What’s uninformed is to attempt to compare their living allowance with the wealth the highest leaders of other Christian religions receive, and the chain of compensation all the way down to the local leaders.

Rusty has not touched on the fact that General Authorities receive a “living allowance” for their services.

Also, the set-up that the LDS Church has no is not anywhere near what they started out with. For example:

1. Many stake patriarchs once made a living off of giving blessings.

2. Stake Presidents were paid $300.00 a year in 1904.

3. Tithing was a source of General Authority pay until the recent corporate success.

4. Church Presidents have used tithing funds as a source of personal loans.

I suggest that all read D. Michael Quinn’s article on this subject. It is very interesting.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/102-17-29.pdf

The way I read the Joseph Smith story, I thought Joseph was confused about which church to join. He wasn’t going to the grove to find out about the Holy Trinity. But what an answer! A humble 14-year-old boy actually sees God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate beings! This news should be shouted from the housetops! All those passages that seem to contradict each other confuse the literal interpreter of biblical verse. At the time of Joseph’s childhood, different sects would take sides and argue over points of doctrine. I’m sure one of those points was the nature of the Trinity, but also include other topics this blog has addressed–for example, faith and/or works, authority, apostasy, and infant baptism. Joseph’s vision refuted any further argument about the Nicene Creed description of the Godhead. He saw two personages who introduced themselves and God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. You can’t convince Joseph Smith after this that Jesus is “one substance with the Father.”

So we are left to no longer argue over the nature of the Godhead, but to choose to believe whether Joseph Smith really did see this vision–I do. How wonderful it is when I pray to picture a Father who looks like me and cares for me and loves me just like my earthly father does. Because I can feel his love more naturally, more of my prayers make it past the ceiling.

But I stray off topic. This branch of dialogue is about economics of religion and how it has the potential for corruption in paid ministries. I think religion should change over time, because the trials a congregation faces now are different than the trials faced 100 years ago. I don’t see change as corruption or apostasy, but as a need to keep up. And hopefully most church leaders have as pure intent as Pondering Pastor. But all it takes is a conflict of interest and one less-than- pure soul to start the ball rolling. And over 321 years, the creed of Christianity had evolved into what I interpret as a compromise of many opinions, however pure in intent.

Mormonism is based upon direct revelation. And better yet, it is ongoing. Mormons have a living prophet to give counsel and direction as the world around us changes (Oh, and by the way, this prophet is paid, but a salary that doesn’t change with how much tithing/donations come in). The organization of Mormonism with lay local leadership allows less potential than paid ministries to stray off course in the tide of popular opinion.

Thank you, Rusty, for this blog. I’ve never considered this theory as a means to deviate off course and head toward a “falling away.” But your theory rings true.

I hope my naivety will not offend. I’m just glad Joseph’s vision helped me cradle the fact that I was created in God’s image, literally.

Ryan

I read a recent speech from one of the current prophets of your church indicating that Joseph Smith was confused and befuddled (my terms) about the Holy Trinity (my assumption…see below), that he couldn’t make sense of it. That’s why I reported that as truth.

Quote: “My additional testimony regarding this resplendent doctrine is that in preparation for His millennial latter-day reign, Jesus has already come, more than once, in embodied majestic glory. In the spring of 1820, a 14-year-old boy, confused by many of these very doctrines that still confuse much of Christendom, went into a grove of trees to pray. In answer to that earnest prayer offered at such a tender age, the Father and the Son appeared as embodied, glorified beings to the boy prophet Joseph Smith. That day marked the beginning of the return of the true, New Testament gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and the restoration of other prophetic truths offered from Adam down to the present day.”

Isn’t it interesting that this devolves to the same arguing about every point of doctrine? Maybe instead of apostasy, this is a broader reality that the more we put God in a box, the more problems we have.

I’ll be gone for a week and will not be taking the time to look in on these posts until after my return.

Pondering Pastor

To address your comments, in truth, Joseph wasn’t befuddled by the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. That conundrum had actually never crossed his mind. Rather, he was befuddled by the hotness with which all the various Christian sects fought each other for converts, arguing over almost every point of doctrine, none being able to agree, and all wanting the convert (which brings us back full circle – the need for paying customers).

But I will reconsider the apostasy. In fact, since it is so core, I’ve decided to do a full set of posts on it. I’ll do one parent (or master) post that lists all the various evidences and ways that it came about (commercialization is actually only a very small part), and each will link back to its own post exploring that particular one in more depth.

