Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:At the same time many members are apparently unaware of the stipend and perks that GAs receive from their positions or when they become aware they dismiss it as meaning nothing. I have no problem with GAs receiving a decent salary as long as they are providing the same to the lay leadership that sacrifice so much. If they aren't willing to give those members anything however I think the GAs should likewise receive nothing.
Thanks,
Hasa Diga Eebowai
You only complain about GA stipends because you are obsessed with Daniel Peterson and out to destroy Mormonism.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:This is an interesting post because I think it highlights something about Mormonism that many who leave it share. Maybe it is because of the frequent condemnation of a paid ministry or of filthy lucre, but Mormons and those who leave seem to be really uncomfortable with anyone profiting from anything to do with Mormonism. For example this website, I wouldn't have any problem with there being ads or even if the owner was making money from it, but I know many people who would. People appear uncomfortable maybe with the idea that it in their minds it highlights an unworthy motivation.
I think that's part of it. I think that there might be added discomfort with the idea of self-styled religious/inspirational speakers who opine and inspire without any kind of authority. They aren't just making money, they are influencing people's religious attitudes for money and in a faith such as Mormonism, which operates under a fairly clear system of authority, it seems out-of-place for an individual operating under their own authority to seek to benefit financially by repackaging, restyling and delivering "unofficial" versions of gospel and gospel-related concepts.
Of course, as a former member, I just see people trying to make a buck, and it doesn't seem any more exploitative than the church's business interests-- I guess that's not saying much.
Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:This is an interesting post because I think it highlights something about Mormonism that many who leave it share. Maybe it is because of the frequent condemnation of a paid ministry or of filthy lucre, but Mormons and those who leave seem to be really uncomfortable with anyone profiting from anything to do with Mormonism. For example this website, I wouldn't have any problem with there being ads or even if the owner was making money from it, but I know many people who would. People appear uncomfortable maybe with the idea that it in their minds it highlights an unworthy motivation.
At the same time many members are apparently unaware of the stipend and perks that GAs receive from their positions or when they become aware they dismiss it as meaning nothing. I have no problem with GAs receiving a decent salary as long as they are providing the same to the lay leadership that sacrifice so much. If they aren't willing to give those members anything however I think the GAs should likewise receive nothing.
Thanks,
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Does anyone know how large their stipends are? If they are on the board of directors for the church’s for profit businesses do they draw a separate salary for that too? Oh by the way, Kish I am out to destroy Mormonism in case you were wondering.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - The Dude
Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just god when he's drunk - Tom Waits
angsty wrote:I think that's part of it. I think that there might be added discomfort with the idea of self-styled religious/inspirational speakers who opine and inspire without any kind of authority. They aren't just making money, they are influencing people's religious attitudes for money and in a faith such as Mormonism, which operates under a fairly clear system of authority, it seems out-of-place for an individual operating under their own authority to seek to benefit financially by repackaging, restyling and delivering "unofficial" versions of gospel and gospel-related concepts.
Of course, as a former member, I just see people trying to make a buck, and it doesn't seem any more exploitative than the church's business interests-- I guess that's not saying much.
Why do they need "authority"? It's not like he's writing doctrine or seeking to be a GA.
The motivational speaker circuit has loads of people, all trying to make a buck on their own ideas.
I say... good for him!
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
angsty wrote:I think that's part of it. I think that there might be added discomfort with the idea of self-styled religious/inspirational speakers who opine and inspire without any kind of authority. They aren't just making money, they are influencing people's religious attitudes for money and in a faith such as Mormonism, which operates under a fairly clear system of authority, it seems out-of-place for an individual operating under their own authority to seek to benefit financially by repackaging, restyling and delivering "unofficial" versions of gospel and gospel-related concepts.
Of course, as a former member, I just see people trying to make a buck, and it doesn't seem any more exploitative than the church's business interests-- I guess that's not saying much.
Why do they need "authority"? It's not like he's writing doctrine or seeking to be a GA.
The motivational speaker circuit has loads of people, all trying to make a buck on their own ideas.
I say... good for him!
I suppose my concerns were motivated by a cautious attitude toward 'the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture' or something like that. It just seemed out of place for a person to just assume a position of providing insight and advice related to matters of faith.
angsty wrote:I suppose my concerns were motivated by a cautious attitude toward 'the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture' or something like that. It just seemed out of place for a person to just assume a position of providing insight and advice related to matters of faith.
Ever heard of Billy Graham?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
angsty wrote:I suppose my concerns were motivated by a cautious attitude toward 'the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture' or something like that. It just seemed out of place for a person to just assume a position of providing insight and advice related to matters of faith.
Ever heard of Billy Graham?
Of course, but I never thought he was capitalizing on the teachings of the only true church operating under the authority of God that makes frequent mention of its special authority, and the importance of its untrained, unpaid clergy.
I think part of my aversion was cultural. Where I grew up MLM's were for suckers and it was just the height of tackiness to try to make money by peddling stuff to friends-- candle 'parties', etc. My dad was bothered in the same way-- didn't feel good about speaker fees for firesides. He thought there's just something off about earning money by providing inspirational/spiritual experiences. He's still a faithful, believing member.
my guess is that a GA gets about $150k per year plus expenses and a discount on suits at mr mac's.
that said that seems to be an easy gig unless you know in your heart of hearts that mo'ism is bull sh&* and $1 million would not be enough for an honest person.
now john by the way must compete with probably a few dozen motivational LDS spkrs not counting the BYU profs like millet and the FARMERS who do have good church paychecks and retirement plans and lots of free time!
so john by the way must be motivated enough to try and make a living hawking his tapes and books- it must be hard carrying a trunk load of tapes and books to firesides hoping to sell a few to put bread on the table-but hey having to feed a family is a serious motivation.
now these ass*&*es who are GA's get plenty of perks and adulation and just have to remember where they are in the adulation pecking order and never upstage an apostle ever!
i wish the stipend amounts for the GA's and the directorships of the apostles were made known to the membership and to the public- then many members might ask-what the hell am i getting for my tithing? pablum advice like Be nice, Be kind, Help the little old ladies! don't ever expect to get a new exciting revelation- the PSR's are fresh out of those!
lostindc wrote: I have been rolling over the idea of perhaps becoming a LDS youth motivational speaker. I am thinking my first book will be Skateboards, Rapping, and Sports: Find Your Testimony in Five Easy Steps.
I hope there's a market for my book. What I wish I'd known before I apostatized
Fantastic book!!! I believe there is a great market. I am now pushing my current idea: Three Easy Steps to Understanding Gays, Fence Sitters, and People of Color. I am trying to get Will Schryver to author the foreword but the catch is that I want his foreword to be in cypher form.