They're paid in blessings!!! Or some such.

Paid Clergy is wrong, unless specifically commanded by the Lord. As he did in the case in D&C 42;70-73. This was a period of time when the members were ask to consecrate all their time, money's and properties and all they possessed to the Church. And those who were involved in taking care of these various Consecrations were given a living sustenance or remuneration for their services. But they were not paid to preach as in the case of paid Clergy. This scripture has reference to an entirely different situation. Many of them were not paid in money but in some of the consecrated materials, which to them was the same as money. Even today many members are hired to be secretaries, Clerks, Managers, etc. over various Church owned Businesses. This is far from paid Clergy. No one in the Church is paid for teaching the Gospel at any time. There is a fund set aside for any General Authority who needs assistance, who devotes their full time to the Church, to receive some remuneration. However, very few have ever needed such help, most all of them are self supporting from personal Businesses or adequate retirement funds. ...Later

Good question. One scripture that jumps to mind is Alma 1:26 in The Book of Mormon. Another one in the N.T. is in 1 Peter 5:2 where he states we should feed the flock willingly, not for "filthy lucre". I also read your reference in Whew4's answer in 1 Cor 9:7, but I'm not entirely convinced Paul is making an argument that he should be paid for his services. If you keep reading down to verses 17-19, he says that he is preaching the Gospel "without charge" and that he is a servant unto all. I have a good friend of mine who is a practicing Christian, and we often engage in some enlightening exchanges about our religions. I was fascinated when he told me about his church's search for a new pastor. He was on the "Board of Elders", if I remember correctly, and was in charge of the screening process to choose the new pastor. I asked him what a pastor could expect to make in his church, and he indicated this pastor would make around $60K per year, and when you factor in housing and other benefits that the church provided, it approached 6 figures. Coming from the LDS church where most of us serve without a monetary check for our service, I was surprised at how much money the pastor would make. I've pondered since then about the discussion I had with my friend. I wanted to ask him some questions about having paid clergy, but I didn't want to come across as being too combative ('cause I really am a cuddly little bear in real life). My questions, while designed to make a point, are also sincere and I would like your feedback, if you care to respond. 1) If the pastor is paid, and paid well in this case, can he objectively manage the affairs of the church if there are donors that give more than others? For example, if Brother Jones gives $5,000 per year to the church, will his opinion be of more value than that of Brother Anderson who only is able to donate $500 per year? And would the pastor stand up and give a sermon knowing it may offend Brother Jones? While they are both important to the congregation, wouldn't the pastor be more concerned about losing Brother Jones to another congregation than he would about losing Brother Anderson, especially if it means he will take a pay cut? In the LDS church, since the bishop is paid the same no matter who is in the pews ($0), I would think it would be easier to focus on preaching the Word of God without fear of offending someone in the congregation. Wouldn't you agree? 2) What happens if the congregation doesn't like the pastor? Do they fire him? As you know, in the LDS church, a bishop is called whether he wants it or not. The ward gets that bishop whether they want him or not. He serves about 5 years and is done. Everyone simply must get along. What happens if the congregation dislikes the pastor? What happens if the pastor dislikes the congregation? Can he quit? If so, is that healthy for the stability of the church? 3) Wouldn't a pastor aspire to move "up the ladder" so to speak? If I was the pastor in a small town with a small congregation, wouldn't it be more tempting to try and land in a more affluent church that could pay me more money or provide better benefits? In the LDS church, the salary is a bishop for the poorest wards all the way up to the most affluent: $0. There is no financial incentive to leave one ward for another. 4) If I'm serving in a congregation and the Bishop is making $60K per year, why shouldn't I take home a paycheck for the time I spend volunteering with the youth group? Why shouldn't the Relief Society president get a paycheck for the time she puts in? Why shouldn't everyone who works in the church, from the nursery all the way up to the top, get a check? If I felt like I was getting shafted, I could simply withhold any offerings and count that as my paycheck (since I deserve it). Is this a realistic scenario? Or do all those who serve in a Christian church receive payment for what they do? (I honestly don't know) 5) What happens if members of the congregation aren't donating enough to cover the expenses of the church? (i.e. the pastor's salary). What does the pastor do? Fund raise? Or what if the members of the congregation feel the pastor is mismanaging the funds of the church? (i.e. living too extravagantly, driving too nice of a car, etc). Couldn't this cause strife within the church? These are some of the reasons why I think having an unpaid clergy is ultimately better for the congregation. Just my opinion, though. :)