To keep the focus of this post though, while I do indeed believe that the Lord worked to keep elements of truth intact, and don’t believe that any one church was entirely in error, there also comes a point of diminishing returns in trying to fix things versus starting over… because of the paid religious superstructure of the church. I’ll explore this in great detail in my parent post about the apostasy, covering just how probable it would be for the doctrine of any of the main Christian churches of the day to change such dramatically core beliefs like their view of the Godhead, etc.

In short, I think I’ll be able to show that if such core beliefs had to change, it wouldn’t be possible through the existing structure, which is sustained solely off the income of the followers. A radical change like that would have caused a revolt, and for a business such as commercialized religion, a revolt means you soon go bankrupt. And when you have so many thousands of rich, powerful men working to retain their wealth and power by keeping their customers happy, they’d be highly loathe to come out and say “oh, we were wrong, the Trinity is actually three separate beings” or any other such change. In short, I’ll describe in detail how (if the apostasy indeed did take place), the only way to correct it would be to do just as we believe he did – a full restoration from the ground up. It’ll be a valuable set of posts to have a discussion around.

One of the largest differences between us is that I trust that God remained active and made sure God’s people were not completely led astray over thousands of years, as God promised in scripture. I’ll admit that there have been challenges to the faith but also believe that God has not let those stand. I believe God is more powerful than evil that insists on corrupting God’s church. In every time and age there have been faithful people of God who have preserved right teaching.

OK, I was feeling particularly vulnerable the past week or so, and probably took your comments more personally than I usually do. Thank you for your kind and considerate words.

Pondering Pastor

But I too have a dilemma; one of the primary things I must necessarily address is the notion of the apostasy, for obvious reasons. But I can’t address the apostasy without talking about portions of what made that possible – including corrupted doctrine because of people who value money and power more than truth and right. And unfortunately, much of that blame over the last couple thousand years lies in the lap of those who are financially tied to how successfully their doctrine is received. And much as I’d wish it were otherwise, since I do believe you are an exception, I can’t do that without risking offense to you or seeming to attack you.

While there are lots of other ways the apostasy took place, and doctrine changed, and the priesthood failed to be passed down, and the line of prophets broken, one of the clearest and easiest to understand (and surely one of the most difficult to dispute), is due to the commercialization of religion. There’s simply no way around the implications of the economics of paid religion. But let me reiterate that I don’t believe you personally fall into that category.

I hope you know I’m sincere in what I say. You’ve provided your own proof that you’re fighting economic-driven changes even today, showing me clearly (though I wouldn’t have doubted before), that you’re a different soul, and I respect you for that.

Rusty

I’m willing to concede that error creeps into the church. I’m not willing to concede that God has abandoned the church, and you want to make that about me or about the Christian Church. I see God at work correcting the abuses.

So, my willingness to accept that the Christian church has flaws becomes proof to you that the Christian church is apostate.

At the same time, you are unwilling to entertain the possibility that corruption has entered the Mormon faith. I’ve not engaged in that kind of discussion. You’ve laid out the Mormon understanding of things, and I’ve laid the Lutheran understanding beside it. I’ve not attacked you.

“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sin, God who is faithful and just will free us from our sin …”

(Post may have suffered from editing)

Pondering Pastor

Has corruption happened in history? Yes. God then raises up leaders and faithful people to bring an end to the corruption.

Scriptural basis of compensation:
Mark 6:7-13 (Luke 9:1ff)
Deuteronomy 25:4
1 Corinthians 9:1-18 where Paul describes a “right” that he chooses not to take.
1 Timothy 5:17-18
Numbers 18:21-32
Deuteronomy 12:19
Deuteronomy 14:29
(to name a few)

Pondering Pastor

From Rusty: I understand your dilema. As you stated, there is sufficient evidence in scripture of corruption of doctrine, then you provided an example above of this theory in action even today, and even the very existence of the Lutheran faith is evidince of corruption of doctrine over time (that’s why Luther began it), but to accept the apostacy puts you in a predicament as a pastor. So it’s better to say that it cannot be disputed because it can’t be disproved, inspite of the evidence to support it. But I wasn’t expecting you to come out and concede that it’s a problem. But it’s important for me to convey nonetheless, because it’s ramifications are real, compelling, and require attention.