of the general Church (based, in part, on the Doctrine and Covenant\u2019s instructions).\u00a0 The question remains\u2014are the two approaches meant to be mutually exclusive, or are they compatible in the way we operate in the Church today?\u00a0 What do you think and why?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Further Reading:<\/strong><\/p>\n